David Gibson (TMO) gives evidence on project management, procurement decisions, the alleged assurance from Ryden about cladding being 'inert', and the London Fire Brigade audit tool.
00:00:11 yes would you ask mr gibson to come back in please
00:00:14 in please okay
00:00:24 mr gibson are you ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes mr thank you mr chairman mr gibson we were midway through a line of emails in us in april 2013. i'm going to come back to
00:00:37 april 2013. i'm going to come back to that in a moment before i do i think i need to clear up a possible confusion that may have crept into the transcript from this morning if i can
00:00:44 i can and i can can i ask you to be shown please this morning's transcript at page 50 line 25 and i want to go over the page to like to page 51 at line four but at page 50
00:00:57 to page 51 at line four but at page 50 from this morning can you see that line 25 yes i was talking to you or asking you questions about
00:01:03 about artelia as project managers yes you said line 25
00:01:07 line 25 there were a number but i'm clear in terms of alan dawson or or robert powell there was a project in itself to look at where we were with grenfell and plan a way forward and that they were project manager in that activity
00:01:19 activity um when you say project in itself could you be just clearer about what you meant about that um
00:01:28 there was a project engagement plan that we agreed to in terms of stopping the project reviewing the scope of the project
00:01:40 of the project and looking at our options going forward i see so the project of examining the project was something on which you thought artillery were the project managers
00:01:51 managers yes as opposed to project managers of the whole project overall i would say they were they weren't appointed as project managers but no one else was doing the project
00:02:02 no one else was doing the project management in terms of on our side we were the client we were dealing with client side issues we weren't
00:02:15 client side issues we weren't managing the project and yeah so to cut a long story short can you do this
00:02:22 this from your recollection given that as you rightly say artelia will not appoint it as project managers certainly when we come when we look at the formal documents yes who do you think was the project manager
00:02:34 who do you think was the project manager on the grenfell tower project overall i would have said artillery as our
00:02:44 within their role were project management it depends on your definition of project management that's what i'm asking you what what
00:02:51 what what what did you understand to be the to be the role of a project manager on a project such as grenfell tower well they were
00:03:00 were engaging with the design team and professional team on project managing them in their activities in terms of
00:03:15 activities in terms of once we finalize the design on getting tender documentation together they were project managing that activity
00:03:26 in terms of tender assessment they had i think overall responsibility they held that although jenny jackson had a an overview
00:03:38 although jenny jackson had a an overview of that um so in terms of i suppose she was this is client advisor on that role um
00:03:49 client advisor on that role um and in terms of project on the construction and the project management i would say it was artelia do you remember the in the um
00:04:00 do you remember the in the um formal july 2014 formal contractual documentation artely had deleted the role of project manager yes what did you understand to be the effect of that deletion
00:04:15 of that deletion i to me it didn't
00:04:20 it depends where the crossover between project management and the other activities lie and i know i wouldn't like to define that
00:04:29 that but it shouldn't have had any impact on the project if if artelia had deleted the role as project manager within that contract who do you think was assuming that role
00:04:41 who do you think was assuming that role i didn't think there was anyone else assuming the rule right so it within the context of the meaning of that expression in that part of the contract and i don't want to spend time going back to it
00:04:52 going back to it does that mean that your understanding was that there was no project manager for grenfell tower
00:05:06 i'm not sure whether i have a yes or no answer to that i think i would have said project management was within their other responsibilities but it wasn't a separate
00:05:16 separate appointment i think i understand what you're saying would it be right then to cut
00:05:20 cut to summarize your evidence as saying that your understanding was that there was although no overall project manager in the in the sense of the standard form contract there were there were people who were responsible
00:05:31 there were people who were responsible for their different spheres of activity yes and artelia were responsible for those spheres of activity to which they had signed up yes so cdmc qs and and and the other roles as well
00:05:45 qs and and and the other roles as well right yes um can i then get back please to
00:05:49 to uh the email uh i wanted to go to art four zeros one zero eight three page one now this is an email from robert powell of artelia
00:06:00 from robert powell of artelia of the 10th of um april 2013 to paul dunkerton
00:06:06 dunkerton uh it's a long email and i just want to look at
00:06:09 look at some of the bullet points in it um which set out his perceptions and he says um under the second well you can look at the first one we have a disengaged contract i think you already
00:06:20 disengaged contract i think you already said you agreed with that yes then he said in the second bullet point there are similar questions over the design team whose fee claims raise a number of procedural questions with regard to proper procurement now first of all did you
00:06:31 first of all did you did you see this email at the time do you think when it was was received by paul duncan i can't recall okay did you have questions in your mind over the design team's fee claims
00:06:44 over the design team's fee claims raising a number of procedural questions with regard to proper procurement i had question marks questions over there didn't appear to be a contractual
00:06:55 there didn't appear to be a contractual arrangement in place and they didn't appear to be paid did you think that the design team had not been properly procured i didn't necessarily have a view
00:07:06 i didn't necessarily have a view right i mean what i had seen had said they had been properly procured and been called off the um the calc og procurement
00:07:17 um the calc og procurement sorry what you just said i'm afraid went down as an inaudible on the transcript you say i didn't necessarily have a view could you repeat what you said after that please
00:07:28 my understanding was that they had been procured as part of the kelk og procurement
00:07:40 yeah um my question was did you think that the design team had not been properly procured
00:07:50 i don't think so no were you aware that there were issues problems
00:07:56 problems questions in respect of the design team procurement and whether it was proper
00:08:04 at that time at that time i don't recall can we look at the third bullet point there are a number of legal and procedural matters which will require some legal input to resolve regarding the ability to usurp the
00:08:16 regarding the ability to usurp the incumbent contractor should that be the desired course of action now assuming that the word usurp there meant sac was sacking the incumbent contractor namely ledbitter the tma's preferred
00:08:28 namely ledbitter the tma's preferred course at that point yes can you remind me of the date this is april 2013. so you've been in post about two months no we were going through a
00:08:41 no we were going through a process of the april 2013 our telly were providing us of providing us with a status report of how the project had got to where it
00:08:54 of how the project had got to where it was and how we moved forward right um in looking at the fifth bullet point he says there does seem to be a fundamental disconnect but with the advised construction budget of 8.5 million pounds of the figure
00:09:06 of 8.5 million pounds of the figure we're estimating when the disparity between our figures and those which led bitters appear to be entrenched on is is considered it suggests that a fundamental rethink is required was this issue um the fundamental
00:09:17 was this issue um the fundamental disconnect spoken of by mr powell brought to your attention at the time do you think
00:09:25 [Applause]
00:09:33 it depends what it means by fundamental discount disconnect they could not um [Music]
00:09:41 [Music] they didn't have enough information to compare
00:09:44 compare artelia's costs with the lead better costs and they need to delve into the detail of that right i mean cutting to the point yeah did you
00:09:56 i mean cutting to the point yeah did you do you recall that there was a problem because led bitters figures however they were arrived at were way off the tmo's budget yes right now you then went to a
00:10:07 went to a meeting on the 11th of april 2013 can i please take you to that tmo one triple zero two six eight eight um this is a tmo capital investment meeting of that date
00:10:18 meeting of that date and grenfell is on page two we could see on page one you were present you see that um and on page two i want to go to item 3.5 where the following is minuted
00:10:30 item 3.5 where the following is minuted grenfell tower as the heading following several meetings with leadbetter adjustments have been made to their quantities and rates matching current market rates as allowed in apple yard's cost plan
00:10:40 cost plan you see that and then it goes on at the bottom of the page apple guys have advised the tmo it would be beneficially beneficial to value engineer
00:10:51 value engineer with capital letters the scheme to bring within the 8.5 million construction budget
00:10:57 budget you see that um does that tell us that the construction budget at that time was 8.5 million
00:11:07 yes was it was that the figure at the time that you already knew was the construction budget or was that figure for the construction budget something that was only discussed for the first time at that meeting do
00:11:18 for the first time at that meeting do you remember
00:11:21 this was this is this was paul reporting back to my other team members of the status of where we were on grenfell
00:11:33 grenfell right it wasn't a discussion about grenfell tower he was just given an update can we take it then that from this point onwards at the very least 8.5 million and i think actually more
00:11:44 actually more accurately it's 8.415 million was the construction budget in other words the budget without fees yes right um now i want to
00:11:55 right um now i want to ask you some questions about the process of the advice given by artelia in the spring and summer of 2013. but i'd like to do this quite quickly um we've already heard simon cash's
00:12:07 we've already heard simon cash's evidence and phil boothe's evidence about it from artelia do you remember that there was a status report originally by artelia on the 23rd of april 2013. yes you do and you remember that they um
00:12:18 yes you do and you remember that they um recommended basically their basic recommendation was to stick with lead bitters yes initially yes initially yes and um yeah we don't need to go to the document um but
00:12:30 document um but i just want to get your basic recollection uh and do you also remember that they express the opinion that unless uh the project in its
00:12:41 that unless uh the project in its current guys is stopped and a fundamental review embarked on to redefine its scope and program and cost it would fail you remember that yes and did you agree with that advice
00:12:52 with that advice yes you did can i ask you then to go to a meeting that took place the following month 21st of may 13. uh this is uh art408858
00:13:05 uh this is uh art408858 now this is an email where reference to that meeting is referred to and if you look at this email at the top
00:13:16 and if you look at this email at the top of the page this is the 21st of may 2013 from robert powell to phil booth copy to simon cash so it's internal to artelia and the subject is british
00:13:27 to artelia and the subject is british gas funding for energy efficiency to grenfell tower and it says in philip interesting meeting this am basically peter madison has been overruled by laura johnson
00:13:39 has been overruled by laura johnson now first of all do you remember whether you were at the meeting to which uh rob powell is referring there i was not you were not do you remember um anything about laura
00:13:50 do you remember um anything about laura johnson
00:13:51 johnson over ruling peter madison on anything at this time
00:13:54 this time no right
00:13:58 so you can't help me with that sounds like
00:14:04 the only thing i can help you with is there were a number of queries i think we spoke about this morning
00:14:10 morning yep going on then to the fourth paragraph of the letter of the email uh it says also pm i think that's peter madison not keen on progressing with lead bitter our report kicking this all off was
00:14:23 our report kicking this all off was based upon the objective of preserving program
00:14:25 program this now not so important value for money is
00:14:28 money is accordingly we are likely to reprocure scheme via ojeu exclamation mark um was it your understanding at this time latest may 2013 that now
00:14:39 at this time latest may 2013 that now peter madison was not keen on progressing with leadbetter
00:14:48 in terms of the engagement of ledbetter i was in agreement he wasn't keen in terms of their um
00:15:00 in terms of their um you say you were in agreement he wasn't keen do you mean you weren't keen and he wasn't keen that's correct yeah um and you knew he wasn't keen i think we both agreed yeah okay did you
00:15:12 i think we both agreed yeah okay did you understand that value for money was to take precedence over preserving the program as as is said here was that your view at the time
00:15:24 my view was that
00:15:28 there have been slippages to program
00:15:32 um that had been removed as an obstacle and and we were now looking at getting the best value for money in terms of
00:15:43 money in terms of how we procure the project right as opposed to value for money engineering okay in short when it says preserving
00:15:54 okay in short when it says preserving program not so important value for money is
00:15:56 is was that your view yes uh we then track the history there's then a do you remember an addendum to the status report of the 24th of may 2013.
00:16:08 24th of may 2013. do you remember that the yes um do you remember having a discussion about it i can show it to you if you like but i'd but i just want to take this quickly i think the
00:16:20 think the tandem
00:16:23 tandem then i think there were probably two identicals i think we got to the end of a process
00:16:28 a process and we had asked once we got to the end of this process for artelya to provide us with a procurement recommendation
00:16:40 what we what i wasn't expecting was to see
00:16:43 see the status report updated with an addendum without recommendation because i thought it lost its purpose it was hidden in the detail probably all the information was
00:16:54 detail probably all the information was there
00:16:55 there but there was too much other information what i expected to see was a standalone german recommendation with the benefits of whatever route was
00:17:08 with the benefits of whatever route was recommended the risks associated with that route and then
00:17:12 then a narrative on how we got to that recommendation at that point did the tmo want artelia to recommend reprocurement in late may
00:17:27 did we want them to recommend it i think that was the once we'd removed the time element it seemed a sensible way to go so did we want them to
00:17:39 so did we want them to i think when we asked them to do the procurement report i thought there was general consensus amongst all those in the discussions that we would be reprocuring yeah my
00:17:50 that we would be reprocuring yeah my point is did you want artelia to write a report or piece of paper that recommended reprocurement yes you did can i take you to art six four 40648 eight please art four
00:18:01 six four 40648 eight please art four zero
00:18:02 zero six four one eight now this is an email 22nd of may 2013 you're not copied in it's from robert powell to simon cash it's talking about the drafting of the addendum which it attaches and in the
00:18:13 addendum which it attaches and in the second paragraph you see that rob powell says to simon cash
00:18:17 cash fundamentally this and that's a reference to the draft addendum is a bit of political lubrication to give the tmo justification to go against the recommendation in our original report
00:18:27 report which suggested that they keep lead better involved with the project um did you say anything to rob powell which might lead him to think that the addendum you were wanting
00:18:38 that the addendum you were wanting was a bit of political lubrication as he put it
00:18:41 put it no no did did you say anything to him at all about any um any need
00:18:52 any um any need beyond the immediate need to have some advice
00:18:56 advice for this report
00:19:01 we've gotten to the end of a process we had looked at we'd re-examine the options to go in with ledbetter we looked at other
00:19:13 we looked at other um so i think did you say did you have a conversation with rob powell at artelia at all about this addendum
00:19:22 addendum no i wasn't expecting i said in general terms you could see that rob powell is of the view uh that the tmo needed justification to go against the recommendation in the
00:19:33 go against the recommendation in the original report um did the tmo need justification in that sense
00:19:40 i would think we would have wanted an audit trail of how we moved from one recommendation to another right so this was about papering the change
00:19:51 papering the change in the decision making i follow um can we then go i think we can go straight to tmo10048490
00:20:02 go straight to tmo10048490 please uh this is an email to from you to uh there it is email from you to claire williams 17th of september 2013
00:20:15 williams 17th of september 2013 uh and you can see that it attaches the june 2013
00:20:19 june 2013 updated status report which i haven't shown you
00:20:22 shown you but um i mean if you want to see it i can show it to you and you say uh claire re-vfm through procurement this
00:20:33 claire re-vfm through procurement this is all i had seen from apple yards and we had to twist their arms quite hard for them to write it now these are your words here do you agree that the tmo did twist artelia's arm quite hard
00:20:44 quite hard to get them to change their initial advice and write the june updated status report
00:20:51 i think referring back to my previous discussion i was expecting a procurement recommendation that by consensus we got to a different
00:21:04 that by consensus we got to a different point
00:21:07 and what i wasn't expecting was an addendum to the status report on april because i just wanted something quite clear that said we are now in this position
00:21:19 that said we are now in this position this is where we were on there's a different recommendation yes my question again these are your words
00:21:27 words is simon cash agreed that this was a fair description of the position do you agree that the tmo to use your words
00:21:36 words twisted artelia's arm quite hard to get them to write the june report
00:21:49 my words magnetic contacts there's a certain amount of sarcasm within it meaning it wasn't the report i was expecting and we had to go back to them to
00:22:02 and we had to go back to them to make the recommendations clearer there was a lot of historic stuff
00:22:09 stuff hidden within the recommendations which i didn't think was we had been at a point that we had moved on and i've just won something clear at this point
00:22:20 this point that dealt with that journey and was not given a strong recommendation so in terms of what i've expected it wasn't what i expected and we had to go back to them and i
00:22:32 and we had to go back to them and i thought they would still it's still liked the clarity that we i would have liked at that time but it's not about lacking clarity and
00:22:43 it's not about lacking clarity and asking for further clarity you're saying here that you had to twist artelio's arm arms quite hard for them to write the report
00:22:52 report now all i'm getting you to do is to accept that that is what happened that's a fair description of of the tmaj it was my way of saying it was not the report i was expecting and we had to go back to
00:23:03 i was expecting and we had to go back to them and get them to just make it more positive because there's a lot of historic stuff attached to the report that was no longer valid i understand that yeah i understand that i'm just i'm just
00:23:15 i understand that i'm just i'm just seeking to see whether you agree or disagree
00:23:17 disagree with the proposition as i put to simon cash that he accepted that artelia was strong armed into writing what they wrote in their in their june update no i don't agree
00:23:29 in their june update no i don't agree don't accept that so when you say we had to twist their arms quite hard to write it in your contemporaneous email at the time are you saying that's not what happened i'm saying that was my way of saying
00:23:42 i'm saying that was my way of saying we weren't very happy with the first update
00:23:45 update one we went back to i think peter went back
00:23:49 back i don't recall if i did but peter and i spoke about it and we still didn't get a standalone report you see most people looking at the documents and listening to simon
00:24:00 the documents and listening to simon cash's evidence might think uh that looking at it all in the round artelia had given you advice that you didn't like and you had to pressurize them into giving you advice that you did i don't agree right now uh
00:24:14 i don't agree right now uh can i then turn to
00:24:22 another topic altogether which is x over
00:24:27 and this takes us on in time i think probably to the november of 2013. uh i can start i think with your first
00:24:39 uh i can start i think with your first witness statement of paragraph 68 please on page 13.
00:24:49 um you say there at paragraph 68 eggs over warrington fire are fire engineers their appointment and relation to the project is not clear as far as i knew xover were far strategy
00:25:01 far as i knew xover were far strategy advisers to studio e but they may also have provided advice to ryden i do not know i do not recall seeing any reports from x over
00:25:10 x over any when did you first become aware of x xover's involvement in the project mr gibson
00:25:18 it would have been at the time that we had stopped the project and were getting some background with the professional team
00:25:30 individual designers talked about how that got to where they were i think there was some reference to a fair
00:25:43 a fair that studio e had requested in order to enable them to complete their state c or stage d report
00:25:56 complete their state c or stage d report in terms of there was advice that they needed
00:26:00 i'm aware that
00:26:04 i think i was aware that we had appointed
00:26:09 appointed them directly but studio e had made the request for that specialist advice um
00:26:20 specialist advice um let me try it again um let me give you a bit of a few dates if this helps you join the tmo in the february of 2013. now at that point there are
00:26:32 now at that point there are three documents that have been produced by
00:26:35 by the t the by bike's over right yes there's an existing fire safety strategy called draft which was pr which was dated the 16th of
00:26:46 dated the 16th of august 2012. there is a design note dated at the 12th of september 2012 and there is
00:26:57 2012 and there is a report uh issue one of an outline fire safety strategy for grenfell tower relating to the refurbishment dated the 31st of october 2012.
00:27:10 dated the 31st of october 2012. so those are three documents there is no document that is then produced until the 24th of october 2013. so when you arrive at the project there
00:27:21 so when you arrive at the project there are these three x over reports already in existence when did you first think you saw any of those
00:27:27 those 2012 documents i don't think i did ever see
00:27:30 see ever ever right so when do you think you first saw
00:27:36 first saw either the 24th of october 2013 outline fire safety strategy issue 2 or the third issue of that 7th of november 2013.
00:27:48 november 2013. i don't think i did you say you never saw any of those i don't recall i see
00:28:00 now you didn't see the reports so then coming back to my question did you ever become aware that xover had been involved either in
00:28:11 that xover had been involved either in assessing the building in its existing state
00:28:14 state or in in assessing the project to produce an outline fire safety strategy i think i was a were it's when we were recapping at higher
00:28:27 it's when we were recapping at higher with the professional team on how we got to where we were and there's probably a reference to a far strategy report but i never saw the report and i didn't
00:28:38 report and i didn't seek to look at the detail of it now the recapping exercise with the professional team
00:28:44 team yes when was that 2013 no 2014 when we stopped the project and we re-engaged the professional team and designers and we went through a
00:28:56 team and designers and we went through a process
00:28:57 process of understanding where they got to and in terms of their design was that after the tender to ryden no sorry after
00:29:08 after the tender to ryden no sorry after what i should say before the tender exercise yes that would have been before november 2013. yes so sometime between your arrival in february 2013 and november 2013. i would say it was
00:29:21 and november 2013. i would say it was probably between june to august that sort of right and who told you that xover had been involved
00:29:30 involved um
00:29:34 i believe i recall a conversation with paul duncan because i didn't i didn't
00:29:46 duncan because i didn't i didn't recognize the amex over but that they had that he had engaged on studio e's are appointed uh someone to do a fair strategy report
00:29:58 someone to do a fair strategy report that he had engaged on studio e's behalf someone to do it first yes so did he tell you did he give you the impression that he acting for the tmo had had
00:30:09 that he acting for the tmo had had engaged dicks over for studio e yes really okay um right what was your understanding
00:30:20 right what was your understanding either then or later about for whom xover was acting who was their client
00:30:28 the appointment my understanding was the appointment wasn't our name but they were working too studio way that was your understanding did you ever investigate
00:30:39 investigate no because at that time
00:30:43 there had been conversations um in terms of what had been happening before i arrived
00:30:54 happening before i arrived in terms of some of the other um designers working to studio e and this was just another example of that okay um
00:31:05 example of that okay um let's look and see if you ever saw a particular document which is the third issue issue three of the outline fire safety strategy of the
00:31:16 the outline fire safety strategy of the 7th of november 2013.
00:31:21 ex0401106
00:31:25 [Applause] now looking at its first page it says a report to studio e 7th of november 2013 issue 3. it's looking at its first page
00:31:37 looking at its first page do i take it that this is a document i think you've told us you've never seen at the time you had never seen at the time
00:31:44 that's correct right um whose job in the tmo would it have been to read this document do you think
00:31:57 i understand the time that wasn't for the tmo it was to assist studio e but if it needed to go to anyone
00:32:08 but if it needed to go to anyone in the tmo it would go to the health and csd team
00:32:12 csd team i see and with the health and just to be clear the health and safety team was run by janice ray that's correct was there any uh discussion or communications of any kind between
00:32:24 communications of any kind between janice ray's health and safety team and the grenfell tower project team which you were overseeing
00:32:35 there were discussions on site with janice ray and carl stokes and
00:32:46 stokes and claire in i believe at some stage looking at various issues but i don't think it related to the my understanding was already charles stokes having done a fair risk
00:32:58 charles stokes having done a fair risk assessment on renfrew tower okay well let's look at the first page of this document and i i i hear your answer that you thought this was done for studio e
00:33:09 thought this was done for studio e yes um and indeed looking at the first page one might be forgiven for thinking that
00:33:13 that can we go to the um the sec the second page and third page of this please
00:33:24 page and third page of this please uh that's the second page which shows you the revision history the third page which is the contents and you can see the contents there and looking at the proposed outline fire safety strategy
00:33:35 safety strategy it deals with compliances and then on the on the next page page four it deals with the introduction it has the introduction on it the proposed development is the refurbishment of grenfell tower a 24-storey residential block etc
00:33:48 24-storey residential block etc and the report is it says after the bullet points details the applicable statutory controls in respect to the fire safety and contains an outline fire safety strategy for compliance with these statutory controls
00:34:00 controls now leaving aside whether or not this document was complete or not for the moment is this not a document that you as the client would have expected to see
00:34:13 my understanding of the time was we needed fire risk assessments on our properties and i'd had an induction meeting with
00:34:25 induction meeting with janice ray who discussed
00:34:30 how she managed the fire risk assessment process
00:34:34 process who she used and what impact that might have on me
00:34:40 i was never briefed on any need for a fire strategy because my understanding was all we needed was a fire risk assessment
00:34:51 needed was a fire risk assessment i see so does that tell us that you even though you're a qualified were a qualified architect as you've explained to us overseeing this team did not think
00:35:02 overseeing this team did not think that you needed a fire engineers report or a fire safety strategy for the refurbishment
00:35:12 that's correct my understanding was from schemes i'd worked on we needed a fire risk assessment before we could
00:35:23 fire risk assessment before we could move tenants in at the end of the construction process
00:35:28 process because it dealt with the impact for tenants and how that was managed so i've never had or never been recommended the need
00:35:40 had or never been recommended the need for a
00:35:41 for a fair strategy report but i can understand it might be needed and considered by the designers
00:35:49 designers in designing a building
00:35:53 in general terms did you not did not occur to you to think that we the tmo need the benefit of a professional fire safety strategy
00:36:04 of a professional fire safety strategy for the refurbishment i didn't think because there already
00:36:16 i didn't think because there already had been a far strategy report prepared for studio waste benefit so no i didn't think that we needed it
00:36:28 so no i didn't think that we needed it because i thought the purpose of the report was to assist studio e
00:36:34 you say i felt the purpose of the report was to assist studio e if you didn't see the report at the time can you explain how you would have had any view about its purpose
00:36:46 because paul had referenced to me that he had engaged someone and i can't remember this because over the years the name didn't mean anything today for
00:36:57 the name didn't mean anything today for studio e
00:37:00 studio e why did did it not occur to you to ask him why
00:37:03 him why tmo had gone to the trouble of engaging a fire engineer for studio e as opposed to leaving it to studio e to engage a fire engineer for themselves
00:37:15 no there were lots of irregularities in the
00:37:20 the in the making appointments at that stage so
00:37:25 so it was just another one right when you came in it wouldn't be abnormal when you came into the project did you not undertake an exercise to find out who
00:37:33 who for the for the grenfell tower project had actually been engaged by tmo um we did it at a later stage yes why didn't you do it when you first came in as one of your first priorities
00:37:44 in as one of your first priorities um grenfell when i first came in was part of my portfolio i was new to the
00:37:55 i was new to the organization i had to understand what all my other project managers were doing and getting a status report in them so it wasn't the only thing i was
00:38:06 so it wasn't the only thing i was engaged on no i understand that yes but i just want to know why it was that one of your why didn't you ask someone to tell you uh who is who is it who are our contractors at the moment
00:38:17 it who are our contractors at the moment on the grenfell tower project
00:38:21 i knew her designers were i didn't feel the need
00:38:25 the need i was meeting with the design and professional team i see did nobody tell you
00:38:29 you even if you didn't ask uh that tmo had already engaged x over to produce an existing fire safety strategy and a design node
00:38:41 did anybody tell you that i've been told that a far strategy report had been carried out i didn't know it was related to an
00:38:52 i didn't know it was related to an existing building bar strategy or not because i hadn't seen the report did anybody tell you that the tma were paying xava's fees in relation to an uh in relation to the
00:39:04 in relation to an uh in relation to the outline fire safety strategy for the refurbishment paul had told me he had appointed them for studio e
00:39:12 maybe for studio is benefit yes did he tell you
00:39:15 tell you who xover's client was
00:39:21 in terms of appointment we would be the client but the report was they were to work with studio i understand yeah but you i think we're getting somewhere to understand that you understood that even if the appointment was for studio
00:39:34 even if the appointment was for studio e's benefit yes tma was still the the paying client yes and therefore as the paying client of xover
00:39:42 of xover yes my question is why didn't you then ask to see what you were paying for namely xover's work product
00:39:50 product because it had already been produced i believe the year before yeah i arrived
00:39:57 i arrived not all of it you see the one we're looking at at the moment was was not produced the year before you arrived it was produced during your tenure
00:40:04 tenure as someone in charge of this project and i just want to know why it is that given that you knew as you'd been told i think that the tmo was paying x over for its services even though they
00:40:15 x over for its services even though they were to be for the benefit of studio e you didn't want to see the reports as they came can you explain that
00:40:21 that it was when you said it was in charge of the project of i was the client on the project yes all right in charge of the client yeah the project then yeah so engaging with the professional team
00:40:34 so engaging with the professional team i'm listening to the professional team and what they're telling me if someone had said you need if someone had we didn't have any there
00:40:45 if someone had we didn't have any there was no detailed discussion about the fire strategy report i didn't know that it was for the existing building it was probably i understood a baseline
00:40:57 it was probably i understood a baseline report
00:40:59 report um on which they would build uh in terms of when they were progressing their design
00:41:08 this is what we've got and this is the impact of the changes you're gonna that you're proposing to do to the building can we go to page nine in this document
00:41:18 please we can see here at the top of the page it says 3.1.4 compliance with b4 external fire spread it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on
00:41:30 changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of the report at the time did you know that xover had given advice as we see there
00:41:41 given advice as we see there no at the time did you know even if you didn't see it in those terms that xover had said that they would need to confirm by a an analysis in a future report
00:41:53 by a an analysis in a future report whether or not the proposed changes did have an adverse effect on the exterior of the building so can you can you say that again did you know but let me try not simply
00:42:04 did you know but let me try not simply did did you know that xover had advised that they would need to produce another report to confirm their view
00:42:11 view that no i didn't know
00:42:14 can we then go to art402256 please these are the minutes of the contractors induction meeting of the 1st of april 2014.
00:42:26 2014. now
00:42:29 you can see that you were at that meeting along with claire williams and peter madison do you see that yes and again do i take it that you would have seen these minutes afterwards if we go to page four please
00:42:41 afterwards if we go to page four please we can look at the middle of the page at 0.5.3
00:42:45 0.5.3 under the heading ovation of designers and you can see at 5.3 that it says xover completed the fire strategy at the tender stage they have not been evaded but sl will contact
00:42:55 contact them with a with the view of using them going forward you see that yep do you remember a discussion at that meeting about that no but i recognize the minutes you recognize the minutes
00:43:06 recognize the minutes you don't remember a discussion at the meeting do you recognize or remember seeing the minutes after the meeting yes do you remember noticing that point there yes i'm saying you didn't recognize what did you understand
00:43:18 did you understand the note meant by completed the fire strategy
00:43:22 strategy what's what far strategy did you think it meant
00:43:29 the fire strategy was completed to assist
00:43:32 assist gdoe in their design proposals as part of the contractor's responsibility they were taking on in developing those designs haven't i
00:43:45 developing those designs haven't i entered into a contract with us it was up to them to decide what other um consultants and advice they needed to complete that design
00:43:59 so it was so what fire strategy did you think this was a reference to is there a document a presentation what do you think this
00:44:10 presentation what do you think this referred to the fair strategy report that we had just discussed i see so the seventh is this right the you thought that was a reference to the
00:44:21 you thought that was a reference to the 7th of november issue 3 outline fire safety strategy is that what you're saying or is it a different document
00:44:30 i don't think i was thinking which one i knew that that far strategy report had been carried out as part of the design process to assist studio e
00:44:41 the design process to assist studio e but you hadn't seen it i hadn't seen it i see
00:44:45 i see did you
00:44:50 did you what led you to think that it had been completed
00:44:56 and it says xover completed the fire strategy
00:44:59 strategy at the tender stage but what led you to think that it had been completed so it's not
00:45:06 it's not perhaps i should ask it slightly different did anybody say at the meeting that xover has completed the first strategy to which it is referring
00:45:14 referring i don't recall right now you knew i think at this stage that the choice of cladding hadn't been decided had it this is now april 2014.
00:45:28 this is now april 2014. there's a long story behind this and i could take a long time taking you through it but in short that's correct right yeah now given that the choice of cladding hadn't been decided at this point
00:45:37 point do you accept that any quotes completed on quotes fire strategy would have to be revised or revisited at least
00:45:46 least to take into account the cladding that was ultimately chosen
00:45:54 no i didn't think because i thought the first strategy report probably related to the changes we were making within the building internally and means of escape etc
00:46:06 internally and means of escape etc you you thought the fire strategy report probably related to yeah does that tell us that you didn't actually know um yes because my understanding was what we needed was a fire risk assessment
00:46:18 we needed was a fire risk assessment i'm assuming the first my assumption was the fire strategy report would probably look at the impact of the changes
00:46:26 changes we were making internally on whether that had any effect on the management of the building why did you make an assumption or to use your words probably
00:46:37 your words probably speculate rather than just saying well can i please see a copy of this report i want to see it i wouldn't normally it's a level of detail that
00:46:48 it's a level of detail that i didn't consider getting involved with you you say it's a level of detail but at this stage you're told there's a fire strategy you you you don't see it
00:46:59 don't see it you're told it's completed and yet you know that the cladding hasn't been chosen
00:47:03 chosen i just want to know why it is that you thought it had been completed learning hadn't been chosen well i didn't like this the clouding to the fire strategy report right
00:47:19 did you discuss this so-called completed fire strategy with claire williams or peter madison at any stage around the time of this meeting
00:47:30 [Applause] rolling forward to september 2014 when we know that the planning material consent was discharged in relation to the final cladding has chosen the smoke
00:47:43 final cladding has chosen the smoke silver duragloss did it occur to you at that stage to go back to studio e or to exit over what to ask studio e to go back to x over and get an up-to-date fire strategy
00:47:54 over and get an up-to-date fire strategy to take account of the cladding now that it had been finally chosen i didn't link the two things we were choosing the
00:48:05 which discussions on the cladding had related to how it looked
00:48:13 looked on cost um but not in terms of compliance or performance because that wasn't something that was negotiable
00:48:24 going back we didn't have those discussions yeah
00:48:28 i see so the answer is you simply didn't connect the two no can we go back to um
00:48:39 uh yes go back it's on the page in front of us item um 5.3 and i read this to you a moment ago it says x over have not been novated and just pausing there did did that mean
00:48:52 and just pausing there did did that mean anything to you when you read those words seeing this minute
00:48:59 that was at the meeting yes it was under the
00:49:02 the item of innovation of designers yes and it was just a factual um it was confirmed that gwen curtin would be innovated um etc it was just
00:49:16 would be innovated um etc it was just is for information that the [Music]
00:49:22 artelya were were passing over to or noting in the meeting um for confirming the status of those appointments
00:49:34 appointments you see on the face of it you're told xover has done has completed this fire safety strategy and they haven't been invaded did that not tell you that when they completed their
00:49:43 their fire strategy they did so on behalf of the tmo
00:49:50 one i didn't know they had to complete the strategy necessarily my responsibility for the design and progression of the design was with the contractor
00:50:03 was with the contractor we were not innovating it's over and and it was up to the contractor to decide how he wanted to progress through the design now you're
00:50:14 progress through the design now you're missing my point yeah we'll try it again we see the first sentence we've been through that yeah let me see the second part of
00:50:22 part of the second sentence first part they have not been evaded yeah when you saw the words they have not been evaded did that not tell you that xover up to that point had been and remained a professional
00:50:36 had been and remained a professional consultant directly to the tmo
00:50:42 it tells me that they had prepared a report
00:50:46 report the report was with the designers for their use in progressing the design and we they were not being innovative
00:50:57 and we they were not being innovative they were
00:50:58 they were not a designer who has been innovative it was
00:51:01 it was telling but it wasn't so much telling me it was telling the contractor you are responsible for whatever needs to be done to ensure compliance well
00:51:13 to ensure compliance well forgive forgive me this gift i'll have one more go and maybe i can't get anywhere with this but just on the face of it reading this document it says they x over have not been evaded did they not tell you
00:51:23 tell you that up to that point they were in direct contract with the tmo and cmo were xover's client
00:51:31 it told me they had my understanding was they had carried out they'd asked to carry out a piece of work they had carried out a piece of work that had been used in the design
00:51:42 that had been used in the design so i didn't have to think of the contractual arrangements any further looking at the rest of the sentence sl will contact them with the view of using them going forward
00:51:53 view of using them going forward now were you aware at this meeting of the continuing need for fire strategy advice
00:51:59 no that was something for the that was something that was the contractor's responsibility in in progressing the designs um yes but there's clear discussion s.l
00:52:11 yes but there's clear discussion s.l about about sl simon lawrence of ryden contacting x over with the view of using them going forward yeah was there any discussion at this meeting about the fact that ryden might very well need professional
00:52:23 ryden might very well need professional fire engineering no it was just a status of who has been innovated who was not being
00:52:31 being i see was there any discussion at all between you or claire williams or peter madison or all three of you about the need for continuing fast rates fire safety strategy advice from a professional such as xavier there was no discussion
00:52:43 such as xavier there was no discussion between
00:52:45 between the professional team in saying what we needed going forward can we move on
00:52:51 on to a different progress meeting this is now september 2014 this is some months down the track art art402797 please
00:53:07 i'm going to take the next few documents quite quickly because i think we can this is the progress meeting number three 16 september 2014 your present can we look at page two please point 1.4
00:53:20 please point 1.4 under the heading
00:53:24 minutes of previous meeting and it says uh sl to appoint other consultants to include
00:53:29 include fire after the main subcontractors are on board you see that yes do you recall a discussion about that at that meeting no but you noted it in the minutes did you um i would have scanned them the minutes
00:53:41 um i would have scanned them the minutes there was a lot of you remind me just the time period for this again this is 16th september 2014.
00:53:49 2014. because at this time there were a lot of actions that needed to be carried forward
00:53:54 forward yeah but would you have noted would you have noted that there was an outstanding appointment of fire consultants yeah no next document art403067
00:54:07 no next document art403067 which is the next progress meeting of the 21st of october 2014 and if we go to page two again we see exactly the same mantra at 1.1.2 with
00:54:19 mantra at 1.1.2 with you see that sl to appoint other consultants to include fire was there any discussion about that at that meeting i don't recall at any in discussions was there any concern
00:54:30 discussions was there any concern expressed at that meeting that this action had not been actioned as it were by this point late october 14. no because it was up to the contractor
00:54:42 no because it was up to the contractor to decide
00:54:43 to decide what assistance he needed in order to make the designs compliant and it wasn't something that we as a client would get involved with uh
00:54:55 would get involved with uh right so
00:54:59 right so you weren't come to this that even though the minutes down to this date this is between april and october showed that simon lawrence was to appoint fire consultants and he hadn't yet done so you weren't bothered by that
00:55:11 so you weren't bothered by that is that right it was up to the contract to decide side how he managed the design progression
00:55:23 how he managed the design progression and sign on yeah now you see ryden were your your your direct contractors by this point weren't they
00:55:29 they this is now or just about to be we are i think 10 days away from the signature of the contract but they've been working for you since since april in reality were you not concerned to say to simon lawrence look simon you've been talking
00:55:41 lawrence look simon you've been talking about appointing a fire uh consultant now since april why haven't you gone on and done it
00:55:50 i think my view would be that artelia as our employer's agent had a responsibility to ensure that the contractor was meeting
00:56:01 ensure that the contractor was meeting their
00:56:03 their obligations we were there solely as a client to
00:56:07 client to understand how things were going well did you not ask artelia to ask the question
00:56:14 question i didn't why is that i didn't think too right
00:56:17 right can we go to the next document art403150 this is progress meeting number five on the 18th of november 2014.
00:56:29 progress update again you're present together with mr madison and ms williams and if we go to uh
00:56:39 the next page
00:56:42 we see nothing there about appointing a fire consultant and as they mentioned in this minute at all did you notice that when you
00:56:53 all did you notice that when you right you didn't notice it when you saw the minutes do you recall whether you or anyone within the tma asked why the by now mantric uh intention of simon lawrence
00:57:05 mantric uh intention of simon lawrence to appoint a fire consultant had dropped off the agenda assume no one noticed it had dropped off
00:57:16 assume no one noticed it had dropped off right no one noticed yeah but things didn't normally drop off unless there had been an action completed
00:57:24 completed well exactly yeah and that's um leads to my next question was there actually a decision
00:57:29 decision for simon lawrence to stop doing what he was whatever he might have been doing to go about appointing a fire consultant i don't recall any discussion or did it just run into the sand and disappear
00:57:40 just run into the sand and disappear without anybody noticing it i think the the latter is probably the
00:57:50 i don't know all right now did you this is this is october it's 2014. did you know at this time
00:58:03 it's 2014. did you know at this time that in the previous month september 2014
00:58:07 2014 x over had been in contact with um studio e and giving advice to studio e on an ad hoc basis
00:58:18 hoc basis did you understand that they were in contact
00:58:21 contact with the tmo and we're providing advice on an
00:58:25 on an on an ad hoc basis no did you understand that x over was billing the tmo no you didn't know that okay
00:58:38 you didn't know that okay right can i turn to another topic altogether then um i'd like you to look please at your first witness statement uh at page 18.
00:58:52 and i'd like you to look please at paragraphs 95 to 101
00:58:59 this is a long passage but i'm going to read it all to you because i think it's important that not only you but also others watching to understand exactly what it is you say here
00:59:08 here 95 starts i recall however at one of our monthly design development meeting simon lawrence of ryden indicated that there was a disparity between the delivery times for insulation and rain screen and to avoid delaying
00:59:20 and rain screen and to avoid delaying the project he indicated that their intention to install the insulation first
00:59:23 first and fit the rain screen later this was the first i was aware that the two items were separate but it raised some concerns in my mind having then recently read recommendations following the latino house firing quest
00:59:35 following the latino house firing quest where i understood that a gap between the insulation and the rain screen had created a chimney flu effect which contributed to fire spread at the time of this discussion ryden were erecting the mass climbers to the tower
00:59:45 tower and have not then fitted any cladding other than the sample that was on display
00:59:48 display i had understood that the sample cladding to have rain screen flush with the insulation and it came as a surprise to me to learn that they were fitted separately this was shortly after planning commission had been given for amendments
00:59:59 commission had been given for amendments to the windows i raised this with simon lawrence as a matter of serious concern and asked him if he could give some assurance that we would not have a latino type problem with the separation of rain screen and insulation and if we could turn the page
01:00:10 insulation and if we could turn the page please
01:00:11 please to page 19. the meeting was chaired by philip booth of artelia and simon lawrence assured us that this would create no problem because and this is the critical point the materials used were completely inert and
01:00:23 materials used were completely inert and would not burn at all the meeting accepted his assurances in this regard and nothing came to my native subsequently prior to the fire to question that these assurances were not accurate the minutes of this meeting were
01:00:34 the minutes of this meeting were produced by artelia and they definitely existed because i recall reading them i recall that lachlan had been spelled incorrectly in the minutes i understand these minutes cannot be located in tma's files
01:00:45 files i have a clear recollection of the discussion and of the minute recording it
01:00:49 it my recollection is that it was raised at a design development meeting and the minute was produced in time for the next monthly meeting it was produced in hard form at that time and may not have been scanned onto the tmo system or received
01:01:00 the tmo system or received electronically i know i did not receive the minute electronically before the meeting because it was handed to me in hard form at the meeting until the occurrence of the fire at the grenfell tower i had always believed the cladding installed was inert
01:01:12 cladding installed was inert as has been assured by simon lawrence and i had no reason to consider otherwise
01:01:15 otherwise i cannot recall the date of the meeting but i have given some details in my statement as to when it was i think it may have been about march or april or march to april 2015
01:01:26 april or march to april 2015 or possibly earlier now i just want to explore that a bit now first
01:01:32 now first paragraph 96 if we can just go back to it you
01:01:35 it you you say there uh that you had recently read recommendations following the lachenal house fire inquest do you see that
01:01:46 inquest do you see that i had yes i do yes and and a paragraph 101 as we've just seen over the page you say that the relevant meeting may have taken place in march or april 2015
01:01:57 april 2015 or possibly earlier why do you think march or april 2015 in particular i was making a statement
01:02:13 some years after the event i had left the tmro
01:02:17 the tmro and this was by my best recollection i didn't have any background papers and but i could recall that the mass members were being erected
01:02:28 erected and the trigger to
01:02:32 ryden um
01:02:37 they were um
01:02:42 appointing the pressing the order for the rain screen at that time and they couldn't place the order for the rain screen
01:02:54 order for the rain screen until we had confirmation that the window amendment had been accepted that's my right collection because that would have meant changes to the
01:03:06 would have meant changes to the detailing
01:03:07 detailing of the green screen right do you accept that as a matter of public record the lachenal house rule 43 recommendations from those inquests were made by the coroner
01:03:18 made by the coroner on the 28th of march 2013. you may not know that but take it from either that's when they were right right said and that's just about a month after you arrived at the tmo
01:03:31 month after you arrived at the tmo okay right yep uh now ryden weren't appointed until march 2014 a year later so the recommendations themselves cannot have been recent
01:03:44 cannot have been recent no i just remember reading a passage that said one of the contributing factors and i just dealt on the rain screen it was a very short passage and i assumed it was hse or
01:03:58 passage and i assumed it was hse or bre publication we often got that type of circular at health and safety briefings
01:04:10 circular at health and safety briefings whether before our well my previous organization are the tmo right if anything was relevant we passed on to us i do recall this perhaps it was
01:04:21 on to us i do recall this perhaps it was a newspaper okay article i don't know but i do remember the connection between
01:04:30 it was a cavity that had attributed to the spread of fire 23 on page eight because you you refer to the hse
01:04:41 because you you refer to the hse document there you can just go to that second witness statement t doubles it yep yes in paragraph 23 this is where you you uh you deal with this and you say
01:04:53 this and you say in the fourth line down it was only during that meeting when i learned from the contractors that they were to be installed separately that i recall a learning or advice note circulated by the hsc following the fire at latino house that noted that the cladding
01:05:05 house that noted that the cladding had acted as a flu or a chimney i raised these concerns in the meeting and simon lawrence of ryden responded by assuring me that the rain screen and the insulation were completely inert and would not burn at all i believe those were the exact words used
01:05:18 those were the exact words used now um can you i just want to see whether you can help us with any detail on this note was it specifically prepared about lachnal house
01:05:30 no it was a very i just remember it was a very short passage it could even have been a reference to a newspaper article right a very short passage in what can you remember the document what was it
01:05:41 you remember the document what was it no i think it was a standalone cutting i seem to remember cutting from where it could have been a newspaper it could have been it
01:05:54 first of all can i ask you to go to tm01039094
01:06:01 this is a paper by janice ray yeah and it's four pages long and this is the first page briefing note on lap fire at latin house southwark and we can see from the fourth page it's dated
01:06:12 dated uh the june 2013. you can see that at the bottom might this have been the document um it might be if it references the
01:06:25 um it might be if it references the the um
01:06:29 the gap between the far this the rain screen and the insulation let's go back to page two well let's go back to page one first of all so you're after something that's that's the flu effect yes
01:06:40 the flu effect yes right um
01:06:45 right um yes i don't think there's anything on that page and i'm not going to stand here and take you through it by line by line but but is that a document you recognize yes it is yes let's let's go to uh the
01:06:56 yes it is yes let's let's go to uh the third page then page three
01:07:02 uh there's nothing on this document about
01:07:06 about about the flu effect this is a document about tmo's current position and approach in light of latino recommendations do you see that yes and uh that's how it continues and there's
01:07:17 uh that's how it continues and there's also reference to shirley caught fire so you're you think this is a document in which there was a a reference to the flu effect of the fire that was the only the bit that i recall
01:07:32 the article from wherever it was focused on
01:07:35 on the rain screen and the void contributing to the spread of fire so it wasn't a bigger document it was a very short piece
01:07:46 short piece i see let's go then to uh tmo double zero eight four one four two eight
01:07:53 eight tmo double zero 841428 these are minutes from the health and safety committee meeting also of june 2013 where the paper we've just been looking at was presented by janice ray can we look at page four
01:08:06 by janice ray can we look at page four and look under paragraph six under the heading lachnal house
01:08:15 and it says a briefing note was circulated showing a timeline for the escalation of the fatal fire there was a discussion about the factors and uh
01:08:22 and uh it recommended i outline the recommendations made by the coroner is that i don't think there's anything in that which would have prompted you to think about the chimney effect or the gap or void
01:08:34 the chimney effect or the gap or void between the rain screen and the insulation right is that right yes don't even see anything in there at all
01:08:51 anything in there at all [Applause] uh can i then take you to the evidence of simon lawrence on the rain screen and this discussion generally
01:09:04 to the inquiry and his evidence uh to the inquiry was on day 24 at page 169
01:09:15 and i want to put what he said to you directly if i may at line 14 and i'm asking him the questions
01:09:23 questions uh you can see that i put to him in paragraph 95 of your statement and i read it out to you to him and indeed paragraph 96 as well
01:09:34 to him and indeed paragraph 96 as well and then i also read paragraph 1998 to him
01:09:38 him uh and to if you go to um line 14.
01:09:47 uh on the next page at page one six nine if you could just have that up uh i say to him i ask him do you recall mr gibson raising this matter with you at a meeting
01:09:58 with you at a meeting answer no not at all question right it's not really a question an answer rain screen by the nature of rain screen there is a gap between rain screen and insulation so no i don't recall this at
01:10:10 insulation so no i don't recall this at all then over the page at page 170 at line six uh i ask him and i i've put um your uh
01:10:22 um your uh statement in paragraph
01:10:26 99 in your statement where you refer to the meeting being chaired by philip booth
01:10:32 booth and then at line six i asked him did you give such an assurance to mr gibson and he says no i don't agree with that statement at all and then if you look down at line 17 on
01:10:43 and then if you look down at line 17 on the same page uh after you're referencing to paragraph 100 to the minutes i ask him i think you're saying you're clear in your mind you've never seen
01:10:54 clear in your mind you've never seen such minutes answer no and then over the page at 171
01:11:01 uh at page 171 i i say to him uh
01:11:08 uh at line 10 or line eight now that's his witness statement can you comment on that on that
01:11:16 that no i i don't agree i'm sorry i've misread that answer i don't agree with it at all
01:11:21 it at all right so you say mr gibson is wrong answer yes right now leaving aside mr gibson's recollection did you ever yourself personally assure him that the cladding at grenfell was to use his word
01:11:33 at grenfell was to use his word inert answer no i wouldn't give technical assurances unless i had that information from the designers or specialists you see that
01:11:44 or specialists you see that do you accept what mr lawrence says there that by the very nature of rain screen cladding there is always a gap between the rain screen and the insulation if you go back to my statement
01:11:58 we have been talking about
01:12:06 sems which by their very nature has insulation within the construction so my under my perhaps i didn't
01:12:18 so my under my perhaps i didn't understand because i never asked the question but my assumption at that stage was this was something that was manufactured off-site with the insulation within it
01:12:31 with the insulation within it i didn't realize that was possibly true and we had additional insulation that was fitted separately so until this point
01:12:42 as we never had any discussion about compliance issues etc on the range screen
01:12:48 screen i had no reason to to ask the question it was only the trigger was the void under fitting the insulation separately
01:12:59 under fitting the insulation separately that was a trigger for my question
01:13:04 you just now referred to acms which by the very nature has insulation within the construction but i thought in your statement you were saying that what had triggered your request was the realization that was
01:13:16 request was the realization that was that there was a gap between the insulation and the rain screen are you now saying what triggered your recollection or your request
01:13:25 request was the discovery that the rain screen had what you call an insulation core no right my assumption was that the rain screen was
01:13:37 was that the rain screen was an off-site manufactured panel containing the insulation
01:13:43 the trigger for this was that they were fitting they could be fitting insulation ahead of the rain screen does this tell us that until march or april 2015
01:13:55 april 2015 you didn't know that the rain screen system being fitted to grenfell tower comprised an insulation board being applied to the concrete curtain
01:14:06 being applied to the concrete curtain wall with a void and then a rain screen over the top of it i had only ever considered the ancillary the the aesthetic of how it looked
01:14:19 the aesthetic of how it looked on getting that accepted by planners that was the only discussion really we were having so you didn't understand that there were a number of different components to the rain screen namely insulation and leave aside cavity
01:14:31 namely insulation and leave aside cavity barriers for the present present purposes and a separate rain screen panel yes you didn't you didn't think you didn't understand even that no i hadn't thought about it no i had thought about it but i made an
01:14:42 no i had thought about it but i made an assumption that
01:14:45 by simon lawrence telling me that in order to maintain program having placed the order for the rain screen he was going to start fitting
01:14:56 he was going to start fitting the insulation separate that's what triggered
01:15:00 triggered the query because i hadn't appreciated that the two things were separated before do you accept that for an educated professional client like the tma
01:15:11 like the tma not to understand that the rain screen comprise the number of different products and components was a pretty major
01:15:19 major misunderstanding i accept but haven't not been involved in a cladding an overclouding project before that i hadn't considered it we'd always
01:15:32 that i hadn't considered it we'd always talked about we never talked about the insulation separately we talked about the level of thermal efficiency we needed to achieve
01:15:42 mr chairman is that a convenient moment uh did it suit you uh yes to finish this topic off we'll take more than five minutes and i certainly don't want to trespass into the break
01:15:51 the break no all right well um mr gibson i think this is probably a good a good time for us to have a mid-afternoon break okay so we'll stop now we'll come back at 25 to 4
01:16:02 to 4 and uh please don't talk to anyone while you're out of the room about your evidence or anything relating to it all right thank you very much you'd like to give the usher please
01:16:22 thank you 25-4 please
01:34:56 yes would you ask mr gibson to rejoin us please thank you
01:35:09 right mr gibson ready to carry on mr gibson and can we go to your second witness statement we're still on the subject of this assurance that you say you were given by
01:35:21 assurance that you say you were given by mr
01:35:22 mr mr lawrence uh uh uh paragraphs 22 and 23 on page eight of that please that's tmo double zero eight four two three one zero
01:35:33 three one zero twenty two and i'll show you these two paragraphs you say i've been asked to provide further information in relation to the meeting discussed at paragraphs 87 to 105 of my earlier statement of the inquiry
01:35:43 inquiry i cannot recall the specific date of this meeting nor can i recall the precise wording used in the hard copy of the minutes however i distinctly remember the word lacanal had been spelt incorrectly i do not believe i ever received an electro
01:35:54 not believe i ever received an electro electronic copy of the minute of this meeting i've been asked what precisely i meant when in the earlier meeting i asked for an assurance that we would not have a lachnal type problem with the separation of the rain screen and the insulation
01:36:06 screen and the insulation prior to that meeting i believed i had believed that the cladding and the insulation were manufactured off-site as an all-in-one it was only during that meeting when i learned from the contractors that they were to be installed separately that i recalled
01:36:16 recalled a learning or advice note circulated by the hse following the fire at national house
01:36:21 house that noted that the cladding had acted as a flu or a chimney i raised these concerns in the meeting and simon lawrence of ryden responded by assuring me that the rain screen and the insulation were completely inert and would not burn at all
01:36:32 would not burn at all i believe that those are the exact words used and we looked at that before just pausing there um you also say paragraph 103 of your first witness statement
01:36:41 statement page 19. we don't need to get back to it that you noticed on the minute that you refer to that lachnal had been spelt incorrectly how had it been spelled
01:36:50 spelled lincoln hall it l-i-k-e-n-h-a-l-l like and hall okay that's a very clear recollection you have yes right um now given that you were so
01:37:02 yes right um now given that you were so concerned about this issue as appears from these two witness statements that you've you've signed um
01:37:10 signed um that you not only raised it and sought an assurance but also checked the minutes once you had a hard copy of them did it not occur to you that this was the ideal time to check the fire safety strategy that had been produced by x
01:37:22 strategy that had been produced by x over
01:37:26 no because i didn't understand what was in
01:37:29 in our strategy
01:37:33 it may have been an ideal um i think my expectation was that i had raised it they've been given an assurance
01:37:41 assurance and i accept the assurance but in terms of um the employer's agent role and checking compliance with the
01:37:52 and checking compliance with the contract i had raised an issue i've been given an assurance and that there would something would happen in the background and i realize it was incorrect right was it not a good
01:38:06 it was incorrect right was it not a good time to ask ryden what their fire consultant had said about it so far as you thought that they had one
01:38:15 no i was because simon lawrence had given me what what expected i suppose was for simon lawrence to say i don't know i'll check it out yes
01:38:28 i don't know i'll check it out yes exactly
01:38:28 exactly and did you not follow up whether or not he had checked it out no because he came back
01:38:33 back with such a firm response to me that i thought they had done this before he knows the materials and i've just assumed something wrong
01:38:44 and i've just assumed something wrong about
01:38:45 about the insulation you say he came back with such a firm response yeah does that tell us that you made a request to him and then he went away and came back no i mean when i raised the query his response was
01:38:57 when i raised the query his response was immediate i see so he's because of his immediate response you were confident that he already checked it out is that what you're telling us i was confident that he knew what materials he was fitting
01:39:10 materials he was fitting is there any reason why you didn't chase up the finalized version of the note of the meeting which which set in very clear terms in black and white
01:39:17 white the assurance that had been given so you were satisfied it was there in the record
01:39:23 record no this was the first sort of i can go back a little bit
01:39:30 because i'm making it after the first few
01:39:34 few progress meetings and we're probably talking about late summer early autumn of 2014 2014 right
01:39:45 the meetings as they were then constructed were getting quite lengthy philip booth had said from going forward
01:39:56 philip booth had said from going forward he wanted to do the meetings in two parts
01:39:59 parts the second half dealing only with the things he needed to deal with in terms of
01:40:06 terms of the progress report
01:40:10 that was minuted separately on this the first half of the meeting was also minuted separately and that dealt with issues of the contractor given us an update on
01:40:23 the contractor given us an update on where he was with his design progression so it wasn't a design meeting as such it was a feedback meeting and was looking at activities that were happening
01:40:34 happening in the next month so that we have warning of anything that we needed to take
01:40:39 take action on in terms of um
01:40:44 us planned we were aware of any decisions that might need to be made so these two meetings were minuted quite separately they probably lasted for a period of four to six months
01:40:56 four to six months they certainly had stopped or stopped when neil
01:41:00 when neil reed had taken on it was only philip boo that was ever attended those meetings but they were quite separate meetings amended separately so did i think to to check no i just assumed that this for the
01:41:13 no i just assumed that this for the first time we'd received the minutes late i thought the check that it had been minuted but i didn't expect that the whole series of meetings wouldn't be available see i i'm going to suggest this to you that
01:41:23 that given the importance you uh placed upon the request and the res and the confidence of the response a professional in your position at the time would i suggest to you have
01:41:35 at the time would i suggest to you have ensured that whichever minute it was in it was at least recorded clearly in a minute
01:41:42 minute but that's what i did and it wasn't because we haven't seen it okay but i had the minutes i was handed the minutes i checked them at the meeting because i had been looking for the
01:41:54 because i had been looking for the minutes
01:41:55 minutes before the meeting and that was important enough for me to remember to check
01:41:59 check so that was why i remember receiving these minutes late opening them up and checking for that minute you see neither the tmo nor artelia nor ryden indeed nobody has
01:42:10 nor artelia nor ryden indeed nobody has been able
01:42:12 been able to find the minute you're talking about can you explain why that is no i can't because i have a clear record of these meetings right and let me put the question again to you perhaps slightly differently somebody in your position would have
01:42:24 somebody in your position would have ensured that not only was the assurance you were given minuted but that the minute was safely retained in a file for later use if need be why wasn't it
01:42:36 having seen the minutes i didn't see any reason to not expect that it would be that we had a copy of it now let's look and see what claire williams says about this incident
01:42:49 williams says about this incident for your understanding mr gibson she doesn't refer to it anywhere in her first witness statement she addresses it in her in her statement of the 2nd of september 2019 which she signed nine months after your
01:43:01 which she signed nine months after your first statement where you raised it and i want to show you paragraph 64 of her statement to page 15. this is [Music]
01:43:09 [Music] three one tm00842312 please at page fifteen
01:43:14 and she uh says at sixty four i i do recall that during an early site meeting my line manager david gibson asked about the performance and fire retardancy of
01:43:26 the performance and fire retardancy of the cladding materials proposed by ryden david's query was whether the cladding proposed could have the same effect as the cladding installed at lachnal house should a fire take place i recall he sought assurance from ryden
01:43:38 sought assurance from ryden that an incident such as the fire at latino house would not take place i've been advised in preparing the statement that the minutes of this meeting cannot be located i was given a hard copy of the minutes by artelia during the meeting and i
01:43:49 by artelia during the meeting and i recall standing in the tmo office and reading them out to david and handing him a copy i do not recall scanning the minutes into our system and saving them
01:44:00 now she says that that was an early sight meeting now that would suggest spring 2014 not the spring of 2015. do you agree
01:44:11 not the spring of 2015. do you agree with that
01:44:14 no my
01:44:18 it was quite lit it was i think it was after the planning amendments to the windows that was a trigger for ordering being able to place the order or
01:44:29 or the ring screen or the the cladding um that couldn't happen until planning amendment had been received
01:44:40 planning amendment had been received and i know that planning amendment was received
01:44:43 received in the first week of 2010 january 15th yes
01:44:53 it doesn't accord with your recollection of the mass climbers being erected because they were erected in august 2014. i've said the master liners were being erected
01:45:05 erected well they started to be erected in the started the moss climbers were under erection for many months there was there were i think two of them had to be relocated
01:45:16 i think two of them had to be relocated other
01:45:17 other issues with access to there was a problem
01:45:21 problem and so they were out of sequence but no works at this stage had begun to the external
01:45:33 to the external fabric the windows hadn't arrived the windows hadn't been ordered no only the moss climbers were in place ready for the insulation screen
01:45:44 ready for the insulation screen might you be mistaken about this date
01:45:48 you say march april 15 or possibly an earlier date might be mistaken about march april 15 well as i said most people are when i was doing this i was doing it from my
01:46:00 was doing this i was doing it from my rec collection my recollection is clear and i was trying to replace it in a point of time and the point of time was
01:46:07 was the order couldn't be placed for the rain screen until the window planning amendment had been received that was a trigger for placing those
01:46:19 that was a trigger for placing those orders
01:46:20 orders and simon lawrence had been talking about he placed the order for the rain screen and in order to mitigate any delays in the program further delays in the program um he
01:46:33 further delays in the program um he would commence with he would able to start the fitting of the insulation so i'm quite clear about that part i understand yeah might you be mistaken about the
01:46:45 yeah might you be mistaken about the context in which this discover discussion took place no might it have not been a meeting at all no
01:46:53 no no no paragraph 99 of your first statement you say that the meeting you recall was chaired by phil booth of artelia
01:47:00 artelia now we've asked mr booth about that and he recalled no such occasion that's his first witness statement of paragraph 173 which is in the record and also at the same he said at day 50 page 77
01:47:14 at the same he said at day 50 page 77 lines 4 to 14 perhaps i should show you that
01:47:18 that day 50 page 77 lines 4-14 and he says
01:47:32 i was definitely not at a meeting that was discussed all the meetings i was at were minuted we produced them it may i didn't go to design development meetings because i wasn't part of the design at that time
01:47:43 design at that time so i'm not saying it didn't happen it may well have happened but it wasn't a meeting that i was at so i don't have any recollection of that discussion point at all okay and all of our other meetings have got clear
01:47:54 of our other meetings have got clear minutes issued for them yes so maybe it was a ryden meeting he remembers but i wasn't there do you ever recall anyone using the word inert or completely inert in the context of the cladding materials no
01:48:07 and it goes on to say not other than that one email they didn't have and the email is
01:48:12 email is one will come to in a moment that's that's his evidence now that's what he recalls are you saying that he's mistaken in his recollection mr mr gibson
01:48:23 recollection mr mr gibson i have a clear recall
01:48:28 and he has a series of minute meetings that i have not seen a clear recollection of the progress meeting
01:48:38 meeting of philip bowie saying he wanted to streamline progress meeting we were going to have two meetings going forward
01:48:47 forward one was before the other there was a nutshell break and at that time simon lawrence generally went away to to print his
01:48:56 print his report for the next meeting but they were ministered separately mr gibson just help me with this in the ordinary course of events how many copies
01:49:06 copies of the minutes of any given meeting would
01:49:09 would would be held by the tmo do you can you recall um
01:49:16 we should hold one copy on the project file yeah yes i mean reading um
01:49:27 yes i mean reading um miss williams evidence a little early her account suggested that when you got back from the meeting or after the meeting there were at least two copies in your hands probably
01:49:38 two copies in your hands probably one you held and one she held was that likely my recollection differs from plurs my recollection was
01:49:49 plurs my recollection was because the first meeting was in the community room um the old caretaker's office and by the next meeting we had held our i think our first meeting in the
01:50:00 the um in what was the housing management office and we started holding the meetings there because i can recall where we were sitting i recall
01:50:12 sitting i recall looking for the minutes in advance i recall i was set beside claire when i looked at the minutes and i recalled turning to her and said it's been minuted she also says so i'm sorry mr chairman
01:50:24 she also says so i'm sorry mr chairman no no that's right uh help me thank you every question um this is a reference to paragraph 65 of miss williams's statement we looked at a moment ago where she said i do not recall scanning the minutes into our system and saving them
01:50:36 system and saving them have you any explanation as to why she failed to scan the minutes into the system and save them
01:50:45 perhaps they were never issued well if she held the document in her hands sorry scanning yes she her evidence is she had
01:50:56 scanning yes she her evidence is she had the minutes yep the hard copy minutes and and remembers reading them out to you in the tmo office and handing you a copy she says i do not recall scanning the minutes into our system and saving them
01:51:07 minutes into our system and saving them and i'm just asking you for an explanation as to why that might have been the case why she didn't scan correct because we wouldn't normally scan the meetings and we would normally get
01:51:17 our expectation is we would get hard copies of meetings that received directly onto the system and that was generally what happened yes yeah and she says i do not recall scanning the minutes into our system and
01:51:29 scanning the minutes into our system and saving them and i just want to know why that was sorry i must have misunderstood because was the reference well what was the not let's take it slowly what was the normal system for filing
01:51:40 what was the normal system for filing minutes of these meetings at the tma project manager would file the meetings um
01:51:48 um sorry um we would all receive copies in advance i would print mine off scan for actions read of the rest of the minutes depending on on time etc
01:52:00 minutes depending on on time etc so i'm prepared for the next meeting and we generally got them well in advance so that's why i recall i had remem you know this was an important
01:52:11 remem you know this was an important point to me at the time i just want to make sure it was it was recorded and i was happy well i've been looking for the minutes received them for the first time
01:52:22 received them for the first time handed out at the meetings but my expectation was that we would have received later uh that copy again electronically
01:52:35 and would would claire williams's practice to be to scan the minutes that you received of the of the previous meeting into the system
01:52:43 system and save them i don't know what her practice was but there was an expectation that minutes would be saved onto the system right and can you account for the fact that
01:52:55 and can you account for the fact that the tmo has no such minute on its system i cannot would that be a one-off failure of record-keeping or does it indicate a deeper failure of the tmo in its
01:53:06 deeper failure of the tmo in its record-keeping generally there should be a series of meetings so i my understanding is that we
01:53:19 so i my understanding is that we haven't been able to we haven't no one has been able to find the series of meetings not just a one-off meeting series of meetings separate from the
01:53:30 series of meetings separate from the progress meetings that went on for four or five months that would rather suggest that the tma's record-keeping for this project was less than perfect if i could be polite would that be fair as you put it yes
01:53:45 um can i then ask you to look at some emails sent by claire williams relating to latino house and the first one i want to show you is art four zeros eight seven nine four please this is the 12th of november
01:53:58 four please this is the 12th of november 2014.
01:53:59 2014. now
01:54:01 now [Applause]
01:54:05 you were not copied in on this at all but let's start um if we can on the second page of this this is an email to philip booth and nick valente of artelia at 10 36 on that day
01:54:16 at 10 36 on that day um you can see that at the middle of the page under the heading cladding and claire williams says in her email
01:54:25 email i've just been looking at the cladding as our database is asking for costs i've put something together however i do not know if there's any issue of flame retardance requirement i know
01:54:36 flame retardance requirement i know lachnal house spelt l-a-c-k-l-n-a-l house one issue was that the replacement paneling for the asbestos cladding was not flame retardant i don't know if this is in the
01:54:47 i don't know if this is in the specification but i wanted to make sure it is raised please advise i'm just looking at the spelling of lachnal there that's obviously a misspelling yes and
01:54:58 that's obviously a misspelling yes and then you gave us the spelling you spotted
01:55:00 spotted you said earlier on the minute that's different is it yes it is um now you weren't copied in on this email
01:55:07 email but do you remember having a discussion with claire williams at this time about a question of an issue of flame retardance no we did not no you didn't right so you
01:55:19 no we did not no you didn't right so you know you didn't have a discussion or you don't recall one we did not have one i see
01:55:26 because you see you said you she sat opposite you yes so you didn't before she sent this email she didn't discuss it with you is that right
01:55:33 right that's correct right uh and then we can see
01:55:36 see the reply on page one if we go to that timed at 4 55 that same day 10 12th of november 2014 and phil booth says in response i had a
01:55:48 and phil booth says in response i had a quick review of the nbs spec in the tender documents for cladding and it does specify the cladding must comply with the following standards one of which i would anticipate requires flame retardance however as a client i suggest you seek
01:56:00 however as a client i suggest you seek clarification from ryden and then he sets up three uh standards you can see that they're identified there
01:56:10 then can we go please to the next document a ryd3023468 please
01:56:23 this is an email the same day at 1704 so only a few minutes after phil booth's response to claire williams and it's from claire williams to simon lawrence
01:56:34 from claire williams to simon lawrence of grenfell copying phil booth in subject grenfell cladding simon i'm just writing to get clarification on the fire retardance of the new cladding i just had a lachnal quotes unquote
01:56:46 i just had a lachnal quotes unquote misspelt
01:56:47 misspelt moment and then she sets out three standards which she's cut and pasted clearly from the uh email that phil booth had sent her you see that
01:56:58 sent her you see that now um did you see this email at the time nope you didn't uh did you discuss this response that she was sending to simon lawrence at the time not aware of this at the time
01:57:10 of this at the time all right um
01:57:14 let me just ask one question might this be the occasion when you saw lagnal misspelt in a document no and are confusing it with the occasion about
01:57:25 inaudible okay because you see here is the very request that you say you put to simon lawrence that claire williams is putting to simon
01:57:36 that claire williams is putting to simon lawrence on the 12th of november 2014 at 1704
01:57:40 1704 you see i see that now can i then ask you to look at an email that you received on the 4th of february 2015
01:57:52 2015 um at tm01 triple zero eight seven double zero
01:57:58 and before i ask you questions about this so let's have it up on the screen first of all it's a an email run from you to jenny jackson copy to janice ray
01:58:09 ray and lisa to jesus that's how you pronounce it and it's got an attachment to it lfb fire safety and refurbished buildings audit tool report letter to burrows fire safety audit tool
01:58:21 letter to burrows fire safety audit tool letter to lb city of westminster and then lfb about lack of fire compartmentation four documents and you asked jenny jackson jenny can we incorporate this into the pep for the framework
01:58:33 framework now what i'm interested in is what documents those are before i ask you about them can i just ask you about the lachlan moment email
01:58:43 email we haven't found any response that simon lawrence ever gave to the lachman moment email that was sent by
01:58:50 sent by claire williams on the 12th of november did claire williams ever come to you at any stage after that date and say i haven't had a response from simon lawrence
01:59:01 simon lawrence what should we do about it i wasn't aware of the email and we didn't have a discussion when you asked as you say you asked the question of simon lawrence at the
01:59:11 at the meeting to which you preferred earlier were you aware that claire williams had asked the very same question of simon lawrence in the november of the previous year according to your time you weren't i see
01:59:23 according to your time you weren't i see can you explain how both of you had this concern and neither of you had discussed it with the other i can't it's odd isn't it though i don't think so
01:59:33 think so and it's strange that you would both have this private concern about whether the rain screen was combustible and yet didn't share it with each other
01:59:46 when you say we didn't share it with each other when i raised the query cler was in the meeting
01:59:52 meeting exactly yes so but mine was it later did indeed yes so did she not say to you that's funny i've already asked that question of simon lawrence she didn't yeah because you see you've
02:00:05 she didn't yeah because you see you've both had separate latino moments if i can put it that way and not share them well with the with each other can you account for that claire was in attendance when i raised
02:00:16 claire was in attendance when i raised my query um in terms of claire's everyday work she would not there's no need for me to be involved in these
02:00:27 be involved in these discussions you know she was doing her job
02:00:31 job if she had a query she raised the query okay um
02:00:41 okay um looking at the substance of this email then we can we can see that um the email below the one uh that i've shown you is from lisa to
02:00:52 uh that i've shown you is from lisa to jesus
02:00:53 jesus and please do correct my pronunciation if i've got that wrong is that a correct pronunciation of her name i think it's probably dejesus but it's it's at uh um i think a common
02:01:04 it's it's at uh um i think a common yeah um and she's sending janice ray adrian bowman you and alex bosman these documents and she says she's they've been sent to her by building control
02:01:17 to her by building control and underneath that you can see john allen sending her those documents so that's the chain and if you go to page two
02:01:28 and if you go to page two we can see the third paragraph um and this is john allen telling um the recipient of this email
02:01:39 um the recipient of this email in the third paragraph this this this correspondence results from the findings of the latino house inquiry the fire authority wish to engage with those involved in the refurbishment and repair of their property portfolio i'm therefore
02:01:51 property portfolio i'm therefore forwarding it to you if you do not feel this is appropriate please let me know and i will contact the fire authority i've also forwarded this to amy and the director of corporate property
02:02:02 director of corporate property now let's look at one of the attachments to your email at the very top of this string
02:02:06 string and this is tmo10042977
02:02:14 this is a letter sent by the deputy commissioner of the lfb in respect of fire safety and refurbished buildings dated the 5th of january 2015
02:02:25 january 2015 you can see that
02:02:29 and say this is about a month old and if you look at the second paragraph of the text
02:02:35 text it says in our experience buildings can and do
02:02:38 and do become compromised in fire safety terms as a result of refurbishment works we are all aware of high profile cases but the brigade regularly comes across many other examples i attached some pen pictures at appendix
02:02:50 i attached some pen pictures at appendix one you will see that in one case a fire death was a consequence we consider that refurbishment works that compromise fire safety pose a serious risk to the safety of residents and the general public
02:03:01 residents and the general public and that therefore authorities need a strategy for assessing that risk and for taking appropriate remedial action the audit tool which is enclosed is designed to help authorities to examine whether their policies and practices
02:03:12 whether their policies and practices are sufficiently rigorous in considering fire safety when refurbishment projects are undertaken now that letter was clearly relevant to the tma wasn't it
02:03:24 which is why you received it yes yes and it was clearly relevant to the refurbishment of grenfell tower in particular wasn't it yes and we see that you forwarded it to janice ray
02:03:35 janice ray and john borrow did you forward it to anybody working on the grenfell tower project itself such as claire williams for example i don't really
02:03:45 really recollect doing so i think i was looking at
02:03:48 at my feature work on the decisions had been made
02:03:53 been made on grenfell why didn't you send it to claire williams i didn't think to no but why not well by putting it in the project the pep
02:04:04 pep for the framework it would have eventually got the cler and was that pep was for use by all project managers in terms of setting up our framework on
02:04:15 in terms of setting up our framework on how we were going to be delivering programs going forward so she would have eventually got to see it but i didn't see any urgency in doing it because i wasn't linking it to
02:04:27 doing it because i wasn't linking it to grenfell at that time i was linking it to how we planned and dealt with future works
02:04:36 well you say future works it's as clear as it can be isn't it that it says that it's an audit tool being designed to help authorities consider fire safety when refurbishment projects are undertaken did this not
02:04:48 projects are undertaken did this not ring an alarm bell with you that here was grenfell tower a refurbishment project being undertaken and you needed to go through and use this audit tool in order to consider fire safety in respect of it
02:05:03 i didn't i know and i just wonder why
02:05:08 because i think grenfell was quite advanced by that stage and we were on site this is january 15 january 15th yes yeah so the design had been done so i was
02:05:19 so the design had been done so i was looking at right just make sure we incorporate this into our future works program and into the considerations um while we're planning a future project did you look at the audit
02:05:32 future project did you look at the audit tool
02:05:33 tool i can't recall well let's look at it it's a tmo one double zero four two nine five six please
02:05:46 um there it is does it's a fairly striking first page does it bring a bell with you
02:05:55 not necessarily it's got a question mark in the shape of a tower block oh i didn't
02:06:03 um and it's fire safety and refurbished buildings and the first paragraph says london fire brigade is concerned about the arrangements in place for protecting the fire safety precautions of a building
02:06:12 building especially if it has been refurbished or if any modification or maintenance projects have been carried out it's a pretty clear flag that this document is of particular pertinence in respect of the grenfell tower project you were
02:06:24 grenfell tower project you were undertaking at the time no i accept that yeah but i don't think you did you look at it do you remember i can't recall well let's see look at the project tune
02:06:36 well let's see look at the project tune i think that might trigger
02:06:41 right well let's look at that then indeed let's go to section two it's divided into a number of sections uh
02:06:48 uh and let's look at section two and the introduction
02:06:54 um and we need for that i'm sorry sorry page i guess page three this part of the audit tool is focused on whether there has been effective multidisciplinary working
02:07:05 effective multidisciplinary working and that the appropriate professional disciplines have been involved in the planning for the works the questions could be applied to individual projects or they could be addressed as wider policy issues some of the questions may be thought to overlap
02:07:16 the questions may be thought to overlap however this has the effect of verifying the prior answers and then i just want to look at protection 2-1 question 2-1 when refurbishments and improvement products are planned describe the arrangements that are in place for ensuring
02:07:27 ensuring appropriate consultation across relevant departments and disciplines whether provided by in-house staff or external suppliers do you agree that that was a relevant consideration for the grenfell tower refurbishment
02:07:39 refurbishment yes we've been through this stage so this would have been going backwards i was looking at going forwards looking at
02:07:48 at question two four what were the arrangements to consult the london fire brigade lfb on any works that could impact on the fire precautions of the building
02:07:55 building including those works that do not require a statutory consultation to lfb if lfe provided advice is there evidence that the advice was a given was acted upon and how this was recorded again was that a question relevant to
02:08:07 again was that a question relevant to the grenfell tower refurbishment well i knew in grenfell tower we were consulting with the london fire brigade and we were consulting with our health and safety department and there were meetings on site with
02:08:19 and there were meetings on site with their
02:08:20 their janus ray on london fire brigade were there any were there any arrangements to consult the lfb on any uh in relation to the external cladding
02:08:34 i don't recall specifically for the cloudy no
02:08:37 cloudy no we didn't see that larvin has been something that section 3-1 i'm so sorry i'd cut across you sorry we didn't see the cloudiness something that posed a risk at that time
02:08:48 at that time because we were our expectation was that it was
02:08:52 it was compliant section three towards the bottom of the page this part of the audit tool looks at whether the different elements of a specific refurbishment modification or piece of maintenance work were executed with fire safety in mind
02:09:04 were executed with fire safety in mind it is recommended that the questions in this section are applied to individual projects
02:09:09 projects this will help to test whether your policies and processes work in practice question 3.1 before carrying out the project what assessment was made of the impact of these works on the fire precautions of the premises
02:09:20 precautions of the premises did you see that part of the tool at this time
02:09:23 this time it's possible i did but my consideration was
02:09:28 this is important we need to put it into our
02:09:32 our plan for future works but these issues we had already dealt we were on site the design had been completed on grenfell so i recognize it as a
02:09:46 on grenfell so i recognize it as a as a tool but we weren't i wasn't i didn't consider going backwards with it
02:09:53 it you didn't consider going back to x over or studio e or ryden or anybody to say please answer my question could you just tell me what assessment was made of the impact of these refurbishment works on the far
02:10:04 these refurbishment works on the far precautions of the premises even though this was a tool that had come from the lfb it was in your hands yes the design had been completed by the stage we were at tender we had a contract in place and
02:10:16 tender we had a contract in place and that contract was live
02:10:21 so it's too late is that right because i mean are you saying that before carrying out the project what assessments were made so we could have filled this in but it would have just been a historic record then
02:10:35 a historic record then i suspect that might be the same answer to my next two questions 3.7 on the next page
02:10:49 how did officers guard against the use of incorrect materials specifically how is advice used by the london fire brigade
02:10:55 brigade about the effect of accumulated paint treatments taken into account but ignoring the second question as to the first question was that something that you thought when you
02:11:05 you received this document you should ask regard to grenfell with regard to grandfather yes
02:11:18 and again is that because it was too late project was underway project was underway
02:11:25 i recognize the
02:11:31 the questions it's asking they're relevant and that was why i was saying let's put it into our future works programs to ensure that this is undertaken see um you say it was too late and yet
02:11:43 see um you say it was too late and yet you do put your question to simon lawrence
02:11:47 lawrence about the rain screen and its fire safety
02:11:50 safety at spring of 2015 which is some months after this document so why was it not too late to ask him the question in march april 2015 as you say you did and yet too late to
02:12:02 you did and yet too late to ask ask the question at 3.7 sorry can you can you yes yes you've told us before that you raised the question with simon lawrence about the inertness of the rain screen in march or
02:12:14 inertness of the rain screen in march or april 2015 or earlier all right yeah yeah all right yeah
02:12:19 yeah true but but you you put it to the point in time
02:12:22 in time i think of after the planning consents have been given in respect to the change to the windows um if it wasn't too late to ask that question at that stage of the design process
02:12:31 process why was it not too late to ask this question well why was it too late to ask this question at 3.7 how did officers guard against the use of incorrect materials
02:12:46 that's my previous answer i think that i was looking at incorporating this it was important and let's look at it going forwards i wasn't looking at the schemes on site or didn't
02:12:59 looking at the schemes on site or didn't rightly or wrongly give consideration to certain of us we had gone through the design process did you actually look at this tool now we could now i've shown you its parts specifically did you actually
02:13:10 its parts specifically did you actually look at this tool and connect the questions that were being asked in it by the lfb with the questions that should be asked in respect to the grenfell tower project no i looked at the tool
02:13:22 no i looked at the tool i recognized these questions and that was why
02:13:26 was why i asked it to be put into the pap for our framework but i didn't connect it with granville you didn't connect with grandpa do you accept now that you should have
02:13:37 do you accept now that you should have done
02:13:40 it's difficult because grenfell was at a we were
02:13:43 we were on site so this would have been going back over historic issues and filling it in except with hindsight
02:13:54 it would possibly have assisted i don't know
02:13:58 know we can see questions 3.9 and 3.14 3.9 how did officers ensure no materials that might contribute to a fire we used and again that was something highly pertinent to grenfell tower wasn't it
02:14:10 pertinent to grenfell tower wasn't it yes and again i think you accept you didn't ask that question yes in 3.14 can officers confirm the completion of
02:14:21 can officers confirm the completion of the project resulted in a building that is equally or more fire safety compliant than they were before the works just in general terms did you ever ask for an assurance that the building was equally or more fire safety compliant
02:14:34 equally or more fire safety compliant than it was before the refurbishment
02:14:38 did i ask that particular question in relation to grenfell no but the documentation is quite clear that we were we knew that the building had to be compliant with legislation and the
02:14:50 compliant with legislation and the expectation was that it would be did the did this list of questions that you received at the time as part of an lfb issued audit tool clearly applicable as you accept to
02:15:02 clearly applicable as you accept to grenfell tower not lead you to ask somebody studio e or ryden or anybody internally to show you the fire strategy report
02:15:13 to show you the fire strategy report that
02:15:13 that had been completed so you were told for grenfell tower to make sure that these questions in it had been answered it did not why is that i didn't link the two things
02:15:24 why is that i didn't link the two things i was looking at this going forward
02:15:28 grenfell had been designed i was being constructed on site
02:15:34 i'm going to turn to a different topic which is the tender process and the decision to appoint ryden if i may
02:15:42 may can i start by looking with you at some of what you say about the procurement process in your first witness statement can we go to page 10 and look at paragraphs 48 and 49
02:15:55 paragraphs 48 and 49 first of all paragraph 48 under the heading procurement you say ryden were appointed in may stroke june 2014 following an ojeu tendering exercise
02:16:06 following an ojeu tendering exercise just just pausing there i think in fact it's correct that they were notified in the march of 2014 and then contractually bound under a formal
02:16:18 bound under a formal uh design and bill contract dated the 30th of october 2014. yes that's actually
02:16:24 actually the correct position do you accept that correction do you yes yes and then at 49 i along with others was involved in scoring the tender proposals but otherwise was not involved with decision-making in relation to procurement my scoring input
02:16:35 relation to procurement my scoring input was in respect of the quality proposals and took into account the abilities of the tenderer to deal with high-rise building social housing residents remain in situ during refurbishment and cladding
02:16:46 cladding and then a paragraph 54 and 55 on page 11
02:16:49 11 please you say i was aware that ryden had successfully tended for the refurbishment work with a tender in the sum of 8.5 million pounds they scored highest in terms of
02:17:01 pounds they scored highest in terms of experience and quality as with all other tenders ryden was advised of the 8 billion pound budget for the work their tender contained alternatives but came in above that budgeted some and it was envisaged as is normally the
02:17:12 and it was envisaged as is normally the case that there would be savings potential to bring the project within budget
02:17:16 budget such savings could be made in terms of making changes to the specification or the work
02:17:19 the work activity or materials i had nothing to do with these pricing refinements the discussions with regard to economies were managed by artelia and ryden now again just looking at the
02:17:31 and ryden now again just looking at the um
02:17:32 um 8.5 million the 8 million budget in fact i think was 8.5 odd for the construction wasn't it
02:17:38 wasn't it yeah now first of all just having shown you that that evidence in your first statement
02:17:44 statement i want to ask you some questions about the ojeu tender process and before the grenfell tower refurbishment project um had you ever been responsible for the conduct of a public procurement exercise
02:17:59 conduct of a public procurement exercise um i've been involved in overseeing og [Music]
02:18:08 [Music] procurement yes overseeing i mean were you ever the ultimate decision maker on any project for any organization in respect of an oj eu procurement
02:18:21 procurement not necessarily the ultimate decision maker but i have
02:18:25 managed an og process fire consultants before
02:18:31 before how many have you been involved in prior to this one part of the grenfell tower exercise
02:18:40 back at before i was at old ford i was transfer procurement manager at within the center of the circle group we
02:18:52 within the center of the circle group we had about four or five transferring authorities coming in to form possibly coming in
02:19:02 coming in to form new group members my role was to look at the approach to procurement for them and generally to to ensure that there
02:19:15 and generally to to ensure that there was an og process so there would have been
02:19:18 been four or five different og processes so you were reasonably experienced in in public procurement exercises in the construction sector by the time i left um
02:19:34 sector by the time i left um the tmo i was much more skilled well working with jenny was she was an expert she was
02:19:46 she was an expert she was a very methodical approach i'd followed the same approach before but she was meticulous in how that approach was applied i'm really
02:19:57 that approach was applied i'm really interested in before the gender exercise yeah
02:20:00 yeah would you say that you had a reasonable grasp of the principles yes and obligations procured by the imposed by the procurement rules in respect of uh contracting authorities when awarding
02:20:11 uh contracting authorities when awarding public contracts reasonable yes a reasonable grasp yes um now we know that ryden was ultimately selected in the ojeu competition um before we look at that i would just
02:20:23 um before we look at that i would just want to ask you about your knowledge of ryden before the tender actually started do you remember that um there was a request to ryden in the spring of 2013
02:20:34 a request to ryden in the spring of 2013 for ryden to provide a a quick and dirty price check for the grenfell tower project no let me show you an email it's uh
02:20:46 ryd401115
02:20:54 this is an email if we look at the second one down on that page page one from pat robert powell of uh apple yarns
02:21:02 yarns so artelia to steve blake 5th of april 2013. steve good talking with you now and then in the third line uh
02:21:13 and then in the third line uh it says if you would be prepared to venture a price check against this it would help us recognizing that we need to agree a usable framework strike means procurement with r b k and c um
02:21:24 b k and c um do you remember that uh email no do you remember that request at all no i know at that time
02:21:33 they were seeking confirmation of some prices
02:21:36 prices and this was the time that we were looking at um whether we're going forward but led better on whether they were returned to frameworks yes
02:21:48 frameworks yes it was you're right and indeed this is about three weeks before the 23rd of april 2013 first draft of the status report that artelia produced
02:21:59 artelia produced did you ask artelia yourself to go out and
02:22:02 and get a price check no you didn't did you know steve blake at this time nope
02:22:09 nope had you heard of ryden at this point yes you had how do you come to hear of brighton
02:22:13 brighton um i would have assessed them as part of the procurement i'd done previously did you ask or what did i tell
02:22:22 tell artelia tell you that they were going to ryden no right do you know why they did i have no idea no
02:22:29 no do you know who if anyone would have instructed robert powell to send this email
02:22:33 email i don't know right
02:22:38 um the reference here to agreeing a usable framework straight means procurement um i know you didn't see this at the time but um can we take it that you would agree with me that that means a price check with a view to
02:22:50 a price check with a view to using ryden potentially as as a a as a contractor or at least having it on the list
02:23:06 i i couldn't comment on whether that was what the intention was there right he was just doing a price check okay well let's look at the first email this is from steve blake to jeff henton
02:23:18 this is from steve blake to jeff henton and again this isn't an email you saw at the time and he says jeff this is the peter madison scheme which is right up our street they are asking for a framework that we
02:23:30 they are asking for a framework that we are one to procure to avoid ojeu um
02:23:34 ojeu um the reference to the peter madison scheme can you throw any light on how steve blake this is early april 2013 so many months even before the tender
02:23:45 so many months even before the tender was put together in fact even before the decision to read to reprocure was made why it is that steve blake is telling his boss jeff henton at ryden
02:23:56 is telling his boss jeff henton at ryden about something called the peter madison scheme can you explain that
02:24:00 that no do you know whether peter madison had been talking to ryden at this time i do not
02:24:08 so you got no you shed you can shed no light on
02:24:12 light on how steve blake could have used that expression i cannot right um
02:24:21 can we then turn to discussions in the early march of 2014 so we're looking now ahead a year
02:24:32 just to bring you up to date with the chronology by this point the itt scores were finalized in late february 2014 the bids having come in on the 14th of
02:24:43 the bids having come in on the 14th of february 2014 and the interviews were held on the 7th of march 2014 with a final tender report by artelia addressed peter madison 12th of march 2014 right
02:24:56 12th of march 2014 right and um i would take it this is a matter of record i'm not asking you to remember it
02:25:01 it uh and again just for your benefit artelia gave formal notice to ryden that it was the preferred bidder on the 18th of march 2014 and that then started the standstill period correct right now
02:25:14 the standstill period correct right now we understand that there was a chartered institute of housing conference in brighton
02:25:18 brighton on the 4th 5th and 6th of march 2014. did you attend that conference um now steve blake told the inquiry that peter madison did attend it even though he wasn't on
02:25:30 did attend it even though he wasn't on the list of attendees and attended it on the periphery do you remember that do you remember him going to the conference no do you remember anyone from the tmo going to the conference no we know that
02:25:42 going to the conference no we know that robert black and sasha jevens were on the
02:25:44 the formal attendees list you don't remember them going robert and sasha albrighted out of a different office from the so i wouldn't hi can we but it wouldn't be
02:25:56 hi can we but it wouldn't be it was a networking event so it's the sort of thing that people would go to but i have no knowledge of it can we look at ryd3086648 please
02:26:08 this is an internal email from steve blake
02:26:11 blake right at the very top of the chain date of the 6th of march 2014
02:26:18 to tim schuffler copy to jeff henton both at ryden now i'm not suggesting you would have seen this email and it says tim at the housing conference we had meetings with senior representatives from k and c
02:26:30 representatives from k and c and my opinion is that in the event that we were the successful contractor they would have no issue signing up to a form of documentation as we suggest and then in the third line we have been informally advised that we are in pole
02:26:42 informally advised that we are in pole position
02:26:43 position ours to lose and then at the end he says we are at interview tomorrow which is the 7th of march
02:26:53 march now you weren't i think you've told us among the senior representatives from knc at the housing conference do you know who it was who told ryden that they were in pole position ours to lose i did not
02:27:06 pole position ours to lose i did not well it must have come from somebody within the tma wasn't it i don't know well can you view any explanations as to how it was that ryden could have been told that by anybody other than the tma
02:27:19 told that by anybody other than the tma i don't have an explanation i don't know about it
02:27:23 about it i wasn't there when i found my comment no
02:27:26 no well it wouldn't have come from artelia unless tmo had told artelia
02:27:38 three
02:27:43 this is the sixth of march the day before the interview yes right yeah artelia wouldn't know
02:27:52 because on this on after the interviews the following day am i right seventh
02:27:59 seventh grade great
02:28:03 philip burris attended sure interviews is probably the wrong terminology there was a presentation and that presentation was scored um philip buries attended
02:28:15 um philip buries attended and scored and after that part of the process was over philip booth inputted the scores and showed us at that stage the
02:28:27 showed us at that stage the pretty much the result there's one or two things missing but it was very clear who the preferred contractor was at that stage exactly i'll come yeah we'll come to that
02:28:35 to that yes so you i think the short to cut it through you you can't explain who it was who informally told ryden that they were in pole position no but i thought your question to me was
02:28:49 no but i thought your question to me was it couldn't be i tell you because they didn't know what i'm saying i'll tell you i did know well not on the 6th of march they didn't because the interviews hadn't taken place yet
02:29:03 but they did because they would know the scores on the 6th of march with the exception
02:29:08 exception of the presentation interview score now the interviews with the next day do you agree that telling one of the bidders informally that they were in
02:29:19 bidders informally that they were in pole position would have been wholly improper yes
02:29:27 now did you know that in fact the discussions within the tmo about having an offline discussion i use that word because it's a word that was used at the time with writing about
02:29:38 used at the time with writing about value engineering had started as early as the 3rd of march 2014.
02:29:43 2014. did you know that i'm aware that there was an internal discussion at that time um to overcome a problem and that
02:29:55 um to overcome a problem and that that discussion was run past artelia for comments
02:29:59 comments indeed yeah perhaps mr jones will come to that
02:30:02 to that tomorrow yes it's it's it's as convenient as any but we are mid-topic just say that nobody is under any illusion about it that's good thank you well um we've reached half past four
02:30:14 reached half past four and uh that's when we would normally stop for the day and it's probably been a long enough day as far as you're concerned anyway so mr gibson we will stop at that point but i'm afraid i've got to ask you to
02:30:25 but i'm afraid i've got to ask you to come back to answer some more questions tomorrow
02:30:28 tomorrow um we'll resume at 10 o'clock and as i said before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it over the break all right so would you
02:30:39 over the break all right so would you like to give the usher now and be back for 10 o'clock tomorrow please
02:30:52 good thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow please
02:31:05 you