1 Wednesday, 22 November 2017 8 (3.30 pm) 9 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: Mr Lake? 10 MR LAKE: My Lord, the next witness is Neil Renilson. 11 MR NEIL RENILSON (sworn) 12 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: You are going to be asked questions 13 in the first instance at least by Counsel to the 14 Inquiry, Mr Lake. 15 If you listen to the question and answer it as 16 directly as possible? 17 A. Yes. 18 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: And if you keep your voice up so that 19 everyone can hear, and speak at a measured pace so that 20 the shorthand writer can keep up with you. Do you 21 understand? 22 A. I do. 23 Examination by MR LAKE 24 MR LAKE: Mr Renilson, could you state your full name, 25 please. 176 1 A. Neil John Renilson. 2 Q. I would like you to look at a document with me. You 3 should have a hard copy, but it will also be shown on 4 the screen to your right. If we start by looking at 5 TRI00000068_C. 6 A. You say I should have that here on paper.? 7 Q. No. Do you see the document on screen? 8 A. Sorry. 9 Q. Do you have a copy of that document also available in 10 paper form to you? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Could you look in the paper form at the final page, 13 please. Towards the end. Does that bear your 14 signature? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Is that a witness statement that you provided for the 17 purposes of this Inquiry? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I would also like to you look at another two documents. 20 First of all, one that is TRI00000175. 21 Do you recognise this -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- as a list of amendments that you wish to make to your 24 statement? 25 A. Correct. 177 1 Q. We've understood it as meaning where text is in blue, it 2 is to be added to your statement and where you reproduce 3 text in red, that is text that you wish to have removed 4 from your statement; is that correct? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. I think if you could also look at TRI00000176. 7 I don't know if we need to look through this a few 8 pages, but did you provide a version of your statement 9 in which you had included the text that you wished to 10 add and also deleted the text you wished to remove? 11 A. Yes. The code that I have put on the top of that 12 document, SCIC, basically the last IC means in colour. 13 So within that document, that document comprises my 14 original with the additions and deletions incorporated 15 at the appropriate place in colour. 16 So -- 17 Q. So, for example, if we look at page 30 on the screen -- 18 A. Page 30. 19 Q. -- we see -- 20 A. Yes, that's it. 21 Q. -- an example of the additional text has been included 22 there? 23 A. Correct, fine. 24 Q. So if this includes all the changes made to your 25 statement, are you happy that this be adopted as the 178 1 evidence that you give to this Inquiry? 2 A. Part of it, yes. 3 Q. In addition, I have some questions for you in addition? 4 A. Yes, and in addition, might I say that the alterations 5 I made on 2 November version, I did not -- I did not go 6 through it (a) and deal with typos. I did not add in -- 7 I didn't wish to write -- rewrite the statement because 8 the original was over six months ago, and things have 9 come to mind, et cetera, in the intervening period. 10 So what I submitted on 2 November was just what 11 I deemed to be important. 12 There are other things, but they will probably, I'm 13 sure, come out under questioning. They're essentially 14 additional things. What's the word? Not clarification, 15 but amplification. That's the word. And secondly, the 16 way this statement was prepared at the time, I was 17 presented with -- regularly presented with documents and 18 asked questions. The documents weren't necessarily in 19 date order. So they were jumping about from place to 20 place, and my answers -- therefore the witness statement 21 doesn't read in time order. 22 But as a result of that, on re-reading it again in 23 more detail, I realised on a few occasions I appear to 24 have answered a question, thinking it referred to 25 a prior document that I'd been shown. So you may find 179 1 there are some -- in fact, there are a couple of 2 inconsistencies in my statement where I've answered the 3 question relating to the document I'd been shown 4 previously, which was similar. But again, they'll come 5 up. 6 Q. Let's deal with the things in stages. 7 First of all, the question of referring to the wrong 8 versions of documents. Are these things where what you 9 say in your statement you regard now as being 10 inaccurate? 11 A. I think in some cases I've perhaps given an answer that 12 was not relevant, let's put it like that. 13 Q. You see, there may be questions of things that are 14 additional, and there may be questions I ask you which 15 bring out additional stuff. What I would like to be 16 sure of at the outset is that we have a version of 17 a written statement that you are happy to accept under 18 oath as being your evidence to this Inquiry; that is, 19 you are satisfied with its accuracy and its 20 truthfulness? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. So can I suggest that your evidence is not going to be 23 completed this afternoon. That is, I think, certain. 24 A. Oh dear. 25 Q. So what I would like you to do before you return to 180 1 complete your evidence is to look at this statement and 2 if there is anything that you consider is inaccurate, be 3 in a position to draw it to our attention when you 4 conclude your evidence? 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. Will you do that? 7 A. Yes, I will do that. I would add that nothing is 8 grossly inaccurate. You know, there's nothing that is 9 black and becomes white. 10 Q. I just want to be sure that the Inquiry has the best 11 evidence that you are able to provide. 12 A. Sure. 13 Q. So what I will do is normally I would ask you whether 14 you would adopt your statement as your evidence? 15 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: Are you chewing? 16 A. Yes. 17 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: Would you get rid of it, please? 18 A. Certainly. 19 MR LAKE: Normally I would ask you to adopt what is in your 20 statement as your evidence. I don't want to do that 21 just now while we know that there are things that are 22 inaccurate, but I'll return to that when you complete 23 your evidence. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What I would like to do at the moment is turn to page 6 181 1 of your statement, please. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Now, you've noted that -- if you look at the lower half 4 of the screen, please, paragraphs 23 and 24, 5 particularly 24, you have noted that tie is an arm's 6 length company owned by City of Edinburgh Council. 7 A. Mm-hm. 8 Q. tie did not run in the same way as a CEC Department 9 does. Its management and staff had more freedom to make 10 decisions and run the business as they wished than 11 Council and staff officers do? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Perhaps if it would also be convenient if I go back to 14 paragraph 22, if you could scroll down a little: 15 "After the CERT project collapsed there was a lack 16 of trust in government of CEC's ability to deliver 17 transport projects, and of their being entrusted with 18 another project as they had failed to deliver on past 19 projects. Sarah Boyack and Wendy Alexander were the 20 Scottish Transport Ministers at the time and they 21 insisted any future transport project which received 22 government funding would not be run by CEC directly. It 23 would have to be run more professionally and a special 24 purpose Council owned company, rather than Council 25 officers directly, was seen to be the way forward. 182 1 I was party to some of these discussions involving 2 politicians at both CEC and at Scottish National level." 3 Now, was that -- you were involved in discussions 4 relating to what you say is the requirement of the 5 Scottish Government that an arm's length company be 6 used? 7 A. Sorry, could you repeat the question? 8 Q. Were you involved in discussions with the Scottish 9 Government -- 10 A. Not the Scottish Government, no. 11 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: Please, Mr Renilson. Don't 12 over speak. One person has got to speak, and then stop, 13 and the other person has to start. Otherwise, the 14 shorthand writers cannot record what's happening. 15 A. Understood. 16 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: And it's important that we do record 17 your evidence which is given on oath. 18 MR LAKE: Were you involved in discussions with 19 representatives of the Scottish Government as to their 20 requirement that an arm's length company be used for the 21 tram project in Edinburgh? 22 A. Not representatives of the Scottish Government per se, 23 but with individual politicians is what my statement 24 says, and that was the case. 25 Q. They were acting as the Transport Minister at the time? 183 1 A. No. 2 Q. In what capacity were they speaking to you? 3 A. As members of the -- well, as councillors and members of 4 the Scottish Parliament. 5 Q. In what -- I'm trying to understand what capacity or 6 authority a MSP would have to insist that an arm's 7 length company be used rather than it being done by the 8 Council directly. 9 A. My recollection is that the message that was coming over 10 was that following the CERT project, where the project 11 had not been delivered, the project had been abandoned 12 part way after a sizeable amount of money, some 13 millions -- I think the figure of 10 sticks in my mind, 14 that there was a belief that they would -- they were 15 prepared to advance money to City of Edinburgh Council 16 for another transport project. But with the memory of 17 CERT fresh in their mind, and I believe that there had 18 been prior cases, that they do not have the faith in the 19 City of Edinburgh Council to deliver it. 20 Q. Who was prepared -- 21 A. And therefore if money was to be advanced to the 22 Council, they wanted it to the project to be run by 23 a body other than the Council. 24 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: If you just stop, we are not getting 25 the transcript. 184 1 There's some technical problem with the transcript. 2 We will adjourn until that gets sorted out. 3 (3.42 pm) 4 (A short break) 5 (4.05 pm) 6 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: I understand the equipment has been 7 fixed. You're still under oath, Mr Renilson. Mr Lake? 8 MR LAKE: Mr Renilson, we were asking questions about the 9 delivery vehicle and you were talking about the reasons 10 why there was a view that there should be a company, and 11 that was that, as you put it, they were not prepared -- 12 they were prepared to advance monies, but they had lost 13 faith in the City of Edinburgh Council. What I want to 14 ask you is what do you mean by "they" in that context? 15 A. Probably -- I'm casting my mind back. I couldn't say 16 specifically which MSP or MSPs I was speaking to. This 17 was not formal. This was just in the course of ordinary 18 conversation. 19 I suspect it was probably Sarah Boyack, who was 20 Edinburgh Central at the time, and who I had a fair bit 21 to do with. 22 So by "they", I assume she meant "the Scottish 23 Government" or Scottish Executive as it was at that 24 time. 25 Q. So this was someone representing what the position of 185 1 the Scottish Government was, the Scottish Executive, 2 that they weren't willing to provide the funds to -- 3 immediately to the company. They -- to the Council. It 4 was to go to an arm's length company? 5 A. I don't think the words "arm's length" were specifically 6 used, but the impression from the conversation was that 7 CEC have not delivered in the past on transport 8 projects, that will need to be done differently, not by 9 CEC in future. And this was in the course of 10 a conversation about no doubt many other 11 transport-related things in the city. 12 Q. Part of the reason you said they were disappointed was 13 the failure, as I understand, of the CERT project within 14 Edinburgh? 15 A. Central Edinburgh rapid transit, it stood for. 16 Q. That had failed in that the contractor appointed had 17 pulled out? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. I think you note in your statement, one of the reasons 20 that they had pulled out was when Lothian Buses didn't 21 get awarded the contract, they chose to run a high 22 frequency competing bus service, which made it 23 uneconomic? 24 A. That is not -- can you refer me to which paragraph we're 25 at? 186 1 Q. Certainly. If we look at page 4 of your statement, 2 please? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. If you could enlarge the upper half first of all. In 5 paragraph 14, you introduce the CERT project, and you 6 say: 7 "There was no tram project at the time of my arrival 8 at Lothian Buses in 1998. The project to create the 9 Central Edinburgh Rapid Transport scheme (CERT) was 10 on-going at that time. The project died in 2000 when the 11 successful contractor pulled out. The other companies 12 who had been on the CERT bidder shortlist were 13 approached, but none of them wanted to come back in. 14 Somewhere in the region of GBP10 million had been spent 15 on the project before it was abandoned." 16 I think that figure of GBP10 million was the one 17 that you have given earlier in your evidence this 18 afternoon? 19 A. Correct. In the question you gave me was that when 20 Lothian Buses had not won the CERT project, the CERT 21 tender. Lothian Buses did not tender, did not bid for 22 the CERT project. 23 So Lothian Buses did not win it, but Lothian Buses 24 had not bid for it. So they could not win it. 25 Q. Could we scroll down the page, please. You talk in 187 1 paragraph 16 about the fact that FirstGroup were being 2 awarded the contract? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. As you say: 5 "That resulted in there potentially being new and 6 additional direct competition to Lothian Buses on many 7 routes. 8 Lothian Buses' reaction at that point, which was 9 before I got there, was not surprisingly negative. 10 Lothian Buses introduced revised services that followed 11 the route of CERT and ran those routes on high frequency 12 with new single deck buses. FirstGroup realised that 13 they were going to face significant competition and 14 walked away from CERT." 15 Do you stand by that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. So Lothian Buses acted in such a way as essentially to 18 sabotage CERT? 19 A. No. 20 Q. They wanted to prevent it taking place, did they not? 21 A. There were -- no. There were -- 22 Q. What was the reason why they wanted to run high 23 frequency single deck buses on the very route being 24 served by CERT? 25 A. Can I answer the first point? 188 1 This is saying that FirstGroup were awarded the 2 contract and Lothian Buses then took a certain course of 3 action. 4 My understanding is that if any of the other 5 tenderers had been awarded the contract, and I can't 6 remember who they were, but I know Stagecoach was 7 involved as one of the consortia, Lothian Buses would 8 have been far more relaxed, in that these were 9 operators -- for the sake of argument, let's say it was 10 National Express and Go-Ahead. These were operators who 11 did not have a significant presence in the Edinburgh 12 market at that time. 13 Therefore, if a firm with no presence, say Go-Ahead, 14 had appeared in the Edinburgh market operating CERT, 15 that would not have been welcome by Lothian Buses. But 16 it would not have been the potential sword of Damocles 17 that FirstGroup, who were already an active competitor 18 to Lothian in Edinburgh, and there had been a period of 19 substantially enhanced competition following 20 deregulation in 1986 through to -- I think this is 21 199 -- I can't remember, but anyway, for a prolonged 22 period of time, to have one's main, and indeed only, 23 competitor awarded the CERT contract was something that 24 the then Lothian Buses management were not prepared to 25 sit back and accept, being as they had been -- in 189 1 popular parlance, an ongoing bus war in Edinburgh for 2 some considerable time between Lothian and First. 3 So that's why the award to First was particularly 4 unwelcome to Lothian, whereas an award to the others 5 would have been unwelcome, but not a disaster. 6 Q. You explain in paragraph 105 of your statement, on 7 page 31, I don't think we particularly need to look at 8 it, that Lothian Buses had an 85 per cent market share 9 and the other 15 per cent was operate by First Bus. Is 10 that the position that -- you say that was the position 11 at 1998? 12 A. Paragraph 105? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. That's not in my paragraph -- no, the paragraph numbers 15 are -- on the screen are different to what I have here. 16 I think what you're -- what's on my copy is 17 paragraph 104. Yes, that seems to be it. Let me just 18 have a quick read. (Pause) 19 Yes, that's correct. The start of that, when 20 I started it was approximately an 85/15 per cent market 21 share on services within the city itself. 22 Q. Was there any marked change between that and the time of 23 the introduction of the CERT scheme in 2000? 24 A. No. Not dramatic -- no dramatic change. 25 Q. As you have explained in your evidence this afternoon, 190 1 Lothian Buses was driven by the fact it was a competitor 2 that was to run -- their nearest direct competitor was 3 to run CERT? 4 A. Their only direct competitor. 5 Q. And therefore they took steps to prevent that 6 competition? 7 A. Not to prevent it. Lothian Buses took steps to protect 8 themselves from it. 9 Q. In what sense did running a high frequency route in 10 competition with CERT protect Lothian Buses? 11 A. Lothian Buses would -- mirrored, as best they could, the 12 CERT corridor. By providing an improved quality 13 service, higher frequency, better buses, then they were 14 protecting their market because when CERT, if CERT 15 arrived, when CERT arrived, it too would operate with 16 high quality frequent buses. 17 Q. This was intended -- 18 A. May I finish? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. So Lothian Buses' line was to ensure that they were at 21 as small a competitive disadvantage compared to the 22 forthcoming CERT as possible by concentrating modern 23 high spec resource on to the corridors where CERT would 24 run. 25 Q. They did so with the intention of taking customers away 191 1 from First Bus and CERT? 2 A. They did so with the intention of minimising the number 3 of passengers who would transfer from Lothian to CERT. 4 At that point in time Lothian had a 100 per cent market 5 share on -- more or less 100 per cent market share on 6 what was the CERT corridor. So any passengers -- at the 7 moment all passengers were effectively Lothian 8 passengers. CERT would have taken passengers from 9 Lothian. So Lothian was merely reacting in such 10 a fashion to try and protect its market. 11 Q. So would you accept that Lothian Buses, if you said they 12 had 100 per cent share in that corridor, were 13 undoubtedly in a dominant market position there? 14 A. Absolutely. 15 Q. They used that market position to undermine the 16 competition that tried to get on to that route? 17 A. They used that position to try and insure that when that 18 competition arrived, its impact would be minimised. 19 Q. They used their position to try and undermine the 20 competition setting up on that route. 21 A. No. 22 Q. Very well, Mr Renilson. 23 Could we go, please, to page 5 of your statement and 24 look at paragraph 20. 25 What you say there is: 192 1 "When you treat your external advisers on the basis 2 that here is the answer we want, now go away and come up 3 with a report that reaches that conclusion, and just 4 remember who is paying you, there is probably not a lot 5 of point in engaging external advisers." 6 Now, in respect of which advisers do you consider 7 that was done by tie or TEL? 8 A. I don't think it was done by TEL at all. I was of the 9 opinion that that, which is obviously a sentiment, I'm 10 not quoting those words exactly, but that was 11 a sentiment that appeared to me to be applied in the 12 case of advisers producing the Business Case for the 13 tram. 14 Q. Which aspect of the Business Case? 15 A. Well, if you were calculating at that point a BCR, 16 benefit-cost ratio, an IRR or DCF for the project, you 17 required to put in revenue projections. 18 So you had on one side of the equation the cost, and 19 on another side the revenue. And to cover the costs, 20 the revenue had to reach a certain level. 21 So if the revenue didn't reach that level, you 22 didn't achieve the BCR, you didn't get the approval. 23 So fundamentally it was about projected revenues. 24 Q. Were there any other instances in relation to the 25 business cases that you were aware of? 193 1 A. No. 2 Q. The Business Case, that was a document that was provided 3 by the Tram Project Board to the Council; is that your 4 understanding? 5 A. This was right -- what I'm talking about happening 6 happened right at the very beginning, the genesis of the 7 project. I'm not even sure that the Tram Project Board 8 was in existence at that point. 9 Q. I think we have heard in evidence, the Inquiry has heard 10 in evidence, that there was a Draft Final Business Case 11 in November 2006, a Final Business Case in 12 November 2007, and earlier an interim outline Business 13 Case in 2005. Which of those business cases is the one 14 that concerns you, or was it all of them? 15 A. No. This was in relation -- the first one was your 16 Outline Business Case in 2005. 17 Q. It's referred to, I think, as the Interim Business Case? 18 A. Right. It was the first one that looked anything like 19 a Business Case. So that would have been in the run-up 20 to the preparation of the Interim Outline Business Case 21 some time in 2005, but this was almost certainly -- do 22 you know what time in 2005 that was? 23 Q. I can't give you a date -- 24 A. It was -- you know, it was way at the beginning. So it 25 was probably in 2004. 194 1 Q. Now, insofar as those business cases developed forward 2 until we had the Final Business Case in December 2007, 3 do the concerns you had about information being provided 4 by experts carry forward into those Business Cases? 5 A. To a -- on this issue of the revenue projections, to 6 a much lesser degree. 7 Q. Were you content with the revenue projections that were 8 stated in the Final Business Case? 9 A. They were optimistic. Now, when you're presenting 10 a revenue projection for something that doesn't exist, 11 and where there is no direct comparator, you have to 12 take a view. 13 If I could use, for example, the case of the revenue 14 projections for line 1b to Granton, those were 15 predicated entirely on the -- or virtually entirely on 16 the projected development at the waterfront at Granton 17 harbour at the old gas works site occurring. 18 So at the moment, if you started a tramway on day 1 19 at the very beginning, you would have virtually no 20 revenue because you were serving a derelict brownfield 21 site. 22 So what revenue projection are you going to put in? 23 You estimate it based on what you believe the housing 24 and the residence in that area will be at various points 25 in the -- in the future. 195 1 So in the case of that, was I satisfied that they 2 were? It's very much a question of how long was a piece 3 of string. 4 Had I been satisfied with them, and I wasn't grossly 5 unhappy with them, they would have turned out to be 6 completely wrong, because post Lehman Brothers/Royal 7 Bank/HBOS in September 2009 and -- September 2008 and 8 thereafter, none of that development happened. 9 So if line 1b had been built, to this day it would 10 be running up and down there with virtually no one on 11 it. 12 But with the best will in the world, the revenue 13 projections produced in 2006 and 2007 were as good as 14 you could on the assumption that the economic situation 15 and the development would continue as it had been. 16 So the answer is: was I comfortable with them? As 17 comfortable as anybody can be when you're fundamentally 18 groping in the dark for something that may or may not 19 happen. 20 Q. From starting from a position where you said the experts 21 were giving the answer that the Council said they 22 wanted, is it fair to say you have come all the way 23 round then to saying that the estimates actually 24 provided were as good as they could be? 25 A. No. 196 1 Q. What are you saying? Are the figures provided -- 2 A. I used the example -- 3 Q. Would you let me finish my question? 4 Were the figures that were provided by way of the 5 fare box revenues that were going to be included in the 6 Final Business Case in December 2007 as good as they 7 could be? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Were you happy nonetheless to endorse them and have them 10 put forward in the Final Business Case? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. The Final Business Case was being delivered to the 13 Council. Do you understand that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And it would be relied upon then for taking a decision 16 as to whether or not to go ahead with the project? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. It was something that was also at least of interest to 19 the Scottish Government in terms of making available the 20 grant funding for the project. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did you not consider it would be important to have an 23 accurate statement of these matters going forward? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. But nonetheless you were content to allow a forecast to 197 1 go forward in which you did not have confidence? 2 A. I thought it was optimistic, but as I've said, that was 3 my view. The view of other people might have been that 4 it was correct, or that it was pessimistic. You are 5 taking a judgement call on something way out in the 6 future. 7 Q. So in terms of -- 8 A. I was merely one voice. 9 Q. In terms of your voice, your view, your responsibility, 10 were you happy to let things go which you weren't 11 confident in, simply because you felt other people were? 12 A. These things were not decided by any one person in 13 isolation. There was committees who decided on these 14 things. Different people held different views, 15 expressed different views, and -- these ideas coalesced 16 into what might be termed a mid-ground consensus. 17 On that basis I was happy that it went ahead with 18 figures that I thought were optimistic, but which the 19 mid -- mid-ground consensus from those involved was that 20 they were probably about right. And -- or reasonable. 21 And there were levels of confidence applied to this, so 22 the revenue projections were based on -- I can't 23 remember the exact percentages, but something to the 24 effect of a 25 per cent chance of happening, 25 a 50 per cent chance of happening and a 75 per cent 198 1 chance of happening. In other words, low, medium and 2 high, thereabouts. 3 So there is no right answer. There is no wrong 4 answer. And the example I gave of line 1b was an 5 extreme example. Clearly the situation on line 1a, 6 where you weren't totally reliant on development taking 7 place in what was currently undeveloped brownfield site, 8 then you had much more to go at, and you could be much 9 more confident about your revenue projections going down 10 Leith Walk, where there were clearly not an awful lot 11 happening in terms of change. The people that were 12 there would still be the people that would be there when 13 the tram opened. 14 MR LAKE: My Lord, I see we've reached 4 30. That would be 15 an appropriate time to take a break. 16 Now, tomorrow this morning evidence was scheduled to 17 be given by Ian Laing of Pinsent Masons. He is not in 18 this country. He's in the Far East. So the proposal 19 would be that his evidence would be taken by means of 20 videolink, and because it's necessary to arrange a time 21 for that, it's been provisionally arranged for 9.30 22 tomorrow morning. I don't envisage his evidence will 23 take a long time. I would have thought 30, perhaps 45 24 minutes would suffice. 25 So what I would seek is leave to interpose his 199 1 evidence first thing tomorrow morning, and then we could 2 resume straight after that with Mr Renilson's evidence, 3 and then we have Mr Burt also available in the 4 afternoon. As the various parties will be aware, on the 5 timetable it was also envisaged that Brandon Nolan would 6 be giving evidence tomorrow afternoon. I think that 7 will be difficult in the time that is available, and 8 arrangements have been made now to bring him -- to move 9 him to another day, I think probably 7 December, 10 although that's yet to be fully arranged, but there is 11 a slot in the timetable that's available there. And I'm 12 hoping we can use that. 13 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: So we'll adjourn until tomorrow 14 morning and take Mr Laing first, but you think he will 15 be half an hour or so? 16 MR LAKE: I do. 17 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: In that case, we will just -- 18 A. Excuse me. I cannot be here tomorrow morning. 19 CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY: You're under citation. You've got to 20 be here. So you will be here tomorrow at 9.45. You 21 will be aware from the notice that was served on you 22 that there are sanctions for failure to comply with the 23 citation. 24 (4.32 pm) 25 (The hearing adjourned until Thursday, 23 November 2017 at 200 1 9.30 am) 201 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 MR IAIN MCALISTER (continued) ........................1 4 5 Examination by MR MCCLELLAND (continued) ......1 6 7 Examination by MS FORSTER ...................106 8 9 DR SHARON FITZGERALD (affirmed) ....................127 10 11 Examination by MR LAKE ......................127 12 13 Questions by CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY ...........153 14 15 Examination by MR MARTIN ....................158 16 17 MR NEIL RENILSON (sworn) ...........................176 18 19 Examination by MR LAKE ......................176 20 21 22 23 24 25 202