Phase 2 Opening Statements - Wednesday 29th January (morning session)

Full transcript

00:00:26 Good morning. The inquiry is about to resume. Therefore, please can you take your seat and remain silent. Just to run through some housekeeping.

00:00:38 Just to run through some housekeeping. There is no planned fire alarm test today. If the alarm sounds, trained fire wardens on this floor will direct you to evacuate. You will be directed through

00:00:50 evacuate. You will be directed through one of the three fire exits within the room which are to be used in case of evacuation. At the end of the session, please remain seated until the chairman, panel member,

00:01:03 seated until the chairman, panel member, and the witness have left the room. No photographs are allowed to be taken in the hearing room and your phone should be switched to silent. The toilets, including disabled, are

00:01:16 The toilets, including disabled, are located in the reception area. Please go to reception for any lost property.

00:01:23 property. Counseling services are available both in the hearing room and breakout areas. If you have any questions or require any help, please approach one of the ushers.

00:01:35 help, please approach one of the ushers. Also, may we remind you that no eating is allowed in the hearing room. Thank you.

00:02:34 Silence.

00:03:00 Good morning everybody. Welcome to today's hearing at which we're going to hear further opening statements from various core participants. Before we do that, however, I need to

00:03:13 Before we do that, however, I need to mention uh something that's come up which will require an amendment to the timetable for tomorrow. Uh very recently I've been advised that

00:03:25 Uh very recently I've been advised that when they are called to give evidence, which of course will start next week, uh many of the witnesses who were involved in the design and choice of materials

00:03:36 in the design and choice of materials are likely to claim privilege against self-inccrimination uh as a reason for not answering questions. Now, privilege against self-inccrimination is a rule of law that protects a person

00:03:48 is a rule of law that protects a person from being required to answer questions if to do so truthfully might expose him or her to a risk of prosecution. It's a very broad principle and will uh extend

00:04:00 very broad principle and will uh extend to any answers which might assist in or lead to a prosecution. Uh this development has caused me a little surprise because hi there too there has been the fullest cooperation

00:04:12 there has been the fullest cooperation with the inquiry both in the form of giving written statements and in the provision of documents and no one so far has sought to avoid doing that or to

00:04:24 has sought to avoid doing that or to answer any of our questions on those grounds.

00:04:27 grounds. At all events, an application was made last night by a number of council for various core participants, including amongst others Harley uh certain

00:04:38 amongst others Harley uh certain employees or exemp employees of Ryden and the TMO as well as some others. And uh well, just a minute. And what they're asking me to do is to uh apply to the

00:04:50 asking me to do is to uh apply to the attorney general for an undertaking that nothing said by a witness in the in answers to questions in the inquiry will be used in furtherance of a prosecution

00:05:01 be used in furtherance of a prosecution against them thereby giving them complete freedom to tell the truth without any concern for the future. Now, in view of the urgency of this matter,

00:05:13 in view of the urgency of this matter, because of course, Studio E are scheduled to start giving evidence on Monday of next week, I've directed that this application be heard tomorrow afternoon uh after we've completed the

00:05:25 afternoon uh after we've completed the opening statements. That may lead to the afternoon being slightly prolonged. If that's the case, I'm afraid that's just too bad. We've uh we're going to have to deal with this.

00:05:36 deal with this. uh when that application is heard tomorrow, all core participants will have an opportunity to address me on the matter. Uh and uh I shall of course hear from uh all those who wish to do so.

00:05:49 from uh all those who wish to do so. they aren't obliged to do so. But I shall hear anybody who wants to uh be heard and in the light of what's said on that application on all sides, I will

00:06:00 that application on all sides, I will decide what action I should take in the interests of the inquiry because that of course is the overriding consideration. Now this uh information has come I think

00:06:11 Now this uh information has come I think to you as to me as something of a surprise. I suspect that you find it a little difficult to understand exactly what the import is of what I've just

00:06:22 what the import is of what I've just told you. So, I'm going to rise now for a little while uh to give your lawyers the opportunity to talk to you about this uh and to get some preliminary

00:06:33 this uh and to get some preliminary reactions. Don't have to be final reactions because as I said, I'm going to hear this application tomorrow afternoon, probably about the middle of the afternoon. So there's quite a bit of time uh still to

00:06:45 there's quite a bit of time uh still to consider what to do. Uh but I'm going to rise now and I'll sit again at 11:00 and in the meantime you can have a chance to talk to those who represent you to uh

00:06:57 talk to those who represent you to uh get some further information. All right. I'm sorry about that. That means that we're going to put back the first of the opening statements uh until 11:00. Mr. Spafford, I'm sorry. That means you're

00:07:08 Spafford, I'm sorry. That means you're going to have to wait a bit. All right. Thank you very much. 11:00, please.

01:15:43 Hello. The inquiry is about to resume. Therefore, please can you all take your seats and remain silent. Can I just remind you that no photo

01:15:54 Can I just remind you that no photo photographs are allowed to be taken in the hearing room and your phone should be switched to silent. If you have any questions or require any help, please approach one of the ushers.

01:16:06 approach one of the ushers. Also, may we remind you that no eating is allowed in the hearing room. Thank you.

01:17:33 Right now, Mr. Mensfield, I understand that you would like to address me at some point today on the matter which has been occupying us so far. Sorry, I couldn't see you're

01:17:45 far. Sorry, I couldn't see you're lurking behind that pillar. Um, I'm very happy to hear you, but I'd rather do it if you don't mind when we've finished hearing today's group of opening statements. Absolutely. So, sort of middle of the afternoon or

01:17:56 So, sort of middle of the afternoon or whenever we get to that point. Is that all right? That is good. Thank you very much. So, um, I'm going to ask Mr. Spafford then to come and make an opening statement on behalf of Artilia.

01:18:16 Yes, Mr. Spafford. Thank you, sir. Thank you, madam. Uh, my name is Richard Spafford and I'm a partner in Reed Smith LLP. I appear with Simon Greer, who is council in my firm.

01:18:28 Simon Greer, who is council in my firm. Reed Smith is instructed by Artilia Projects UK Limited, which I'll refer to as Artilia. The opening of phase two gives Artilia

01:18:39 The opening of phase two gives Artilia an opportunity to address the inquiry in detail about its role on the refurbishment of Grenful Tower between 2012 and 2017.

01:18:51 2012 and 2017. This opportunity is very much welcomed by Artilia, but Artillia also wishes to do all it can to assist the inquiry in understanding why the dreadful events of

01:19:04 understanding why the dreadful events of 14th June 2017 occurred so that such an appalling tragedy never happens again. We all pay tribute to the extraordinary

01:19:15 We all pay tribute to the extraordinary people who died and to the dignity of those who survived them and the community that continues to support all those touched by the Grenful Tower

01:19:26 those touched by the Grenful Tower tragedy. Our oral submissions today and Artia's written submissions make the extent of Artilia's roles on the refurbishment clear and seek to put

01:19:39 the refurbishment clear and seek to put the record straight following a number of ill-informed comments about the extent of Artilia's roles in some position statements, some witness statements and submissions, including

01:19:52 statements and submissions, including those recently provided by some core participants. Now, some core participants have said that they want to wait for closing submissions to give full accounts of their roles. Artellia takes a different

01:20:06 their roles. Artellia takes a different view. We want the inquiry to be fully aware from the outset of what Artilia's roles were. So my focus now will therefore to a great degree be upon those roles, the

01:20:20 great degree be upon those roles, the extent of those roles, and where applicable the limits on those roles. In our view, identifying the existence of limits on roles of artellia is not

01:20:33 of limits on roles of artellia is not inconsistent with Mr. Millet's instruction to the corporate core participants in 2018, which he repeated on Monday. Artilia readily acknowledges its

01:20:46 Artilia readily acknowledges its significant involvement in the refurbishment from April 2012 shortly after Studio E and the then likely principal contractor Lead Bitter became

01:20:57 principal contractor Lead Bitter became involved through completion and beyond to the agreement of the final account with Ryden in 2017. At the same time, Artellia will identify

01:21:08 At the same time, Artellia will identify and rely upon some very important limits on its roles, each of which was contractually agreed to and we say acted upon by the TMO.

01:21:20 upon by the TMO. Indeed, we say that even with Mr. Millet's words ringing in all our ears. There should be no valid criticism of an entity which properly and fairly

01:21:31 entity which properly and fairly identifies and relies upon any such limits which can only assist the inquiry in its task of identifying where responsibilities lie.

01:21:42 responsibilities lie. I want to start briefly by looking at Artellia's contract. Artellia had a contract with the TMO. Its work was carried out under that contract.

01:21:54 carried out under that contract. Artellia was not novated to write and had no contracts with any other member of the project team. Artellia under its contract had three

01:22:05 Artellia under its contract had three roles on the refurbishment. It was employers agent, quantity surveyor and the construction design and management coordinator more commonly known as the

01:22:16 coordinator more commonly known as the CDMC.

01:22:18 CDMC. I will consider each of these briefly and in turn. It is not easy to give a general description of the role of an employer's agent as at least to some degree

01:22:30 agent as at least to some degree appointments will be project specific. However, it is not controversial in our view to say that an employer's agent is primarily an administrator.

01:22:42 primarily an administrator. As Keating on construction states in its 10th edition, an employer's agent will often be a qualified construction professional who carries out and I quote certain administrative functions.

01:22:55 certain administrative functions. For example, an employer's agent will frequently and Artilia did issue its client's instructions on the project. Report to the client about the progress

01:23:06 Report to the client about the progress of the project. Develop the client's brief. Coordinate the preparation of the employer's requirements by the design team. Prepare reports, registers, and

01:23:17 team. Prepare reports, registers, and project plans. Advise on tenders. Administer the building contract. chair and take minutes of meetings and prepare handover plans and drive completion.

01:23:31 handover plans and drive completion. For the avoidance of any doubt, we say that the fact that Artilla was appointed by the TMO as an employer's agent and not as a project manager is a relevant consideration for the inquiry.

01:23:44 consideration for the inquiry. Secondly, Artilia was appointed by the TMO as a quantity surveyor. Again, there are some challenges in providing a general description of a quantity surveyor as each appointment will be

01:23:57 surveyor as each appointment will be project specific, but a quantity surveyor has more of an advisory role. At its core, the role of a quantity surveyor is to advise the client on project costs and the costs of design

01:24:10 project costs and the costs of design and construction options. A quantity surveyor will and Artellia did prepare budgets and cash flow forecasts. Prepare cost plans. Prepare bills of

01:24:23 Prepare cost plans. Prepare bills of quantities on tenders. Facilitate value engineering exercises. Check tender submissions from a cost perspective. Recommend interim payments by the client

01:24:34 Recommend interim payments by the client to the contractor and prepare the final account at the end of the project. In summary, the quantity surveyor role is a cost advisory role. Keating

01:24:46 is a cost advisory role. Keating describes a quantity surveyor and I quote as employed by the employer to estimate the quantities of the proposed works and set them out in the form of bills of quantities.

01:24:58 bills of quantities. Now thirdly, Artellia was CDMC. It had this role until 5th October 2015. This was both a contractual and a

01:25:10 This was both a contractual and a statutory role under the 2007 CDM regulations and was both advisory and administrative in nature. It involved among other things providing appropriate

01:25:24 among other things providing appropriate formal notifications to the health. Sorry, just a minute. Could we turn that off please? The CDMC role involved among other things providing appropriate formal

01:25:35 things providing appropriate formal notifications to the health and safety executive identifying preconstruction information liazing with the principal contractor on the construction phase

01:25:46 contractor on the construction phase plan to be issued by the principal contractor advising the client in relation to its duties under the CDM regulations amassing information for the project's health and safety file and coordinating

01:25:59 health and safety file and coordinating the cooperation of duty holders under the CDM regulations. So the client, the designers and the principal contractor. So there was proper focus on health and safety issues.

01:26:11 safety issues. Now there has been some criticism by Dr. Lane of the TMO of Ryden and of Artilia in the context of obligations arising under the CDM regulations 2007 and of

01:26:23 under the CDM regulations 2007 and of the TMO and Ryden in relation to the CDM regulations 2015. Artilia is of course continuing to consider these criticisms carefully

01:26:35 consider these criticisms carefully although it addresses some of the points made in our written submissions and will also shortly address them briefly in our oral submissions. However, before doing that in our

01:26:46 However, before doing that in our submission, an important issue for the inquiry in relation to the CDM regulations 2007 is the distinction between what is governed by those regulations and what

01:26:57 governed by those regulations and what is governed by the building regulations 2010 made under the building act 1984. As we believe to be clear, questions relating to the fire safety of Brenville

01:27:08 relating to the fire safety of Brenville Tower on the refurbishment were governed by the requirements set out in the building regulations 2010. By contrast, the CDM regulations 2007

01:27:19 By contrast, the CDM regulations 2007 applied to health and safety in construction and maintenance work so that the construction work itself could be carried out safely. those working on the construction site could be properly

01:27:32 the construction site could be properly protected and so that designs also took into account the need to protect future construction and maintenance workers whilst on site as I have said we believe

01:27:43 whilst on site as I have said we believe believe this to be clear and understood but it is a point which I'll have to return shortly in the light of what appear to us to be some errors in the position of the TMO on this issue

01:27:55 position of the TMO on this issue including in it in its recent written submissions Now, I mentioned that I would make reference to contractual limits and the reasons why I was doing that. I'm now

01:28:06 reasons why I was doing that. I'm now going to turn to those limits. To summarize, Artellia had three roles. Employers agent, quantity surveyor, and CDMC.

01:28:17 CDMC. Within Artilia's contract with the TMO, there were a number of what we submit are important limits which were agreed between Artillia and the TMO.

01:28:28 between Artillia and the TMO. It would be helpful, if possible, if I could have document ART 4's 5742 put on the screens and in particular if

01:28:40 put on the screens and in particular if uh you could start please with page 23 of that document. Many thanks. This page is schedule one to Artilia's

01:28:54 This page is schedule one to Artilia's contract with the TMO. In that schedule, it is clear that Artilia was expressly not appointed to provide RIS

01:29:07 provide RIS project manager services. The relevant box has not been ticked and indeed has been crossed through. This we say is important not least

01:29:20 This we say is important not least because a number of ill-informed suggestions that Artilia was the project manager have been made mainly by the TMO but also by some others.

01:29:31 but also by some others. Now, we fully appreciate that the TMO's witnesses are yet to confirm their statements, but in those statements and elsewhere, the TMO has on a number of

01:29:42 elsewhere, the TMO has on a number of occasions described Artellia as the project manager. It is important to note that the more recent statement from Mr. Madison and the TMO's written

01:29:54 Madison and the TMO's written submissions do suggest that there might be some shifting in the TMO's position on this point and no doubt this will be clarified in due course. While we can forgive the few other

01:30:05 While we can forgive the few other descriptions of Artilia as project manager by other core participants on the basis they are probably simple mistakes. What is surprising to us is that Mr. Hyatt in particular does

01:30:17 that Mr. Hyatt in particular does describe Artilia in this way in his experts report. Mr. Hayyatt is with the greatest respect mistaken and we will return to this issue briefly later when

01:30:28 return to this issue briefly later when we consider the content of his report. So to be clear, Artilia was not appointed as project manager. As the contract shows, this was a deliberate

01:30:39 contract shows, this was a deliberate decision by the TMO. The relevant box is not ticked, but others are. This is not an automatic standard form provision. The TMO could, had it wanted to, have

01:30:52 The TMO could, had it wanted to, have appointed a project manager with the greater responsibilities that that role would no doubt have brought, but the TMO chose not to. That the TMO did not

01:31:03 chose not to. That the TMO did not appoint a project manager is of course no particular surprise. An entity with the experience, resources, expertise, and specialisms of the TMO was perfectly

01:31:15 and specialisms of the TMO was perfectly capable of project managing the refurbishment itself. The TMO was not a lay client. Even a quick look at what the TMO had to offer makes this abundantly clear. It was a

01:31:28 makes this abundantly clear. It was a substantial and sophisticated entity. You have Mr. Anderson's and Mr. Duncan's experience and qualifications and later those of Mr. Madison, Mr. Gibson and

01:31:40 those of Mr. Madison, Mr. Gibson and Miss Williams, you have the structure of the TMO and its areas of operation. Project managing the refersion of Granville Tower was well within the TMO's purposes and its capabilities.

01:31:54 TMO's purposes and its capabilities. With the same document, may I please have page 34 on the screen? Many thanks. Um this is the appendix to Artillia's

01:32:06 Um this is the appendix to Artillia's contract with the TMO. The second limit is at point 3.43.5 under which Artilia was expressly not

01:32:18 under which Artilia was expressly not appointed as the lead consultant. The lead consultant identified in this contract was Mr. Sunn of Studio E. Studio E appear to regard this as a

01:32:30 Studio E appear to regard this as a controversial point. However, in our submission, it clearly is not. Studio E at 6.3 of its written submissions tries

01:32:41 at 6.3 of its written submissions tries to say that there was a lack of clarity on this issue. Studio E suggests that there was some changing of the minds on this point and some lack of certainty on

01:32:52 this point and some lack of certainty on whether Studio E or Artilia would be lead consultant. Now, Studio E's position on this issue is unlikely to have been assisted by the challenges they refer to in section four

01:33:05 challenges they refer to in section four of the written submissions, which mean they say that their focus has had to be on their own evidence. However, whatever these challenges, Artilia has to make the position clear.

01:33:17 the position clear. First, there can be no doubt but that Studio E was appointed as lead consultant. In this regard, we refer not only to what is clearly set out in Artilia's

01:33:28 what is clearly set out in Artilia's contract with the TMO, but also to communications between Studio E itself and the TMO, in which it is clearly stated that Studio E's services included its role not only as designer, but also

01:33:40 its role not only as designer, but also as lead consultant. The position is indeed helpfully summarized in paragraph 12.1 of the written submissions of BSR group one. Secondly, Studio E suggests in their

01:33:52 Secondly, Studio E suggests in their written submissions that Artilia confirmed that it would act as lead consultant. Studio E rely upon a draft document prepared in May 2013 by Artilia

01:34:04 document prepared in May 2013 by Artilia in which that possibility is we accept clearly muted. But that document does not support the conclusion that Studio E tries to draw from it.

01:34:15 tries to draw from it. That document was prepared in the context of discussions in 2013 between the TMO and Artellia which ultimately led to the reprocurement of the project in 2014.

01:34:28 the project in 2014. In 2013, at the request of the TMO, a draft revised brief was prepared and consideration was certainly given to Artillia taking on a lead consultant

01:34:41 Artillia taking on a lead consultant role with lead bidder taking on the principal contract role. Sorry, just a minute. But sorry, just just wait a minute.

01:34:54 Yeah, but that's fine. But as Studio E at least knew at the time, the TMO ultimately decided, albeit clearly at the behest of RBKC,

01:35:05 the behest of RBKC, not to follow this route, but instead to reprocure. So, Artellia did not become lead consultant and Studio E remained in that role.

01:35:16 that role. Indeed, Artilia has provided evidence on these issues contained in Robert Powell's witness statement which was disclosed by the inquiry on 30th of October 2019.

01:35:28 October 2019. We appreciate that this may not have been considered by Studio E's legal team, but evidence on this issue is nonetheless available. So, for the avoidance of any doubt, until its

01:35:39 avoidance of any doubt, until its novation to Riden, Studio E was clearly the TMO's lead consultant. on the same document. May I please have the next page, page 35 on the screen.

01:35:51 the next page, page 35 on the screen. Thank you. This is the next page in the appendix to Artillia's contract with the TMO. The third limit is the most important. It arises at point 4.4 of the

01:36:05 important. It arises at point 4.4 of the appendix under the heading design responsibility. Under it, the TMO expressly agreed and I quote, "The consultant, so Artellia, is

01:36:16 quote, "The consultant, so Artellia, is not responsible for the design of the project,

01:36:20 project, and the consultant, so Artellia, is not responsible for specifying and or approving materials. We will be easily appreciated how

01:36:31 We will be easily appreciated how important this is to Artilia's position before this inquiry. I will come on shortly to consider how these provisions operated in practice. But these provisions make it clear that

01:36:43 But these provisions make it clear that no one in the Artilia team was at any stage responsible for first the design of the refurbishment and secondly the materials used in the refurbishment.

01:36:54 materials used in the refurbishment. It will come as no surprise when I say that these provisions also influenced the makeup of the team used by Artilia on the project. The team did not include an architect or anyone with professional

01:37:07 an architect or anyone with professional design expertise because its roles did not require that. So when artillio witnesses say as they do that they did not have the expertise necessary to

01:37:19 not have the expertise necessary to consider for example whether particular elements of the building envelope were compliant with the requirements set out in the building regulations. They are not only reflecting the position of the time, but there is a sound basis for

01:37:32 time, but there is a sound basis for there having been in that position. Now, pulling all the threads of what has been said so far together, the following conclusions can be drawn about the context and extent of Artillia's

01:37:45 context and extent of Artillia's contractual responsibilities to the TMO. First, the TMO did not need project management support. It was a sophisticated entity operating within

01:37:56 sophisticated entity operating within its areas of expertise and it had chosen not to appoint a project manager. It was managing the project itself. Secondly, that does not mean of course

01:38:07 Secondly, that does not mean of course that the TMO did not need support in specialist areas. It needed advice from a quantity surveyor and advice from a CDMC.

01:38:17 CDMC. From an employer's agent, it essentially needed support of an administrative nature. Thirdly, Artilia had a lot to do, but nonetheless, there was some

01:38:28 do, but nonetheless, there was some important limits on its roles. In particular, it was not the lead consultant and it had no responsibility for design and no responsibility for materials. Indeed, the t the TMO contracted with

01:38:40 Indeed, the t the TMO contracted with studio E as architect and later Ryden as design and build contractor in respect of design and choice of materials. There were three technically qualified parties in place on the project whose job it was

01:38:52 in place on the project whose job it was to cover these issues. So what happened in practice? What did Artilia do on the pro on the project? What did the TMO do on the project? And

01:39:03 What did the TMO do on the project? And did what actually happened bear out the points I've made about the extent of Artilia's roles? In our submission, they clearly did. First, over a full 5-year

01:39:15 clearly did. First, over a full 5-year period, Artellia did a significant amount of work. As quantity surveyor, Artellia provided and advised on eight often detailed cost estimates. Artellia

01:39:27 often detailed cost estimates. Artellia also provided advice in relation to potential reprocurement. Artillia provided advice to the TMO in connection with the tender process between August 2013 and March 2014.

01:39:40 between August 2013 and March 2014. Artellia facilitated lengthy value engineering exercises with lead bidder and later with Ryden. Artellia also regularly valued Ryden's work on site

01:39:51 regularly valued Ryden's work on site making recommendations for interim payments.

01:39:55 payments. Artillia interrogated Ryden's extension of time claims and negotiated Ryden's final account. A CDMC Artillia prepared a CDM risk register and CDM report. Artillia

01:40:09 register and CDM report. Artillia prepared preconstruction information. Artillia reviewed Ryden's construction phase health and safety plan. And Artillia prepared and submitted forms to the health and safety executive.

01:40:21 the health and safety executive. As employer's agent, Artilia worked with the TMO and the project team from 2012 to and beyond practical completion. Artilla took part in the discussions

01:40:32 Artilla took part in the discussions with lead bidder and was heavily involved in 2013 during the period which led to the TMO's decision at the behest we say of RBKC to end the arrangements

01:40:43 we say of RBKC to end the arrangements with lea realign the project so that value for money became its primary driver and to reprocure RT spent a significant amount of time in administering the building contract

01:40:54 administering the building contract between Ryden and the TMO and monitoring the progress of Ryden's work against the program. Artellia arranged, attended, and ministered tens of formal meetings and issued 39 employers agent

01:41:06 and issued 39 employers agent instructions to Ryden, every one of which followed a formal decision by the TMO.

01:41:12 TMO. Artellia prepared numerous checklists and reports and where appropriate discussed issues relating to Ryden's performance with its client, the TMO. Artellia administered the practical

01:41:23 Artellia administered the practical completion process from September 2015 onwards, arranging handover meetings. identifying requirements for the issue of a certificate of practical completion and ensure that signoffs on relevant

01:41:35 and ensure that signoffs on relevant completion issues were given by responsible entities such as the TMO, writen or the clarks of the works. These were on any view significant tasks and roles and what actually happened in

01:41:47 roles and what actually happened in relation to the important question of responsibility for design and for materials. It is clear the responsibility for these issues was contractually excluded by the

01:41:58 issues was contractually excluded by the TMO. But it is also clear that at no stage did Artellia deviate from that contractual position. First, the contractual exclusion of these issues from Artilia's

01:42:10 these issues from Artilia's responsibilities did not stop the TMO, particularly through Miss Williams asking Artillia questions about design. But what Arta consistently did when asked these questions was to say no we

01:42:22 asked these questions was to say no we cannot answer these questions they are not within our areas of responsibility and expertise these are questions for writen there are in fact numerous examples of this but in my submissions

01:42:33 examples of this but in my submissions I'll focus on only one example in the main because this this example has been picked up by a number of core participants in the written submissions this example is Miss Williams so-called

01:42:44 this example is Miss Williams so-called lacknel moment in November 2014 14. On 12th November 2014, Miss Williams of the TMO emailed Artilia saying that she

01:42:55 the TMO emailed Artilia saying that she had just been looking at the cladding as our database is asking for costs and saying that she did not know if there is any issue of flame retardants

01:43:06 any issue of flame retardants requirement. She noted that at Lagnel House, one issue was that the replacement paneling was not flame retardant. She asked for advice.

01:43:18 retardant. She asked for advice. Philip Booth of Artia replied, "He said that he had had a quick review of the MBS spec, which had of course be prepared by Studio E, and set out

01:43:29 prepared by Studio E, and set out certain standards anticipating that one of the standards would require flame retardants." He said, however, and I quote, "As client, I suggest you seek clarification from Ryden." Now, we know

01:43:43 clarification from Ryden." Now, we know that Miss Williams did this through a separate email to Ryden, but we do not know what the outcome of of her inquiry to Ryden was. Miss Williams so-called Lacknel moment

01:43:55 Miss Williams so-called Lacknel moment is picked up by both BSR groups one and two in their written submissions. Their criticism is widely spread and Artilia is criticized for what is called a vague

01:44:07 is criticized for what is called a vague answer and for not following this up further.

01:44:11 further. However, there was nothing vague or inappropriate in Artilia's response. Artellia had no expertise in design issues and by agreement had no responsibility for design or for

01:44:23 responsibility for design or for materials. It could not reasonably expected to know the answer to the question posed and it would have been wrong for it to answer it.

01:44:32 it. Artiller went as far as identifying potentially relevant standards in Studio E's NBS specification and on the same day as the client's request, it referred the client, the TMO on to the entity

01:44:44 the client, the TMO on to the entity which was obliged to answer the question, namely Ryden. We say that Artilla did exactly what an employer's agent should do.

01:44:56 agent should do. The second event of many which sheds some further light on this issue is the offer made by Artilia to the TMO in February 2014 to provide client design

01:45:08 February 2014 to provide client design advice to TMO. To be clear, this is a service which at the time could be offered where a design and build contract was in place. The

01:45:19 and build contract was in place. The purpose of which was to help the client protect its design following the novation of the architect to the contractor. Its aim was to fill the gap created by the client giving up his

01:45:30 created by the client giving up his contractual relationship with the architect. Had the offer been accepted, Artilia would have brought a registered architect with design expertise onto the

01:45:41 architect with design expertise onto the team to support the TMO on design issues and the signing off of designs as the project progressed. As Artelia's detailed offer was rejected, Artilia did not do this.

01:45:54 rejected, Artilia did not do this. In its written submissions, the TMO say that they did not see what the role of the client design advisor offered. They did not agree to it because Artillia was seeking fees for a role that in their

01:46:07 seeking fees for a role that in their words in their submissions did not apply to specialist issues. They also say that the role was not necessary because Artillia was already the CDMC.

01:46:18 Artillia was already the CDMC. They then go on to refer to certain provisions in Artilia's appointment which obliged Artillia to ensure that design signoffs were carried out as meaning that the client design advisor

01:46:29 meaning that the client design advisor role would have added no value. But these arguments make no sense. First, when the very full and detailed offer of the client design advisor role

01:46:40 offer of the client design advisor role was turned down by the TMO on 29th August 2014, the TMO did not say that Artilia was seeking fees for a role that added no value or anything of that

01:46:51 added no value or anything of that nature. What they actually said was, and I quote, "We're going to see if we can manage this within the TMO as we are very familiar with with the specifications for social housing. Could

01:47:03 specifications for social housing. Could you please send any design proposals to myself as CLA Williams CC David Gibson? In short, they said we will carry out this design role ourselves because we

01:47:14 this design role ourselves because we have the experience to do this. They did not say this role is not required because you're already already covering it or anything of that nature. To suggest that the role was not

01:47:25 To suggest that the role was not necessary because Artilia was CDMC does no more than show further confusion between design compliance for the building under the building regulations 2010 and issues as to current and future

01:47:37 2010 and issues as to current and future site health and safety under the CDM regulations 2007. In addition, contractual obligations upon Artellia to ensure that design

01:47:48 upon Artellia to ensure that design signoffs were carried out clearly did not give Artellia responsibility for the design itself. Those provisions only obliged Artilia to ensure that the

01:47:59 obliged Artilia to ensure that the designs were signed off by the person with responsibility for doing that. What is particularly strange given the approach being taken by the TMO on this issue is that partly as a consequence of

01:48:11 issue is that partly as a consequence of its decision not to take Artilia on as a client design advisor, it was the TMO who had to and did provide all design signoffs on numerous occasions.

01:48:23 signoffs on numerous occasions. This makes the TMO's suggestion of page 21 of it written submissions that they did not sign off on designs impossible to understand. Finally, on the question of

01:48:34 Finally, on the question of responsibility for design and materials, I need to raise what is said by the TMO in its written submissions more generally on compliance issues. It says, and I summarize, that in the period

01:48:45 and I summarize, that in the period before it contracted with Ryden, responsibility for compliance lay with what it calls the pre-contract professional team. It includes Artellia within that team

01:48:57 It includes Artellia within that team and accordingly appears to ascribe some responsibility to Artilia for compliance of the design in that period. We've explained why that cannot be right. The

01:49:08 explained why that cannot be right. The TMO had expressly agreed with Artellia that it should not have responsibility for design or for materials and there's no basis on which Artilia could be responsible for design compliance as

01:49:20 responsible for design compliance as CDMC.

01:49:22 CDMC. As BSR team one explained in their submissions, it is actually clear that responsibility for compliance before the contract between the TMO and Ryden lay with studio E.

01:49:34 with studio E. My final point about what happened in practice is a general comment about the role of the TMO. Running through the TMO's written

01:49:45 Running through the TMO's written submissions, is the portrayal of itself as no more than a reactive, passive, inexperienced bystander, powerless as those around it let it down.

01:49:56 those around it let it down. The TMO suggests that decision-making was limited, that it never signed off on designs, that it handed over responsibility for anything of substance to the consultant team.

01:50:09 to the consultant team. The TMO may have been let down. That's a question for the inquiry, but its portrayal of itself is not accurate. Throughout the process, Artellia was there. And Artellia asks, "What about

01:50:22 there. And Artellia asks, "What about the TMO's project management role? What about its design signoffs? What about its decisions on windows, kitchens, and on the crown? What about its decision with RBKC to use champagne colored

01:50:35 with RBKC to use champagne colored aluminium cladding with cassette fixing? What about its liaison between consultants, its driving of value engineering, a point I I'll return to, and its confirmation of the contents of

01:50:46 and its confirmation of the contents of the building manual for Grele Tower. What about his decision that Ryden should not introduce or alter any further fire protection works following an indication that areas of existing

01:50:57 an indication that areas of existing fire compartmentation needed addressing? It's for the inquiry to decide if the TMO was let down, but it should surely acknowledge the extent of its role on the refurbishment.

01:51:08 the refurbishment. I'd like to finish by commenting on a few additional points which are made about Artilia which need in our view to be corrected. First, there's a suggestion from the TMO

01:51:19 First, there's a suggestion from the TMO that on the 2014 tender, it was Artilia who made all assessments, recommendations, and evaluations. To be clear, there is some hint in the

01:51:30 To be clear, there is some hint in the TMO's written submissions that their position might also be shifting on this issue. But to make the position clear, and particularly because the BSR groups to some degree take issue with the

01:51:41 to some degree take issue with the tender process, I'll address this briefly.

01:51:45 briefly. First, the tender process was a joint effort with both the TMO and Artilia scoring and evaluating pre-qualification questionnaire answers and the tender

01:51:56 questionnaire answers and the tender returns.

01:51:57 returns. It is surprising that the TMO may be trying to suggest otherwise in circumstances where it went to the trouble of engaging its own specialist procurement consultant, Miss Jackson, who was very heavily involved throughout

01:52:09 who was very heavily involved throughout the tender process. Secondly, the tender took place on an armslength basis. Ryden may have scored lowest on the PQQ process, but that was not a reason to exclude them from the

01:52:21 not a reason to exclude them from the tender process. On that tender process, next to the other tenderers, they clearly on the basis of industry standard and agreed criteria scored the highest.

01:52:33 highest. The second issue I'd like to mention is the assertion made by the TMO that costs were not a factor for it on the refurbishment and that it had no substantive involvement in value engineering.

01:52:45 engineering. The suggestion that costs were not a factor for the TMO makes little sense and can be dismissed very easily from 2012 and Mr. Anderson's email on 4th May 2012 saying we have a project to deliver

01:52:59 2012 saying we have a project to deliver but within a very tight time frame and an even tighter budget to Miss Williams email of 16 July 2014 when she asked for good costs. There was clearly a focus on the part of the TMO on costs. In

01:53:13 the part of the TMO on costs. In addition, while Ailia as it was obliged to do so under its contract facilitated value engineering exercises, there was a drive for value engineering from the TMO. For example, in December 2013, Miss

01:53:26 TMO. For example, in December 2013, Miss Williams identified her own, and I quote, VE hit list. Artillia agrees with Mr. Hyatt when he says that value engineering is intrinsic to most UK

01:53:37 engineering is intrinsic to most UK construction projects, but we say there's no basis for the TMO to seek to distance itself from value engineering and cost issues. Finally, I'd like to like to pick up

01:53:48 Finally, I'd like to like to pick up briefly on some of the comments made by Dr. Lane and Mr. Hiatt, two of the inquirs experts about Artilia. Further comments are contained within our written submissions.

01:54:00 written submissions. Dr. Elaine relies upon the health and safety file, a file provided under the CDM regulations 2007 and 2015. She is critical of a number of entities on this issue, including Artellia.

01:54:14 on this issue, including Artellia. Dr. Lane sees the health and safety file as a file that could in the absence of a fire safety manual have been provided to the London Fire Brigade. But Artillia's responsibility for the

01:54:25 But Artillia's responsibility for the preparation of the health and safety file ended on 5th October 2015 when the TMO took over as principal designer under the CDM regulations 2015. That was

01:54:36 under the CDM regulations 2015. That was nine months before practical completion and the actual finalization of the health and safety file by all group holdings for Ryden who in turn were under a contractual obligation to the TMO.

01:54:47 TMO. In addition, even if Dr. Lane is right in suggesting that as a practical matter, it might have been possible to provide the health and safety file to the fire brigade, bearing in mind that

01:54:58 the fire brigade, bearing in mind that that file was not required to be in a format in which it could be easily obtained and quickly analyzed. It would not in Artillia's submission be right for any failure by any party in respect

01:55:09 for any failure by any party in respect of the health and safety file to lead to a finding of responsibility by the inquiry. The health and safety file is prepared for the purpose of future construction work which is carefully defined and so includes cleaning,

01:55:22 defined and so includes cleaning, maintenance, alterations, refurbishment and demolition. Its purpose, as indeed Dr. Lane acknowledges in her report, is not to assist the fire service as they carry out their duties.

01:55:35 carry out their duties. Finally, both Dr. Lane and Mr. Hyatt seek to construe and frame the extent of certain of Artilia's contractual employers agent obligations. Dr. Lane does this by reference to

01:55:47 Dr. Lane does this by reference to particular contractual provisions and Mr. Hyatt's analysis is more general in nature. Mr. Hyatt also frequently misdescribes Artilia as project manager.

01:55:58 misdescribes Artilia as project manager. But as we have explained, Artellia was not appointed as project manager. Both Dr. Lanes and Mr. Hayatt's contractual analysis amount to position that Artillia had general oversight

01:56:10 that Artillia had general oversight obligations as employer's agent such that Artillia was obliged in effect to sweep up every problem to follow and understand in detail the specialist technical design work being carried out

01:56:22 technical design work being carried out by others and effectively to act as a guarantor of the obligations of those entities. With great respect to the experts, as we explain our written submissions, that in our view cannot be

01:56:34 submissions, that in our view cannot be right. The experts appear to be giving opinions on the legal construction of contractual obligations. The wording of Artilleria's contract with the TMO does not suggest any general oversight obligation as

01:56:46 general oversight obligation as employer's agent. Artellia was an administrator and it can't be reasonable or appropriate to view Artilia as having had some kind of obligation to come to the rescue if there were failings by

01:56:58 the rescue if there were failings by other consultants with clear responsibility for particular issues. Sir, madam, thank you. Those are my submissions. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Thank you.

01:57:09 you. [Music]

01:57:12 [Music] Now, at this point, um, we're going to hear from Miss Jarrett, who represents the TMLO.

01:57:19 the TMLO. [Music]

01:57:27 [Music]

01:57:36 Yes, was Jared. Good morning, sir and madam. Uh, as you know, I appear on behalf of the uh, TMO this morning.

01:57:47 this morning. The TMO does wish again to express its immense sympathy and profound sorrow in relation to the horrifying and tragic events that took place at Grenell Tower, where 72 members of your special

01:57:59 where 72 members of your special community lost their lives and many more lost their loved ones, their friends, and their homes. The TMO continues to fully support the

01:58:10 The TMO continues to fully support the efforts of the public inquiry to obtain clear, reliable, and truthful evidence to understand what led to this needless tragedy and to demand meaningful change

01:58:22 tragedy and to demand meaningful change to improve public safety and to ensure that this never happens again. The TMO has provided a substantial body

01:58:33 The TMO has provided a substantial body of evidence to the inquiry and responded to requests for witness statements and information relevant to this first module of phase 2.

01:58:43 This morning, the chairman said that it had been brought to his attention that witnesses are likely to claim the privilege against selfinccrimination as a reason for not answering questions. However, in respect to the TMO, what was

01:58:55 However, in respect to the TMO, what was brought to the chairman's attention is that where witnesses may be asked questions that may incriminate them, there is a professional obligation for those witnesses to be warned about this

01:59:06 those witnesses to be warned about this legal privilege. That is, that it is their right not to answer any questions to which it applies. The purpose of an undertaking is to allow witnesses to attend the inquiry

01:59:18 allow witnesses to attend the inquiry and be able to give their best evidence in the inquiry search for the truth. And Mr. Chairman, of course, it is ultimately a matter for you whether or

01:59:29 ultimately a matter for you whether or not to make that application to the attorney general, having heard submissions in respect of it tomorrow. The TMA was incorporated on the 20th of April in 1995 under the right to manage

01:59:41 April in 1995 under the right to manage legislation. This was introduced to give tenants a greater say in managing their community and their own homes. The purpose of the TMO was to act as RBKC's

01:59:52 purpose of the TMO was to act as RBKC's managing agent and to look after the council's residential housing stock and commercial property across the burough. This included Granfield Tower which until 2013 was also managed in part by

02:00:04 until 2013 was also managed in part by the Lancaster West Estate Management Board. The roles and responsibilities of both the Royal Burough of Kensington Chelsea and the TMO are further defined under the terms of the modular

02:00:15 under the terms of the modular management agreement which existed between them. The business of the TMO was housing management and maintenance as well as capital investment projects. staff were employed for their skills in

02:00:27 staff were employed for their skills in housing management which included managing property repairs, resident liaison work and rent collections. It did not possess specialist knowledge in relation to design and construction.

02:00:39 in relation to design and construction. Nor did it seek to employ staff with these specialist skills. It had to engage specialist contractors to turn the plan to regenerate Grenell Tower into a realizable project specification

02:00:51 into a realizable project specification and then to construct it.

02:00:57 [Music] The TMO has now ceased to operate as a managing agent. The TMO's functions were handed back to RBKC in March 2018, and it is no longer a working body. However,

02:01:11 it is no longer a working body. However, it will remain in existence until the public inquiry and any other relevant legal proceedings have been completed. The project can be divided into the pre

02:01:23 The project can be divided into the pre and postcontract phases and the TMO's role in the project was different in respect to each phase. In the pre-contract phase, the TMO engaged a professional team which consisted of

02:01:35 professional team which consisted of studioe and others to design the project brief and to plan and manage the pre-construction phase on its behalf. The postcontract phase commenced in October 2014 when Ryden was appointed as

02:01:47 October 2014 when Ryden was appointed as main contractor under the design and bill contract. From this point, Ryden became responsible for all aspects of the design and construction of the project, including the construction of the

02:01:58 including the construction of the external facade and the replacement of the windows. They were also appointed as principal contractor under the construction design and management regulations the CDM and became

02:02:09 regulations the CDM and became responsible for planning, managing and monitoring the works during the construction phase, including ensuring that safe methods of construction were used. At this point, Ryden also became

02:02:21 used. At this point, Ryden also became the single commercial point of contact for the TMO and for Ryden's own appointed team of professionals. This opening statement will look first at the decision to refurbish Grenell

02:02:33 at the decision to refurbish Grenell Tower and then provide an overview of the role that the TMA played in the refurbishment works. We hope sir that despite some of our suggestions that here will be a fair and accurate summary

02:02:45 here will be a fair and accurate summary of at least some of those roles. I will concentrate predominately on the pre-contract phase and looking at the role of appointees and addressing the matter of cost savings.

02:02:57 matter of cost savings. I will then deal briefly with some discreet aspects of the postcontract responsibilities that TMO had, including in relation to the health and safety farm.

02:03:07 The decision to refurbish Grenell Tower. In 20 uh 2011, the RBKC were embarking on a large project to build a new academy school and leisure center

02:03:19 academy school and leisure center referred to as Cal on the Lancaster West estate at the base of Brenell Tower. This also included the construction of 30 residential dwellings. TMO was not involved in this project. However, RBKC

02:03:32 involved in this project. However, RBKC recognized that the residents of the Lancaster West Estate were directly affected by the works on Cal and simultaneously TMO identify Grenful Tower as a major investment priority.

02:03:43 Tower as a major investment priority. Subsequently, it was agreed at RBKC's cabinet meeting on May the 2nd that Grenell Tower be refurbished alongside Cal.

02:03:51 Cal. The purpose of the project was to improve Grenville Tower for its residents and the local community by upgrading the communal heating system and improving the thermal external

02:04:02 and improving the thermal external thermal efficiency of the building as well as refurbishing the nursery and the Dale Boxing Club. In identifying the priorities for the project, the TMO consulted with the residents and community of Grenell Tower. Discussion

02:04:15 community of Grenell Tower. Discussion suggested that improvements to the heating system whereby they there could be individually controlled uh systems would be welcome and residents suggested a preference for new windows that they

02:04:26 a preference for new windows that they could open themselves and clean. The project was also going to create nine new residential homes in the tower and this was in keeping with RBKC's program for housing development and investment

02:04:38 for housing development and investment to increase the number of modern, accessible and affordable council homes in the burough. The inquiry's expert Paul Hyatt observes in his report that the decision to

02:04:49 in his report that the decision to improve the thermal performance of the tower was perfectly reasonable and that of the options that were available, the decision to apply thermal insulation to the outside of the concrete walls was a

02:05:00 the outside of the concrete walls was a good one. Mr. Hyatt further observed that it would have been exceptionally difficult both technically and in terms of disruption to achieve a high level of thermal performance if the insulation

02:05:12 thermal performance if the insulation were to be applied inside of the walls. It was the TMO's understanding from the outset that to cloud the tower was the best way forward in the case of an occupied building.

02:05:25 occupied building. CDM the TMO's role in the project was that of client that is simply the organization for whom a construction project is carried out as defined by the construction design and management

02:05:36 construction design and management regulations the CDM these regulations set out the roles and responsibilities for health and safety in any large building project undertaken in Great Britain CDM explicitly acknowledges that clients

02:05:49 CDM explicitly acknowledges that clients may not be experts in the construction processes and are therefore not required to plan or manage the project or take an active role in managing the works. What the TMO were required to do was to

02:06:00 the TMO were required to do was to appoint competent specialists to carry out the project on its behalf and to ensure that there were both sufficient time and resources to do this. The TMO

02:06:11 time and resources to do this. The TMO complied with these duties. The pre-contract appointments made by the TMO.

02:06:18 the TMO. For the CAL project, RBKC had procured a team of professional consultants. This included studioe artellier at the time still known then as apple yards max forom and lebit bitter who

02:06:31 yards max forom and lebit bitter who were the principal contractors. RBKC initiated the use of this professional team on the project. These organizations were already familiar with Grimfell due to its proximity to Cal and

02:06:43 Grimfell due to its proximity to Cal and the TMO understood that all the appointments for the 58 million pound kelp project were more than qualified and competent to carry out these refurbishment works at Grenville Tower.

02:06:55 refurbishment works at Grenville Tower. Key benefits of utilizing this team were a reduction in the procurement time frame, meaning that the works could be delivered earlier and reducing the length of disruption, the overall disruption to residents of the Lancaster

02:07:06 disruption to residents of the Lancaster West Estate in Brenfield Tower. Artillier was introduced to the project in April 2012 at an initial at an initial design meeting and was

02:07:17 initial design meeting and was subsequently formally appointed in August to the roles of CDM coordinator under the CDM regulations employers agent and quantity surveyor. They played

02:07:28 agent and quantity surveyor. They played an important role in both the pre and postcontract phases. In the pre-contract phase, they advise the TMO on appointing a professional team of designers and contractors to turn the brief into a

02:07:39 contractors to turn the brief into a realizable design, as well as advising on and administering the procurement and value engineering exercises. During the postcontract phase, they were the TMO's contract administrator and

02:07:51 the TMO's contract administrator and responsible for monitoring progress of the contract. RTDA's obligations were governed by the terms of the standard RI's form of appointment, as you've already been referred to.

02:08:02 already been referred to. They leazed with the design professionals and advised the TMO on the development of the project brief as well as advising and managing the procurement processes that the TMO undertook including the appointment of Ryden

02:08:14 including the appointment of Ryden as CDM coordinator. They were a key project advisor to the TMO in respect of the health and safety risk management and assisted the TMO in ensuring coordination of the design process and

02:08:25 coordination of the design process and preparing the preconstruction information. their role as quantity as their role as quantity surveyor. They provided expertise in estimating construction costs, advised the TMO on ways to keep

02:08:37 costs, advised the TMO on ways to keep costs under control as well as enhancing value of the money and they advised on and administered the reprocurement process and assisted in the value engineering exercises.

02:08:49 engineering exercises. It is not, sir, with respect, reasonable to suggest that because TMO employee employees may have had past experiences in their working lives in design or construction, that they are to be considered specialists for the purpose

02:09:00 considered specialists for the purpose of this complex project. Nor is it correct to suggest that this somehow dilutes Artellier's responsibilities under the terms of the various appointments. The TMO does not seek to elevate the role of Artillier beyond

02:09:12 elevate the role of Artillier beyond that beyond those terms that are set out in the appendix and the RAIC schedules of the contract between them.

02:09:23 The TMO appointed studio and a number of other specialist contractors to assist with the design and preparation of the tender documents referred to um as the employers requirements and the

02:09:34 um as the employers requirements and the national building specification. Studioe were involved in discussions with the TMO about refurbishing Brenful Tower from tw 2012 February 2012.

02:09:45 Tower from tw 2012 February 2012. In their opening submission, Studioe state that the appointment process required greater coordination. We submit this was not the case. Their terms of service were clear. We invite

02:09:56 terms of service were clear. We invite the inquiry to accept the evidence of Mr. Hire who states in respect of Studio E that the arrange of appointments are clearly established. He states the services that Studioe were contracted to

02:10:07 services that Studioe were contracted to provide both in terms of scope and standard were as would be expected of an architect providing full architectural services as lead consultant, lead designer, architectur's designer and

02:10:19 designer, architectur's designer and landscape designer and this was under the terms of the standard river outline plan of works. The employment the employer's requirements included a request for

02:10:30 requirements included a request for pricing for proteus HR zinc cladding and for two alternative project products rea bond raincreen cladding and the alco bond raincreen cladding. The TMO

02:10:41 bond raincreen cladding. The TMO understood that the specification was prepared pursuant to these standard terms of the river appointment and river standards require that only materials which complied with the building

02:10:52 which complied with the building regulations were to be specified. The employes requirements also expressly stated that any issues in relation to design could be rectified by the tendering contractors and that there was

02:11:03 tendering contractors and that there was a requirement that expressly stipulated that any materials put forward as an option complied with specified performance standards. The purpose of presenting pricing options for materials was to achieve

02:11:14 options for materials was to achieve value for money and the TMO had a reasonable expectation that all the options set down in the specification would be suitable and compliant options

02:11:25 would be suitable and compliant options for the external facade.

02:11:31 Exova. One of the professional pre-contract team was Exova who were appointed to provide fire safety engineering services for Studioe to consider in respect of

02:11:42 for Studioe to consider in respect of design matters. Studio Ee introduced Exova to the project and TMO understood them to be competent fire safety engineers. Barbara Lane refers to Exova's industry reputation as top tier

02:11:54 Exova's industry reputation as top tier and she states in her expert report that it would be entirely reasonable for for KCTMO and Artillia indeed any party to assume that Grenful Tower primary refurbishment project team had access to

02:12:07 refurbishment project team had access to and could rely on highly competent experts for all aspects of fire safety and design. They were instructed on the 18th of July

02:12:18 They were instructed on the 18th of July 2012 to prepare a fire safety strategy in respect for the refurbishment project. There were two subsequent versions of this report. Exova provided these reports to studio for

02:12:29 these reports to studio for consideration in respect of their design work. It was not the TMO's role and nor did it have the relevant expertise to lead on fire engineering matters in relation to design.

02:12:42 relation to design. Mr. Mr. Terren Ashton, an annex employee prepared three versions of the reports and each report stated in respect of compliance with the building regulations at requirement B4 that it is considered

02:12:53 at requirement B4 that it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread, but this will be confirmed by analysis in a future issue of this report. Both Dr.

02:13:06 future issue of this report. Both Dr. Lane and Mr. Hayatt refer to the fact that Exova had been provided with the stage C river report prepared by Studioe setting out the specification for Celotex RS5000 Rainstream cladding. If

02:13:20 Celotex RS5000 Rainstream cladding. If this section of the report was not intended to relate to the cladding as is now asserted, the inquiry will need to consider if that can be reconciled with the assertions made in that report and the possible effect this may have had on

02:13:32 the possible effect this may have had on those that read it. The TMO understood that it was Exova's responsibility to advise their design team in respect of all aspects of fire safety strategy.

02:13:44 safety strategy. On the 16th of August, Exova also issued a fire safety strategy report for the existing building. This had been requested by the TMA when it was established that none existed. It was

02:13:55 established that none existed. It was prepared by the Exov employee Kate Cooney. As Dr. Lane identifies in her report, Miss Cooney failed to record the existing building condition and failed to properly assess the active and

02:14:06 to properly assess the active and passive fire protection measures that existed. The inquiry may wish to examine how Miss Cooney came to provide a report which did not identify any issues in relation to the tow's existing fire

02:14:17 relation to the tow's existing fire safety measures or in relation to the previous fire risk assessments. Post contract it was necessary to appoint uh P post contract if it was

02:14:28 appoint uh P post contract if it was necessary to appoint a fire safety engineer. This was Ryden's responsibility. Simon Lawrence Ryden's contracts manager stated in the contract introduction meeting on the 1st of April

02:14:39 introduction meeting on the 1st of April of 2014 that Ryden would contact Exova with a view to using them going forward. A sentiment repeated in two subsequent progress meetings. Again, it'll be a

02:14:50 progress meetings. Again, it'll be a matter for the inquiry to look at whether Ryden should have appointed a fire safety engineer as the TMO had done at the pre-contract stage in order to assist their own design team.

02:15:01 assist their own design team. The appointment of a main contractor in the tender process at a TMO board meeting on the 15th of November of 2012, Le Beta was recommended for appointment as the main

02:15:13 recommended for appointment as the main contractor to mirror that appointment that they had on the Cal project. However, in early 2013, there were concerns as to whether Leeta was the right appointment for the contract.

02:15:24 right appointment for the contract. Artillier noted that the scheme costs put forward by Leb better were at variance with their own estimates and there were concerns over Lebbit's ability to provide value for money. They were slow responding to requests and the

02:15:35 were slow responding to requests and the TMO was unsure of their overall commitment. There were also real concerns about their lack of experience of working with residents in si in situ which was such a vital logistical aspect of the works at

02:15:48 vital logistical aspect of the works at Grenful Tower. As a result of these concerns in April of 2013 the TMO on our discussed what would be involved in the appointing of a new main contractor and this whole

02:16:01 new main contractor and this whole process was conducted in an open and transparent manner and observing due process.

02:16:07 process. Philip Booth of Artillio provided a draft revised program exploring two potential procurement routes. The office of the journal of the European Union referred to as OJU and the London

02:16:20 referred to as OJU and the London Housing Consortium Framework. ODU is the publication through which public sector tenders valued above a certain financial threshold are published. This ensures that the scoring

02:16:31 published. This ensures that the scoring process is open and transparent. The purpose of ODU is to secure best value in the use of public funds. Mr. Boo explained that ODU would take a month

02:16:42 explained that ODU would take a month longer but that but that it would be a more open procurement option. It required a pre-qualification questionnaire a PQQ and he explained that through OG it would also be open to

02:16:54 that through OG it would also be open to lead better to apply. In July 2013, the board agreed to retender through an OG procurement process and Artillier managed the exercise together with Jenny Jackson, an

02:17:06 exercise together with Jenny Jackson, an external procurement consultant who was engaged by TMO. In August 2013, the OU notice for the project was published. As a result of a PQQ process being

02:17:18 As a result of a PQQ process being completed, Artella identified five contractors who were invited to tender. The invitation to tender or ITT was put together by itilier. This included the

02:17:29 together by itilier. This included the employers requirements prepared by studio.

02:17:32 studio. Bidders were also invited to a conference in December in 2012 at TMO offices which included a site visit so that they would have the opportunity to view Grenville Tower and the surrounding location.

02:17:44 location. Representatives from Studioe and Max Forom were in attendance to answer any questions in relation to design specification. Three contractors including Ryden

02:17:55 Three contractors including Ryden submitted bids in February 2013. The the evaluation panel for marking the tenders comprise not only TMO employees but also a member of the TMAO board as well as a

02:18:07 a member of the TMAO board as well as a ward counselor along with a representative from Artillia.

02:18:13 The scoring matrix for the process shows that the tender priorities quality over price. 55% of the overall score was for quality as opposed to 34% for cost with

02:18:25 quality as opposed to 34% for cost with the remaining balance as 5% for performance in interview and 6% for the cost for alternative works. Ryden scored the highest in every category in respect

02:18:37 the highest in every category in respect of the assessment of quality. It scored five points or 60% higher than Durkin Limited and seven points so nearly 20 point 25% higher than Malali.

02:18:49 point 25% higher than Malali. Ryden submitted the most competitively priced tender at 9.2 million tender price at 9.2 million compared to 9.9 million 10.4 million respectively.

02:19:01 million 10.4 million respectively. Artillia observed in their final tender report that Ryden had the overall highest score. They recorded that a comparison between biders of the pricing for various ele elements of the work

02:19:12 for various ele elements of the work demonstrated broadly consistent pricing at a sustainable level and no particular anomalies were noted in regard to the overall bids. The decision to appoint Ryden was solely based on the fact that

02:19:24 Ryden was solely based on the fact that their score was the highest in this rigorous and transparent process.

02:19:33 Value engineering and cost savings. It has been suggested in some of the written opening submissions that the only consideration for the project was minimizing costs. This was not the case.

02:19:46 minimizing costs. This was not the case. Looking for where reasonable costs can be reduced on a large public sector project is normal practice. RBKC financed the works. As early as the 18th of July of 2013, the RBKC Director

02:20:00 18th of July of 2013, the RBKC Director of Housing, Laura Johnson, submitted a report to the cabinet recommending an increase in budget to 9.7 million. Again, in June 2014, a further report was submitted to the RBKC cabinet

02:20:12 was submitted to the RBKC cabinet recommending a further budget increase to 10.3 million. This was the second and final budget increase that was asked for and both granted for the project. TMO provided RBKC with regular updates

02:20:24 TMO provided RBKC with regular updates as to costs and it was one of the TMO's main functions to manage the budget. It is unsurprising that a large proportion of TMO's correspondence with interested parties is concerned with issues of

02:20:35 parties is concerned with issues of costs. Seeking out value for money in publicly funded projects is standard practice.

02:20:42 practice. The river stage guide of 2015 gives a useful summary of value engineering exercises and describes them as this. A systematic and organized approach to provide the necessary functions in a

02:20:55 provide the necessary functions in a project at the lowest cost. Value engineering promotes the substitution of materials and methods with less expensive alternatives without sacrificing functionality.

02:21:08 sacrificing functionality. Mr. Hyatt states in his expert report that competitive tendering and ongoing value engineering are themselves intrinsic parts of most UK construction projects. Indeed, they lie at the heart

02:21:20 projects. Indeed, they lie at the heart of virtually all manufacturing and service supply processes within and outside the construction industry. In section two of his report, Mr. Hayatt forms an opinion that neither the

02:21:31 forms an opinion that neither the competitive tendering nor value engineering processes as carried out both pre and post tender should be considered as any form of excuse for the fact that the overcladding arrangements

02:21:43 fact that the overcladding arrangements were unsafe and that any requests made by the employer KCTMO or any pressure that they might have otherwise existed on studioe or other members of the design team

02:21:55 or other members of the design team Ryden or Harley either individually or collectively. cannot in any way be accepted as an explanation or excuse for the circumstances that allowed the fire to

02:22:06 circumstances that allowed the fire to spread so far and so fast and ultimately escalate out of control with such devastating effect. Whilst it is a matter for the inquiry, the TMO notes that Mr. H recognizes

02:22:20 the TMO notes that Mr. H recognizes that value engineering and competitive tendering processes are not incompatible with maintaining the highest levels of safety and that the value engineering exercises undertaken for the project cannot be used to explain why the

02:22:33 cannot be used to explain why the materials came to be applied to the external facade. The TMO would never have accepted a value value engineering option that it was aware was either not suitable, non-compliant or unsafe.

02:22:48 suitable, non-compliant or unsafe. It is also important to note that the TMO was a not-for-profit organization. Therefore, it had no commercial incentive to drive down costs to maximize profit for its shareholders. Ultimately, any surplus funds would be

02:23:00 Ultimately, any surplus funds would be put back into the TMO to try and improve services. The TMO invested in the long-term success was invested in the long-term success of the refurbishment project. Whilst the various appointed

02:23:12 project. Whilst the various appointed contractors were going to move on at the end of the project, the TMO's role was to continue to maintain and manage the tower on behalf of its residents. It was in the TMO's interests that the

02:23:23 in the TMO's interests that the refurbishment work should be completed successfully and that they should be of good quality. The postcontract phase. Now turning briefly to aspects of the

02:23:35 Now turning briefly to aspects of the postcontract phase. Ryden were now responsible for all aspects of design and the construction works. Artillier remained under the same terms of appointment and continued to advise TMO on a regular basis in respect of how the

02:23:47 on a regular basis in respect of how the project was progressing and in respect of their duties under CDM as well as liazing with Ryden on TMO's behalf. As Ryden has set out in its company statement, it is a very experienced

02:23:58 statement, it is a very experienced contractor. Their role in refurbishment projects is that of main contractor and that typically they are also appointed as principal contractor under CDM. It goes on to state that it had significant

02:24:10 goes on to state that it had significant experience of discharging these duties in respect of planning, managing and monitoring construction phases. Ryden also has an accredited project management system.

02:24:21 management system. It was Ryden's responsibility to monitor the works and there was no obligation on the TMO to make any separate monitoring appointments. However, in order to provide the TMO with further assurances

02:24:32 provide the TMO with further assurances that the project was being properly carried out, the TMO appointed two clarks of works.

02:24:40 They were appointed to carry out regular site inspections of the construction works and of the mechanical and electrical engineering installations and to report back to the TMO on

02:24:51 to report back to the TMO on workmanship, quality, progress, and site health and safety. Jonathan White, who inspected the construction work, states he carried out a total of 35 inspection reports and at

02:25:03 a total of 35 inspection reports and at no point were any concerns in relation to the application of the cladding or any serious concerns in relation to health and safety raised with the TMO. In accordance with its role as employers

02:25:15 In accordance with its role as employers agent, Artellier moni monitored the progress of Ryden's work against the program of works on the TMA's behalf, liazing with Ryden and other contractors on site where necessary. Every month from July 2014, Artellier shared

02:25:27 from July 2014, Artellier shared progress group meetings which were attended by senior representatives on the project including TMO in order for Ryden to update them on the progress of the works.

02:25:39 of the works. The health and safety file. Pursuant to CDM, a health and safety file must be prepared and handed to the client at the end of a project. The purpose of the health and safety file is

02:25:51 purpose of the health and safety file is to ensure that anyone carrying out subsequent construction work on the building has information to be able to plan and carry out that work safely. It is clear that the health and safety

02:26:02 It is clear that the health and safety file is prepared solely for the purposes of future construction work and maintenance. The health and safety file is not required to follow a set format and may be combined with a building log regulations book or a maintenance

02:26:13 regulations book or a maintenance manual. The regulations do not envisage that it would be available in the purposes of any emergency. In 2015, a new set of CDM regulations came into force, abolishing the role of

02:26:24 came into force, abolishing the role of the CDM coordinator and creating a new role of principal designer. This role took on many of the functions of the CDM coordinator. However, and inexplicably, none of the

02:26:37 However, and inexplicably, none of the contracting parties were willing to adopt this position. The TO TMO therefore felt it had no option but to assume the role at a progress meeting on the se a progress meeting number 17,

02:26:49 the se a progress meeting number 17, forgive me, on the 17th of November of 2015. Ryden agreed to be responsible for the preparation of the health and safety file and Ryden subsequently subcontracted this works to All Group Holdings Limited. In her report, Dr.

02:27:03 Holdings Limited. In her report, Dr. Lane is critical of documentation that she attributes as having been prepared by all group Holdings Limited and as amounting to the Health and Safety File. To date, no witness statements have been provided from this organization, but we

02:27:15 provided from this organization, but we understand that the inquiry is now taking steps to seek witness statements from all groups holding limited and we are grateful for this indication. What documentation was prepared Belgroup's holdings for the health and safety file and to whom that documentation was

02:27:27 and to whom that documentation was provided are matters that the inquiry may wish to consider in relation to the compliance of that health and safety file.

02:27:35 The TMO and its former employees continue to be committed to the inquiry's investigation into the events that led to such an unimaginable loss of lives.

02:27:43 lives. There can be no denying that both the design and construction of the refurbishment works that took place between 2012 and 2016 compromised the safety of the

02:27:55 and 2016 compromised the safety of the building

02:27:57 building and led to these losses. At all times, the TMO understood that applying cladding to the exterior of the building was a wellrecoognized method for improving the thermal efficiency and for

02:28:08 improving the thermal efficiency and for some the appearance of a high-rise building. TMO believes it took reasonable steps to appoint competent specialists to achieve its aim of upgrading Granville Tower and bringing the building into line with modern

02:28:20 the building into line with modern standards. The professionals appointed had the experience and technical expertise to plan, design and build the refurbishment works for Grenville Tower as well as to advise the TMO on matters

02:28:31 as well as to advise the TMO on matters of compliance with industry standards, legislation and safety. Like so many others, we wish now to understand how with this infrastructure in place. There were such terrible

02:28:43 in place. There were such terrible failings in both the design and construction of the works. The TMO will continue to work closely with the inquiry to assist them in their detailed review of the issues in module one, including a thorough analysis of the

02:28:56 including a thorough analysis of the TMO's own role, its own duties under the CDM regulations, and of course with all their ongoing investigations. This is with a genuine hope that the bereaveved survivors and residents who are at the

02:29:08 survivors and residents who are at the heart of this inquiry get the answers that they deserve and as you sir and madam can make findings to ensure that people are safe and can feel safe in their own homes.

02:29:21 their own homes. Thank you very much.

02:29:25 [Music] Now the next statement uh we're going to hear from uh will come from uh the council RBKC and it'll be made by Mr. Maxwell Scott Queens Council. Yes.

02:29:50 Yes. Max Scott, Mr. Chairman, madam, I together with Katie Sage and Bethany Condron represent the Royal Burough of Kensington and

02:30:02 the Royal Burough of Kensington and Chelsea instructed by DWF solicitors. Although the inquiry did not hold any hearings in 2019, it nevertheless made great strides in its ongoing

02:30:13 great strides in its ongoing investigation. The phase 1 report was impressive in its foreigners and clearly the product of a great deal of hard work and considered thought.

02:30:24 thought. Last year also saw the disclosure of a number of detailed expert reports and tens of thousands of documents. Documents which your team had obtained from a multitude of different

02:30:36 from a multitude of different organizations. The council is very grateful to you and your team for all the work done on the phase one report and the preparations for phase two.

02:30:47 for phase two. The council has also been busy over the last year. Busy improving the services which it provides, busy preparing for phase two, and busy reflecting on the

02:30:59 phase two, and busy reflecting on the issues that will be considered in it. In reflecting on those issues, it has sought to stay faithful to three guiding principles.

02:31:10 principles. Guiding principle number one, the charter for families berieved through public tragedy which the council has adopted.

02:31:20 Guiding principle number two, the commitment to cander which the council has made

02:31:28 has made and guiding principle number three, the desire to ensure that the people who lost their lives will never be forgotten. Commitment to these principles has led

02:31:41 Commitment to these principles has led the council to identify a number of failings in the way its building control service processed and considered the application for building control approval during the refurbishment of

02:31:54 approval during the refurbishment of Grenful Tower. I will say more about this later, but may I say now on behalf of the council that it apologizes unreservedly for those failings.

02:32:08 Building control is of course only one of a council's many services. As you have no doubt been discovering in more detail during your investigation, the council is a complex organization

02:32:21 the council is a complex organization made up of elected counselors and employed officers with many separate directorates, departments, functions, services, and committees.

02:32:32 services, and committees. Some of those services were delivered in-house by the council's own employees. Others were contracted out to other organizations and delivered by employees of those other organizations.

02:32:47 Before returning to the council's building control service, let me first say something about the relationship between the council and the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management

02:32:58 and Chelsea tenant management organization which I shall refer to as the TMO.

02:33:04 the TMO. The TMO is an example of an organization to which the council contracted out delivery of services in a number of places. core participants

02:33:15 in a number of places. core participants in their written opening statements for this module refer to the council and the TMO without distinguishing between them. Sir, I make absolutely no criticism of

02:33:26 Sir, I make absolutely no criticism of them for this at this opening stage of module one. When the relationship between the council and the TMO has not been explored and when it can be hard to

02:33:37 been explored and when it can be hard to work out who was responsible for what, who did what and who worked for which organization. Legal team two representing the

02:33:48 Legal team two representing the bererieved surviv survivors and residents say in their opening statement, "Individuals, firms and institutions are to blame for what went wrong. It will be necessary for the

02:34:01 wrong. It will be necessary for the inquiry to consider carefully the respective culpability of the council, the TMO, the professionals and contractors involved and others.

02:34:12 contractors involved and others. I agree.

02:34:14 I agree. Although none of the eight modules in phase two is specifically devoted to analyzing the relationship between the council and the TMO, the distinction between the council and the TMO and the

02:34:27 between the council and the TMO and the close working relationship between them will need to be analyzed and understood.

02:34:39 The relationship was governed by a modular management agreement based on a template for such agreements approved by central government. At the risk of oversimplifying the

02:34:50 At the risk of oversimplifying the contents of the agreement which is many hundreds of pages in length and over 20 years of history of the TMO, the following points can be made. The TMO came into existence in the mid

02:35:03 The TMO came into existence in the mid 1990s because a majority of those who were residents at the time voted in favor of its creation. From that date onwards, it was at all

02:35:14 From that date onwards, it was at all relevant times a separate legal entity from the council. In 2002, at an extraordinary general meeting of the TMO,

02:35:26 meeting of the TMO, it was voted unanimously to amend the TMO's constitution to enable it to operate as an armslength management organization or ALMA. As a result, the TMO additionally took

02:35:39 As a result, the TMO additionally took on responsibility for developing and undertaking all major work schemes. The normal model for an Elmo was that it was owned by the local authority.

02:35:50 was owned by the local authority. The TMO was unusual in that it remained an organization owned by its resident members.

02:35:57 members. This fact and the fact that its constitution expressly stated that the majority of board members must be tenants and lease holders meant that the

02:36:08 tenants and lease holders meant that the TMO at all times remained independent of a council.

02:36:14 In 2006, the audit commission published a report on the TMO following an inspection which took place between the 17th and 28th of July that year. I

02:36:26 17th and 28th of July that year. I mention that here because the audit commission noted that the TMO was in fact the only ALMO with a majority of tenants on the board.

02:36:37 tenants on the board. As stated in its memorandum and articles of association, the TMO was established to manage and maintain the housing stock and ancillary properties of a council.

02:36:48 and ancillary properties of a council. As such, it was effectively the council's managing agent. So, the housing management service which the council as landlord provided to the residents of Grenful Tower was provided

02:37:01 residents of Grenful Tower was provided by the council through its managing agent, the TMO.

02:37:08 I'm now going to return to the council's building control service. In doing so, it is important to recognize that this service, unlike the council's housing management service, was provided by the

02:37:21 management service, was provided by the council entirely independently of the TMO.

02:37:27 TMO. Local authorities are required by law to provide the building control service. The way in which the council was structured meant that its building control service fell within the

02:37:38 control service fell within the council's planning and burough development directorate. But one should not infer from this that there was an overlap between the council's planning function and its

02:37:50 council's planning function and its building control function. Both functions arise under wholly separate statutory regimes. The building control function is highly technical in nature

02:38:01 function is highly technical in nature and is both conceptually and in practice wholly separate from planning. Fire safety does not fall within the remit of planning. It does fall within

02:38:12 remit of planning. It does fall within the remit of building control. Persons carrying out building work within the burough who needed to use a building control service had the option of using the council's building control service

02:38:25 the council's building control service which is a public sector service or of using an approved inspector which is a private sector service. Both are permitted by law to act as building control bodies.

02:38:38 control bodies. It is important to be clear about the nature of the service offered by local authority building control and by approved inspectors. It is not a design service. It is a checking service.

02:38:51 service. It is a checking service. Legal team one representing the bereaveved survivors and residents describe the building control officer as providing the last line of defense against the construction of an unsafe

02:39:04 against the construction of an unsafe building.

02:39:06 building. Your expert Barl Menses puts it this way.

02:39:09 way. The role of a building control body is only to check for compliance with the requirements of the building act and the building regulations. A building control body has no role in

02:39:21 A building control body has no role in the design. It checks submitted proposals and inspects work on site to ascertain compliance.

02:39:34 What that means in practice is this. If the professional design team engaged to create the design have created an unsafe design and if the unsafe features of

02:39:47 design and if the unsafe features of that design have not been detected during the design team's internal checking processes, then the external checking service provided by building control represents the last opportunity

02:40:00 control represents the last opportunity to spot the errors of the design team and stop the unsafe design being built. As is well known in the case of Grenville Tower, the application for building control approval was made to

02:40:13 building control approval was made to the council's building control service rather than to an approved inspector. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier that the council had engaged in a process of

02:40:24 the council had engaged in a process of reflection which had led it to identify a number of failings in the way its building control service processed and considered the application for building control approval during the

02:40:35 control approval during the refurbishment of Grenful Tower. The council would have wished to have reached this stage sooner than it did, but through its own fault, it was unable

02:40:46 but through its own fault, it was unable to do so.

02:40:48 to do so. This is because its building control service failed to retain sufficient records for the Grenford Tower refurbishment project. What has changed within the last few

02:41:01 What has changed within the last few months is that the inquiry's experts have succeeded in partially reconstructing the documentary record from the limited records building control had and the documents disclosed

02:41:13 control had and the documents disclosed by a number of core participants including studio e Ryden Harley and ex. This has enabled the council to identify a number of failings on the part of its

02:41:25 a number of failings on the part of its building control service. I have set them out in paragraphs 97 to 105 of my written opening, but will repeat some of them now.

02:41:36 repeat some of them now. Building control did not have a formal procedure for tracking the progress of applications for building control approval.

02:41:45 approval. There was no requirement for it to have such a procedure, but the council accepts that building control should have had one and that had one been in place, it would have reduced the

02:41:58 place, it would have reduced the likelihood of aspects of the application or the building control approval process being overlooked. Building control failed to issue a

02:42:09 Building control failed to issue a decision notice following receipt of a full plan's application. Building control failed to ask for comprehensive details of the cladding system, including the crown.

02:42:23 system, including the crown. The last Exov fire safety strategy received by building control was issue three, dated November 2013. Building control failed to request an

02:42:35 Building control failed to request an up-to-date version of this document.

02:42:42 Building control failed to identify that the insulation materials used in the cladding system were not of limited combustibility and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of paragraph

02:42:55 satisfy the requirements of paragraph 12.7 of approved document B. Building control failed to recognize that insufficient or no cavity barriers to seal the cavities at openings within

02:43:07 to seal the cavities at openings within the walls, including around the windows, had been indicated on the plans submitted to it. Building control issued a completion certificate on the 7th of July, 2016.

02:43:21 certificate on the 7th of July, 2016. It should not have done so. The council apologizes unreservedly for these failings. It is committed to cooperating fully

02:43:32 It is committed to cooperating fully with the inquiry and helping to prevent a tragedy like Grenville ever happening again.

02:43:43 The inquiry has an important role to play here because we know that up and down the country in the private sector and the public sector hundreds of

02:43:54 and the public sector hundreds of buildings have been found with cladding on them which does not comply with the building regulations. This means that in the case of each such building, a professional design team has

02:44:07 building, a professional design team has created an unsafe design and the unsafe features of that design have not been detected during the design team's internal checking processes

02:44:21 team's internal checking processes and the external checking service has failed to spot the errors of a design team and stop the unsafe design being built.

02:44:30 built. So in hundreds of cases, the last line of defense together with all previous lines of defense has failed. Sometimes that last line of defense will

02:44:42 Sometimes that last line of defense will have been a local authority building control service. Sometimes that last line of defense will have been an approved inspector. Sometimes it would have failed in similar ways to the ways it failed at

02:44:54 similar ways to the ways it failed at Grenville. Sometimes it would have failed in different ways. But the bottom line is that in hundreds of cases it will have failed. This is not just a local problem. This is a national

02:45:06 local problem. This is a national problem and it will require national solutions.

02:45:12 Returning to the council, there have been changes in its building control service since the fire. In my written opening statement, I stated that the council intended to

02:45:24 stated that the council intended to provide the inquiry with a written update on key changes made within its building control service before the start of module one. That document was provided to your team last week.

02:45:36 provided to your team last week. Summarizing it in a sentence, many changes have been made, but a number of opportunities for further improvement have been identified.

02:45:47 improvement have been identified. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware from having read my written opening, the council has made observations in it on a number of issues which I've not addressed you on this afternoon.

02:45:59 addressed you on this afternoon. These include the decision to refurbish the tower, the budget for the refurbishment project, and the choice of cladding material to name just a few.

02:46:10 cladding material to name just a few. I do not propose today to lengthen this opening statement by repeating what I have said in writing or by adding to it. This is the beginning of module one, not

02:46:21 This is the beginning of module one, not the end, and there is a great deal of important evidence to be heard on many issues.

02:46:27 issues. In our closing submissions for modules one, two, and three, we will set out in detail and with cander the council's position on all issues relevant to it

02:46:39 position on all issues relevant to it that have arisen in those modules. May I finish by quoting from what the leader of the council said in her speech to full council on the 22nd of January

02:46:51 to full council on the 22nd of January this year. There is a stark reality we face. 72 people died and this council could have and should have done more to stop

02:47:03 have and should have done more to stop it happening. Grenful is a tragedy that should not have happened. It is a tragedy that can never happen again. Thank you. Thank you very much.

02:47:18 Now, the next statement uh is to be made by the mayor of London, Miss Stud, I'm sure you're here somewhere. Ah,

02:47:30 I'm sure you're here somewhere. Ah, right. Um, would it be convenient for you to make your opening statement now or are you going to require more than say 15 minutes? Well, then perhaps if you'd like to come

02:47:41 Well, then perhaps if you'd like to come up to the front, you could do it now.

02:48:09 Mr. Chairman, Madam, the report of phase one of the inquiry delivered on the 30th of October 2019 focused on the immediate and terrible

02:48:21 focused on the immediate and terrible events of the night of the 14th of June 2017

02:48:26 2017 which resulted as we all know in the deaths of 72 individuals. It focused on the causes of the fire, the emergency response, and the

02:48:38 the emergency response, and the experience of those who survived, as well as commemorating those who died. It was an important first step in justice for the Grenville community.

02:48:52 justice for the Grenville community. The contents of the phase one report indicating that there was much to be learned from the evidence heard and the conclusions reached. The mayor welcomes the chairman's

02:49:04 The mayor welcomes the chairman's decision to make recommendations and without detailing the action to be taken, this not being the correct forum to do so,

02:49:13 to do so, he can reassure the chair of the commitment on his part to oversee the implementation of the phase one recommendations in London and to

02:49:24 recommendations in London and to proactively encourage others to urgently adopt them as a matter of priority. As the inquiry looks forward to phase two, the mayor welcomes the

02:49:37 two, the mayor welcomes the consideration that the inquiry has given to the venue and the need for it to be more easily accessible to those who were and remain most affected.

02:49:48 and remain most affected. The new location here in West London is a welcome step as is the intention to appoint two panel members to assist the chairman with the decision making in

02:50:00 chairman with the decision making in this important phase of the inquiry. We support the bereaveved survivors and residents desire to have the second panel member in place as soon as possible.

02:50:11 possible. It is of course a matter of regret that this has not been satisfactorily resolved.

02:50:17 resolved. And we would invite the chairman to take whatever steps he feels able to take to ensure that this uncertain position is remedied as soon as possible.

02:50:29 remedied as soon as possible. To that end too, we publicly invite the cabinet office to provide an update before the commencement of the evidence next week. The mayor is planning to write to the

02:50:41 The mayor is planning to write to the prime minister again asking him to resolve this issue as a matter of priority.

02:50:49 We have seen the timetable for the work of phase two and the division of the work into modules. There is obviously a great deal to consider

02:51:01 consider in the course of the hearings. There are likely to be issues raised which will undoubtedly give rise to consequential concerns about public safety. Given the modular structure for phase

02:51:13 Given the modular structure for phase two, the mayor would support and encourage consideration of interim recommendations at the conclusion of each module if it is thought necessary for immediate

02:51:24 is thought necessary for immediate action to be taken to preserve life. It is clear from the evidence heard and the conclusions reached by the inquiry in phase one that the failure of a common domestic appliance in the kitchen

02:51:37 common domestic appliance in the kitchen of flat 16 at Grenville Tower should never have resulted in the tragic loss of life that occurred on that night. Without revisiting the extensive

02:51:48 Without revisiting the extensive evidence that was heard as part of the phase one hearings, the expert evidence disclosed very significant defects resulting in the conclusion that the building envelope and I quote created an

02:52:02 building envelope and I quote created an intolerable risk of sa to safety resulting in extreme harm. It also highlighted an absence of proper maintenance of active and passive fire

02:52:13 maintenance of active and passive fire measures.

02:52:15 measures. Phase two module one will begin the process of detailed examination of the design, construction and modification of the building and the provision of maintenance of active and passive fire

02:52:28 maintenance of active and passive fire measures to determine what caused this building to fail as it did. Any investigation into those failings has to be accomp accompanied by

02:52:40 has to be accomp accompanied by accountability for them. The mayor supports the bereaveved survivors and residents in their determination to ensure that phase two of the inquiry

02:52:51 to ensure that phase two of the inquiry provides such accountability. The mayor joins with Mr. Millet in his criticism that the openings of the corporate core participants for this

02:53:02 corporate core participants for this part of the inquiry are characterized by buck passing and a conspicuous lack of acceptance of any responsibility for any elements that rendered this building

02:53:14 elements that rendered this building non-compliant as indeed you found it to be in your phase one report. Obviously, it is to be expected that all the core participants will positively

02:53:27 the core participants will positively contribute to your inquiry, ensuring that all issues are considered thoroughly. They have agreed to do so in their oral openings before you and the inquiry team

02:53:40 openings before you and the inquiry team must hold them to account to ensure that those words are borne out in practice. An additional point that can be divined

02:53:51 An additional point that can be divined from the written openings and one which the mayor would like you and your panel members to consider is what can be done to prevent the situation that occurred here where a very large number of

02:54:03 here where a very large number of contracts and subsidiary contracts have provided an environment where no one corporate participant is accountable for the whole project. where the contractual

02:54:15 the whole project. where the contractual relationship appears to take priority over the successful but more importantly the safe delivery of the project and where catastrophic failures can easily

02:54:26 where catastrophic failures can easily be passed off by one contractor to be the fault of another. While this phase of the inquiry will inevitably be focused in large part on

02:54:38 inevitably be focused in large part on the decision-making in relation to the fatally flawed refurbishment and design of Grenful Tower. The mayor would emphasize that the bereaveved survivors and residents must

02:54:50 bereaveved survivors and residents must remain central to this inquiry and its work.

02:54:55 work. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, that is no doubt a convenient moment at which to adjurnn. So, we can all go and have some lunch. Uh, I'll rise we'll rise now and we'll sit again

02:55:09 rise we'll rise now and we'll sit again at 2:00, please. Thank you very much.