Peter Maddison from KCTMO continues evidence about his role as Director of Assets and Regeneration, including fire safety strategies, Exova's appointment, Ryden's responsibilities, and the TMO's role as principal designer.
00:00:10 would you ask mr madison to come back in please
00:00:12 please thank you
00:00:27 all right mr medicine oh yes you'll need that do you want to clean one no it's fine ready to carry on that sure thank you yes mr millet mr chairman um mr madison i want to turn to the topic
00:00:38 mr madison i want to turn to the topic of x over now please um when you started in your role at the tmo in january 2013 xavier were already appointed on the grenfell tower project weren't yes
00:00:50 weren't yes and we've heard in evidence from a number of witnesses that they were appointed to produce a strategy for the existing building
00:00:56 building and a fast strategy for the refurbishment works called the upgrade works do you remember that i don't i i don't but um i'm aware of their role yeah right when you join the tmo did you understand that
00:01:08 you join the tmo did you understand that that was the position xover were appointed i had been appointed to produce two fire safety strategies i wasn't aware they were producing two i'd understood that
00:01:18 that they were producing a strategy for the existing building but not for the refurbishment as i said i didn't have any direct sight of what they've been commissioned to do right um can we look at a document
00:01:32 lbi50982
00:01:38 this is uh the um pre-construction agreement with ledbitter dated the 7th of december 2012.
00:01:50 do you recall seeing this agreement when you came into the project in january 2013.
00:01:55 2013. no you don't no um can we just look at one or two provisions in it can we look at um uh well if you didn't look at it i don't suppose um
00:02:06 suppose um i can ask you to look at specific provisions in it but do you remember knowing at the time that the tmo and ledbitter had agreed that ledbitter
00:02:18 and ledbitter had agreed that ledbitter would procure fire engineering services no
00:02:28 when we come to the tender am i right in thinking that there's nothing in the tender documents in 2013 to 14 nor any contingency sum to allow for
00:02:39 nor any contingency sum to allow for fire consultancy services or fire engineering consultancy services i couldn't say categorically but i'm not aware
00:02:47 aware did you notice that ryden's bid contained nothing by way of an allowance for fire engineering services i don't know
00:02:58 did you did it cross your mind that there might need to be fire engineering services which would need to be budgeted for over and above what ryden were budgeting my assumption was that as as the main contractor and
00:03:10 was that as as the main contractor and the lead
00:03:11 the lead designer at the post contract that rydens would be responsible for all aspects of fire safety in the design of the works right and that the employer's agents had put together the employer's
00:03:23 had put together the employer's requirements and that would be if any such requirements would be specified in there
00:03:31 now let's look at exo401205 this is an invoice from xover
00:03:44 and we can see that it's dated the 18th of february 2015 and it's addressed to you mr madison at the tmo do you remember seeing this document at the time no i don't did you remember seeing any
00:03:56 no i don't did you remember seeing any invoices from x over at the time of the involvement on the project i don't
00:04:03 can we look at your first witness statement please at page 11
00:04:08 would you like to go to paragraph 61 there please and page 11 paragraph 61 you say x over warrington fire engineer fire our fire engineers their
00:04:19 fire our fire engineers their appointment and role in relation to the project
00:04:21 project was that of fire strategy advisors to studio e and latterly ryden now just pausing there in reality studio um
00:04:29 um xover was never contracted to studio e was it
00:04:33 was it no from i mean it was uh studio we they reported to studio e for the purposes of their report i understand so um and but it from the documents that
00:04:44 um and but it from the documents that i've seen the appointment was direct from the uh tmo yes but reporting to studio e did you know that at the time um i can't remember when i knew
00:04:56 um i can't remember when i knew where i knew that from just going back to your witness statement paragraph 61 here you you say uh that um their appointment and role in relation to the project was that of
00:05:07 relation to the project was that of first
00:05:07 first strategy advisors to studio e and then you say and laterally ryden do we take it from that that at the time you wrote this statement you believe that ryden had appointed x over to provide fire engineering
00:05:19 over to provide fire engineering services for the refurbishment um no i just that i think i was being party to some conversations where ryden had
00:05:28 had been mentioned in relation to xover but nothing specific i didn't i i didn't understand they'd been pre appointed specifically right when you're any role well when you
00:05:39 right when you're any role well when you say here
00:05:40 say here that they were that xover were first strategy advisors to latterly write and what did you mean um well i'd understood that they'd done
00:05:52 well i'd understood that they'd done some work for ryden or there'd have been some dialogue with with ryden in the next over i see but i didn't have sight of what that exactly was but you weren't wait what were you saying or giving the impression
00:06:03 were you saying or giving the impression that you were saying that ryden had been appointed sorry bryden had appointed
00:06:08 appointed x over formally to advise them i don't i i i didn't actually specifically know what their what their role was and whether they'd been appointed first all right then i want to turn
00:06:19 want to turn next to the work that xover did for the refurbishment works can i just um give you a brief chronology um to see what you remember um when you came into the project did you know
00:06:30 came into the project did you know that there was a design note of the 12th of september 2012 that xover had produced no did you know that there was a first draft
00:06:41 that there was a first draft of an outline fire safety strategy in relation to the refurbishment dated the 31st of october that exam had produced
00:06:51 later on in 2013 did you know that there was a second draft or issue of that outline fire safety strategy dated the 24th of october 2013.
00:07:05 dated the 24th of october 2013. no i don't think so did you know that on the 7th of november 2013 xover produced issue 3 of their outline fire
00:07:16 produced issue 3 of their outline fire safety strategy for the grenfell tower refurbishment no you didn't [Applause]
00:07:27 can i take it then that you at the time of your involvement you never knew about or saw any of those reports or strategies i've just referred you to nothing i remember i had no contact with x over at all
00:07:39 x over at all right let's just see if i can put the last of these documents in front of you and see if it triggers a memory ex0401106 please
00:07:50 this is issue 3 of xover's outline 560 strategy date of the 7th of november 2013.
00:07:58 2013. and it does say that it's a report to studio e is this something you think you might have seen before um no no i've seen it in another evidence but didn't see it at the time okay can we go
00:08:09 didn't see it at the time okay can we go to page nine then please i know you haven't seen this document and i i'm i'll ask my question taking that into account but if you look at the top of that page there's a heading
00:08:19 heading under paragraph 3.1.4 compliance with b4 external file spread and the report says it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire
00:08:30 building in relation to external fire spread
00:08:31 spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report
00:08:36 report did you know in november 2013 at the time the tender was con it was in progress the tender package was being put together that xover had said that
00:08:48 that xover had said that proposed changes to the building by way of refurbishment would have no adverse effect
00:08:53 effect on the building in relation to external fire spread but this would be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report um no i i didn't i mean studio we
00:09:04 um no i i didn't i mean studio we were managing x over
00:09:08 can you explain why you were not familiar with this document at that time november 2013 or thereafter um this matter was being dealt with by
00:09:19 um this matter was being dealt with by the
00:09:20 the designer pre-contract studio e and would have been presumably discussed and managed through the project group through the professional
00:09:32 project group through the professional team
00:09:33 team so i had no specific issues raised with this and
00:09:37 this and this sort of level of detail is is not something i would normally get involved in now i think as we discussed earlier planning consent for the building wasn't
00:09:50 planning consent for the building wasn't given until the 10th of january 2014 as we saw before yes and even that had a condition in it in relation to the material to be used
00:10:01 in relation to the material to be used for the cladding and we agreed earlier that that meant that in fact final choice on the planning wouldn't happen uh
00:10:07 happen uh until after that and indeed after the contract was appointed that's right isn't it i think you agreed with that yes yes that being said uh can we take it as read from you that
00:10:18 uh can we take it as read from you that that
00:10:19 that uh any final report on external fire spread would have to await the final decision on what the cladding material was going to be
00:10:31 i said um sorry could you repeat that yes
00:10:34 yes i mean did let me try it a different way did you know at the time let's say between the between november 2013
00:10:40 2013 uh and the spring of 2014 uh but whatever the position no fire engineer could report on the risk of external fire spread
00:10:51 on the risk of external fire spread until they knew what the material to be used in the cladding was going to be my assumption was well my understanding was that the um the designer
00:11:04 was that the um the designer pre pre-contract designer was responsible for the design up to to tend the stage and that they were responsible for ensuring that any design complied with uh
00:11:15 any design complied with uh with building regulations including fire including the context of fire strategy then post tender ryden his main contractor took on that responsibility
00:11:26 responsibility yes and consequently mr madison did you have any expectation after ryden had been appointed that you would receive or somebody in your team at least would receive
00:11:37 at least would receive a final fire safety strategy for the refurbishment which did take into account the final decision about what cladding material would be used i'd had no site of any of the x over reports i
00:11:49 no site of any of the x over reports i i'd understood this was a piece of work that was being managed and cliented by studio e
00:11:54 studio e yeah the architects and the lead designer uh yes i'm not quite sure that answers my question my question was really whether you at the time
00:12:01 the time had an expectation that you or someone in your team would see a final report which did express an opinion about the safety of fire spread on the external part of the building once the final cladding
00:12:13 building once the final cladding material had been picked as i've had no sight of this i didn't have that expectation myself let's go to art402256 please these are the uh minutes of the
00:12:24 please these are the uh minutes of the contractor induction meeting of the 1st of april 2014 and we can see from the cast list that you were present at that meeting or the first name on the list there as well as claire williams and peter
00:12:35 as well as claire williams and peter gibbs
00:12:36 gibbs david gibson um and
00:12:40 excuse me when you go to page four please in that document you can see
00:12:48 item 5.3 and this is under the title or heading
00:12:51 heading ovation of designers 5.3 x over completed the fire strategy at tender stage
00:12:57 stage they have not been novated but sl will contact them with the view of using them going forward you're just pausing
00:13:04 pausing there do you remember a discussion at that meeting it's the first meeting with your contractors about xover no so do i take it that this note is something that you just simply don't
00:13:15 something that you just simply don't remember
00:13:17 remember um i don't remember it and it was an action for simon lawrence from ryden right now it says here xover completed the fire strategy at tender stage given that at that point the cladding wasn't decided
00:13:29 decided do you agree that xover couldn't have given any useful advice on the cladding at this
00:13:33 at this time let alone completed the strategy um
00:13:43 i i don't know the answer to that right i mean given that the cladding wasn't decided at this stage did you agree or do you agree that the project couldn't have had a final and
00:13:54 project couldn't have had a final and complete finalized fire strategy as of the 1st of april 2014 um
00:14:11 i'm sorry i don't i don't know i don't know let me ask it a different way because i think you're struggling with the question a bit um somebody at the meeting said because it's recorded ex-over completed the fire strategy at the
00:14:23 completed the fire strategy at the tender stage did anybody raise the question of the meeting
00:14:27 meeting along the lines of how comex over could have completed the fire strategy at the tender stage when even today we don't know what the material on the outside of the building is going to be i didn't specifically i didn't that
00:14:39 i didn't specifically i didn't that didn't specifically occur to me at this time
00:14:42 time i mean the the structure here is that the
00:14:45 the xova had been reporting to studio e is the main designer and um our employers agents were managing the overall process and coordinating the overall process of what
00:14:56 coordinating the overall process of what information was required technically to comply with the terms of the contract so that so i didn't delve into the detail or think
00:15:07 detail or think very deeply about specific aspects of what was in this report particularly as i hadn't been part of the commissioning of that report or of any of the this the development of that report this was
00:15:18 the development of that report this was really the first uh point i remember that it appears that i've
00:15:22 i've it's really been flagged up to me right um the note under this part of the minute says they have not been novated but sl will contact them with the view of using them going forward
00:15:34 do you remember a discussion on that topic at that time on the on the topic of innovation um
00:15:46 i think the issue of novation was um i mean actually these minutes are quite inaccurate because it refers to innovations of consultants that didn't happen well
00:16:00 consultants that didn't happen well it says they have not been invaded that that's correct isn't it exactly correct but above it says that studio e and curtains have and studio we weren't innovated right and then it says sl will contact
00:16:12 right and then it says sl will contact them with a view of using them going forward
00:16:14 forward was there a discussion about what simon lawrence would do by way of using x over going forward i don't recall that now
00:16:27 let's um move forward in the year then can we
00:16:31 can we skip to progress meeting number three on the 16th of september 2014 at art402797
00:16:41 and we can see from those minutes that you are there you're the third attendee down on the list and if we skip to page 2.1.4 at the top of the page we can see this
00:16:52 at the top of the page we can see this action
00:16:56 point 1.4 top of the page sl to appoint other consultants to include fire after the main subcontractors are on board
00:17:04 on board [Music]
00:17:06 [Music] you remember that and then
00:17:10 if you um look a little bit further down it says sl confirm that is emini and facade contractors are on board and investigations are underway do you remember whether there was any
00:17:21 remember whether there was any discussion at that stage given that the facade contractors were by now on board that simon lawrence was to appoint a fire consultant i don't recall i think my understanding
00:17:33 i don't recall i think my understanding is that
00:17:34 is that our employers agents are managing the technical aspects in the delivery of the project and managing the relationship with the contractors and their obligations under the contract so i'd be expecting studio e who are minuting this meeting
00:17:45 studio e who are minuting this meeting and leading this meeting to be taking that forward did it occur to you at this meeting to ask why simon lawrence hadn't investigated using x over going forward as had been indicated in
00:17:57 going forward as had been indicated in the first of april minutes i don't remember this conversation because you see this is now september and some months have gone by did it not occur to you to raise that question um that didn't occur to me and my
00:18:10 that didn't occur to me and my expectation is that our employers agents will be managing the relationship and the compliance of ryden's with the employer's agent with the employer's requirements right
00:18:21 the employer's requirements right take it from me that the same action word for word is minuted in progress meeting number four the minutes for that meeting of the 21st of october 2014 and that's just for reference purposes a rt403067 at page
00:18:35 reference purposes a rt403067 at page two
00:18:36 two now mr madison you weren't at the meeting but you were on the circulation list for that so i assume you saw that that was also the subject of that meeting is that right um i wasn't
00:18:47 that meeting is that right um i wasn't at that meeting i wouldn't necessarily read all of these minutes but do you remember in broad terms getting to october and thinking i wonder what's happened to the appointment of x over by ryden
00:19:00 the appointment of x over by ryden no i don't remember that but i would be what i'd expect that if something wasn't happening if there was a concern about an action not being progressed i would
00:19:11 an action not being progressed i would expect the employer's agent to raise that with my team or and to escalate it to me if necessary so i wasn't that there was no escalation to me i wasn't aware that there was a specific issue around
00:19:23 that there was a specific issue around this matter now let's go to art403150 please
00:19:32 this is a minute of the progress meeting number five held on site on the 18th of november 2014 and we can see from the cast list on the first page that you were there as well as claire
00:19:43 that you were there as well as claire williams and david gibson and if we go to the first page at the very bottom of the page under item 1.2 we see it says sl has now received the signed contract sl to arrange preparing the bond stroke
00:19:54 sl to arrange preparing the bond stroke warranties and that's all that's said in this document about appointments there's no mention at all about appointing fire consultants it seems to have slipped away do you know why discussion of the
00:20:05 do you know why discussion of the proposal
00:20:07 proposal by ryden to appoint fire consultants disappeared from the minutes at this time i don't i mean the minutes are prepared by the employer's agent so i'd expect
00:20:18 by the employer's agent so i'd expect them to ensure that any actions are complete before they're removed from the minutes and if there are issues that they escalate them but i was i wasn't aware
00:20:27 aware of why that's happened
00:20:31 no maybe did you notice that a topic that had been repeatedly in the progress meetings
00:20:37 meetings from the original contractors induction meeting on the first of april had had suddenly disappeared and was no longer on the radar have you noticed it no i hadn't noticed can you account for that
00:20:48 can you account for that i'll tell you were responsible for i didn't i wasn't i wasn't the regular attendee at these meetings i would i would attend um as and when not always for the full meeting i'd sometimes just go for specific issues
00:20:59 specific issues the employers agents are managing these meetings and are making sure that they record actions and i expect them to follow up actions until they're complete or to escalate them if they're not complete did anybody from ryden ever tell you or
00:21:12 did anybody from ryden ever tell you or to your knowledge anybody in your team at the tmo that they ryden had decided
00:21:18 decided not to appoint a fire consultant or fire and safety engineer no i had no conversation [Applause] did you know that in fact xover
00:21:31 did you know that in fact xover continued to be in contact a contract i'm sorry with the tmo they remained under contract with the tmo
00:21:39 no i wasn't aware you weren't and from time to time xover would provide advice remember that i and that may have been with
00:21:47 with people in my team but i didn't directly have any involvement with any communications with that even though i've shown you the bill or the invoice i should say for february 2015 i think you didn't know about that is that right
00:21:58 about that is that right um it would have that would have been paid for by through the team it wouldn't have been wouldn't have come directly to me did you ever ask the question why it was but let me back up did you ever
00:22:10 but let me back up did you ever uh investigate the question of whether the tmo was paying xover's invoices
00:22:18 i don't remember having course to now right did you know that the tmo was paying xover's invoices um
00:22:30 i didn't have any direct involvement in x in excel with eric's over at all on any on any form well we see we've seen earlier um a uh an invoice let's go back to it to be
00:22:43 an invoice let's go back to it to be fair to you ex0401205
00:22:52 and this is an invoice which was delivered to your email address you see that and it's clear that it's an invoice date of the 18th of february 2015
00:23:01 2015 uh in respect of upgrade works and it's an invoice for the sum of 141 pounds 60p including that it's not a very large sum of money i accept
00:23:13 very large sum of money i accept and it's in relation to consultancy services provided on the grenfell tower project in november 2014. can you can you explain what you thought this document was for
00:23:25 this document was for i can't i've not seen it before i mean if it would i take it it was sent to me but um invoices will be processed through my team so i had a project manager who's claire williams
00:23:36 project manager who's claire williams who was also addressed to and also david gibson who's the head of service who was dealing with the overall program so they would have dealt with um appointments and fee uh invoices of
00:23:48 um appointments and fee uh invoices of this nature did you wonder why xover was sending invoices to the tma i didn't i don't remember looking at this point i don't remember did you never have calls to ask what the
00:23:59 did you never have calls to ask what the invoice why the tmo was paying xover's invoices
00:24:03 invoices i wasn't i didn't have sight of what they what they've been commissioned to do
00:24:06 do and um i would rely on claire and david to check
00:24:11 to check right i think in in a nutshell is it your evidence that actually this was really just below your i won't say pay grade but below your level of seniority and you left it to others
00:24:21 others to look at it was a level of detail that i wasn't involved with in the project except i had a head of service the project manager my role here was more about the governance aspect of the project
00:24:32 aspect of the project reporting to board and stakeholders and to the council and ensuring the overall role programme going forward this level of detail i didn't have any any involvement with at all
00:24:51 did it occur to you at the time that xover were doing work on the project on an accident on an ad hoc basis in other words a basis from
00:25:02 ad hoc basis in other words a basis from time to time as and when asked i wasn't i wasn't aware of the basis as i say my assumption which may be wrong was that they were working directly to studio e
00:25:13 working directly to studio e um
00:25:14 um [Applause] right can i then turn to a different topic
00:25:19 topic uh which is a very specific topic topic about
00:25:23 about ryden's role in dealing with residents as part of a wider topic with resident of resident engagement which we'll come back to i think in module three in more detail but on this specific topic
00:25:35 detail but on this specific topic i just want to take you to your first witness statement of page 24 please paragraph one two five
00:25:45 and you say at one two five communication with residents with regards to the refurbishment works was managed on behalf of tmo by claire williams and the contractual arrangements were
00:25:56 and the contractual arrangements were specifically set up so that all residence issues relevant to the refurbishment would be directed to ryden who were required to respond and manage them this was a very important aspect of the tendering process and ryden scored highly in this regard
00:26:08 and ryden scored highly in this regard and as far as i'm aware they dealt with all residents issues satisfactorily i think you've said a number of times but correct me if i'm wrong mr madison that a key issue for this project for you was dealing with the residents
00:26:19 you was dealing with the residents who were going to be in occupation during the refurbishment correct and in fact a as we've seen a proportional they rather a small proportion of the scoring of the tender was given over to that issue yes yes
00:26:33 was given over to that issue yes yes and was it your expectation that as a matter of contract once the contract was signed without with ryden in october 2014
00:26:43 2014 that ryden were obliged to deal with residents complaints in relation to the refurbishment um complaints so well i think before
00:26:55 complaints so well i think before complaints come sort of contact so they were responsible for managing the uh the interaction between residents and themselves in relation to the works and so
00:27:04 and so um so there was a um so they would be the first point of contact they they employed a number of tenant liaison officers who were based on site in the building
00:27:16 building and um so they would be the first point of contact and they were basically liaising with residents about what was happening what was coming up in the works distributing information making appointments
00:27:27 making appointments and being the first point of contact for any issues that needed need addressing if residents weren't happy about the way that those issues
00:27:38 that those issues were addressed they could either be escalated
00:27:41 escalated to the tmo and through the tmos complaints procedure or yeah so i think that was that's i think that was the process that was set up so i think when you when you
00:27:52 set up so i think when you when you describe complaints i think ryden's real real role was about being the first point of contact on issues relating to the works i see so when you say all residents issues relevant to the refurbishment
00:28:04 issues relevant to the refurbishment that would include complaints but wouldn't be limited to complaints it would be other things as well like access times exactly yes i see did you or anybody else at the tmo brief ryden about how complaints
00:28:15 brief ryden about how complaints specifically should be handled by wright um i'm sure it would be one of the things that the project team would have
00:28:26 that the project team would have would have discussed with ryden yes does that tell us that although the project team would have you didn't become involved in that specifically i would go in and out of that but not all the time and not in
00:28:37 all the time and not in some of the granular detail let me try and get it at a different way did were you involved in setting up or devising a system or the system
00:28:48 or devising a system or the system by which you the client wanted ryden to deal with the residents in relation to their issues as you call them in what respects
00:28:56 respects i'm not quite following what you're after well uh ryden you you say here uh that the um contractual arrangements were specifically set up
00:29:07 were specifically set up as you say in your statement so that all residents issues relevant to the refurbishment would be directed to ryden who were required to respond and manage them
00:29:16 them now that indicates that there was a specific
00:29:19 specific system established by the tmo which ryden would operate when responding and managing residence issues is that right um
00:29:31 is that right um i can't remember the exact process you know how it was how it was communicated to ryden i don't know if there was something how structured that was but what we did in reality was that there was a
00:29:43 in reality was that there was a presence on site from horizons the resident liaison staff who who were the first point of contact recorded
00:29:50 recorded issues and coordinated responses and beyond
00:29:53 beyond that if there were any complaints there was a
00:29:57 was a system for contacting either claire or the local housing officers which is around the corner and this was documented within the newsletters that went out on a monthly basis how to actually
00:30:08 basis how to actually report complaints and then if the if the matters the issues that are being raised aren't resolved or your residents weren't happy with the outcome then there's a process of escalating
00:30:19 then there's a process of escalating that through the formal complaints browser yes and what i'm trying to get at mr madison is whether you yourself had any involvement in devising the system which ryden would operate by way of managing and responding to residents issues
00:30:31 residents issues or whether you simply left that to ryden i i left that to my team so david gibson and claire will have worked with ryden on the detail of the residence communication yes and that was partly
00:30:44 communication yes and that was partly linked
00:30:44 linked to a broader piece of consultation that we'd done with residents about how they wanted to be involved and informed uh throughout the process as well
00:30:53 as well did you have any involvement in designing the system that ryden would operate
00:30:57 operate whereby they would manage the tenants or residence issues um i don't remember directly being involved but claire and david would have had a
00:31:08 claire and david would have had a involvement in that right um can i show you what mr lawrence has said in his oral evidence on this specific topic about briefing it's day 25 at page 73
00:31:26 and i'd like you to look please at lines three to six the question that i asked mr lawrence there
00:31:33 there was this had you been briefed by the tmo about what you described as the rebel residence
00:31:38 residence answer i think we were made aware from the tma that there was quite a strong resonant voice within grenfell yes what information had been given to you that allowed you to form the impression that some of the residents were rebels in your words
00:31:52 and when he says i think at that stage there was a group that printed posters stopped them on their doors and refused to allow access for the works to be carried out and he goes on to say the main discussions about the hrus
00:32:04 discussions about the hrus now in your witness evidence you didn't describe the residents as rebel residents
00:32:09 residents my question really is do you know where mr lawrence would have got that expression from i don't it's not a term that i would use that's not a team that i would
00:32:18 i would expect any of my team to use right do you know which group or groups of people mr lawrence was referring to when he used the word rebel residence um i don't it looks like he's talking
00:32:29 um i don't it looks like he's talking about the posters that were posted up through the block but i don't know
00:32:39 right well i can show you a document if this helps you to to originate it but uh let's um let's do that
00:32:47 do that uh if we go to uh ryd4042485 please this is an email of the 27th of may 2015.
00:32:58 2015. and simon lawrence's discussions with mark dixon who was a subcontractor and in the last but one paragraph he says
00:33:06 says i appreciate we've dropped this on you at the last minute but we are under massive pressure and criticism from the rebel residents about the quality of our work
00:33:14 work my question very specifically on that communication is can you explain where mr lawrence might have got the expression rebel residence from
00:33:23 from that certainly wasn't me it wasn't you
00:33:28 leaving aside where he got that from were there groups of people who you might describe as rebels living in grenfell tower i wouldn't describe people as rebels now right
00:33:40 people as rebels now right but were there groups of people you you might describe in a different way uh who uh would provide massive pressure and criticism of the tmo there i mean grenfell was a
00:33:54 there i mean grenfell was a large and diverse population and there were a lot of people with different um different views and different experience and um we
00:34:05 and um we had a dialogue with residents to agree how we would communicate with them throughout the program throughout the works did you or anybody else at the tmo to your knowledge give ryden any briefing on residents who
00:34:18 give ryden any briefing on residents who were particularly vocal or had a habit let's say of being particularly vocal well what we've done what i was going to just going to say is that we'd recognize the diversity of the
00:34:30 we'd recognize the diversity of the community here and wanted to put together different ways of communicating that were appropriate for everybody in a different way so there were you know there were so we we consulted
00:34:41 you know there were so we we consulted residents on how they wanted to be consulted
00:34:44 consulted and we put in place a flexible approach so people
00:34:47 so people could could be could could engage with the
00:34:51 the with um with ourselves and with ryden's in a way that is suitable to to to meet their needs so that was
00:34:58 that was you know the general thrust of that was that people wanted to a fairly light touch wanted to be involved by be kept informed by newsletter and by drop-in sessions and so it was a more informal approach
00:35:10 so it was a more informal approach and we did some door knocking as well to have discussions with people but and there were some groups of people who
00:35:17 who wanted a more um meeting based approach but that wasn't very generally
00:35:25 wanted at that initial stage of the contract later on in the contract uh a group of people got together and wanted to set up a resident compact and we listened and we did that and we we had a dialogue with
00:35:36 did that and we we had a dialogue with that group of people mr madison again you've answered a set of questions which i haven't asked which will be asked but later in this inquiry at the moment i really am just focusing on ryden and what briefing the tmo gave
00:35:49 ryden and what briefing the tmo gave ryden
00:35:50 ryden well i'll just ask the question again so you've got it completely in your mind did you or anybody else at the tmo to your knowledge give ryden any briefing on residents who were particularly vocal
00:36:01 on residents who were particularly vocal vocal
00:36:01 vocal or had the habit of being particularly vocal in order to be able to tell ryden how to handle them no i don't remember thank you
00:36:14 can we then turn to a different topic again which is cdm regulations um did you know that for most of the project
00:36:25 project the cdm regulations 2007 governed yes and that those then changed in 2015 yes and that in october 2015 they came
00:36:36 yes and that in october 2015 they came into effect the 2015 regulations came into effect um and between april 2015 and october 2015 there was a transitional period i do you do and the new regime was
00:36:49 i do you do and the new regime was therefore in place on and after the 6th of october 2015. yes
00:36:54 yes it's important to get the dates understood um were you aware but by the end of september sorry let me start again were you aware by the end of september that the tma would have to take on the role of principal designer
00:37:05 take on the role of principal designer if nobody else could be found to do so i can't remember when i exactly first learned this but it was shortly before the
00:37:13 the the sixth october deadline so maybe in september
00:37:18 september now let's go to art four zeros six seven three one please these are
00:37:27 the minutes of progress meeting number 15 on the 18th of september 2015 and we can see that you were there first attendee in the list as well as david gibson and claire williams
00:37:39 gibson and claire williams can we go to page seven please and let's look at item 7.3 it says this cdm 2015 cw to appoint a principal designer from
00:37:51 cw to appoint a principal designer from the tma's new consultancy framework do you recall discussion at that meeting about appointing a principal designer i don't know about that specific meeting
00:38:02 i don't know about that specific meeting but i definitely had conversations with david gibson regarding this matter yes can we take it that from at least this point onwards at latest this point onwards you were
00:38:13 at latest this point onwards you were aware that a principal designer was to be appointed by claire williams
00:38:20 well um that was that was the intention at that stage so at this point so we had quite late notification from the cdmc
00:38:32 cdmc that the principal designer grace period was going to expire in this contract this contract should have finished by this point and it was already it was still programmed to finish at the end of october
00:38:44 finish at the end of october so um so the regulation change coming in um
00:38:52 so it was at that point that artelia told us that they couldn't perform the role of principal designer so we'd gone through a number of lines of inquiry to see whether ryden
00:39:03 of inquiry to see whether ryden or studio e could take on that responsibility and both both of those that couldn't so i think this was the next approach was to look at our recently established consultancy framework which
00:39:14 established consultancy framework which did include the principal designer roles and claire's role here was to investigate whether we could draw a principal designer from those frameworks
00:39:26 i think you you came to the answer in the last few words of that her role was to investigate whether we could draw a principle designer from those frameworks is what you've just said but the note says
00:39:37 you've just said but the note says cw2 appoint a principal designer it looks
00:39:40 looks as if the decision that she should do so had been made at this meeting not that you should that she should investigate doing say this is artillery's note of that meeting and to appoint a principal designer from
00:39:51 and to appoint a principal designer from our framework we need to agree with the people on the framework that they will take on that role and is artelia's note correct in that respect no it's not right it's not correct that's that's an incorrect minute it wasn't in claire's gift to appoint them
00:40:03 wasn't in claire's gift to appoint them i mean we could we could try to appoint them through that framework but in the event that we contacted the consultants who were on the framework both whom declined i understand because of the
00:40:15 the the um the fact that they wouldn't be involved at the early stages of the contract so which is where a lot of the principal designer role currently says now because the
00:40:26 role currently says now because the minute
00:40:27 minute says that she was to appoint a principal designer
00:40:31 designer or as you would have it would look at appointing a principal designer from the tmo's new consultancy framework does that tell us that by this point 18th of september 2014
00:40:41 2014 studio e and ryden had each refused to take on the role of principal designer that's my understanding but i didn't have sight of those specific conversations that was something that david and claire were dealing with
00:40:53 david and claire were dealing with yes can we go to art 406195 please
00:41:01 this is simon cash's internal email within artelia dated the 25th of september 2015. and this is an internal document which
00:41:12 and this is an internal document which you won't have seen but it does record a conversation with he simon cash had had with claire williams that day and i'll just show you what he says he says i've just had a
00:41:23 what he says he says i've just had a conversation with claire to try and clarify what has been going backwards and forwards in terms of what the tmo need to do is this seemed different to what bailey garner was saying to her what i have said is the current role of
00:41:35 what i have said is the current role of the cdm coordinator ceases to exist as the 5th of october the tma must appoint a principal designer
00:41:41 designer bailly ghana are not prepared to take on the rollers they say the pd should be involved with the project from inception as and as they have not been say they cannot take on the role my response is that this situation is
00:41:52 my response is that this situation is not common to this project and many organizations are being engaged due to the transition of roles who have not been involved with projects since inception such as the way of legislation however for this project her first port
00:42:03 however for this project her first port of call should be ryden as they are the dnb contractor and as such manage the design process and are responsible for the design if ryden are not prepared to take the pd role on then the next option is to ask if studio e would take on the role
00:42:14 if studio e would take on the role through ryden the cdm compliance advisor role is not a project specific role but rather a client-side role and one that we can fulfill advising clients of their obligations under the new regulations
00:42:25 new regulations and ensuring that their project managers pds and pcs are holding what they should be under the new regulations similar to the role we are offering to lambeth claire is now much clearer as to what she's supposed to be doing and hopefully
00:42:37 she's supposed to be doing and hopefully we'll now be able to sort things out now mr madison i've read that a rather long email out to you in full because i want to ask you a number of questions about it first did she pass any of the advice
00:42:50 first did she pass any of the advice that mr cash says that he had given her to you on to you no i had conversations with david gibson
00:43:01 no i had conversations with david gibson on this matter so i'm assuming that claire would have spoken to david as her line manager oh i see did david gibson then pass on to you what claire
00:43:12 then pass on to you what claire williams would have told him that she had been advised by simon cash um i'm not sure i follow that question but we had a conversation along the lines of
00:43:23 we had a conversation along the lines of what is contained within simon's email right well then you've got you've understood it and answered it so when did you have that conversation do you think was it before the meeting of the twenty of the
00:43:35 of the uh was it well it would be in reference to this document when did you have the conversation do you think um it would have been around this time right it was it
00:43:46 right it was it the issue emerged very close to the deadline there wasn't much time so through the chain of command you learned
00:43:52 learned that this advice has been given
00:43:56 i didn't know that this well didn't know the rules come from this advice i knew there'd been a conversation or a dialogue between simon and david i didn't know what form that took i think did david gibson tell you that artelia
00:44:08 did david gibson tell you that artelia had offered to provide the services of a cdm advisor cdm compliance advisor this was the what i remember was the outcome was that
00:44:19 that that um artelia had offered to my understanding with the comments i don't remember the term cdm compliance advisor specifically in my conversation
00:44:30 advisor specifically in my conversation with david what i remember was that um he had his solution to this overall problem was that ryden would put together
00:44:39 together the um the documents for the cdm file and that artelia would offer support if any
00:44:50 artelia would offer support if any design issues emerged in the short term in the
00:44:54 in the compilation of the cdn file so i'd understood that we were retaining um artelia did you ever consider whether to appoint artelia a cdm compliance advisor
00:45:06 artelia a cdm compliance advisor yourself
00:45:07 yourself i i didn't specifically but i understood that they were they were being retained in a supporting role to help through the help through as this principal design
00:45:18 help through as this principal design role had defaulted to the tml
00:45:30 can we go to your 2015 diary at tm00879 776 please and i'd like to go in that
00:45:41 776 please and i'd like to go in that document to page 57. this is the entry for wednesday the 30th of september 2015. uh and if on the left-hand side of the
00:45:54 uh and if on the left-hand side of the page if you see there the word simon cash colon principal designer and then it says something after that can you tell me
00:46:03 me it looks like it's this retrospective principal
00:46:07 principal no sir so sorry principal designer something now what's the something from november oh from november or from now maybe yeah could be for either from now or from november right
00:46:18 november right and then is this retrospective speak to trowers
00:46:21 trowers is that right yes um does that uh entry there reflect a conversation that you had had with simon cash or was it notes in advance of a conversation with him i don't
00:46:33 of a conversation with him i don't remember
00:46:34 remember um but the
00:46:39 yeah i don't i don't specifically remember right when it says principal designer
00:46:44 designer from now or from november what does that mean
00:46:47 mean well what did that mean i guess it's about clarifying who was taking on the principal designer from now or is it i mean it may well be now it could be
00:46:59 i mean it may well be now it could be now
00:46:59 now yes and who was that to be at that point 30th of september i think that was the question i think that was the issue about how because i think is this retrospective is so the issue at this point has been
00:47:10 so the issue at this point has been raised that the legislation has changed we're out of the interim period the transition period and the question here is
00:47:19 here is how do we meet our obligations at short notice when the expiry is in about a week's time i'm sorry no no i can't remember whether
00:47:30 i'm sorry no no i can't remember whether i spoke to simon cash or whether i may have spoken to david who may have spoken to simon cash right okay do you remember having a conversation with simon cash or with david
00:47:39 david about his conversation with simon cash as it might have been about the effect of the changes at this time 30th of september 2015. yes it was yeah so it was
00:47:55 sorry can you read the question well did you have a conversation with simon cash or with david gibson about the effect of the changes i can't remember specifically whether i
00:48:06 i can't remember specifically whether i did speak to simon cash but i did speak to david gibson about it and the solution that he i understood he had agreed with simon cash was that is the one i described earlier did you
00:48:17 is the one i described earlier did you speak to trowers do you think i can't remember
00:48:22 were you concerned at this stage as to whether claire williams could fulfill the role
00:48:27 the role that a principal designer entailed
00:48:33 my understanding at this time was that that that
00:48:36 that that role was um was it because the design was fundamentally complete at this this stage i understood that the this was a this was presented to me as a bit of a
00:48:48 this was presented to me as a bit of a technicality and as long as we could get the main contractor to put together the cdm file and that we had artelia retained to give support going forward
00:49:01 retained to give support going forward in the event that there was any subsequent design or that there was any um
00:49:06 um issue with the cdm file i felt that that was the
00:49:10 was the the only solution in a bit of a tight spot
00:49:15 spot you use the expression fundamentally complete in that last answer um where does that expression come from that was the term that everybody that was discussing this issue seemed to be using it
00:49:26 be using it we'll come back to that in a moment um can we go to tm0100 please these are the minutes of progress meeting number 17
00:49:39 on the 17th of november 2015 and you can see that
00:49:42 see that again you were the first attendee on the list there can we go to page two please at the bottom of the page you can see under item 2.8 there is uh in italics item 3.2 cdm regulations 2015
00:49:54 in italics item 3.2 cdm regulations 2015 am noted the pmn that's on the previous minutes copied here for completeness uh and just pause this thing there take it from me that this refers to the minutes of the previous progress meeting
00:50:05 minutes of the previous progress meeting in october which you were at which we looked at
00:50:08 looked at um and that was tmo1083009 one at page four and uh if you look at the note
00:50:15 the note the pmn says and it's copied from the last minute under the 2015 regulations if the pd appointment finishes before the end of the works
00:50:24 the works then the principal contractor takes on the pd role this means the principal contractor puts together the h file for the client and then in bold full discussion at the next progress meeting
00:50:35 meeting and then it goes on it was agreed that ryden are not the pd principal designer under the cdm regulations 2015 the tmo as the client are to undertake this role
00:50:46 this role and then over the page
00:50:50 it was further agreed that ryden would be responsible for collating and presenting the hns file in the information in accordance with the employer's requirements and the pci and present to the tmo as pd
00:51:02 and present to the tmo as pd now was there some confusion at this meeting
00:51:05 meeting within the tmo or confusion generally within the tmo about who becomes the principal designer if the tmo doesn't appoint somebody
00:51:17 um i don't know i would call it confusion i think it was we were finding it difficult to find somebody appropriate to be the principal designer in the contract at that time
00:51:28 designer in the contract at that time right right was ryden correct that the duty falls on the tmo if the tmo failed to appoint a principal designer
00:51:36 designer that's what sorry is that could you just scroll down to the previous page yes is that what they're saying there sorry
00:51:51 that what they're saying there sorry does it say that all right where does it say that
00:51:56 well it's i'm after your understanding um
00:52:00 um at the bottom of the page it said ryden are not the pd the tmo has the client to undertake this role
00:52:07 role did you want did you think that ryden was right
00:52:11 was right or rather did you think it was right that if ryden didn't take on the role then the tma would have to i don't know that it's ryden's i mean ryden was saying that they didn't or couldn't take on the role and
00:52:25 or couldn't take on the role and in the absence so we'd so we ryden's studio we
00:52:29 studio we the consultants on our principal designer framework at all said they couldn't do it for a variety of reasons artelia had also said that they couldn't so by default the principal designer
00:52:40 so by default the principal designer role was going to end up with tmo so to compromise to find a way through that the solution was to appoint ryden's to present the cdm
00:52:52 appoint ryden's to present the cdm the file and to an ad understood to commission artelia to support the tmo through any issues that may arise in the short term well i hear that but let's just take it
00:53:04 well i hear that but let's just take it in stages can we take it from this minute
00:53:06 minute uh and the bottom of page two that by this time 17th of november 2015 the tmo had decided to perform the role of principal designer i think decided is
00:53:19 i think decided is not exactly the word i would use i think we had no option but to by default that role was ours okay and they were also to remain the client
00:53:30 and they were also to remain the client clearly
00:53:31 clearly yes now this was about six weeks after the 2015 regulations have come into
00:53:37 into force wasn't it yes yes i just want to look at the i think as i put to you decision uh as you put it back to me at default
00:53:49 uh as you put it back to me at default about the appointment of the principal designer in a little bit more detail can we go first please to your second witness statement at page nine
00:54:01 and on that page look at paragraph 40. you say there the cdm regulations 2015 introduced the newly defined role of a principal designer my understanding is that by this date all of the design
00:54:13 that by this date all of the design work for the project was fundamentally complete
00:54:18 you say i think that that's where that's a phrase everybody used do you remember who first used that expression fundamentally complete the only person i remember having a conversation with about this was david
00:54:30 conversation with about this was david gibson so it must have come from him right you see the expression you've used in your statement it seems to be a reference to something said in the october 2015 progress meeting we saw earlier we just
00:54:42 progress meeting we saw earlier we just go back to that tmo double zero eight three double zero nine one at page four
00:54:50 item three point two we saw it before
00:55:02 yes there it is and page two page four item three point two
00:55:16 i'm so sorry uh that's my mistake uh it's
00:55:19 it's a page
00:55:30 uh it's page two i'm sorry under item 2.8
00:55:46 uh no i'm afraid i've given you a wrong reference i'll have to come back to that um you think david gibson came up with the expression fundamentally complete what did the expression mean
00:55:57 expression mean to you at the time i mean at the time the project was in delay so that was how we'd ended up moving forward so there was a no there was an overrun of the contract and so that's how we
00:56:09 of the contract and so that's how we ended up in this position because the contract should have completed under the 2007 regulations and in the um
00:56:21 sorry so could you repeat the question sarah
00:56:24 sarah yes what did the expression fundamentally complete mean so yes so this so the the contract was in delay
00:56:31 in delay and it was supposed to be finished in by the end of october that year but um so there was very little design work required
00:56:42 work required at that time because a lot of the principal design and the cdm coordinator roles are about the pre-planning of works and ensuring that
00:56:49 that the correct teams are set up and the practices are set up and established that had all been done and really we were in the very last stages of the delivery of this the contract at that time was supposed
00:57:01 the contract at that time was supposed to have been completed by the end of october i know in reality that went on for substantially longer than that but we were
00:57:07 were even at that time we were being told that the contract was about to to finish so there was no design work as what i understood why would the design
00:57:19 what i understood why would the design being fundamentally complete within the meaning of that expression you've just given us
00:57:23 given us have any impact on the appointment of a role specifically required by the 2015 regulations because the role of principal designer is a lot about the pre-planning of
00:57:34 is a lot about the pre-planning of design
00:57:35 design the design aspects of the work and a lot of that
00:57:38 of that part of the role had already been complete by the time of this change of regulations and we'd understood we were very close to the end of the contract let alone
00:57:49 the end of the contract let alone doing any design work so it was really just finishing things off can you go back to your statement please second witness statement page 9 paragraph 40. are you saying the third line there it
00:58:00 are you saying the third line there it is also my understanding that it was not possible to find a consultant or contractor to take on the role given the advanced stage of the works now we've heard in evidence that the tmo asked both studio e and ryden
00:58:12 asked both studio e and ryden and they refused and i'll tell you well can you just bear with me we've heard an evidence that the tmo asked both studio e and ryden and they refused yes
00:58:23 refused yes yes yes and one potential party from outside the project namely bailey garner and they said no because they hadn't been involved from the start so you've got you've got two people who
00:58:34 so you've got you've got two people who had been involved from the start and one who hadn't did that not tell you anything about about what the role might have entailed in my way in the way of what was
00:58:45 in my way in the way of what was involved
00:58:48 i don't intentionally why did you think ryden and studio e were refusing given that they had in-depth knowledge of this project and specifically its design right from the outset um
00:59:01 i'd understood it was something to do with their insurance but david gibson was
00:59:05 was david gibson
00:59:08 i think david gibson maybe ortelia had had that conversation with ryden's i think
00:59:14 think when you say that the project was an advanced stage of the works and that made it impossible to find somebody to take on the role of principal designer what do you what are you basing that on well at this
00:59:27 what are you basing that on well at this time this is september the project was supposed to be complete by the end of october
00:59:31 october the regulations changed on the eighth so there were basically gonna be three weeks
00:59:35 weeks of that at this time we were anticipating three weeks of work um under the new regulation so it felt like it was a short-term issue we've seen that bailey ghana were
00:59:46 issue we've seen that bailey ghana were approached were any other external third parties approached to see if they would take on the role i think the other consultants on our
00:59:52 on our um on our framework were consulted with were involved asked as well which was jrp
01:00:01 jrp i understand
01:00:05 going back to your well sticking with the
01:00:09 the second witness statement to paragraph 40 you say the tmo therefore took on the role and it was explained to me by david gibson that the role would sit with tma by default it would be a technicality you say a technicality this is a a role
01:00:23 you say a technicality this is a a role principle designer isn't it which is required by statute yes yes why would you why would you think that it was a technicality well um so what i was trying to convey
01:00:37 well um so what i was trying to convey there was
01:00:37 there was that um the the works were largely complete and
01:00:47 the responsibility was responsibility
01:00:53 we couldn't find anybody else to to undertake the work so as there was no design work it was felt that employing the contractor to put together the cdm file
01:01:06 contractor to put together the cdm file and employing artely or retaining artelia to give advice in the event that there was any uh issue around design or ending having an oversight of the completion of the cdm file
01:01:18 completion of the cdm file that that would see us through what was quite a tricky situation so although the design was fundamentally complete in terms of the actual design
01:01:29 complete in terms of the actual design there was still a lot of important uh there are a lot of important tasks to be
01:01:35 be completed not least of which the health and safety file yes yeah and you you're not dismissing the health and safety file as a technicality are you
01:01:46 technicality are you no it's uh but it's um but we'd understood that the solution here was to get the contract the main contractor to complete the health and safety file with support and
01:01:59 with support and with from artelya if that was needed down the line and let's get back to the origin of the word fundamentally words fundamentally complete i was trying to find could you go to art405066
01:02:12 trying to find could you go to art405066 please
01:02:13 please and go to page four in that document uh you can see there under item 3.2
01:02:24 uh you can see there under item 3.2 cdm f10 expires tomorrow am to ensure paul burrows provides the cdm handover promise to tmo and provides advice in connection with renewal of the f10 f10 the project team
01:02:37 of the f10 f10 the project team confirmed that the design is fundamentally complete do you remember who said that at the meeting this is october 2015. i don't but it came from your side did
01:02:48 i don't but it came from your side did it the tma side no i think this would have come from the i think i would have come from someone at artelia i see
01:03:00 now
01:03:04 [Applause] if we go back again to your second witness statement please and look at paragraph 40 you say there that
01:03:19 the tmo also agreed this is in the last sentence
01:03:23 sentence the tmo also agreed with artelia that they would give advice in the unlikely context that further design work was required
01:03:30 required how did you come to understand that through my conversation with david gibson so
01:03:35 gibson so there'd been a number of conversations i'd had so at each stage of approaching different consultants and different parties within the existing
01:03:46 different parties within the existing professional team david would report back on
01:03:50 back on on progress or lack of progress in terms of making an appointment and so so yes david reported to me that artelio would
01:04:01 reported to me that artelio would provide support going forward if needed what advice did you think artelia would give if further design work was required
01:04:11 required i didn't i don't know i didn't have that conversation with david i'd understood that there was a an agreement that would resolve the matter going forward you say
01:04:22 resolve the matter going forward you say the tmo also agreed with artelia what did you agree with artelia i didn't personally david gibson was talking to arteria and i understood that
01:04:33 talking to arteria and i understood that there was an agreement in place it may have been the cdm coordinator that you were referring to earlier
01:04:41 earlier uh do you mean cdm at compliance advice yes i'm sorry right well you say in without qualification the tmo also agreed with artelia
01:04:50 artelia that's pretty unqualified that's what i've understood well you don't say that but uh can i just get to the bottom of what you did understand you you understood from david gibson that he had agreed that artelia would act as
01:05:01 had agreed that artelia would act as cdm compliance advisor is that what you're telling us as i said earlier i didn't
01:05:05 didn't i didn't know it was called the cdm compliant compliance advisor i understood there was some service that had been offered by artelia and i'd understood that that was taken up in fact mr madison the tma
01:05:18 taken up in fact mr madison the tma refused that offer did you know that i learned it through the inquiry i see so you didn't know that until after you'd signed this statement yes right
01:05:35 looking at it in the round was this a case of the tma thinking that it could perform the role of principal designer itself
01:05:43 itself not at all i mean that we were put in a typical
01:05:46 typical difficult position by later late in information about a change in role from the cdm coordinator from the previous regulations we had very limited time to
01:06:00 we had very limited time to address this matter we tried multiple routes to try and find an alternative i'd understood that we had come across an alternative and and that's that's where we got to
01:06:13 and and that's that's where we got to but it certainly wasn't my ambition my role here
01:06:17 role here i've always been really clear with my team as well that we are a non-technical client we expect to buy in expertise on the technical aspects of these roles
01:06:28 on the technical aspects of these roles and that's what i would expect to do here too
01:06:32 here too now i think you'll agree that the cdm legislation is aimed at health and safety specifically isn't it yes and i think as you say in your witness statement the purpose is to ensure that all
01:06:43 the purpose is to ensure that all parties appropriately consider health and safety issues during the development of construction projects yes does that mean that it was within janice ray's remit
01:06:59 i think she'd have had an overview of some aspects of um cdm but i'm not sure to be honest let's go to tm01008672 please
01:07:13 let's go to tm01008672 please these are minutes of the health and safety committee meeting uh there's some question mark about the date
01:07:20 date if we look at the first page it says 13th of january 2015 but if we go to page five of the document which is its final page it's dated the third of february 2015.
01:07:32 dated the third of february 2015. mr madison it may not matter very much um but uh
01:07:35 um but uh if we go back to the first page we can see
01:07:39 see that janice ray was present uh you're not there uh and the distribution which may be quite an important uh point uh is
01:07:50 uh is to jane clifton for the executive team
01:07:55 um
01:07:58 did this also go to the health and safety committee this kind of minute this is thousand safety yes did it actually go did each member of the health and safety committee get a note of this
01:08:09 committee get a note of this get a note of these me this these minutes i don't know right were you on uh the health and safety committee at this time um this was the period before
01:08:23 um this was the period before barbara matthews joined and i a couple of my team members were at this meeting yes but um so alex baldwin i think and john bora and john i wouldn't necessarily
01:08:34 necessarily attend these meetings but i subsequently did would they would alex bosman or john bora bring back to you the minutes such as these generally at this time not specifically necessary right now um
01:08:50 now if we stick to page one you can see that there's a table with the column header main points for consideration by executive team you see that yes um and would executive team include you
01:09:00 you no it wouldn't uh look at item two construction design and management regulations 2015 and it says the construction design and
01:09:11 and it says the construction design and management regulations are changing in april 2015. as they have yet to be published we cannot be absolutely clear on what they will require but they will place greater responsibilities on the client for the h s of projects additionally the
01:09:23 for the h s of projects additionally the role of the cdm coordinator who was appointed by the client to assist with policing the project is to be deleted janus to discuss the impact on the tma with jenny jackson and david gibson now
01:09:34 with jenny jackson and david gibson now of course this isn't specifically in the context of the grenfell tower project it's general just to make that point but then moving on if we go to page four please we can go
01:09:44 go to the top half of that page item seven and it says there construction design and management regulations the cdm regulations are due to change in
01:09:55 the cdm regulations are due to change in april 2015. an information sheet regarding the proposed changes was circulated and janus highlighted one of the major changes is the removal of the cdm coordinator role and the increase in the client's responsibilities stroke duty
01:10:09 i think you said you didn't recognize this document and perhaps hadn't seen it uh do you recall seeing an information sheet such as that referred to under item 7.1 there
01:10:21 item 7.1 there i don't at this moment no do you recall any briefing or discussion uh in the first quarter of 2015 about the perspective of the then perspective change in the
01:10:32 of the then perspective change in the cdm regulations yeah there will have been discussions and clearly the action out of this was for janus ray who's the head of health and safety to talk to um two members of my team and
01:10:43 to um two members of my team and david gibson and jenny jackson who are responsible for the client role and the procurement of the capital program and the capital work so that was in anticipation of
01:10:54 in anticipation of the services going forward yeah did you know that janice ray was going to discuss
01:11:02 discuss the impact of the cdm regulations changing with david gibson um i don't recall that conversation but it would seem we my team had a close and ongoing
01:11:13 we my team had a close and ongoing dialogue with janice ray and that would seem the sensible place for the conversation to be happening would you expect janice ray to keep people like david gibson up to date on the changes in the cdm
01:11:24 up to date on the changes in the cdm regulations as they as they happened yes and that's that's how the relationship worked yes and in turn would you expect david gibson and indeed claire williams to go to janus ray about health and safety
01:11:35 to janus ray about health and safety questions
01:11:36 questions if they had any yes yes
01:11:41 so would you say it was routine for janice ray to keep your team informed about changes such as those to the cdm regulations yes yes so does that tell us that within the tmo and specifically within the team
01:11:53 the tmo and specifically within the team responsible for the grenfell tower project your team knew in the first quarter of 2015 that there were going to be changes to the cdn regulations yes and we'd put in place arrangements
01:12:05 yes and we'd put in place arrangements to cover that so in the context of the procurement of our frameworks that we had procured principal designers for the cdm role so does this tell us that at no stage
01:12:18 so does this tell us that at no stage did the
01:12:19 did the project team working on the grenfell tower project within the tmo
01:12:28 experience a surprise in on learning that the
01:12:32 that the cdm regulations were to change and that that a role of principal designer was now needed to be filled in relation well in general well in relation to the grenfell tower project
01:12:44 relation to the grenfell tower project the grenfell tower project was a so that was the
01:12:47 was the the only contract i'm aware of that straddled
01:12:50 straddled the um the period where um from so it started in 2007 under the 2007 regulations and went into the new regulations um the all of the others were covered by our
01:13:04 all of the others were covered by our existing appointments um so this was and this was the only one i'm aware of where
01:13:11 where it went through the the interim period and as a result i mean um i think there's probably a wrong assumption that artelia would carry on the role of principal designer
01:13:23 carry on the role of principal designer or take that role through uh on the grenfell project and but they didn't advise us in that until the september
01:13:30 september um and that caused a challenge to try and put some arrangement in place that would cover that interim arrangement well let's just take a run-up to that last answer a little bit more do i take it from this
01:13:41 little bit more do i take it from this document
01:13:42 document that the tma was well aware that there were changes coming to the cdm regulations as early as february 2015 and that those changes would happen in april um yes yes why did the tmo not
01:13:55 um yes yes why did the tmo not start making preparation taking proprietary steps for those changes as early as february 2015 and at the latest in april 2015. on grenfell on grenfell on grenfell
01:14:09 on grenfell on grenfell on grenfell the project was supposed to have been completed by then so it shouldn't have shouldn't have run into the um the end of the
01:14:16 of the interim period in uh october um that year so until very it was only when the project went into a period of delay when a couple of ryden
01:14:27 a period of delay when a couple of ryden subcontractors went into administration and there were significant delays caused to the project that the program run back but even as late as september it was anticipated that that delay would
01:14:38 it was anticipated that that delay would only have been until the end of october so so it was really those delays had an impact of pushing the the end date of grenfell back significantly and moved it into this arrangement so that was and nobody
01:14:51 this arrangement so that was and nobody had identified that as an issue and i'll tell you cdmc hadn't flagged that up either sticking with the cdn regulations but moving to discuss specifically the creation of a health and safety file
01:15:03 the creation of a health and safety file do you agree that one of the major outstanding tasks for the principal designer whoever it was going to be was the compilation of the health and safety file for the grenfell tower project
01:15:12 project yes and as we know i think the tmo asked ryden to compile the health and safety file on the tma's behalf didn't it we've seen that from some of the records of the meetings and did you know that um
01:15:23 did you know that um that ryden subcontracted that task to a company called all group holdings i didn't know that at the time you didn't know that at the
01:15:36 time did you know at the time that even though ryden had taken on the job of compiling the health and safety file the tmo remained the principal designer
01:15:46 designer yeah and therefore and therefore responsible for the health and safety file being right yes yes does it tell us that the tmo therefore knew that it had to ensure that the health and safety file was
01:15:57 that the health and safety file was reviewed updated and revised in order to make sure it was up to date at the time the grenfell tower project completed
01:16:04 completed yes did you appreciate at the time that by asking ryden's to compile the health and safety file the tma would still have those obligations i've just identified yes are you aware if anyone the tmo
01:16:16 yes are you aware if anyone the tmo reviewed the health and safety file produced by all group holdings um i i assume that claire claire williams did right mr chairman i've come to the end
01:16:29 right mr chairman i've come to the end of that topic i've got one topic and possibly another topic to
01:16:33 topic to cover uh which are quite short i think uh but it might be a convenient moment for a break probably courtesy to mr madison be better to have a
01:16:44 better to have a breakdown yes indeed well mr madison we're going to have a short break now we'll come back at 25 to 4 please and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're
01:16:55 anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you thank you very much
01:17:08 thank you 25-4 please
01:35:23 all right would you ask mr madison to come back in please
01:35:38 all right mr madison yes yes thank you yes just a minute mr chairman thank you i want to turn to regulation 38 and the provision of fire safety information at the end of the project
01:35:49 information at the end of the project can we go please to ryd three zeros nine four three one
01:35:54 five
01:35:58 and i want to look at
01:36:01 the second page of that document which is
01:36:06 is when it comes to it a record of significant findings and action plan by carl stokes dated the 26th of april 2016 and this would have formed part of his april 2016
01:36:18 would have formed part of his april 2016 fire risk assessment for grenfell tower just looking at this document on the page in front of you do you think this is a document you've ever seen before um i've seen this type of document
01:36:31 um i've seen this type of document before yes and i have seen some of the grenfell tower did you see those in your capacity as as it were head of the grenfell tower project team within the tmo or as part
01:36:42 project team within the tmo or as part of your health and safety remit or both um well actions from the fire risk assessments were delegated to my teams
01:36:49 teams yes and so um i would have a role in monitoring how quickly the actions were completed and taking and talking to my team if there were specific issues on any of the actions
01:37:01 specific issues on any of the actions very good then let's turn to page three please
01:37:04 please you could see an item in the first row there with the priority red
01:37:10 and the identified risk in the third column there is documentation must be must include you see that and there are four things that are set out yes you see that and if you look at
01:37:21 yes you see that and if you look at um the uh
01:37:27 identified risk or hazard to start with it says
01:37:30 it says when the construction stroke refurbishment is completed on this building
01:37:33 building all information as required by the building regulations and it's bold must be handed over to the by that must be handed over to the tmo by the contractors before they hand over the areas now under their control you see that
01:37:45 under their control you see that yeah um and we'll see the answer in a moment did you uh know at the time that the building regulations required fire safety information to be handed over to the tmo by the contractors
01:37:59 sorry i'm you look lost yeah sorry um where's the reference to building fire safety in that sorry uh there isn't and i'm asking you whether you knew
01:38:11 and i'm asking you whether you knew whether that was what was involved let me ask the question again looking at the text on the left hand side under identified risk or hazard as you can see there did you know at the time that the building regulations required fire
01:38:22 building regulations required fire safety information to be handed to the tmo by the main contract by the contractor um i don't think specifically i knew that now
01:38:33 that now right have you ever heard of regulation 38
01:38:37 38 um not i don't know the specifics of it right
01:38:42 right did you know that the tmo was the responsible person who was to receive fire safety information under regulation 38 of the building
01:38:53 under regulation 38 of the building regulations
01:38:56 um
01:39:03 i don't know who the responsible person was in relation to that right did you look into the question of what information precisely was to be handed over by ryden to the
01:39:14 was to be handed over by ryden to the tmo
01:39:15 tmo in order to allow the tmo to comply with the building regulations okay so um the way that the fire risk assessment
01:39:27 the way that the fire risk assessment process worked is that so these were produced by carl stokes he was our fire risk assessor and he was cliented by janice ray janice ray would
01:39:37 ray would then delegate our tasks to individuals within the organization to be completed and that's what was happening here so um so yeah so
01:39:51 i'm not sure that answers my question um did you know what information or what kind of information was required by the building regulations to be handed over that to the tmo
01:40:02 to be handed over that to the tmo by the main contractor at the end of the project not specifically no thank you that would be something that we would be expecting our professional team to be
01:40:13 our professional team to be you know to be coordinating with us and generally it would be a cdmc role well did you delegate the role of
01:40:25 well did you delegate the role of receiving that information to anyone outside the tma well the um so the fire risk assessor obviously was with clients within the tml and then on
01:40:38 with clients within the tml and then on the professional team we had our employers agents who were responsible for
01:40:42 for ensuring compliance with the contract ryden's compliance with the contract so i'd expect them to be ensuring that we receive all necessary information from the contractor it says in the middle column here
01:40:55 it says in the middle column here actions to be taken documentation must include and then under
01:41:00 under paragraph 2 all the regulation 38 information is required by the building regulations now first of all i think you're telling us you didn't actually know specifically what that was
01:41:11 what that was not specifically so i'd be expecting that that would be something that was in this instance would be provided by ryden's as part of the putting together the o and m file which is what uh claire is
01:41:22 is putting in column four there yes so that information should be coming from ryden's or indeed could have been from already completed by the cdmc
01:41:33 already completed by the cdmc role that artelia had been performing up until october and whose responsibility was it
01:41:38 was it do you recall within the tmo to make sure that all the information required by regulation 38 was received from writing right under this claire williams was pulling together that information and then it
01:41:49 together that information and then it would be passed on to the team member who input it into the keystone
01:41:56 keystone database and did you supervise claire williams's job or did david williams super david gibson supervise claire williams his task of ensuring that the regulation 38 was accurate and complete i didn't um
01:42:09 was accurate and complete i didn't um david gibson was declares line manager and um
01:42:14 and um and as i say as far as understood in terms of putting together the um the uh o m file that information was coming from ryden and there was a check that i'd understood at the time was in place from
01:42:26 understood at the time was in place from artelia which i know realize that that appointment didn't happen now this is uh april 2016. by this time of course the cdmc
01:42:35 the cdmc role had long gone hadn't it yeah so there was no cdmc role how could the cdmc be responsible for ensuring the completeness and accuracy of the
01:42:46 the completeness and accuracy of the regulation 38 information required to be handed over to the tma well the cdmc should have been pulling together information up until the point of that world ceased and then so my understanding was there would have been some information
01:42:57 there would have been some information produced by the cdmc up to that point would have been incorporated presumably into what was being produced by
01:43:05 by ryden in the second part of this and whose job was it to ensure after the cdmc role
01:43:15 cdmc role had been abrogated at the latest by the 6th of october 2015 to ensure that the regulation 38 material being received by the tma was full and complete in accordance with the
01:43:26 full and complete in accordance with the building regulations in in terms of the responsibility here claire was taking on responsibility to check that and i'd understood that there was a check a compliance check
01:43:37 there was a check a compliance check through artely whoever told you that david gibson right did you tell you anything about the compliance check um i didn't i described the conversation
01:43:48 um i didn't i described the conversation earlier it was it was about understanding that artelia would
01:43:56 would give advice if there were any design
01:43:59 design issues arising and would help give advice on any cdmc issues on the
01:44:07 the sorry principal designer issues in the compiling of the final report right i take it from that answer you've got a conversation you had with david gibson but you can't give us any
01:44:19 but you can't give us any detailed evidence can you about precisely what the checklist involved no okay all right um i want to revisit if i may
01:44:26 if i may a topic we looked at this morning which was what you told the board about the ryden price and you also i think referred to later advice after the 18th of march
01:44:39 later advice after the 18th of march 2014 that you'd received from trials and hamline's
01:44:42 hamline's can we look please at tm01305632
01:44:55 this is an email from you of the 26th of march 2014 to sasha jevons david gibson claire williams
01:45:06 williams at times two and it says please see below the advice received from trials in relation to procurement risk and foi low risk of challenge and low risk of
01:45:18 low risk of challenge and low risk of success
01:45:19 success regards peter and then if we look down the page
01:45:24 the page to the bottom of page one we can see that this is an email from john ford at trowers two days previous 24th of march 2014
01:45:35 2014 to you mr madison uh and it says dear peter further to our conversation this morning i set out a summary of our advice in respect to kctma's procurement of a
01:45:46 in respect to kctma's procurement of a contractor for the grenfell tower project
01:45:51 and can we turn to page two on the email
01:45:56 i'll look at this in its totality because i think it's an important document
01:46:01 document given your evidence earlier he says you have explained that the kctma wishes to negotiate
01:46:05 negotiate with the approved bid of writing construction ryden and try to reduce the value of the contract from their tendered price of approximately 9.2 million
01:46:13 million the price reduction will be achieved via a number of means comprising omitting certain parts of the works including the play area utilizing a number of the alternative design solutions set out in their tender bid summarized on page nine of the
01:46:24 bid summarized on page nine of the artelia tender report attracting eco funding with ryden's assistance as anticipated in the tender documents
01:46:30 documents and value engineering a further three hundred thousand pounds again as anticipated in the tender documents eu compliance risk as discussed with you on friday there is always an element of eu compliance risk
01:46:41 always an element of eu compliance risk when the contracting authority looks to vary
01:46:43 vary the tender price of a contract post tender unless the variation has been expressly provided for in the tender documents and the form of contract there is a further risk involved where the contracting authority
01:46:54 involved where the contracting authority seeks to enter into negotiations solely with the preferred contractor following the award of the contract following our discussions we advise that it is technically possible for one of the unsuccessful contractors
01:47:05 for one of the unsuccessful contractors to challenge kctm on this basis however we consider that the likelihood of such a challenge being successful is relatively low as follows the shortlisted tenders were tenderers were informed that the final
01:47:16 tenderers were informed that the final value of the contract may vary depending on which of the alternative price structures kctmo chose to go with this mitigates the some of the risk of the proposed variation we also note that the revised price
01:47:27 we also note that the revised price still remains within the 8 to 10 million contract price set out in the oj eu notice
01:47:32 notice the tenders were given an equal opportunity to bid for the alternative price structures which mitigates the risk of challenge on this basis provided that all the bidders were working from the same specification or proposal
01:47:43 proposal and the assessment was undertaken fairly and equally the value engineering of 300 000 pounds may attract criticism as the other tenders are not being given an equal opportunity to make equivalent changes to their price
01:47:54 changes to their price however a change of three hundred thousand pounds for a contract estimated at seven nine point seven million pounds is relatively insignificant in terms of price the forthcoming eu directive which is not yet enforced defines material change for
01:48:06 yet enforced defines material change for eu challenge purposes there's an increase or decrease of 15 from the original price so in the context of the forthcoming changes to the eu regulations a reduction of 300 000 pounds is not a material change purely on the basis
01:48:17 material change purely on the basis of price even if the unsuccessful contractors were to challenge on this basis
01:48:22 basis they would find it difficult to establish that they had lost an opportunity to bid for the contract given that their prices were significantly higher than ryden's you've noted that the second ranked bidder would have had to value engineer almost a million pounds off their tender bid
01:48:33 a million pounds off their tender bid to be able to meet the kc tms budget which suggests that it would be very difficult for that bidder to demonstrate that they could have won the contract it seems unlikely that a contractor would want to challenge kctmo on the basis of a contract being smaller
01:48:45 on the basis of a contract being smaller than originally expected challenges tend to be more common when the contracting authority is adding additional works to a contract that were not notified to the bidders at the stage it seems unlikely that a
01:48:56 at the stage it seems unlikely that a contractor would wish to bring a legal challenge against kctml on the basis of a 300
01:48:59 a 300 000 price difference and then it says this
01:49:03 this on a related point we note that ryden submitted a much lower tender price than the other bidders did kctmo consider the possibility of this being an abnormally low tender and are you satisfied that ryden's bid
01:49:14 and are you satisfied that ryden's bid is sustainable there is no mention of this in artelia's report or the draft report so we wanted to check this f-o-i-a risk k-c-t-m-a should be careful about what information is in the public
01:49:26 about what information is in the public domain
01:49:26 domain any information that you wish to keep confidential should be in an exempt appendix if needed which means that in the event of an foia request the board report could be disclosed but not the exempt appendix containing confidential information
01:49:38 containing confidential information the appendix could include the artelia report which is very detailed any appendix to the board report that you would like to keep from disclosure under foia should be identified appropriately the usual wording we put on documents is along the lines of confidential and
01:49:50 along the lines of confidential and commercially sensitive and hence exemption from disclosure pursuant to sections 41 and 43 of the freedom of information act 2000. this wording will not guarantee that any withholding of the documents on this basis would be successful
01:50:02 this basis would be successful but this may assist with the argument next steps we hope this is useful please get in touch if you would like any further information kind regards john ford
01:50:10 john ford and i've read that to you in full um the first question i have for you is um is this
01:50:17 is this the advice post the award of the uh bid to ryden that you were referring to earlier this morning yes this is the advice i took ahead of
01:50:28 yes this is the advice i took ahead of the board
01:50:29 the board report on the 27th of march thank you it's clear from the text i've just read to you
01:50:37 to you that there's no reference in there to any discussions that you had had with ryden
01:50:42 ryden before the 18th of march or on the 18th of march but before they were notified that they were the winning bidder is there
01:50:52 there um
01:50:57 no and therefore when you were asking them for
01:51:00 them for their advice about the risks of challenge you hadn't given them all the information pertinent to that risk namely what was missing was the
01:51:11 namely what was missing was the information that you had had pre-award discussions with ryden about their approach post award if they won i don't remember if that was in the in
01:51:22 i don't remember if that was in the in my discussion with the trowels or not but my understanding is that
01:51:27 is that we obviously we weren't in a position at that time to award any work prior to the standstill period but i wasn't clear that there was no way you could have a dialogue to clarify
01:51:38 dialogue to clarify points you didn't ask travis for their advice
01:51:43 advice about whether what you had done with ryden's
01:51:47 ryden's increased the risk of challenge did you um i don't recall whether that was the conversation that i'd had with trowers or whether
01:51:58 i'd had with trowers or whether it was a conversation that jenny jackson might have had when procuring the original
01:52:02 original piece of advice i don't know we saw the original piece of advice and we've had our
01:52:06 our had your evidence about that now we come to
01:52:09 to just before the board meeting and you're taking advice about the risks of challenge so that you can present the matter to the board and what i'm putting to you on the basis of this document is that when you took
01:52:20 of this document is that when you took advice from trowers you didn't tell them that you had decided notwithstanding their advice of early march to have discussions with ryden about price
01:52:30 price or as you would have it about the approach they might take post-award prior to being told that they were the winner and we see that that's not in the advice and i'm suggesting to you that that was a material omission in your seeking advice and obtaining
01:52:42 in your seeking advice and obtaining advice from travis i don't think that's true i think i think it was clear that there was an issue that needed to be clarified and part of that was i described the context we were in
01:52:53 we were in and what we were trying to achieve in in the position from tender to the board and i think that was clear and you didn't ask them to advise you on whether or not what you'd done
01:53:04 whether or not what you'd done increase the risk of irregularity or on the unlawfulness of the procedure that you'd undertake i told them what i'd done
01:53:12 i'd done you told them what you've done where do we see that in this document this is their advice to me i mean i didn't give a written brief i discussed this matter with um with trials and this is the advice that i received
01:53:23 is the advice that i received in which case this advice which doesn't as you've accepted cover that matter was materially incomplete was it not um i didn't see that at the time i i thought it would have been a clear
01:53:34 thought it would have been a clear briefing and i thought this advice was quite clear and when you passed this on to sasha jevons you were passing on advice which as we can now see was materially incomplete um i don't agree with that
01:53:48 um i don't agree with that can we then look back at the paragraph just above f o i a risk on a related point
01:53:57 you're asked the question did kctm consider the possibility of this being an abnormally low tender and are you satisfied that ryden's bid is sustainable did you tell the board the next day that
01:54:10 did you tell the board the next day that that question was one which had been actually asked by by um trowers themselves um it had been i didn't say it had been
01:54:22 um it had been i didn't say it had been it had been asked by travis but it had been an issue that had been considered in the original evaluation by atelier i understood and so i think there was consideration
01:54:34 and so i think there was consideration given to this and in reality the project was delivered on budget so that's the best sign is to whether or not the price was the correct price well mr madison if
01:54:46 was the correct price well mr madison if i may say so the fact that the project was delivered on budget is not of uh great assistance to us given that we know what happened to the building
01:54:59 the question is were you satisfied that ryden's bid was sustainable were you everything so as i say in the discussion that we've
01:55:10 so as i say in the discussion that we've had with otelia on the basis of the um the evaluation the very thorough evaluation that had been done the very thorough evaluation included the financial aspects of this the atelier were comfortable and we were
01:55:23 the atelier were comfortable and we were comfortable that this was a bit that could be sustainable when you were asked the question are you
01:55:34 when you were asked the question are you satisfied that ryden's bid was sustainable that was a a bit of 9.2 million pounds which as
01:55:40 which as we know was 800 000 pounds higher than the budget which had been given to you by rbkc with which you were stuck in those circumstances wasn't it doubly important
01:55:52 circumstances wasn't it doubly important to make sure that ryden if brought down by the sum of 800 000 pounds from the already possibly abnormally low tender
01:56:00 tender could be sustained i didn't take i didn't i don't think anybody thought that it was unsustainably low if it was it felt like it was
01:56:12 it was it felt like it was um the grouping of the tenders was relatively close um it was it was it you know and it was it was assumed that
01:56:24 assumed that you know we did there were there was due consideration given to to this as part of the financial evaluation i understand from the quantity surveyors and um so i i wasn't aware that there
01:56:35 and um so i i wasn't aware that there was any risk of it being an unsustainably low tender well we have your lawyers pointing out to you that ryden submitted a much lower tender price than the other bidders and asking you the question of whether you thought
01:56:47 you the question of whether you thought it might be abnormally low and that's at 9.2 million did it not occur to you to ask yourself well even if the 9.2 million pounds isn't in fact abnormally low there's a real risk that at 800
01:56:59 real risk that at 800 000 pounds less it might very well be unsustainable did you not have that thought i gave thought
01:57:06 thought to whether the price was sustainable and this has been discussed and evaluated in detail
01:57:13 detail by a set of quantity surveyors and my team
01:57:16 team and everyone nobody has raised this is a significant concern
01:57:23 concern charles quite rightly here are saying have you thought of this the answer is yes we've thought of it and we think that it looks okay but at 9.2 million you may have answered the question did you ask yourself the same question
01:57:34 did you ask yourself the same question at 8.4 million but the 8.4 million will be taking out works or changing work so it would i don't i don't make the connection between an unsustainably high i don't i don't
01:57:47 an unsustainably high i don't i don't accept i don't understand the point you're trying to make well i think you do understand the point you're trying to make
01:57:52 make you've got you've got you need to bring ryden down by eight hundred thousand pounds to come within the budget are you suggesting now that actually you would change the scope materially in
01:58:04 would change the scope materially in order to do that no no i didn't think you were and therefore
01:58:08 therefore all i'm putting to you is that even if on being warned of the problem you'd you satisfied yourself that the bid was sustainable at 9.2 million how did you go about satisfying yourself
01:58:19 how did you go about satisfying yourself that a further reduction of eight hundred thousand pounds would remain sustainable i don't think we are being warned of a problem we're being uh solicitors here are saying have you thought of this and the
01:58:31 saying have you thought of this and the answer is yes we have thought of this the professional team has considered this and it's felt to be a sustainable scheme the 800 000 pounds is part of that
01:58:43 the 800 000 pounds is part of that evaluation so it's actually 300 000 pounds difference between um between the bid cost and um so i you know we did give i think this
01:58:54 so i you know we did give i think this was given to you consideration by the professional team in their evaluation very well mr chairman i've come to the end of my prepared questions it's now four o'clock it might be sensible if we take the 30-minute break
01:59:06 sensible if we take the 30-minute break now for any follow-up questions that either i or others may have and then i was going to come deal with those and then there's a separate exercise come to the question of the disclosure of the notebooks right um is that convenient
01:59:19 right um is that convenient i'm quite content to do it that way i'm just wondering whether we need to break for as long as half an hour because by the time we've had a half an hour's break and you've found some more questions and then we've had further
01:59:31 questions and then we've had further questioning the afternoon's going to be getting quite long isn't it well i'm i'm loathe to go back on something that i've offered people but if we say 20 minutes with the liberty to apply
01:59:42 apply for another ten i think that would be better right yeah we're gonna have a break now um you probably know this mr medicine but when the council reaches the end of his questions he needs an opportunity to just make sure
01:59:54 needs an opportunity to just make sure nothing's been overlooked and there are other people who are not here who may wish to send in questions as well
01:59:59 as well so we're going to have a break now until 20 past four then we'll see if there are any further questions and then there are other matters that need to be done with all right so would you like to give the usher please
02:00:19 mr bennett if you find that there are reasons to require longer let me know of course
02:00:24 course i'd quite like to keep this movie yes mr jones of course all right 20 plus four
02:00:38 please
02:19:53 yes would you ask mr madison to come back in please
02:20:26 all right mr madison yes right now see if mr millet's got some more questions do you have some more questions mr millet
02:20:32 millet no mr chairman i don't other than the questions which remain in relation to your notebooks and diaries to which i said i would return at the end of your evidence now after the fire in june 2017 do you
02:20:44 now after the fire in june 2017 do you recall whether you were asked by anyone to retain and preserve all of your documents in relation to the grenfell tower refurbishment not directly now not directly what about
02:20:55 not directly now not directly what about indirectly no no were you asked to hand over all your grenfell tower documents to anybody
02:21:03 anybody nothing i remember now did anybody tell you that you had to hand over all your personal notebooks and diaries and any other personal records you kept which related to grenfell tower
02:21:14 which related to grenfell tower no
02:21:16 no [Applause] does the name nick rendell at the tma mean anything to you yes who was he he was an employee of the tmr
02:21:27 tmr did he ever ask you whether you held personal notes and diaries relating to to the grenfell tower refurbishment nothing i remember do you remember
02:21:38 nothing i remember do you remember telling
02:21:38 telling anyone in the weeks after the fire that you had personal diaries and notebooks containing records relating to grenfell tower
02:21:45 tower um i spoke to myself says my solicitors you spoke to your solicitors yes now which solicitors were those uh kennedys so when you say your solicitors you mean
02:21:57 so when you say your solicitors you mean the tma solicitors kennedys do you did you know that kennedy's
02:22:02 kennedy's became the tmos rlr on the 17th of september 2017. in place of devonshires yeah you did did you speak to anyone at devonshires
02:22:13 you speak to anyone at devonshires about the the fact that you had personal notebooks and diaries no didn't did anyone at devonshires ask you whether you had any personal notebooks
02:22:24 whether you had any personal notebooks and diaries no did anyone at devonshires ask you to hand over all your documents including hardcopy documents that you held no
02:22:35 uh you say uh that you spoke uh to kennedy's about personal diaries and notebooks when did you first speak to kennedy's about personal
02:22:47 first speak to kennedy's about personal diaries and notebooks i can't be sure of the exact date but um shortly after in the in the weeks after the fire
02:22:56 the fire i um went through and did a transcript of
02:23:00 of all of my notebooks to try and create a timeline of what had happened over the over the time and did the same with my emails and i sent that document across to kennedy's
02:23:11 sent that document across to kennedy's with a heading my notebooks and so it was a transcription basically of what was in my notebooks and then i subsequently mentioned to one of the partners at kennedy's that
02:23:22 of the partners at kennedy's that asked what i should do with my notebooks and he advised me to keep a hold of them right when did you have the conversation with one of the partners at kennedy's about your notebooks
02:23:33 about your notebooks i think that must have been in 2018 i can't be
02:23:36 can't be precise and he asked you or advised you to keep a hold of them did he not ask you to hand them over to him no did he not ask you to hand them over to anybody else at kennedy's
02:23:47 to anybody else at kennedy's no
02:23:50 he referred to a timeline we've been informed by kennedy's that they had a timeline from you which is a privileged document dated the 6th of october 2017 which referred to the fact that you'd used
02:24:01 referred to the fact that you'd used your diaries and notebooks to compile it that's correct isn't it i think yes did did kennedy's ask you to produce the diaries and notebooks to which you had referred in that timeline yeah did you offer to do so
02:24:15 timeline yeah did you offer to do so did i offer to do whatever did you offer to do so did you say would you like to see my diaries and notebooks i asked what what what i should do with them
02:24:25 them and what did they say at that stage this is october 2017. at that time i don't remember exactly the conversation that was going on at that time
02:24:32 that time when you came to prepare your statements your witness statements for the inquiry did you use your notebooks and diaries to refresh your recollection my statements were prepared for me by kennedy's and i assumed they were using
02:24:43 kennedy's and i assumed they were using the information that i'd given as well as other documents the information that you've given but not the notebooks and diaries because you still had them is that the notebooks and diaries so all the entries in the notebooks was
02:24:54 so all the entries in the notebooks was detailed on the schedule that had the transcription that i'd sent across them right so just to revisit my question again in the light of that qualification when you came to prepare your statements is it right
02:25:07 to prepare your statements is it right that you used the timeline that you prepared based on your diaries and notebooks but not the original diaries and notebooks themselves i've never had since i've done the transcription i haven't looked at those
02:25:18 transcription i haven't looked at those books at all and after i've flagged them up to kennedy's and they they just said keep holding them and i've left them i've never referred to them
02:25:25 them the thing that triggered me to think of them was when i saw a couple of references when watching witnesses from the tmo there was some mention of notebooks and it triggered a thought and i flagged that up to
02:25:37 a thought and i flagged that up to kennedy's and they immediately disclosed them that was on friday week ago
02:25:43 ago yes
02:25:46 just to revisit the question of transcription you've just referred to did you do the transcription yourself yes did anybody ask you to do that no
02:25:57 yes did anybody ask you to do that no what did you do with the transcriptions are they in pieces of paper or in documentary form somewhere sorry i don't understand the question when you you say you prepared a transcription of the i wrote it into an excel spreadsheet i
02:26:09 i wrote it into an excel spreadsheet i see and what did you do with that excel spreadsheet i sent that to kennedy's was it was it a verbatim transcription it was
02:26:18 it was i mean i wouldn't call it verbatim but it was this is it was a summary it was a summary of each each
02:26:25 each each entry in all of the uh eight notebooks and diaries we have i didn't do the diaries there was there's the notebooks i see you didn't do the diaries
02:26:34 diaries i don't think so right i would have did you
02:26:37 you sorry go ahead when you did your timeline
02:26:40 timeline in early october 2017 you you say you've used your notebooks did you use your diaries as well no did you refer to your diaries in that document nothing i remember
02:26:51 document nothing i remember i may have done but i don't think so so we're really just dealing with the notebooks
02:26:55 notebooks coming back to the question of transcription you sent them the timeline that you'd done and did you also send them the excel spreadsheet that you've just referred to the same thing the timeline
02:27:06 thing the timeline is on an excel spreadsheet oh i see
02:27:13 and how much of the timeline was your own
02:27:17 own work product based on your diaries and how much of it was simply a transcription of what was in the in the sorry the notebooks and how much of it was a transcription of what was in the notebooks themselves it was all a transcription it was just
02:27:29 it was all a transcription it was just i just went through and wrote down what was in there trying to get it get some order into what had happened and what the what the timeline was right i see it and was it that document that was then used as the basis of
02:27:40 basis of your witness statements i sent that to kennedy's i assumed it was used as part of that
02:27:45 of that drafting of the of that but it may be that it wasn't considered at all i follow
02:27:54 at any time after the 6th of october 2017
02:27:59 2017 and leaving aside for the moment the discussion you had with the partner in 2018 you've now told us about was there any occasion on which you were asked
02:28:07 asked by kennedy's or anyone at the tmo to hand over
02:28:10 hand over your notebooks no
02:28:16 turning to the question of the diaries did anybody either at devonshires or kennedy's ever ask you to look for and if you found them to hand over your diaries
02:28:25 diaries no
02:28:37 mr madison thank you very much those are all the questions i have i should just tell you that so far we've had
02:28:44 had correspondence with kennedy's about this subject but we are yet waiting to hear from devonshires and possibly from mr rendell himself on the subject but subject to anything that comes out of those responses
02:28:56 of those responses those are all the questions i have for you on the question of your notebooks and diaries in just a minute i just wonder whether since
02:29:05 since this is the only time that we've been able to question mr madison about notebooks and diaries whether i we all ought to rise for say 10 minutes
02:29:16 ought to rise for say 10 minutes because those who will have heard it elsewhere
02:29:19 elsewhere may want to suggest further questions very good idea i'm sorry to do this too mr madison but you can probably understand that there are people who are very interested in the evidence that's heard here who are not in the room
02:29:30 heard here who are not in the room and we have arrangements in place for enabling them to put forward further questions and i think in the light of your additional evidence we ought to give them a chance to do that
02:29:42 give them a chance to do that so although it's going to delay matters a bit i'm going to say that we'll rise for 10 minutes i'm going to say 20-5
02:29:49 20-5 unless again you tell me that more time is required if you do well then we'll allow a bit more time
02:29:56 more time um all right so i'm afraid can i ask you to go with the usher again with the usual warnings about not discussing things and then we'll try and get to
02:30:04 get to the way
02:30:13 right twenty to fives and please
02:40:32 uh yes would you ask mr madison to come back in please
02:40:48 back in please right mr madison let's see if there are any more questions for you mr miller just one or two mr madison uh i don't think you refer to your timeline as a source of information when doing
02:40:59 as a source of information when doing any of your statements for the inquiry why is that um my statement was prepared for me by by kennedy's and they had access to the timeline so i'm assuming
02:41:10 access to the timeline so i'm assuming they're using whatever information that they have at their disposal yes but you came to sign off the statement i'd assume that you would have read them through in their entirety can you explain why you didn't think it fit to instruct kennedy's to put into your
02:41:22 instruct kennedy's to put into your statement for you the fact that you were using the timeline as the basis for your recollection
02:41:32 i don't think i said that i didn't use the timeline i have used the timeline occasionally i haven't used the notebook because i haven't used the notebooks themselves no the timeline so why did you not
02:41:44 timeline so why did you not tell kennedy's to refer to the timeline as the source of the information or part of the information to which you were deposing in your witness statement i assumed that they were i'd sent them the timeline and that
02:41:57 were i'd sent them the timeline and that was
02:41:57 was part and i'd sent him a timeline and a skeleton statement of what i thought a statement might look like at that time and kennedy's took that and drafted the statement that
02:42:09 took that and drafted the statement that you know that was issued to the inquiry yes and why is there no reference to the timeline
02:42:13 timeline in your statements um i don't know what relevance it would have had it was it was something that was helping me put to construct it was like my workings well i think
02:42:24 it was like my workings well i think what council's asking is why didn't it occur to you to say and if necessary to tell kennedy's to put this into the statement that sometime after
02:42:35 into the statement that sometime after the events i went through my notebooks and created a timeline while things are still fresh in my mind and so on and that was used as the basis for my statement i mean
02:42:46 this this process is very unfamiliar to me and i was taking the advice of the solicitors who were working with me and i was i followed their advice
02:42:58 now earlier on when i was asking you about
02:43:03 about the notebooks you said you've done a transcription of basically what was in my
02:43:07 my notebooks and this is at page 182 of today's transcript at line 11 and following and then you say at line 12
02:43:19 say at line 12 and then i subsequently mentioned to one of the partners at kennedy's that asked what i should do with my notebooks and he advised me to keep a hold of them who was the
02:43:30 to keep a hold of them who was the partner at kennedy's who gave you that advice it was richard crockford thank you mr chairman i've got no further questions on that subject
02:43:41 questions on that subject thank you very much um mr madison it reminds me to ask one final question which is a question that i do ask or we do ask a number of witnesses who played a particularly prominent role
02:43:52 played a particularly prominent role in the events leading up to the grenfell tower fire and it's this looking back on all the evidence we've been through and the events in which you were involved from january 2013
02:44:03 2013 to the time of the fire is there anything looking back on it now that you would have done differently um knowing what you know there was no way that we would ever clad that building with anything
02:44:15 ever clad that building with anything that was flammable it's um this was a traditional designer build contract that seemed very straightforward and very ordinary in many ways and it's ended up in this tragedy is just
02:44:26 it's ended up in this tragedy is just devastating i'm so sorry
02:44:31 for the impact that's held in so many people's lives
02:44:37 mr madison thank you very much you'll be glad to know i have no further questions for you
02:44:41 for you and it remains only for me to thank you for coming to the inquiry a module one and assisting us with our investigations thus far
02:44:48 thus far and we will meet again i suspect in module 3 in a few months time but for the time being thank you very much thank you well mr madison it's right that i should thank you too very much for coming to give your evidence i know it's taken quite a long
02:45:00 evidence i know it's taken quite a long time
02:45:01 time and today's been a longer day than usual i'm sorry that it's taken up so much for your time but it was very important that we hear from you and hear in detail about your involvement and it's been very helpful to do so so
02:45:13 and it's been very helpful to do so so thank you very much for coming and you are now free to go we'd like to give the usher thank you very much
02:45:28 give the usher thank you very much right mr millett mr chairman uh there is uh
02:45:32 uh a moment uh and uh it's this we have reached the end of the factual evidence in module one which is a moment in itself uh there is though a matter of
02:45:43 uh there is though a matter of housekeeping and that is there are a number of module one witness statements which i need formally to read into the record so that they will be in the record in due course can i ask to have put up on
02:45:54 due course can i ask to have put up on the screen please
02:45:59 idx0320
02:46:06 now this is a list compiled by the inquiry mr chairman of further witness statements where they come from
02:46:14 come from and the urn numbers and this document will go up onto the website
02:46:21 website and be put into the record as soon as possible
02:46:24 possible the schedule of witness statements themselves is there the actual witness statements themselves will be published by the inquiry on the website over the next or in the next few weeks
02:46:35 next few weeks but for the time being those are the references and it's right that those are put into the public record right so all these statements that are identified here
02:46:46 identified here um are to be taken as having been read into the record and therefore to form part of the evidence before the inquiry in uh this module one yes yes correct
02:46:57 in uh this module one yes yes correct thank you mr chairman there it is as it were the module one factual evidence is now closed and we now proceed to the module 1 expert evidence starting with beryl
02:47:08 expert evidence starting with beryl menses tomorrow morning good thank you very much well that's the point of which we'll close for today we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning and look forward to seeing uh betterment is then mr chairman yes
02:47:21 betterment is then mr chairman yes before we do can i i should just have mentioned a moment ago the question of the diaries and notebooks
02:47:26 notebooks and other matters relating to the to the tms disclosure isn't yet closed i don't want people to think that it is and i will report back to you mr chairman openly when we have completed our investigations
02:47:37 our investigations good thank you very much all right 10 o'clock tomorrow then please
02:47:58 you