1 Wednesday, 25 October 2017 19 MR MACKENZIE: My Lord, the next witness is Tom Hickman. 20 MR TOM HICKMAN (sworn) 21 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: You are going to be asked some 22 questions initially at least by Mr Mackenzie. If you 23 just listen to the question and answer it as directly as 24 possible, and clearly and at a measured pace, so the 25 shorthand writers can keep up with you. 177 1 A. Okay, thank you. 2 Examination by MR MACKENZIE 3 MR MACKENZIE: Good afternoon. 4 A. Good afternoon. 5 Q. Could you state your full name, please? 6 A. Full name is Thomas John Charles Hickman. 7 Q. And your current occupation? 8 A. I'm a Project Controls Manager. 9 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: I wonder, Mr Hickman, if you could 10 come a bit closer to the microphone. 11 A. I'm a Project Controls Manager with Babcock 12 International. 13 Q. Could you look, please, at the statement you have 14 provided to the Inquiry. I'll give the reference 15 number. It's TRI00000147_C. I think you've also got 16 a hard copy in front of you as well; is that correct? 17 A. I do, yes. 18 Q. If you could go to the very last page, please, just to 19 confirm your signature, and wait for it to come up on 20 the screen. 21 Can you confirm, please, that this is your signature 22 and that this is the written statement you have provided 23 to the Inquiry? 24 A. Yes, that is my signature, yes, and it looks like the 25 statement I did submit, yes. 178 1 Q. Also just to confirm, Mr Hickman, your evidence to the 2 Inquiry will comprise both this written statement in its 3 entirety and the evidence you give today. 4 Now, before we leave this statement, there's one 5 part I should highlight in respect of page numbering. 6 We can see the last page is numbered 32; do you see 7 that? At the top of the page, and the last page is 32? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. If we can go back one page, please, we can see this page 10 is numbered 38. So I think in short something has gone 11 wrong with the numbering, but I think if we look at, for 12 example, this page 38, we can see in sub-question 4: 13 "Do you have any comments, with the benefit of 14 hindsight ..." 15 So if we look at that, and then go on to the next 16 page, the last page of the statement, I think we can see 17 at the top, a duplication of that question and your 18 answer, and a duplication of the subparagraph 5, and 19 your answer. 20 So subject to that formatting error, I think you're 21 happy that this does represent the statement you 22 provided to the Inquiry? 23 A. Yes, I can see that, and I'm happy that it does. 24 Q. Then go back to page 1 of the statement, please, to look 25 at your qualifications and experience which you 179 1 helpfully set out in blue text. 2 We can see that you have been employed initially as 3 a planner and then as a planning engineer, with various 4 employers since 1981: 5 "I was Lead Planning Engineer with BP Grangemouth 6 between 1990 and 1999. I was then Zone Planning 7 Engineer with First Engineering from 1999 to 2001 with 8 responsibility for heavy rail maintenance activities." 9 You then worked again for BP Grangemouth from 2001 10 to 2006, and then from 2006 to 2007 you were a Senior 11 Project Control Engineer with Turner & Townsend before 12 being seconded to tie as a Project (sic) Manager. 13 I should ask, do you have any -- 14 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: I think it is a Programme Manager. 15 MR MACKENZIE: Sorry, Programme Manager, thank you. 16 Do you have any planning related qualifications or 17 membership of any professional bodies? 18 A. I don't, no. 19 Q. So you essentially have learned on the job? 20 A. That's correct, yes. 21 Q. Thank you. So in relation to your involvement with the 22 Edinburgh Tram Project, am I right in thinking that 23 initially you were involved with the programme for the 24 tram project while employed by Turner & Townsend? 25 A. Yes, initially I was employed by Turner & Townsend and 180 1 seconded to tie offices to support the tie Programme 2 Manager. 3 Q. So was it from 2006 while employed by Turner & Townsend 4 that you were first involved in the programme management 5 of the tram project? 6 A. Not so much in the programme management, but the 7 programme support and with the tie existing programme 8 manager. 9 Q. I see. So when you were with TSS, tie had a Programme 10 Manager? 11 A. That's correct, yes. 12 Q. Do you remember the name of that Programme Manager? 13 A. The gentleman was called Pat Lyden. L-Y-D-E-N, I think 14 it was. 15 Q. And you provided programme support? 16 A. To him, yes. 17 Q. Did there come a time when you left Turner & Townsend 18 and became employed by tie as their Programme Manager? 19 A. That's correct. I think that was May 2007. 20 Q. Thank you. If we could go over the page, please, to 21 page 2. You do in fact set that out in question 2.1, 22 exactly as you've said. Would it be fair to say that 23 before your involvement with the Edinburgh Tram Project, 24 you had no experience of programme managing trams or 25 light rail projects? 181 1 A. That would be correct, yes. Most of my career to that 2 date had been in oil and gas industry. 3 Q. And to what extent were your skills transferable to 4 programme managing the Edinburgh Tram Project? 5 A. I think a lot of the skills in programme management and 6 programme construction are transferable in that it's 7 understanding and a mindset of the sequence of 8 activities, and you deal quite a bit with the subject 9 matter experts to gain their experience and knowledge to 10 build a programme. So it becomes a robust and 11 integrated programme. 12 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: Sorry, Mr Hickman, could you lean 13 a bit forward to the microphone. You're quite soft 14 spoken. 15 MR MACKENZIE: Yes. If you could make a point of speaking 16 into the microphone as well. 17 A. I'll try. 18 Q. Page 3 of your statement, please, towards the top, 19 second line, we can see at tie you reported directly to 20 Susan Clark, et cetera. 21 Then at page 4 we asked you about the Master Project 22 Programme. In question 4, the last paragraph of your 23 answer, you explain that: 24 "The Master programme was an amalgamation of the 25 three programmes above." 182 1 SDS, utility and infrastructure: 2 "It replicated the SDS Primavera programme and 3 linked the utilities and infrastructure information into 4 it." 5 Now, you have explained that you joined tie as 6 Programme Manager in May 2007. Do you recall whether 7 tie had a master programme in place before you arrived? 8 A. They certainly had a programme of certain level at that 9 point in time. To what level of detail it was, I can't 10 actually recall. But there was certainly a programme in 11 place at the time, but that probably, I would think at 12 that point in time, was detailed in terms of the land 13 acquisition and the -- the things that went with that. 14 But probably the MUDFA and the Infraco part of that 15 would be indicative. I think SDS had had a programme, 16 a contract in place at that time. So their programme 17 would be the contract programme. 18 Q. I see. Now, I think that SDS contract was signed in 19 September 2005. So when you joined tie in May 2007, you 20 would have expected the SDS programme to have been 21 incorporated within the master programme? 22 A. I would have, yes, and I think it probably was. 23 Q. And the MUDFA programme -- sorry, MUDFA contract was 24 signed in October 2006. Do you recall whether it was 25 incorporated into the master programme when you joined 183 1 tie in May 2007? 2 A. There would have been an indicative level of programme 3 at that point in time, and it would have been integrated 4 into the logic of the master programme, but it wouldn't 5 have been the contractual programme as agreed with MUDFA 6 at the time because that contract hadn't been let at the 7 time. 8 Q. So if the MUDFA contract was entered into in 9 October 2006, why wouldn't its programme have been 10 integrated into the Master Project Programme when you 11 joined tie in 2007? 12 A. Sorry, I'm getting my years mixed up. If it was in 13 place in 2006, yes, it would have been included in the 14 master programme logic. 15 Q. I understand. When you joined tie in May 2007, did you 16 have any views on the adequacy of tie's Master Project 17 Programme? 18 A. Not that I can recall, no. 19 Q. Now, when you became responsible for the programme as 20 tie's Project Manager, in general, and by way of 21 overview, did you experience any difficulties in trying 22 to update the Master Project Programme? 23 A. We did -- in terms of updating it, we tried to break it 24 down into a much more lower level of detail, so we could 25 track it easier, and align it with the SDS programme, so 184 1 that the information we were receiving from SDS was 2 comparable in the master programme to the information we 3 were receiving from them. So it was an easy transfer of 4 data. 5 Q. If we can go to page 5, please, of your statement, in 6 the second paragraph from the top you say: 7 "TIE's role was to compile and update the Master 8 Programme based on the information provided by the 9 contractors on a monthly basis. The information tended 10 to be accepted as submitted (following review by the 11 appropriate members of the TIE team) imported to the 12 Master Programme and then the impact of the update 13 assessed. The SDS monthly update was frequently 14 received late, which caused issues when it included 15 forecast dates which had already passed." 16 Now, I think separately the Inquiry has heard 17 evidence that there were ongoing delays with both the 18 design programme and the MUDFA programme. Did the 19 delays in these programmes cause you any problems in 20 trying to keep up to date the master programme? 21 A. They would cause -- cause delays or issues in terms that 22 because it was integrated logic between all the 23 programmes, if one activity or part of the programme was 24 late in an earlier programme, so if the SDS programme 25 design was delayed for any reason, it would delay the 185 1 appropriate part in the MUDFA Utilities Diversion 2 Programme, which in itself would then delay or impact on 3 the Infraco programme. 4 Q. Then sticking with page 5 of your statement, in 5 sub-question 3 we asked: 6 "Approximately how many activities did the 7 programmes take into account ..." 8 Then we referred to an email in September 2007 which 9 attached a document summarising the evolution and 10 development of the master programme between 11 September 2006 and September 2007, which noted that the 12 programme had developed from 2,246 activities to 4,708 13 activities. 14 You replied: 15 "I do not accurately recall activity numbers but do 16 recall that the main programmes numbered many thousands 17 of activities that themselves had many thousands of 18 activities below them held in the contractor's 19 submissions." 20 Then we asked: 21 "What were the main challenges ..." 22 You said: 23 "One of the main challenges was being in a position 24 where we had robust, accurate and, most importantly, 25 up-to-date information from which to inform the master 186 1 programme. The level of detail required to monitor and 2 progress the many thousands of activities in the utility 3 and infrastructure programmes whilst being able to 4 summarise this at a presentable level was also 5 a challenge." 6 In terms of the number of activities in the Master 7 Project Programme, how did that compare with other 8 master project programmes you're used to dealing with? 9 A. It's probably one of the most detailed programmes and 10 the highest number of activities in any programme that 11 I have dealt with in my career. 12 Q. So if this is correct that there were perhaps 4,700 13 approximately activities in the Tram Project Master 14 Programme, approximately how many activities might you 15 expect to see in other master programmes you're used to 16 working with? 17 A. Sorry, that response on the 4,700, the response I meant 18 was in terms of the detail of what was below that was 19 the most activities that I have dealt with in my career. 20 So the utilities programme, for example, would be at 21 a level that we would have each of the different 22 disciplines, gas, water, telecom, whatever it was, in 23 a subsection. And below that, in the contractor's 24 programme, there would be each pipe or cable numbered 25 and monitored. So that kind of level of granularity 187 1 below it. 2 Q. That sounds a very difficult task to keep on top of? 3 A. It certainly was, yes. 4 Q. Was there too much detail? 5 A. At the time it didn't feel like there was too much 6 detail because we were trying to monitor it in such 7 a fashion that we knew exactly what was going on 8 everywhere, because of the intricacies that were 9 required between each of the different parts of the 10 contract, with utilities impact on the infrastructure. 11 But with hindsight, yes, there probably could have been 12 a higher level of programme breakdown that would have 13 made it easier to follow the programme. It was very 14 difficult to articulate what was happening in different 15 disciplines on the ground in a form that was easy to 16 understand and explain to everyone within the team. 17 Q. Did you ever feel on top of all these details? 18 A. In terms of the details, the details were managed by the 19 other planners within the team. But as they summarised 20 and fed into the master programme. So my role was to 21 understand all the different functions coming together 22 and how that affected the master programme. 23 Q. I see. So, for example, the details in the MUDFA 24 programme, that would be primarily a matter for tie's 25 MUDFA team? 188 1 A. They would manage the detail. They would progress the 2 detail. They would work with the contractor to 3 reschedule whatever was required to be rescheduled, and 4 that would be fed into the master programme. 5 Q. Thank you. 6 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: Would they monitor the activities in 7 the MUDFA programme as well or -- 8 A. Excuse me, my Lord? 9 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: Would they monitor the activities 10 in -- the progress? The MUDFA? 11 A. In terms of being out on the site and looking at them, 12 yes. 13 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: Would that be reported back to you or 14 did you have a separate monitoring? 15 A. That would be reported back to the MUDFA team, which was 16 managed from the office in Newhaven. And then that -- 17 the planning team there would feed that into the master 18 programme. So it was the same programme that we all had 19 access to. They would bring it to a level that allowed 20 it to be updated in the master programme. 21 MR MACKENZIE: Thank you, my Lord. 22 Mr Hickman, a separate matter I would like to ask 23 you about in relation to the Master Project Programme is 24 this. 25 We have seen in the design contract dated 189 1 September 2005, there was reference to SDS being obliged 2 to provide its services in accordance with tie's Master 3 Project Programme. But we've also heard evidence from 4 the SDS witnesses that the Master Project Programme was 5 very rarely sent to SDS, certainly between 6 September 2005 and, I think they say that February 2007 7 was the first issue of the master programme they 8 received. 9 Now, you weren't employed in tie during that period, 10 but do you have any knowledge of having seen tie's 11 Master Project Programme between the end of 2005 and, 12 say, February 2007? 13 A. I'm sure I would have seen it because I was working 14 alongside the tie Programme Manager. Whether that was 15 issued to SDS on a regular basis at that point in time, 16 I couldn't recall. 17 Q. But your understanding and recollection is that tie did 18 as a matter of fact have a Master Project Programme 19 between, say, late 2005 and early 2007? 20 A. I believe that they did have a master programme, but at 21 what level of detail, I couldn't testify. 22 Q. Thank you. Go back to your statement, please, to 23 page 8. This is under a general question in relation to 24 design. We asked in sub-question 2: 25 "What difficulties did slippage in the design 190 1 programme cause you as programme manager for the tram 2 project?" 3 You say: 4 "From recollection, main sections of the design 5 programme were subject to continual slippage thus 6 eroding any programme float that existed as a buffer 7 between completion of utility diversions and 8 commencement of infrastructure works." 9 We then asked at 3: 10 "In general, what were your views in 2006 and 2007 11 on whether the various revised design programmes 12 produced by SDS were realistic and would be achieved?" 13 You responded: 14 "It was widely recognised that to achieve the dates 15 being forecast in the SDS Design programmes would be 16 a major challenge. This was subsequently proven with 17 the continuous submission of SDS Design programmes 18 indicating month on month slippage. 19 I cannot recall if there was ever a time that I was 20 confident that a revised programme would be achieved as 21 from memory the infrastructure design continued deep 22 into the timescale of the Infrastructure programme." 23 Now, to pause there, during your employment at tie, 24 was there ever a time when you expected that the design 25 programme would be met? 191 1 A. I always expected it would be met, but being realistic, 2 and seeing the continual movement in the data, it was 3 obvious that there was certainly challenges that SDS had 4 in delivering that programme. 5 Q. When you say you always expected it to be met, do you 6 mean you always hoped it would be met, but whether you 7 expected it would be met is something different? 8 A. Well, through the ongoing discussions and the mitigation 9 that we were trying to put in place, we did expect that 10 at some point, we would be able to recover some of the 11 slippage. 12 Q. Do you know at what point it was expected that some of 13 the slippage would be recovered? 14 A. Well, each submission -- each submission detailed the 15 delivery of that programme, which was every four weeks. 16 So every four weeks we had a fresh set of dates that we 17 hoped SDS could achieve delivery upon. 18 Q. In the period between May 2007 and Infraco contract 19 close, here later in May 2008, during that period was 20 there ever a time when you were confident that the 21 design programme would be met? 22 A. The preliminary design was achieved on or about the 23 delivery date, I recall, which would have gave us some 24 confidence that the detailed design programme following 25 that would have had a -- I guess, a fighting chance of 192 1 being delivered. 2 What the dates that covered the delivery of the 3 detailed design part of the SDS programme, I can't just 4 recall just now. But I think it had to be finished 5 before we awarded the Infraco, which was early 2008. 6 Q. Moving on to the question of the MUDFA works, go on to 7 page 9 of your statement, please. We asked in 8 sub-question 2: 9 "What difficulties did slippage in the MUDFA 10 programme cause you as programme manager?" 11 You replied: 12 "From recollection, main sections of the MUDFA 13 programme were subject to continual slippage thus 14 eroding any programme float that existed as a buffer 15 between completion of utility diversions and 16 commencement of infrastructure works." 17 Then in response to the next question, you said: 18 "It was widely recognised that to achieve the dates 19 being forecast in the SDS Design programmes would be 20 a major challenge. This was subsequently proven with 21 the continuous submission of SDS Design programmes 22 indicating month on month slippage. 23 I cannot recall if there was ever a time that I was 24 confident that a revised programme would be achieved as 25 from memory the utility diversions continued deep 193 1 into the timescale of the infrastructure programme." 2 Does it follow from what you've said there that 3 between May 2007 and May 2008 there was never a time 4 when you were confident that the MUDFA programme would 5 be met? 6 A. Again, in terms of the information that was being 7 delivered on a four-weekly basis, we were continually 8 seeing slippage and the identification of further 9 utilities that weren't expected to be there which was 10 impacting the duration on each of the subsections and 11 subsequently extending the overall duration of the whole 12 project. So it became less and less likely that the 13 MUDFA programme was going to meet the programme dates. 14 Q. Could I also then please go to a separate email. It 15 will come up on the screen. TIE00248213. We can see 16 from the top of the page, this is an email from yourself 17 dated 16 November 2008 to Susan Clark. The subject 18 matter is "[Transport Scotland] Programme Update for 19 Period 08". 20 You say: 21 "The live programme and the version we send to 22 Transport Scotland periodically are so far apart now 23 that I am experiencing great difficulty in preparing 24 a version for Transport Scotland ..." 25 Then in the next paragraph you say: 194 1 "Whilst understanding why we are reporting a 2011 2 OFRS date to Transport Scotland, I am very uncomfortable 3 that I am to all intents and purposes fabricating a 4 programme to appease Transport Scotland that may not 5 stand-up to close scrutiny by auditors. We have to get 6 BSC to provide us with a programme to completion before 7 the end of period 09 or generate one ourselves, but 8 either way we cannot continue to run two programmes that 9 are so different." 10 What was the issue in this email? 11 A. I think the issue behind this email was we were 12 struggling to get information from the Infraco 13 consortium on how they were going to deliver the 14 programme. 15 So we were trying to fill the gap and piece together 16 the bridge between the utilities programme and the 17 infrastructure programme, so that we had a full master 18 programme that was robust, and at that point in time we 19 were having to second-guess, I think, what Infraco were 20 going to supply us with. 21 Q. Now, your reference to being very uncomfortable that you 22 were to all intents and purposes fabricating a programme 23 to appease Transport Scotland, why didn't tie simply say 24 to Transport Scotland: this is the difficulty, we can't 25 produce a realistic programme until we have the revised 195 1 programme from the consortium. 2 A. I didn't have any face-to-face discussions directly with 3 Transport Scotland other than the people mentioned there 4 that I dealt with. So if that discussion was required, 5 it would have been done with -- by somebody higher up 6 the management chain than I. 7 Q. So were you essentially being asked to produce 8 programmes even though you had the concerns set out in 9 your email? 10 A. Not specifically being asked to fabricate a programme, 11 but to develop a programme that brought the two parties, 12 the MUDFA and the Infraco, together in a -- as robust 13 a position as we could with the information available to 14 us at that point in time. 15 Q. Just in terms of how the problem had arisen, I think we 16 know that in the Infraco contract was included 17 a construction programme which was out of date because 18 it was based on version 26 of the design programme. Is 19 that correct? 20 A. I think that's correct, yes. 21 Q. But are you also referring to a further problem that the 22 MUDFA programme was by now out of date as well? 23 A. I think the MUDFA programme at that point in time was 24 revision 6, which I think was the one bound into the 25 Infraco contract. The point I'm making is that Infraco 196 1 were slow in providing us with a programme that 2 indicated that they were going to deliver their part of 3 the works and how we could knit that together with the 4 utilities programme, and that was the bridge we were 5 trying to close, trying to understand the sequencing 6 behind the Infraco programme. 7 Q. Is there an element of chicken and egg between all three 8 programmes, in that it might have been the consortium 9 may say, I don't know, that: our revised programme would 10 require to take into account the -- any revised MUDFA or 11 design programme. 12 A. I think at the point that Infraco were awarded the 13 contract, they knew as much as we did in terms of the 14 delivery of each of the utility diversions for each of 15 the subsections on the route. 16 Q. Would the problem set out in this email have been 17 avoided if an up-to-date and accurate construction 18 programme had been included in the Infraco contract? 19 A. It would certainly have given us a much clearer picture 20 of what the intended outcome may look like, yes. 21 Q. Is perhaps at least part of the problem that if one 22 includes in a contract a programme which is known to be 23 out of date, then that may create problems later for 24 programming purposes? 25 A. Can I just confirm which programme you're referring to? 197 1 Are you referring to the SDS Design programme or are you 2 referring to the Infraco programme? 3 Q. In the Infraco contract there was included 4 a construction programme which was based on an 5 out-of-date design programme. So certainly to that 6 extent, it was known that the construction programme was 7 out of date at contract close. 8 A. Mm-hm. 9 Q. Does that accord with your understanding? 10 A. Yes, I believe the contract was awarded on version 26 of 11 the SDS design programme, and by final close, I think we 12 had moved to version 31. 13 Q. Yes, indeed. Yes, there is that obvious and recognised 14 mismatch. But it also sounds from what you have said 15 that the MUDFA programme may have been out of date or 16 required revision certainly by the time of your email in 17 November 2008? 18 A. The MUDFA programme didn't undergo as many revision 19 changes as the SDS design programme. But it was a live 20 programme, so any formal revision would be recorded, 21 yes. 22 Q. Thank you. 23 Do you recall, Mr Hickman, whether the problems set 24 out in this email of November 2008 were solved, and if 25 so, how and when? 198 1 A. At the point of time that it was written, I can't 2 remember if it was resolved during November 2008, but 3 certainly on receipt of the Infraco programme, that then 4 would have been included in the programme logic, the 5 master programme logics for the entire tram network, and 6 that would have involved having a robust and full 7 programme for the full network at that point in time. 8 Q. There's one final matter I would like to ask you about. 9 Please go back to your statement, the very last page. 10 The one containing your signature. 11 The question at the top, we asked: 12 "Do you have any comments with the benefit of 13 hindsight on how the compilation, updating and reporting 14 of the master programme ... could have been improved?" 15 You responded: 16 "If the tram project had been a true joint venture, 17 then all the participants would have contributed to the 18 Master Programme and their contributions would have 19 improved the project as a whole. What the project 20 really needed was for everyone to be working together." 21 Now, we've heard that the procurement model in the 22 tram project was to disaggregate the design work, the 23 MUDFA work and the Infraco work. Do you think that was 24 a factor in the programming difficulties? 25 A. I think what I meant by that comment is that each of the 199 1 three parties, being SDS, MUDFA and ourselves, were 2 using the same planning software. So the data was being 3 transferred electronically, and imported into the master 4 programme. I felt that if each of the three parties had 5 been independently inputting it into the same programme, 6 the data transfer would have been easier and that the 7 delay between information being collated by one party 8 and inputted by another party would have been shorter. 9 Therefore, the current position would have been known 10 quicker. 11 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: Would that pose any risks to the 12 integrity of the master programme if you've got two or 13 three people -- 14 A. In terms -- 15 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: -- able to access it and to input it. 16 A. In terms of the software that was used, the software 17 used was Primavera planning software, and Primavera 18 planning software allows you to set up nodes at 19 different levels for each of the constituent parts of a 20 programme, which can be closed down in terms of access. 21 So that different people can see different levels of 22 access within the software. 23 So, for example, the SDS could only be given access 24 to the part of the programme that they were in charge of 25 delivering, although that information would have driven 200 1 the logic through the entire programme. 2 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: So if they put their information in 3 on the SDS section, the programme itself would work 4 through that and -- 5 A. It would automatically update the logic, yes, my Lord. 6 MR MACKENZIE: Finally, Mr Hickman, when you say that what 7 the project really needed was for everybody to be 8 working together, how did your experience in the tram 9 project compare with your experience in other projects 10 in that regard? 11 A. In terms of the tie team, the Council team, and to a 12 fair extent the SDS team, everyone in my opinion was 13 striving to deliver this project. I wouldn't say that 14 was the same case for the Infraco consortium. 15 MR MACKENZIE: I see. Mr Hickman, I'm content to take the 16 other matters in your statement as read. So I have no 17 further questions. 18 A. Thank you. 19 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: I don't think there's anyone -- thank 20 you very much, Mr Hickman. I'm sorry it's taken so long 21 to get you into the witness box, but you're now free to 22 go. You're still subject to your citation and could be 23 recalled, but it's unlikely we'll do that. 24 If that does happen, somebody will get in touch with 25 you. 201 1 A. Thank you, my Lord. 2 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: Thank you very much. 3 A. Thank you. 4 (The witness withdrew) 5 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: We'll adjourn now until tomorrow 6 morning at 9.30. 7 (4.30 pm) 8 (The hearing adjourned until Thursday, 26 October 2017 at 9 9.30 am) 10 202 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 MR STEVEN BELL (continued) ...........................1 4 5 Examination by MR MACKENZIE (continued) .......1 6 7 Questions by CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY ............59 8 9 Examination by MR DUNLOP QC ..................60 10 11 Examination by MR FAIRLEY ....................72 12 13 Questions by CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY ............92 14 15 MS SUSAN CLARK (sworn) ..............................95 16 17 Examination by MR MACKENZIE ..................95 18 19 Examination by MR DUNLOP QC .................169 20 21 Examination by MR FAIRLEY ...................172 22 23 MR TOM HICKMAN (sworn) .............................177 24 25 Examination by MR MACKENZIE .................178 203