page 1 1 Wednesday, 16th July 2008 2 (10.40 am) 3 MR MARTIN: My Lord, the next matter to be put before the 4 Inquiry is that my learned junior will read the 5 additional questions and answers that have already been 6 addressed by Mr Masterton. There are the additional 7 questions that are to be put to him as discussed 8 yesterday. 9 Perhaps I could just say in that context in 10 paragraph 139 of Mr Masterton's Inquiry statement there 11 is reference to a document that was addressed, his being 12 shown a document addressed to management from the Health 13 and Safety regarding a complaint about the underground 14 pipes and he confirms that he had never seen it before 15 and then made certain comments about it. 16 I think it is generally accepted, my Lord, that 17 actually it is the document which was written -- the 18 letter which was written to ICL by Mr Ives following the 19 visit by him and Mr Tyldesley and it is the letter with 20 the 12 points, point 11 referring to the pipes. It is 21 the document at pages 11444 and 5. I think I would 22 indicate that in the context of paragraph 139 a copy of 23 that letter will be put to Mr Masterton as part of the 24 additional questions. I hope simply for his 25 confirmation that that is actually the document that he page 2 1 is talking about. 2 Thank you, my Lord. With that I would invite my 3 learned junior to read the additional questions and 4 answers for Mr Masterton. 5 MR McBREARTY: My Lord, there are four questions the first 6 reads as follows: 7 "At paragraph 32 of your statement, you discuss 8 arranging quotations for work to be done on the pipework 9 leading to Gordon Bell's oven. Could you state what was 10 to be replaced? How many quotes were received? 11 "A. There were two CORGI recommended companies 12 that I contacted about work on the pipework. At that 13 time I contacted CORGI to find out what companies were 14 approved to work on LPG ovens. I was advised that they 15 did not approve companies for LPG work but was given 16 names of companies recommended. The companies used came 17 from that discussion. 18 "I cannot remember the names of either of the 19 companies. They both came to view the job, but I only 20 received one quote and was waiting for another at the 21 time of the accident. 22 "The quote was to introduce a second solenoid valve 23 onto the pipework leading to the burners of Gordon 24 Bell's oven. The reason for this work was to minimise 25 the risk of failure of the temperature controller. page 3 1 "At the time the companies came to view the job, 2 Stewart McColl and I discussed with them the possibility 3 of replacing the whole pipework from the burners to 4 a valve in the roof of the coating shop. This valve was 5 about 3 metres away from the oven. I have no doubt that 6 the pipework would have been replaced had the accident 7 not occurred because the existing solenoid valve had 8 failed a couple of times previously." 9 The second question reads as follows: 10 "There were two LPG cylinders on site at the time of 11 the explosion. There are no records of the order, 12 delivery or installation of the pipework from the 13 cylinders. Do you know if any such paperwork exists? 14 "A. I do not know whether any paperwork exists 15 for the order, delivery or installation of the 16 cylinders. I couldn't say where that would be held if 17 it did exist." 18 The third question: 19 "Can you confirm who fitted those cylinders and the 20 pipework for them? 21 "A. J Gas installed the cylinders. The reason we 22 had the cylinders installed was as a back-up, because we 23 had nearly run out of gas once before, due to some form 24 of delivery driver industrial action. 25 "I believe the pipework for those cylinders was page 4 1 connected by J Gas. The cylinders were located to the 2 right-hand side of the main tank. The pipework from the 3 auxiliary cylinders was connected to the pipework of the 4 main tank. 5 "I am not sure that if the main tank ran empty the 6 auxiliary pipes would run gas into the main tank and 7 then through the pipework coming from the tank or 8 whether the pipework from the auxiliary cylinders was 9 directly connected to the main pipework going to the 10 oven from the main tank." 11 The final question reads as follows: 12 "What health and safety training (whether in-house 13 or external) did ICL provide to you? 14 "A. I attended an external course on the Control 15 of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations because 16 this was a large part of my job. I cannot remember when 17 this course was held, but it was either a day or a half 18 day course. 19 "I did not receive any training about risk 20 assessments. 21 "I confirm that the contents of this statement are 22 true." 23 MR MARTIN: My Lord, the next witness is Tracey Downie and 24 her Inquiry statement will be again read by my learned 25 junior. page 5 1 TRACEY DOWNIE (read) 2 MR McBREARTY: The statement of Tracey Downie: 3 "I am Tracey Downie. My date of birth is 26th 4 August 1965. I am employed by ICL Plastics Limited as 5 an Insurance Administrator. 6 "I started working for ICL Plastics Limited as an 7 Insurance Administrator in July 2003. Prior to that 8 I worked for one of the subsidiary companies, Brisbay 9 Limited. I cannot recall precise dates but I think 10 I started working with Brisbay in 1998 and left in 2001. 11 "As Insurance Administrator for ICL Plastics Limited 12 I attended meetings with the insurance brokers as ICL 13 Plastics Limited's representative. I am involved in 14 insurance policy renewal negotiations with the brokers. 15 I also process insurance claims arising through ICL 16 Plastics Limited and subsidiary companies. 17 "ICL Plastics Limited are a holding company for the 18 Group and they handle the insurance, personnel, and 19 wages for the subsidiary companies. In addition, my 20 remit also involves advising directors of any 21 forthcoming changes in health and safety legislation in 22 case they are not aware of them. This information is 23 gathered from logging on to the HSE website or the 24 AIRMIC website, a risk analysis company. 25 "My understanding is the responsibility for health page 6 1 and safety policies and risk assessments rests with the 2 directors of the individual subsidiary companies. 3 "Disaster recovery plan." 4 Could I have, please, page 12719. 5 "I was shown the disaster recovery plan. 6 I first came into contact with this document after it 7 was brought to Campbell Downie's attention about two or 8 three weeks ago. I was asked to look at some zip disks 9 and I found it on one of those. These zip disks were 10 recovered from the site and handed back to us after the 11 accident. I have no knowledge about when the document 12 was produced, how it was produced or by whom it was 13 produced originally. 14 "It is very difficult for me to say whether this 15 document is something that would have been produced by 16 ICL Plastics or their subsidiaries. I note that this 17 document does not have a date and that the ICL logo is 18 on the opposite site to the normal ICL letterhead. 19 I also notice that the document is not signed so there 20 is no indication of who created it. The reference 21 number is ambiguous and doesn't refer to a particular 22 person. The reference DRP/D1 may refer to being draft 23 form but again that is not clear. However, I honestly 24 couldn't say whether this was something I would expect 25 the company to produce. page 7 1 "Whilst it is outside my remit and scope of 2 knowledge to say I am asked what I expected as 3 a disaster recovery plan to look like, I would expect it 4 to be a big thick document rather than an eight-point 5 plan like this. Aside from that this is not what 6 I would consider to be a disaster recovery plan." 7 Could we have, please, page 13417. 8 "I was shown a note of a meeting between myself and 9 Linda Mullen dated 2nd October 2003." 10 I think to put this in context, my Lord, Marsh are 11 the brokers who ICL used in order to place insurance. 12 Could we have, please, alongside that page, page 13 13421. 14 "I note that on the fifth page of that note 15 I confirm to Linda Mullen that there is a disaster 16 recovery plan in place for ICL Plastics Limited. I do 17 recall this meeting because it was my first renewal 18 meeting following taking over responsibility for the 19 insurance from Margaret Brownlie in July 2003. My 20 memory relates to things at the beginning of those 21 minutes regarding the renewal of existing insurances 22 rather than the any other business and business recovery 23 insurance at the end. I can't recall the context of the 24 disaster recovery plan question. I can't remember how 25 I found out that ICL Plastics had one in place. page 8 1 I suspect I would have asked Margaret Brownlie but 2 I didn't see one or hadn't seen one before this meeting. 3 I really can't remember how I knew that ICL Plastics 4 Limited had one in place. 5 "Regarding year 2000 computer compliance I was asked 6 if I knew whether ICL Plastics Limited had a Y2K plan in 7 place. I was working for Brisbay Limited at that time. 8 I cannot remember whether there was a formal Y2K plan in 9 place within that company, although I think that 10 everybody in the UK at that point in time was preparing 11 for the year 2000." 12 For the avoidance of doubt, my Lord, there are two 13 documents witness refers to at that stage regarding Y2K 14 compliance. I do not think there is any issue regarding 15 it nor is it a matter that is in any sense in issue. 16 Perhaps for the record I could read those in, the 17 references to them unless you Lordship wishes to see 18 them. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: If you just give us the references in case 20 anyone wants to follow them up but for the moment 21 I cannot really see that this is of any relevance. 22 MR McBREARTY: The two references, my Lord, are pages 13699 23 and 13740. 24 "I am referred to various other documents amongst 25 Marsh's files. It would appear that in August 1999, as page 9 1 part of a number of improvement required of ICL Plastics 2 Limited, Marsh requested that all companies produced 3 a disaster recovery plan. It would seem that this was 4 agreed, notwithstanding the fact that we did not require 5 business interruption cover and it was not 6 a precondition of any other of your insurance covers." 7 Could I have up, please, four documents, 13749, 8 13720, 13699 and 13698. 9 It may be easiest, my Lord, to point out the 10 references in each of those documents. Looking firstly 11 to 13719, this is understood, my Lord, to be an internal 12 Marsh e-mail regarding renewal of cover. 13 Your Lordship will see at the final paragraph of 14 that e-mail it is stated: 15 "Renewal of cover is based on confirmation of 16 renewal from 1/12/99 and completion of the attached 17 requirements by 1/12/99." 18 When one then goes to page 13720, one sees the 19 requirements which were attached. The first of those at 20 paragraph numbered 99.1, it is stated: 21 "In order to minimise the effects of future loss the 22 insured should develop a disaster recovery plan to 23 enable management to arrange partial rehabilitation of 24 the more critical areas of the business without 25 unnecessary delay." page 10 1 Moving on to page 13709, again, my Lord, this is an 2 internal Marsh e-mail where we will see this paragraph 3 again with the same numbering, 99.1, which states: 4 "You agreed that in view of the cost involved in 5 respect of other commitments and the fact that you to 6 not insure the business interruption risk for this 7 client you would treat this as a recommendation only and 8 can be actioned at some later date. You will be pleased 9 to note, however, that all subsidiaries have been asked 10 to produce a disaster recovery plan." 11 Finally, at 13698 -- 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Just going back to that, please, 13 Mr McBrearty, 13709, is this emanating from Linda 14 Mullen? 15 MR McBREARTY: It is indeed, my Lord. It is from Linda 16 Mullen, I think, to a colleague within Marsh. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Are Sedgwick part of Marsh? 18 MR McBREARTY: I believe that to be correct, my Lord, but 19 I may need to check that. 20 I am advised by those acting for ICL, my Lord, that 21 that is correct. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: So the effect of that then is that from 23 November 1999 the disaster recovery plan has been 24 downgraded from a requirement to a recommendation. 25 MR McBREARTY: I think so, my Lord, albeit that it is noted page 11 1 that at that time, nevertheless, all the subsidiaries 2 have been asked to produce a disaster recovery plan and 3 I certainly read that as being a reference when being 4 asked I had understood that as being a reference that 5 each of the subsidiaries had been asked to do so by the 6 holding company; in other words, by ICL Plastics. No 7 doubt if I am wrong in that, no doubt those acting for 8 ICL will point that out. 9 I think the final reference, my Lord, is to 13698. 10 Your Lordship will see the reference at 99.1 to disaster 11 recovery plan: 12 "We have asked all companies to produce a disaster 13 recovery plan." 14 Again, my Lord, that appears to be an excerpt from 15 an internal Marsh document, although there is no heading 16 which would give an indication as to the date of it. 17 Continuing on with the statement: 18 "It would seem that Margaret Brownlie confirmed to 19 Marsh that all subsidiaries have been asked to produce 20 a disaster recovery plan and then later in 2003 confirm 21 that a plan is in place. I wasn't aware prior to seeing 22 this information that Marsh had requested production of 23 a disaster recovery plan or any response made. I have 24 not seen these documents before. I cannot say whether 25 the disaster recovery plan would have satisfied the page 12 1 insurance company if it had been produced for them. 2 "Insurance claims. 3 "Non-motor claims in the past 10 years. I have been 4 shown a number of documents recording the number of 5 employer's liability claims for the ICL Group from 1994 6 to the date of the tragedy in 2004. It would appear 7 that during these years there was a total of five 8 claims, one of which related to Brisbay Limited. They 9 were all minor EL claims. 10 "With reference to page 134745 I note that the 11 insurers note that we have a low accident rate. I do 12 not have direct knowledge of these claims, however, so 13 it is difficult for me to speak to these any further." 14 Again, I wonder with your Lordship's permission if 15 I might simply give the references for these documents. 16 That again respectfully seems to me that it is not 17 a matter of particular contention amongst the parties. 18 The references are 13653, 13744, 13745 and 13748. 19 "Disaster recovery plan comparisons. 20 "I have checked with the individual subsidiary 21 companies as to whether they possess any disaster 22 recovery plans which could be used as a comparison to 23 this one. There are none. 24 "I confirm that the contents of this statement are 25 true." page 13 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr McBrearty. 2 MR MARTIN: My Lord, the next witness is Mr Campbell Downie. 3 CAMPBELL HETHERINGTON DOWNIE (called) 4 Examined by MR MARTIN 5 Q. Mr Downie, I hope you have in front of you a copy of 6 your final Inquiry statement? 7 A. Yes, I have it here. 8 Q. Obviously we appreciate that you may have difficulties 9 in hearing. Please do not hesitate to make it clear 10 immediately if there is anything that I or anyone else 11 says which you do not hear. Please do that. 12 I understand that you are content that I should read 13 through the Inquiry statement on your behalf and I will 14 pause from time to time and ask you about particular 15 documents and for particular clarifications. 16 "I am Campbell Hetherington Downie. My date of 17 birth is 12th May 1935. I am [I think it should be] 73 18 years old. I am the semi-retired Chairman and Director 19 of ICL Plastics Limited. 20 "ICL Plastics is the holding company of ICL Tech 21 Limited, Stockline Plastics Limited, Plastics W Graham 22 Limited, Easter Road Plastics Limited, Brisbay Limited 23 and Norplast Limited. 24 "The history of the companies. 25 "ICL Plastics Limited. page 14 1 "ICL Plastics Limited was formed by myself and 2 Mr Ronald Cunningham. It was incorporated on 17th 3 November 1961. Mr Cunningham was the Production 4 Director (factory floor and throughout) and I was the 5 Sales and Finance Director. I was on 11th May 2004, 6 semi-retired non-Executive Director and Chairman. 7 I have performed non-executive duties for the company 8 since the middle 1980s wherein my role was to provide 9 financial and strategic guidance." 10 Can you confirm, Mr Downie, that as at 11th May 2004 11 you were the proprietor of approximately 68 per cent of 12 the shares in ICL Plastics Limited? 13 A. That is correct, yes. 14 Q. I think a very few of those were actually in the name of 15 your children but subject to that they were all in your 16 name? 17 A. That is correct, yes. 18 Q. "The financial and strategic guidance" -- 19 A. Excuse me, 5 per cent of these shares in the holding 20 company were in Mr McColl's name and ... 21 Q. As I understand it -- I will just put to you what 22 I understand the position to be, Mr Downie -- you, 23 including the minimal shareholdings held by your 24 children, held approximately 68 per cent of the shares 25 in ICL Plastics, Mr Ferguson held approximately 28 page 15 1 per cent of the shares and Mr Stewart McColl held 2 approximately 4 per cent of the shares. These are the 3 figures that we have. 4 A. That is correct, yes. 5 Q. Thank you very much. 6 Reading from paragraph 4: 7 "The financial and strategic guidance involved 8 seeking to acquire other companies or products and 9 create organic growth, provide financial analysis with 10 opinion available to subsidiary companies. The 11 financial guidance I was involved in was investigating 12 global markets and to provide a funds flow system. 13 I produced a funds flow system of financial accounting 14 to allow the directors to see exactly where they were on 15 a month to month basis. Consequently, the company was 16 self-financing, with no borrowings. The funds flow 17 analysis was to ensure that at no time would the company 18 become insolvent. The strategic initiatives involved 19 research and development (R & D). I was involved in 20 this in different areas of the company development in 21 new strategic markets and prototyping work where other 22 directors would then apply or market the prototypes. If 23 the prototype or product failed due to poor markets, for 24 example, the strategic initiative would terminate. 25 "Very little of my work was conducted on the page 16 1 premises. In the early days when the company was formed 2 a third of my time was spent on the premises and the 3 rest of the time was spent out selling or meeting with 4 clients. I was asked how often I was on the premises in 5 the 1970s and 1980s. It is difficult to recall. My 6 visits to the factory premises became more irregular 7 from the early or mid-1980s as the Group (subsidiary 8 companies) expanded and I was required to be away from 9 the Glasgow base more frequently. 10 "Manufacturing activities in ICL Technical Plastics 11 Limited were originally looked after by Mr McDonald and 12 when he left and from 1973 onwards by Frank Stott. When 13 Mr McColl took over Stockline Plastics Limited the 14 companies with their own directors were responsible for 15 their manufacturing process. 16 "As semi-retired Chairman, I did a lot of research 17 into theory of constraint, a new problem solving 18 philosophy, with a view to this becoming part of the 19 company's operating policy. From the 1990s onwards, 20 once or twice a week, typically on Tuesday and Friday 21 evenings, I met Margaret Brownlie at ICL's office for 22 this purpose and to discuss finance, IT programme 23 development and computer networks. I left the 24 day-to-day running of the operating companies to the 25 individual directors. page 17 1 "Mr Cunningham resigned as director in February 2 1966. 3 "Between 1961 and 1965, ICL Plastics Limited pursued 4 experimental work perfecting a new technology on polymer 5 particle fluidisation, which was a method of applying 6 industrial coatings and linings, hence the acronym ICL. 7 "Between 1965 and 1969 the business expanded into 8 new areas of the polymer industry. As the company grew 9 new products were added to the production activity. In 10 the mid-1960s Mr McColl joined as a salesman. This 11 meant that we were able to double our sales and 12 marketing effort. This was well established by the 13 early 1970s. Between 1970 and 1973, 14 product diversification took place with separate 15 operating divisions being formed for manufacture and 16 distribution within ICL Plastics Limited. 17 "Between 1973 and 1975, a more formal company 18 structure was proposed, with autonomous subsidiary 19 companies being formed. In particular, the then named 20 ICL Technical Plastics Limited was incorporated on 26th 21 November 1973 and Stockline Plastics Limited was also 22 incorporated on [the same date]. ICL Technical Plastics 23 Limited was responsible for plastics manufacture and 24 Stockline Plastics Limited became responsible for 25 plastics distribution. page 18 1 "ICL Plastics Limited became the holding company 2 with myself as Chairman. I withdrew from all executive 3 duties in the Group's autonomous subsidiaries between 4 1973 and 1975 after executive directors were appointed. 5 In an emergency in the absence of a director, I was in 6 a position to respond with guidance. 7 "The directors were paid by salary. When they 8 started they were offered a shareholding in the company. 9 This was not a form of remuneration. This was 10 a condition that seemed appropriate. Directors and 11 senior employees were offered up to 25 per cent of their 12 respective company. 13 "I was asked how salaries were set. They were set 14 against what the company could afford to pay. If the 15 company did well the remuneration would increase. 16 Directors would receive additional remuneration by 17 proposing what their remuneration should be. This is 18 against the background of putting aside necessary 19 resources in each company from the profitable throughput 20 of that company. This determined what the remuneration 21 could be. We would never pay so much as to make the 22 company become insolvent, starved of cash retained for 23 contingencies. 24 "The company was without borrowings. There were no 25 bonus schemes. There were no mechanisms such as in page 19 1 public companies to award directors. Additional 2 remuneration would be determined by resources created in 3 each year. When the company was not profitable there 4 was little or no additional remuneration in that year", 5 and should that be "to ICL Tech Limited"? Or perhaps 6 the words "ICL Tech Limited" simply should not be there 7 at all? 8 A. No, that would relate to all subsidiaries and not just 9 ICL Tech. 10 Q. Thank you. 11 "Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, ICL Technical 12 Plastics Limited expanded into new areas or work and 13 specialised in state of the art production methods. In 14 1999 the name was changed to ICL Tech Limited (for 15 brevity). 16 "ICL Tech Limited carries on a business as 17 a plastics manufacturer producing plastic mouldings and 18 fabrications from bank ATM displays to components for 19 aircraft interiors and medical products. It was also 20 involved in applying plastic coatings to non-plastic 21 components using various processes up to 2004. 22 "Plastic coatings are applied to metal components by 23 either spraying or fluidised bed methods. In the 24 fluidised bed method, metal components are preheated in 25 ovens to high temperatures, then dipped in beds of page 20 1 plastic particles maintained in a fluid state by 2 compressed air. 3 "As at 11th May 2004 I learned there were six ovens 4 on the ground floor of the premises occupied by ICL Tech 5 Limited at Grovepark Mills, Maryhill. I learned about 6 this from the reports of the investigation on the 7 factory floor following the tragedy. Ovens over the 8 years had come and gone. As I was involved in the 9 financial strategic side, I was not sure how many ovens 10 were on the factory floor. This would not be a matter 11 for me. If the company was insolvent and if someone 12 asked for an investment it is only then that I would 13 consider the merit of the investment. There were four 14 electric ovens, one natural gas oven and one Birlec 15 propane (LPG) oven. The ovens were used for various 16 processes. The LPG oven was one of two ovens used 17 almost daily for preheating metal components for plastic 18 coating by the fluidised bed and spray method." 19 If I may pause there, Mr Downie, did you know before 20 the disaster that there were ovens in the premises at 21 Grovepark Mills but it is simply that you did not know 22 the details of what these ovens were? 23 A. That is correct, yes. 24 Q. Did you in particular know that there was at least one 25 oven powered by LPG propane rather than by either page 21 1 natural gas or by electricity? 2 A. Yes, that's true. 3 Q. So you did know there was an LPG -- at least one LPG 4 oven? 5 A. That is true, yes. 6 Q. Thank you. 7 Carrying on, paragraph 20: 8 "A small stock of raw material was held for 9 processing polyethylene, nylon and PTFE. 10 "Stockline Plastics Limited carried on business from 11 an adjacent premises at Grovepark Mills as a stockist 12 and distributor of all kind of plastics, cast acrylic, 13 extruded acrylic, polystyrene, structured polycarbonate, 14 nylon, polythene, propylene, PVC, et cetera, in sheet, 15 rod and tube form. 16 "After ICL Plastics Limited was established as 17 a holding company in 1973, it became responsible for 18 maintaining the Groups' financial resources, providing 19 accounting services, carrying out strategic market 20 analysis, IT, and undertaking research and development. 21 "Fixed plant and equipment such as the LPG oven and 22 pipe running from the oven up to the point at which the 23 pipe was connected to the regulator at the LPG tank (see 24 below), excluding the LPG tank which belonged to Calor, 25 was transferred to ICL Technical Plastics Limited along page 22 1 with stock in trade in 1973. With the formation of each 2 subsidiary, the operating assets of the holding company 3 transferred to each of the subsidiary companies." 4 Mr Downie, I would like just to ask you a little 5 more about that in relation to the LPG tank and the LPG 6 pipework. 7 Do I understand that you were aware that by the 8 middle 1970s the LPG tank had been supplied by and 9 continued to belong to Calor Gas? 10 A. The LPG tank in the middle '70s belonged to Calor Gas, 11 but I learned subsequently that the pipe did not belong 12 to Calor Gas. 13 Q. When you say subsequently, when did you learn that the 14 pipework did not belong to Calor Gas? 15 A. I think that's dealt with in the statement correcting my 16 first assumption at a later date. Further on in this 17 statement, I correct that assumption that I thought, 18 first of all, that the pipework belonged to Calor Gas. 19 Q. In paragraph 23 you say that the pipework was 20 transferred to ICL Technical Plastics Limited along with 21 stock in trade in 1973. May we take it that that was an 22 accounting transfer and it was part of the transfer of 23 the operating assets of all of the subsidiaries? 24 A. We did not transfer the operating assets of all of the 25 subsidiaries to ICL Technical Plastics. I think we have page 23 1 to rephrase that question. The operating assets of the 2 former holding company, before it became a holding 3 company, that is ICL Plastics Limited, when ICL 4 Technical Plastics was formed became the assets (that is 5 the manufacturing process became the assets) of ICL 6 Technical Plastics, both physically and financially. 7 Q. I understand that, Mr Downie, but so far as the pipework 8 was concerned, was it included in an accounting transfer 9 from ICL Plastics to ICL Technical Plastics? 10 A. There was no valuation for piping. 11 Q. Was there any transfer of the title to the ground in 12 which the underground pipework was situated from ICL 13 Plastics Limited to ICL Technical Plastics Limited? 14 A. Certainly no. 15 Q. Perhaps we will come to that later. Thank you. 16 Carrying on paragraph 24: 17 "As at 11th May 2004 the directors of ICL Plastics 18 Limited were myself, my wife Lorna Downie, Margaret 19 Brownlie (now deceased) and Stewart McColl (now 20 deceased). The current Directors after 2004 are myself, 21 my wife Lorna Downie and Ronald Ferguson who was 22 appointed non-Executive Director in 2008. 23 "As at 11th May 2004 the directors of ICL Tech 24 Limited were Stewart McColl (now deceased). Another 25 director, Frank Stott had resigned on 22nd January 2004. page 24 1 The current Director (non-executive) is myself (having 2 been appointed following the incident), and Nicholas 3 Downie Chief Executive (not a director) appointed after 4 the incident." 5 Can you confirm, Mr Downie, that Mr Stott 6 subsequently died, I think, in 2006? 7 A. Mr Stott died around 2006, yes. 8 Q. Thank you. 9 "At the time of the incident the offices for ICL 10 Plastics Limited and ICL Tech Limited were at Grovepark 11 Mills. Stockline Plastics Limited also had offices in 12 the main building. ICL Plastics Limited currently has 13 temporary offices at 46 Lochburn Road and ICL Tech 14 Limited at 26 Lochburn Road, Maryhill. 15 "At the time of the incident ICL Plastics Limited 16 employed five office staff including (sic) the four 17 directors and ICL Tech Limited employed 33 people." 18 Before I move on to the premises, Mr Downie, I would 19 like to ask you, as you have said that you were the 20 Chairman and a non-executive Chairman of the group 21 holding company throughout the period with which we are 22 concerned, who was responsible ultimately for making 23 major decisions about how the members of the Group would 24 operate? 25 A. The members of the Group were -- that is the Chief page 25 1 Executives of Group companies were entirely autonomous 2 in this decision-taking, with the exception of any 3 financial implication that would arise from decisions 4 they took. 5 Q. I will put to you three passages from the evidence of 6 other witnesses. First, from the evidence of Mr William 7 Masterton and this is at paragraph 7 of his Inquiry 8 statement, what he says under reference to ICL Plastics 9 Limited, and I quote: 10 "In my opinion, the pecking order within Group were 11 Campbell Downie, Ronald Ferguson, Stewart McColl and 12 then Frank Stott (deceased)." 13 Is it correct if one was to describe the ranking as 14 a pecking order that you were top, Mr Downie, of the 15 pecking order? 16 A. We were not a hierarchical organisation. The company 17 was intended to be structured as a flat lateral 18 organisation. That is I believe that everyone one of 19 the directors would take their own decisions and always 20 had the right to be wrong without being castigated. 21 That means that there was no pecking order. 22 Q. So do you disagree with what Mr Masterton has said about 23 a pecking order with you coming first? 24 A. I think that there's not -- it's kind of an abstract 25 statement. I don't think Mr Masterton would know how page 26 1 the structure of the company operated from the position 2 he was in. 3 Q. All right. The second passage of evidence is in the 4 Inquiry statement of Mrs Linda McColl who is the widow 5 of Stewart McColl and, under the heading of "Control by 6 ICL Plastics Limited", she said: 7 "In my opinion, each company was run on a day-to-day 8 basis on its own but overall control was done by ICL 9 Plastics. It controlled the reins of the subsidiary 10 companies. ICL Plastics Limited authorised the wage 11 rises for the other companies or the purchasing of major 12 expenditure or a car. It kept a very tight rein on the 13 other company's finances. My understanding is that the 14 Chairman, Campbell Downie, ultimately made all the 15 decisions." 16 Now do you agree or disagree with what Mrs McColl 17 has put in her Inquiry statement? 18 A. I would disagree with that. The basis of the company 19 was a democratic organisation, in the sense that when we 20 held board meetings I sat in the chair and the directors 21 would vote for whatever proposition was before them. 22 I did not exercise a vote from the chair except that 23 I would have had a casting vote if there had been any 24 disagreement between us. 25 Q. The third passage of evidence is in the Inquiry page 27 1 statement of Mrs Lorna Downie, who is your wife, and 2 under the heading of "ICL Plastics Limited", and this is 3 paragraph 24, she has said in her Inquiry statement: 4 "There was no managing director in Group ICL 5 Plastics Limited. There was the Chairman, Campbell 6 Downie; the Financial Director, Margaret Brownlie; 7 myself as personnel director; and Stewart McColl, Chief 8 Executive liaising with subsidiaries." 9 Is it correct, Mr Downie, that there was no managing 10 director of the Group ICL Plastics Limited? I should 11 say the Group controlled by ICL Plastics Limited? 12 A. I would say that Mr McColl was referred to as the 13 Managing Director but that became later in 14 correspondence, a great deal of correspondence which 15 I could refer to but have not got before me. 16 What I would say is at the outset in the '70s to the 17 '80s we did not have a full structure such as we had in 18 later years, in the '90s through to 2000 and that the 19 earlier structure had a less formally constituted number 20 of people with titles. That is Mr McColl was 21 effectively after 1973 a commercial director managing 22 the subsidiaries which were autonomous with their own 23 managing directors. 24 Q. The reason I am asking these questions, Mr Downie, is 25 that the Inquiry may wish to ascertain who was page 28 1 ultimately, as an individual, responsible for material 2 decisions, particularly relating to LPG at Grovepark 3 Mills. 4 Would you be prepared to accept that as the Group 5 Chairman, particularly with reference to LPG and by 6 reference to what has been said in these passages of 7 evidence and what we shall see in subsequent evidence, 8 that you were to some extent in the position ultimately 9 to make or to control the decisions in question? 10 A. Up to the point in 2004 of the tragedy, decisions that 11 were taken with regard to LPG were not referred to me. 12 The issues of the use of LPG, for instance, and whether 13 or not that was appropriate was not referred to me. It 14 was taken within the technical company itself. 15 Q. We will pass on for the moment, Mr Downie. 16 The next part of your Inquiry statement deals with 17 the premises and I resume reading at paragraph 28: 18 "ICL Plastics Limited owned the premises at 19 Grovepark Mills. The main premises at Grovepark Mills 20 was a four-storey Victorian mill building built in 1878 21 on an L-shaped plot. The external walls were made of 22 brick. The first, second and third floors to the 23 building were made of timber supported internally on 24 a grid of cast iron columns. On each floor the space 25 was divided by non-structural partitions." page 29 1 You will be aware that a model has been created of 2 that part of the ICL premises as it was before the 3 disaster and the model is to your left, Mr Downie, and 4 if you wish to refer to it or make any comment about it 5 for the benefit of the Inquiry, please feel free to do 6 so. 7 I shall read on at the moment: 8 "The four-storey mill building was originally four 9 storeys with an attic pitched roof. The slated peak was 10 removed and replaced with a flat mastic asphalt 11 covering, following extreme gales well documented in 12 Glasgow in the 1970s. The slates were coming loose so 13 the decision was made to replace it in order to avoid 14 risk to our employees and the general public. Roof 15 contractors removed the slates and the joists were cut 16 away by the roofers. The original attic floor and 17 joists were retained to form the roof above the floors 18 below, but still centred on the original columns. 19 Plywood or chipboard was then laid to receive 20 three-quarter inch of mastic asphalt or a grade suitable 21 for roofing per winter and summer protection, painted 22 with an elastomer coating (reflective aluminium UV 23 filter). I think the work was done by reputable roof 24 contractors but I can't remember who. 25 "Within the building, having isolated stairwell fire page 30 1 escapes at either end of the building, each with the 2 recommended distance from the centre of the building 3 with well designed passages and designated the exits." 4 May I take it, Mr Downie, that so far as the model 5 is concerned the stair tower which we know from other 6 evidence was one of the fire escapes at the corner, the 7 west end of the building, which is closest to you 8 sitting in the witness box, that is a representation of 9 the stair tower that was in that location. Is that 10 correct? 11 A. Yes, that's absolutely my recollection of it. 12 Q. Thank you. 13 I think we also know from evidence that there was 14 another stairwell which was part, I think, of the foot 15 of the L at the other end of the building at the 16 north-east side. It is not shown on the model but it 17 was towards the east end and obviously entered to the 18 yard which itself opened up to the north into Grovepark 19 Street. Is that right? 20 A. That is right, yes. 21 Q. "Access to the upper floors and basement at the west end 22 of the building was attained via a stairwell which had 23 been added to the building in about 1907. If you looked 24 at the building to the east (Grovepark Street) the 25 stairwell was the original point of access. The page 31 1 stairwell to the north-west (facing Maryhill Road) is 2 the access that was added on round about 1907." 3 Do I understand, Mr Downie, that the stairwell at 4 the east end (that is at the Grovepark Street end) was 5 part of the original structure constructed in the middle 6 19th century. The one at the west end, the stairwell in 7 the model closest to you in the witness box, was added 8 later, thought to be about 1907? 9 A. Yes, that's correct. 10 Q. "Within the building were cast iron pillars sat on 11 foundations from the ground upwards. Above the ground 12 floor pillars, there were identical pillars, with the 13 exception of the top floor which were of a lesser 14 scantling but of the same shape. The tying of these 15 pillars was by heavy wooden beams, much like the deck of 16 a ship, with all the timbers running to the wall heads." 17 Do I understand that the main timbers (that is to 18 say, those supported on the columns) ran, as it were, 19 east to west with the floor joists then at right angles 20 running north to south as we can see on the model? 21 A. No, I don't think that's right. 22 Q. Right. Please tell me what it was. 23 A. I think the columns supported heavy beams to the wall 24 heads on either side, that's south and north, and that 25 the joists may have run from a central column to the page 32 1 wall head as shown. 2 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 33: 3 "I recall that the original flooring throughout the 4 building (apart from the ground floor) was 4 by 10 5 joists or larger spaced at 13 inches or so apart 6 typically for industrial processes, mostly made of inch 7 broad wooden flooring on the main joists. None of the 8 joists were allowed to be notched for running services, 9 although two had been notched without authorisation." 10 I wonder if you could just help me on that, 11 Mr Downie. It says that the joists were spaced at 13 12 inches. That is how it is written. 13 Was it 13 inches or was it a wider space apart than 14 that? 15 A. I should have said approximately 13 inches. I never 16 measured the beams but visually it looked very close set 17 joists as opposed to non-industrial buildings. 18 Q. "As my visits to the premises were irregular from the 19 mid-1980s onwards I can't speak with accuracy about more 20 resent developments to the premises. The building 21 adjacent was a 20th century rectangular construction to 22 the north-east consisting of a single storey portal 23 framed steel structure with an asbestos sheet roof and 24 external brick wall panels." 25 Am I right, Mr Downie, that that at one time was page 33 1 occupied by a separate enterprise called The Scooter 2 Centre but subsequently became used by one of the ICL 3 Group companies as the fabrication shop? 4 A. Yes, that's so. 5 Q. Thank you. 6 "On the opposite south side of the original building 7 from the adjacent building was the yard which was 8 a triangular shaped piece of ground extending to the 9 south-west of the building." 10 Is that represented on the model just to your left 11 from the witness box? 12 A. Yes, indeed it is. I can see it from here. 13 Q. "The bulk storage tank for the LPG was located at the 14 apex of the triangle furthest from the building -- 15 a distance of about 15 and a half metres from the 16 building. I was aware of the LPG pipe, as it was 17 originally the sole supply for gas to the oven in the 18 building." 19 Again, in the model, can we see a representation of 20 the LPG tank in the appropriate position? 21 A. Yes, that's so. 22 Q. I think we know that at various times there were two 23 tanks in that location rather than one but in terms of 24 where the tank is positioned, that is where it always 25 was? page 34 1 A. I think that was very approximately the original 2 location in 1969. It would be in that area and no 3 other. 4 Q. We also know from other evidence that, as it were, 5 behind the tank as one stood in the yard there was 6 a stepped wall which marked the boundary of the yard. 7 It is not shown on the model but again you can recall 8 that, can you? 9 A. Are you referring to the wall which is shown with a gate 10 or are we talking about another wall that runs behind 11 the propane tank? 12 Q. We are talking about the second of those. There was 13 a wall which ran behind the propane tank. 14 A. Yes, that is so. 15 Q. It is not shown in the model. 16 "There was a gateway for traffic in the perimeter 17 wall between the yard and Grovepark Place. The yard was 18 covered with concrete hard standing. 19 "In the main premises the third floor of the 20 building was used for light storage. The only 21 additional usage of this floor was for one hot water and 22 two central heating boilers (mains gas). I can't recall 23 with any accuracy when the boilers were installed. The 24 second floor consisted of office accommodation occupied 25 by employees of ICL Plastics Limited, ICL Tech Limited page 35 1 and Stockline Plastics Limited. The first floor of the 2 building was used for light storage and some prototyping 3 operations of ICL Tech Limited and the ground floor of 4 the original building and the adjacent building were 5 occupied by ICL Tech Limited as its fabrication shop, 6 coating shop and despatch area. 7 "In the main building, all safe passages were 8 comprised of double layered, staggered plaster board. 9 All doors were recommended fire doors on automatic 10 closing. The external paintwork was done by Andrew 11 Galloway (see below). We bought the paint from Gael 12 Paints next door so Andrew Galloway did not need to 13 store this. 14 "The original offices in the early 1970s were on the 15 first floor of the building along with the workshops. 16 The offices covered only a quarter of the floor space of 17 6,000 square feet per floor, with the remainder being 18 plastic fabrications. The ground floor was where the 19 coating process took place. The adjacent portal frame 20 building belonged to Ross McManus, trading as The 21 Scooter Centre. The portal frame building was acquired 22 from Mr McManus on behalf of ICL Tech Limited to house 23 their Fabrication Department. I can't remember the date 24 of acquisition. We shifted ICL Tech's fabrication 25 operation from the first floor into this newly acquired page 36 1 space and this became known as the fabrication shop. 2 "John Russell Joiners sold their property on 3 Grovepark Street to ICL Plastics, Limited which space 4 was taken over by Stockline Plastics Limited. Stockline 5 rented the building from ICL Plastics. 6 "The despatch area and the coating shop were housed 7 in the original building. The despatch area occupied 8 the north-west area of the ground floor (about one-third 9 of the space) and the coating shop occupied the 10 remaining two thirds of the space towards the south-east 11 end of the building. There was access between the 12 despatch area and the yard via a concrete vehicle ramp 13 suitable for forklift trucks." 14 If you look into the model, Mr Downie, can you 15 confirm that between, as it were, the western third of 16 the ground floor and the two-thirds to the east there is 17 a wall with a gap in it and with a ramp down between the 18 two floor levels? Is that how you recall it? 19 A. I'm afraid I've no recollection of the accuracy of that, 20 but it seems a general arrangement that would be similar 21 to the original. 22 Q. Thank you very much. I will just wait until you are 23 sitting down. 24 Paragraph number 44: 25 "Business expansion took the office space to occupy page 37 1 the full first floor of the building. The offices were 2 then moved from the first floor to the second floor -- 3 I can't recall when. Stewart McColl designed the layout 4 on the second floor. It was a progressive development." 5 Mr Downie, we have in the evidence of Mr McCourt, 6 Mr Alistair McCourt, who gave evidence yesterday -- and 7 I will ask you a little bit more about his contact with 8 ICL later -- but in the course of his evidence and he 9 looked at the various aspects of what was going on in 10 the building, including the LPG, the ovens, the spray 11 painting processes, wood dusts and so on, and in 12 paragraph 36 he said and I quote: 13 "My general opinion of the building was that it was 14 not a good building for the processes it was getting 15 used for." 16 Did you, Mr Downie, ever consider whether or not 17 a building of this sort, of the structure of which you 18 were aware and you have described, was suitable for the 19 sort of industrial processes which were being carried on 20 within it? 21 A. Yes, I think you have to say that in my view one could 22 always move to better accommodation progressively right 23 up to what I would call class A industrial architecture 24 buildings where very large public companies operate 25 from. But I think the building in a sense, like the old page 38 1 building in Paisley, the Courts building, which was an 2 industrial building carrying through industrial 3 processes, would be suitable for the type of work that 4 we were doing. 5 Q. Did you at the time ever think about that or are you 6 simply responding now with the benefit of hindsight to 7 the question which I asked? 8 A. I think that I will have reflected on the fact that we 9 could have been located elsewhere, but that the desire 10 from my point of view was to maintain the building to 11 a high standard and to ensure that we did not do 12 anything that would disrupt the structure of the 13 building by the processes that we were running. 14 I think, yes, I would have a conscious thought that 15 I would prefer to have operated in that building as long 16 as everything was safe. 17 Q. The next section of your Inquiry statement is headed: 18 "Additional background/history to the premises. 19 "The original building had a chimney which was 20 demolished as it was deemed a risk due to its age and 21 the danger of lightning. It was taken down by 22 a steeplejack demolition contractor from Kilsyth. It 23 was demolished maybe 20 years ago. The steam plant 24 building (part of the chimney structure) was also 25 demolished. Before initial purchase of the mill, the page 39 1 sellers (Starks) of the mill removed all their plant and 2 boilers." 3 Just stopping there, Mr Downie, am I right that the 4 position of the chimney and the steam plant building was 5 again on the north side of the mill; that is to say, in 6 the vicinity of Grovepark Street? 7 A. Yes, that would be correct. 8 Q. Thank you. 9 "In 1907 an old mill pond extended only within the 10 chain link fence car park. There were corporation 11 houses, four storey buildings standing on the chain 12 linked car park area when we first moved in. The 13 corporation houses were then demolished in the early 14 1970s. 15 "We acquired the car park on long lease from the 16 Corporation. To this day the road floods in this area. 17 "The Grovepark sewer issues into the Hopehill Road 18 main sewer which runs from the Garscube Road end to 19 Maryhill Road and this main sewer floods at the Maryhill 20 lights when there are flash floods. I am also aware 21 that 22 yards of the Hopehill Road sewer collapsed 22 between Grovepark Street and Grovepark Place and was 23 reconstructed approximately 20 years ago." 24 Could I pause there, please, to ask for a series of 25 photographs to be put up, the first of which is 12784. page 40 1 Do you recognise that view, Mr Downie, and is that 2 a picture of the mill building perhaps from Hopehill 3 Street but essentially from the Grovepark Street side 4 with the chimney and presumably the steam plant building 5 still in position? 6 A. Yes, I can see that from the photograph. 7 Q. We can also see that as it was at that time the roof is 8 the pitched slate roof that you have described as being 9 removed once you took control of the building; is that 10 right? 11 A. That is so, yes. 12 Q. To the right of the mill building part of a tenement 13 building which again presumably was the Corporation 14 houses that were later demolished. 15 Those would be at the Grovepark Place or Hopehill 16 Street end of the mill building; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, that's right. 18 Q. Could I have the next page, please -- 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Just before you leave that, Mr Martin, 20 Mr Downie, could you relate that viewpoint in 12784, 21 what is on this screen? Could you relate that 22 viewpoint, please, to the model? Could you just show us 23 where the chimney would have been. 24 A. The photographer would have been approximately here 25 (indicated) looking across what would be the portal page 41 1 frame building which is not shown here. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 3 MR MARTIN: I wonder, my Lord, if I may just help. Just 4 looking behind you, Mr Downie -- obviously we are trying 5 to rationalise something in the ground -- there is 6 a large supporting column of this hole which is in 7 amongst the tiered seating if you just look round to 8 your left. 9 Is that, so far as the photograph concerned, roughly 10 speaking where the photographer would be standing 11 looking from the north towards the north side of the 12 mill building? 13 A. That would be quite accurate, yes. 14 Q. Thank you. 15 Could I have the next photograph, please, which is 16 785. Is that a photograph approximately from the same 17 direction but obviously closer in perhaps on Grovepark 18 Street itself, showing the chimney, the corner of the 19 mill building to the north-east in which the stair that 20 we talked about earlier was situated and I assume also 21 showing at a lower level part of the steam plant 22 building that was subsequently demolished? 23 A. Yes, I can see that from the cobbled road and it would 24 be taken from the pavement north of that cobbled road, 25 the photograph. page 42 1 Q. Would that be Grovepark Street? 2 A. That would be Grovepark Street. 3 Q. Quite close to its junction with Hopehill Street? 4 A. 50 yards or more. 5 Q. Then also in that photograph can we see the pitched roof 6 at a lower level just to the right of the lower part of 7 the chimney of what became the fabrication building? 8 That is the separate one storey portal frame building? 9 A. Yes, you can see it. It's not very distinct but it can 10 be identified. 11 Q. Thank you. 12 The next photograph, 786, please. Where is that 13 photograph taken from? 14 A. That's taken from property belonging to Alex Milne 15 Builders and Joiners and it shows the east end gable end 16 of that building, the four-storey building. 17 Q. It would, in effect, be the south-east corner of the 18 building which is the corner of the model at the far end 19 away from the witness box; is that right? 20 A. That's correct, yes. 21 Q. If we look at that photograph, presumably to the right 22 but out of shot one would see the chimney, the corner of 23 the stair tower and so on at the Grovepark Street side 24 of the building? 25 A. That's correct. page 43 1 Q. Am I right: if I look at the left of the corner, left 2 corner of the mill building, looking beyond that on the 3 photograph is that tall structure which is towards the 4 left-hand side of the photograph, is that the stair 5 tower that was added in 1907? 6 A. Yes, that's right. 7 Q. Then we can see between that at the corner of the 8 building and obviously on the southern face of the 9 building, which of course is out of the shot, a little 10 structure that looks like the frame of an entrance porch 11 or something of that sort. 12 Can you recall, given that these photographs were 13 taken a while ago, what that was? 14 A. I think it was a structure, the purpose of which I don't 15 know. It was there when we arrived at the building and 16 I presume it was for loading or covering materials of 17 some kind but I've no knowledge of it. I could not say 18 it was it was for. 19 Q. It was of course in the vicinity of the yard obviously 20 we have looked at in its later form for the purposes of 21 the Inquiry. That southern face of the building opened 22 into the area of the yard at least towards the west end? 23 A. Yes, it did. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Martin, we will stop there for ten 25 minutes. page 44 1 MR MARTIN: Thank you. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: We will have a break now, Mr Downie. If you 3 should at any stage wish to have a break, just let me 4 know, please, and I will then be happy to stop. 5 A. Yes, I shall. 6 (11.52 am) 7 (A short break) 8 (12.11 pm) 9 MR MARTIN: Could I have up document 12787, which is a 10 further photograph. 11 I think that shows a corner of the mill building 12 with the characteristic corners which are cut; is that 13 right, Mr Downie? I am not sure which corner of the 14 building that is but it is obviously one corner. 15 A. That's from the other view of the mill yard with the 16 small property adjacent and these are the decorative 17 corner stones that ran to the head of the building. 18 Q. Then 12788, please. 19 Is this quite obviously the south side of the 20 building as it was? We can see the chimney behind, we 21 can see the slated pitched roof, we can see the stair 22 tower, we can see the tenement building to the left and 23 we can see something of the little portico or whatever 24 the structure is into the yard on the south side. 25 Do you see that? page 45 1 A. Yes, that is that exposure. 2 Q. Do the photographs that we have just looked at 3 essentially show the building as it was when ICL assumed 4 its interest in the buildings in the 1960s? 5 A. Very typical, yes. 6 Q. Could we just leave that photograph on the screen, 7 please. 8 The next item is: 9 "Raising of the yard. 10 "The original yard was shared by three proprietors: 11 Gael Paints, Milne Builders and ICL Plastics Limited. 12 ICL were the first to go into occupation on the former 13 Grovepark Mills site (previously Stark Papermills). The 14 remainder of the site was sold in various plots and with 15 existing factories to the other two proprietors." 16 Just looking again at the photograph that we have 17 up, Mr Downie, did you indicate that Milne was towards 18 the far away end of the yard in the photograph that is 19 towards the east end of the building? 20 A. You can just see the peak of the beginning of their roof 21 and their properties which were quite extensive to the 22 rear of the four storey building. 23 Q. Then Gail paints: was that to the right of the 24 photograph? Can you confirm whether it is the building 25 that is shown there or something else? page 46 1 A. Yes. Yes, that's so -- that was the extremity of their 2 building in the common yard. 3 Q. Carrying on paragraph 49: 4 "The common yard access was raised because the yard 5 flooded at the outset. It flooded so badly that no-one 6 could get into their premises. Milne and Gael's Paints 7 proposed raising the yard and we proposed raising our 8 triangle area by 18 inches at the rear east end of the 9 yard and 32 inches at the front. The level was tapered. 10 If this had not been done it would have made it 11 commercially impossible to continue." 12 It is a little difficult to see in the photograph, 13 Mr Downie but can we take it that the yard was not on 14 the level, it sloped downwards from east to west, that 15 is to say towards the camera? 16 A. That's correct, yes. 17 Q. "On the basis of Milne's suggestion that they could do 18 the work we jointly agreed to pay them for any works 19 that were done on our behalf." 20 Could I have up, please, document 11175. Could 21 I have the whole document, please, with the item at the 22 bottom. 23 This, am I right, Mr Downie, is an application form 24 to the Master of Works and City Engineer of Glasgow 25 Corporation addressed to the Dean of Guild Court on page 47 1 behalf of ICL Plastics for a building warrant, which is 2 described in the middle of the page as: 3 "Levelling access, drainage at our yard at Grovepark 4 Place", and the address is 188 North Woodside Road? 5 A. Yes, that's correct. 6 Q. Do we see that towards the bottom of the page above the 7 schedule there is a date 4/1/73 and a signature which 8 is, as I understand it, your signature; is that right? 9 A. That is correct, yes. 10 Q. Could I have the next page, please, 76, 77. 11 On 77 do we see towards the bottom that two parties 12 have accepted service of the foregoing application, one 13 of them being a signature from somebody on behalf of the 14 Scooter Centre and the second a signature of a Mr Milne 15 on behalf of Alex Milne & Son and they have signed and 16 dated the acceptance. Is that right? 17 A. Yes, that's so. 18 Q. This document was found, Mr Downie, in the remains of 19 the mill after the disaster. 20 Do you know if it was ever submitted to the 21 Corporation or to the Dean of Guilds; in other words, 22 was there an actual application for a building warrant 23 rather than simply filling in a form? 24 A. I don't understand the difference between the two. If 25 we filled in a form or received a form to fill in, I'm page 48 1 certain -- and if I signed it I'm certain it would be 2 submitted. 3 Q. The evidence that we have that has been done of research 4 in the archives of the Corporation at that time have not 5 indicated that any application in respect of 188 North 6 Woodside Road was made in 1973. Of course the records, 7 as was disclosed, may be incomplete. But the fact that 8 the principal application form (that is to say, with 9 your signature on it and the acceptance of service which 10 is on it) suggests, does it not, that although the 11 application form is filled in it was not actually 12 submitted to the Corporation. Is that possible? 13 A. May I just recap on that? You're saying that unless the 14 Corporation could not retrieve receipt of that document 15 it might not have been submitted? 16 Q. Correct. 17 A. Yes, if they couldn't retrieve it, then it was submitted 18 and if it wasn't sent in, then clearly there would have 19 been a defect in the process for applying for a warrant. 20 Q. It is fair to say that on the basis of evidence we had 21 yesterday, Mr Downie, it may not have been necessary to 22 apply for a building warrant for the raising of the 23 yard. 24 Can you recall anything about this, for example, 25 whether you sought advice about whether an application page 49 1 was necessary and might have been told that it was not 2 and therefore the application which had been completed 3 just remained on your file? 4 A. I can't recall seeking advice on issues relating to the 5 raising of our portion of the yard. Milne and McManus 6 would clearly have had at the time an opinion on that as 7 well because between Gael Paints, Milne and ourselves 8 the activity would have been joint and several. 9 Q. In any event, can we agree that the existence of this 10 form, dated as it was in January 1973, tends to confirm 11 your recollection that the raising of the yard took 12 place in about 1973? 13 A. It certainly did do that, yes. 14 Q. Paragraph 51: 15 "The LPG tank was removed and the yard was raised to 16 a new level. I would speculate that Milne's would not 17 do the work while the tank was in situ. Calor would 18 probably have taken the tank away when the works 19 commenced but I have no direct knowledge of this. The 20 tank would be brought back and put in situ. I have no 21 idea who reinstated the gas pipe after the yard was 22 raised. My only involvement with the raising of the 23 yard was in financing it." 24 Now, we know from what you say later, Mr Downie, 25 that the LPG installation took place in 1969. May we page 50 1 take it then that at the time that the yard was raised 2 there was an LPG tank and pipework already installed? 3 A. Yes, indeed. That's shown in these photographs that 4 were previously referred to. 5 Q. I wonder if we could go back to the photographs, please, 6 perhaps in reverse order if we start with 12788. 7 Is it possible on this photograph to identify the 8 tank, Mr Downie? 9 A. I can't see anything that is showing a tank at that 10 time. It's still too unclear to identify. 11 Q. I think that is fair. I haven't discerned a tank in any 12 of these photographs. But in any event if we look at 13 these photographs by the time the decision was taken to 14 raise the level of the yard, there would have been 15 a tank at or about the position of the left-hand edge of 16 the Gael's building as shown in this photograph; is that 17 right? 18 A. No, I would not think so. 19 Q. Where would the tank have been in the photograph? 20 A. If you can see the corrugated iron panels, the curved 21 corrugated iron fencing which belongs to the proprietor 22 of this large building here, which was the Stirnec(?) 23 Refrigerator Works, if you come to the end of these 24 corrugated panels, yes Grovepark Place, the road, would 25 lie behind that and the road was quite wide. So the page 51 1 tank would have been maybe 20 feet behind the corrugated 2 iron panels but you cannot scale from this drawing and 3 it doesn't show a plan. 4 Q. I do understand. In fact, what perhaps is not so 5 obvious in the photograph is that the corrugated panel 6 fencing with the little van parked beside it is perhaps 7 further away from the mill building than it appears and 8 on the ground between the corrugated fencing and the 9 mill building was Grovepark Place which of course then 10 came to the edge of the yard. Is that right? 11 A. That's correct, yes. 12 Q. Therefore, the tank would have been at some point 13 presumably obscured in this photograph, if it happened 14 to exist at the time, behind the fencing? 15 A. Yes, that's correct. 16 Q. If you look at the model to your left, please, it has 17 been constructed so that if you were to go through the 18 gate that is shown closest to you in the witness box, 19 that is the level of the yard after raising but it is 20 perspex. So if you look through it to what is below and 21 is on a slope is the level of the yard as it was before 22 it was raised. 23 Do you understand that? 24 A. I would say it's probably approximately right but 25 I couldn't confirm the accuracy of the scale on that page 52 1 model. 2 Q. Thank you. Obviously the actual model of the tank is 3 shown in the position it was at the raised level of the 4 yard, but in the model -- and I am sorry, I did not get 5 a chance to put this to you before you stood up -- 6 underneath where the tank is on the raised level of the 7 yard there is a green-coloured plinth which is 8 understood to be the position of the tank before the 9 yard was raised; in other words, the actual location of 10 the tank was about the same place both before and after 11 the yard was raised. 12 Is that correct according to your recollection? 13 A. The tank has been moved, as I understand it, so many 14 times since the original photographs here that the 15 position couldn't be accurately ascertained without 16 going right down into the subsoil and perhaps industrial 17 archaeology. 18 Q. In any case, by the time that the yard came to be 19 raised, the tank was or there had been a tank, there was 20 a tank in position, presumably moved while the work was 21 done and there was pipework then extending from the 22 position of the tank up to the building; is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now we know, Mr Downie, that on the face of the building 25 beside the stair tower -- that is just on the opposite page 53 1 side of the face of the building to where you are 2 seated -- the pipework was underground from the tank to 3 the south and then at a point just before it entered 4 into the building at the level of the original yard the 5 pipework raised up vertically, came out of the ground, 6 was visible above the original level of the yard and 7 then turned horizontally into the building. In other 8 words, there was a bit of LPG pipe visible on the 9 outside of the building before the yard was raised. 10 Can you remember that? 11 A. Yes, I can remember that the LPG pipe was approximately 12 in that area and that it was raised above to come into 13 the building. 14 Q. Were you aware that the raising of the level of the yard 15 involved the covering over completely of that piece of 16 visible pipe so that none of the LPG pipework was 17 visible outside the building apart from where it went 18 into the ground near the connection to the tank? 19 A. I couldn't recollect that with any certainty because 20 I think the amount of pipe that originally rose up was 21 quite short and it would disappear from view. 22 Q. In paragraph 52 of your Inquiry statement you say: 23 "Quoting from what I have read, after 1973 when the 24 Technical company came into existence, Frank Stott as 25 Director of the company at that time would have enlisted page 54 1 the support of Grieben Plant Limited in relation to the 2 pipework. There was a general presence of Grieben Plant 3 on the premises from time to time. I cannot testify 4 that they supervised the installation of the pipework 5 but my strong feeling is that they would have been 6 involved. These would have been operational issues that 7 would have fallen to Frank Stott. My involvement was 8 limited to finance." 9 You are going to mention Grieben Plant later on 10 because, as I understand it, the principal of Grieben 11 Plant in 1969 was Frank Semple who was your 12 brother-in-law; is that right? 13 A. That is correct, yes. 14 Q. Was Mr Semple still involved with Grieben Plant in 1973 15 when the level of the yard was raised and presumably 16 when the pipework for the LPG was altered to take 17 account of the new level of the yard? 18 A. I would believe that would be so. Yes, he would still 19 be proprietor of Grieben Plant. 20 Q. But is it your evidence, Mr Downie, that you have no 21 recollection of exactly how the pipework was altered so 22 as to take account of the higher position of the tank 23 which resulted from the raising of the level of the 24 yard? 25 A. I have no conscious recollection of the pipework after page 55 1 the raising of the yard. 2 Q. As far as the Inquiry is concerned, no paperwork, 3 contract, specifications, whatever might be, has been 4 covered to explain exactly what happened and I take it 5 that you have possession of no paperwork that would 6 assist on that matter? 7 A. I have none and no recollection at all of it. 8 Q. We then turn in your Inquiry statement to the basement: 9 "There was a basement beneath the despatch area to 10 the west of the building. Also an original pit or 11 ground floor well accommodating part of the paper making 12 process carried on in the original mills. Starks had 13 been a paper processing business and the paper came in 14 large rolls. I assume that they had constructed part of 15 the ground floor in order to accommodate the paper rolls 16 which were then lifted out of the storage area and 17 hoisted from the first floor as high as the third floor 18 through the hatch ways. We did not need the lower floor 19 well storage area so we decided to close it off with 20 a freestanding mezzanine-type storage area at ground 21 floor level. In 1982, ICL Plastics Limited had the pit 22 covered with a mezzanine structure consisting of steel 23 chequer-plate flooring supported on lateral steel beams, 24 in turn supported on steel columns footed on concrete 25 plinths. The purpose was to cover over the pit and to page 56 1 create a complete storage area at ground floor level." 2 Do you know, Mr Downie, if an application was ever 3 made for a building warrant for those works? 4 A. I don't think any application was made for a building 5 warrant. 6 Q. Do you know why that was? 7 A. Well, it was a freestanding structure, a mezzanine 8 structure, but a very strong one, as an alternative to 9 using something like dexian, which would not be 10 satisfactory. 11 Q. Whatever materials might have been used, Mr Downie, it 12 is understood that it may well have been that a building 13 warrant was required for this work. 14 Do you know if any specialist advice was taken 15 either by you on behalf of ICL Plastics or by anyone 16 else within the Group before the work was done without 17 an application having been made for a building warrant? 18 A. We were friendly with the people who built the structure 19 and if, as they were well-known structural engineers in 20 Glasgow, that we had required any building warrant or it 21 was felt we should have a building warrant, they would 22 probably have informed us of that and we would have 23 sought a building warrant. But it was a freestanding 24 structure and it was not embedded into or attached to 25 the structure of the four-storey building; that is, page 57 1 there was no brickwork altered to accommodate it. 2 Q. Carrying on 54: 3 "The work was done by JGN Reid Structural Engineers 4 who I believe are no longer in business. They were 5 based in Shettleston. They created structural steelwork 6 and installed it in such a way to give full support for 7 storage of goods and the movement of pallet trucks." 8 Could I have document 11356, please. 9 This is a copy of a letter, Mr Downie, which was 10 dated 13th July 1979 addressed to what is in this case 11 GJN Reid Brothers, Annick Street in Glasgow and it reads 12 that: 13 "We would be pleased to obtain your written 14 quotation for the following platform floor as per the 15 enclosed drawing." 16 Then there is specification given for the floor and 17 after the final paragraph the letter is signed by a Miss 18 CA Pearson. 19 Who was Miss Pearson? 20 A. Miss Pearson was my secretary at the time. 21 Q. If we look at the reference at the top left-hand corner, 22 it is CAP -- are those the initials of Miss Pearson -- 23 and CHD are those your initials? 24 A. That's correct, yes. 25 Q. So was this letter written on your behalf? page 58 1 A. Yes, that's correct. 2 Q. If you keep that up, please, and give me 11359, this is 3 a letter dated 15th February 1980 on behalf of JGN Reid 4 Brothers Limited signed by Mr Reid and addressed to ICL 5 Plastics Limited and it is headed: 6 "Platform to ground floor", and then a quotation is 7 given for the erection of a platform floor. 8 Do we see that that letter was marked for your 9 attention, Mr Downie? 10 A. Yes, that's correct. 11 Q. Could I have 11357, please. This is a copy sheet dated 12 20th February 1980 addressed to Reid Brothers Limited 13 and it says: 14 "Supply and erect one number platform as shown on 15 a drawing referred to, price 3,742", which I should have 16 noted was the price on the previous quotation. 17 Is that a copy of ICL's instruction based on the 18 quotation which was being accepted? 19 A. Yes, that's correct, yes. 20 Q. We can see in handwriting the words, underneath the 21 typed date, "sent 28/2/80". 22 Do you recognise that handwriting? 23 A. No, I can't say that that could be attributed to anybody 24 at that time. 25 Q. I am sorry, could be? page 59 1 A. Attributed to anybody that I would know of at that time. 2 Q. Could I then have 11358, please. 3 Is this a letter again addressed to J Reid Esquire, 4 Reid Brothers, 28th March 1980: 5 "Dear Jack, thank you for your telephone call 6 advising completion of floor structure. Stewart McColl 7 is making arrangements to remove his existing stock and 8 thereafter we will require to clear our basement area 9 and dismantle existing scaffolding. We will be in touch 10 immediately there is access for you to complete the 11 installation." 12 Then there is separately reference to a cut-out from 13 the steel floor which is required. Then underneath the 14 place for the signature is the same CH Downie and the 15 reference again is CHD and CAP. 16 Is this a copy of a letter which you wrote to 17 Mr Reid concerning the installation of a floor 18 structure? 19 A. Yes, that's to Mr Jack Reid and although it's not 20 signed, it's in my name and it would be -- I can't 21 recollect it, but I'm sure that I would have sent it. 22 Q. Can we therefore agree, Mr Downie, that at least as far 23 as the installation of the steel floor in the early 24 1980s was concerned, you were personally involved in the 25 obtaining of a quotation for and in the instruction of page 60 1 the carrying out of the work based on that quotation? 2 A. That would be my role at that time. I would be 3 confirming and making available the funds for that work. 4 Q. With respect, Mr Downie, this does not say that you 5 would be making funds available. You personally, 6 presumably as a director of one of the companies -- and 7 we do not of course have the headed notepaper -- you 8 were personally taking responsibility for the contract, 9 were you not? 10 A. I would be happy to say that, yes. 11 Q. If we look at the second paragraph of the letter, you 12 say: 13 "Stewart McColl is making arrangements to remove his 14 existing stock ..." and I am assuming that would be ICL 15 Technical Plastics Limited stock; is that right? 16 A. No. That area of the business, relating to other parts 17 that have been referred to in the statement, was 18 Stockline's operating area. 19 Q. I am much obliged. Thank you for that. You then say: 20 " ... and thereafter we will require to clear our 21 basement area ..." 22 Who is the "we"? 23 A. I think it would be fair to say that "we" was the joint 24 and several occupants of that property at that time 25 which in 1980 would be Stockline Plastics and anything page 61 1 at all that ICL Technical Plastics might have there at 2 that time. 3 Q. Do you accept, Mr Downie, that it is clear that you, as 4 an individual director on behalf of whichever 5 company/companies it was collectively, you as an 6 individual were giving the instruction and taking 7 responsibility for what was being done? 8 A. Absolutely, yes. 9 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 55: 10 "The basement area was accessed via the west 11 stairwell and through an opening in the south basement 12 perimeter wall. Part of the basement was used for 13 storage. The windows of the basement had been bricked 14 up. The access to the basement area was through 15 a locked and closed door in the stairwell. 16 "At the time of the incident part of the basement 17 was used by a self-employed builder, Andrew Galloway and 18 his employee Kenneth Murray, for storage of tools and 19 equipment. Andrew Galloway did work for our companies 20 but also other companies. The work he did for us was 21 maintaining the roofs, brickwork, pointing, windows and 22 glazing, floors and floor coverings, office 23 reconstructions, partitions, alterations when necessary, 24 et cetera. While I'm aware that Andrew Galloway used 25 the basement area, I am unaware of the arrangement that page 62 1 he had with Stewart McColl in this regard. At the time 2 of the incident I had not been down to the basement for 3 many years. 4 "An access door from the stairwell of about 6 feet 5 high gave entrance to the basement. In the basement you 6 would see builders tools, barrows, ladders and straight 7 ahead was the shot blaster recovery." 8 Just pausing at that point, Mr Downie, the shot 9 blaster was a machine that was on the ground floor; is 10 that right? 11 A. On the ground floor level on top of the mezzanine floor. 12 Q. I think we had it described elsewhere, there was 13 a hopper or bucket mechanism that extended into the 14 basement area associated with the shot blast machine? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Going back to the letters between you and Mr Reid, was 17 it because of the need for the shot blaster partly to 18 open into the basement that there had to be a cut-out in 19 the steel floor? 20 A. Yes, I would say that was so. 21 Q. Thank you. carrying on on the third line of paragraph 22 57: 23 "To the right of the entrance would have been 24 a brick wall which defined the extent of the reinforced 25 concrete portion of the ground floor above. We had page 63 1 hoped to use the basement for record storage but it was 2 too damp. There was shelving in a small area but never 3 utilised. I also believe the main telecoms fibre optics 4 came through the gable end into the basement." 5 Now, could I ask you again, Mr Downie, please, to 6 get up and look at the model because the items which 7 were on the ground floor above the basement, in 8 particular the shot blasting machine, have been removed 9 from the model and you can then look down into the 10 basement. If you can see into the basement, I wonder if 11 you could just confirm, because various elements of it 12 are in the model, if that is an approximation of what 13 you recall as to the nature of what was in the basement 14 at the time of the disaster? 15 A. The model appears to be accurate in the basement area 16 and it doesn't show the shot blaster nor does it show 17 anything else in the basement. It has a closed-off door 18 to the rear but I would have thought that would have 19 been in a farther corner back. I don't think it was in 20 fact in that position. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Martin, can we find out where the shot 22 blaster actually was. 23 MR MARTIN: I was just going to do that, my Lord. The 24 actual shot blaster machine, Mr Downie, as I understand 25 it was on the level above, at ground floor level. page 64 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. I don't know how to put it back but that is also 3 modelled on a piece that is sitting at the moment beside 4 the model. I don't know if it can be placed back in 5 easily on the ground floor because of course its 6 position was above the basement. 7 Forgive me, Mr Downie, I do not expect you to do it. 8 I do not know if somebody else who is familiar with this 9 model can put that piece in so that we can have your 10 views, as his Lordship rightly indicates, about the 11 position of the shot blaster. 12 It may be that it is not straightforward to put it 13 in. I have only seen it in and I have only seen it out. 14 I have not seen it being put in or out so I do not know 15 how it goes in. 16 A. That end would go over that space there and this pipe 17 would be in the way. (Indicated) It won't fit in 18 without moving this. This would have to be removed. 19 This piece here. (Indicated) This has to be removed in 20 order to get into that space. 21 Q. I do not think I want the witness to conduct an 22 experiment on how to put the model together, my Lord. 23 Perhaps we could do it at lunchtime and ask him after 24 lunch to confirm. But that is certainly my 25 understanding of how that can be addressed. page 65 1 Returning to paragraph 58: 2 "In terms of lighting there was a Pyrotenax, which 3 is a trade name for high alumina copper sheathed wiring 4 system, attached to the bulk head lighting. I recall 5 the routing of the LPG pipe emerged in the basement and 6 then went up to ground floor level." 7 Can you recall, Mr Downie, if there was a valve on 8 the LPG pipework inside the basement and before it went 9 up to ground floor level? 10 A. Originally there was, yes, I can say so and that would 11 be within the open part of the well and not in the 12 basement. So there was a confusion between this wording 13 of basement between the date Reid in 1982 covered it 14 over and all prior references to the basement, it should 15 have been the well. 16 Q. Am I right that before Reid created the steel floor 17 referred to elsewhere as the mezzanine which covered 18 over the well or the pit, there was in fact 19 a covered-over part of the basement at the same level 20 but there was also an open pit at the same level? 21 A. Exactly that and that is where the -- inside the 22 basement that then existed before we covered the well 23 over was located the Pyrotenax and flame-proof lighting 24 and outside of that basement was the valve and the 25 propane pipe entering the building in the open area. page 66 1 Q. Just to take up that point about the Pyrotenax lighting, 2 was that flame-resistant? Did I understand what you 3 said a moment ago? Was that flame or spark-resistant 4 wiring? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is such wiring installed in places where there is the 7 potential for inflammable gases to exist and special 8 precautions can be taken in the fittings, the electrical 9 fittings, so that no spark is emitted outside the 10 fitting and, therefore, unlikely to set alight the 11 atmosphere? 12 A. Yes, that's true. 13 Q. Can you explain why Pyrotenax lighting, that sort of 14 system, was installed in the basement rather than simply 15 ordinary wired lighting? 16 A. I believe Reid Brothers(?) had used Pyrotenax in the 17 past in marine environments and they chose to use that 18 for the cellar when they installed the very 19 first lighting in the cellar which may have been as far 20 back as the early '60s and '70s. 21 Q. Do you know if there was Pyrotenax or an equivalent 22 system of wiring and lighting in the basement when the 23 disaster occurred? 24 A. It would still be there but there would very likely be 25 other lighting as well. page 67 1 Q. Paragraph 59: 2 "I understand that at some time in the past (I do 3 not know when) the Health & Safety Executive put 4 a prohibition on ICL Plastics Limited regarding use of 5 the basement. I believe from the HSE documents that the 6 prohibition notice put on the basement meant it was 7 taken out of use. The reason for the prohibition was 8 due to an identified fire hazard, lack of means of 9 escape. This was responded to by Stockline Plastics and 10 the requisite means of escape was provided by/organised 11 by Stewart McColl. The prohibition was lifted. The 12 basement was an open well that was not closed over at 13 the time. Originally there was only one means of escape 14 that was by the stairwell staircase. I understand that 15 the prohibition notice was lifted as it would follow 16 that once another means of escape, an additional 17 staircase inside the well, was put in place an HSE 18 inspector would come out for it to be inspected and the 19 notice lifted." 20 Could I ask you, please, to look at 11218 which is 21 a document. Mr Downie, this is a copy of a prohibition 22 notice served by an inspector on behalf of the 23 Health & Safety Executive on Stockline Plastics Limited 24 and dated 13th January 1976. So can we agree that it 25 was served before Messrs Reid inserted/constructed the page 68 1 new steel floor? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. We know from a better copy of this document -- and 4 I hope I do not need to trouble you with that -- it was 5 duly served and a signature is identifiable on another 6 version of this of Mr McColl as having accepted it when 7 it was served in 1976. 8 Can we see that the prohibition notice states, and 9 if we look at the left-hand side of the page underneath 10 the details of the inspector it says: 11 "Hereby give you notice that I am of the opinion 12 that the following activities, namely the use of the 13 basement as a storeroom and/or work room which are being 14 carried on by you at Grovepark Mills involve ..." and it 15 is not clear on this copy but it states: 16 "... an imminent risk of serious personal injury." 17 Then the reason given a few lines before that is: 18 "... because of the inadequate means of escape in 19 case of fire for persons employed in the basement." 20 Do you have any recollection, Mr Downie, of this 21 prohibition notice having been brought to your attention 22 at or about the time that it was served? 23 A. I'm aware Mr McColl received that on behalf of Stockline 24 and in respect of the basement which was a closed-off 25 area at that time and, therefore, a fire hazard, and page 69 1 I recollect that Stockline worked in the open area of 2 the well, which was not a basement, but nonetheless it 3 comes to mind because the sole person who worked in that 4 open area with machinery was an employee, David Godwin, 5 who needed to access a telephone outwith that open area 6 and we provided an easy access for him to do that by 7 putting in a staircase. I recall that particularly 8 because David Godwin was a senior member, I think, of 9 the Maryhill Council for Civil Liberties and he had 10 quite a number of clients coming to the factory and we 11 were concerned that there would be a public safety 12 issue. So we made it possible for him instead of going 13 up the stairwell to come up another staircase right 14 adjacent to the outside yard goods store. 15 Q. Just to be clear, Mr Downie, you can recall these events 16 at or about the time of the service of the notice in 17 1976; is that right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. So you were made aware of the service of the prohibition 20 notice; is that right? 21 A. I would be aware of that. 22 Q. Who made you aware of it? 23 A. Mr McColl. 24 Q. At that time of course it is before the steel floor was 25 constructed. Part of the lower level below ground floor page 70 1 was regarded as basement and part of it was regarded as 2 a pit or an open area. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. If one went down the stairs in the 1907 stair tower, 5 which is to the south-west of the mill building, if you 6 went down to that lower level below the ground floor, 7 through the door which you described, did you go into 8 a closed basement area or did you go into the open pit 9 area? 10 A. You went into the open pit area. 11 Q. Where was the closed basement area relative to that? 12 Was it further to the north; that is to say, away from 13 the stairs at the stair tower? 14 A. It's shown accurately on the scale model here. 15 Q. So the second means of escape that had to be provided 16 was obviously below ground level on the side of the 17 building away from the side with the stair tower; is 18 that correct? 19 A. The means of escape? 20 Q. Yes, the means of escape that were required by this 21 prohibition notice were provided on the other side of 22 the building away from the side of the existing stair 23 tower. 24 Am I understanding that correctly? 25 A. No, they were adjacent to the escape door -- sorry, the page 71 1 goods -- I suppose it would be easier on the model ... 2 Q. Please feel free to stand up if you wish to. I am very 3 happy for you to take the time on this, Mr Downie, 4 because I do not think we have any document that 5 actually confirms what was done at that time. 6 A. This a part of the floor, which is the basement, which 7 is known as the basement, separate to the pit shown in 8 the model. (Indicated) That part of the basement was 9 on the prohibition notice, closed off and was not used. 10 It was taken out of use. 11 The open portion of the pit which was not a basement 12 had an additional staircase put into it to provide 13 access for Mr Godwin who worked there to both use the 14 telephone for his business and continue to use that area 15 of the open well or pit. 16 Q. You were indicating there, Mr Downie -- and please 17 correct me if I am wrong -- but as I understood what you 18 were indicating was the open area of the pit was towards 19 the stair tower end of the lower level. Is that right? 20 A. It is adjacent to and at the extreme west end of the 21 gable wall of that building. 22 Q. Forgive me, if you want to put your head phones back in 23 because I know it is difficult without them. 24 I understood from what you were indicating with your 25 hand as you stood by the model was the stair that was page 72 1 placed was running up from the lower level from west to 2 east up to the existing ground floor level and that 3 meant that the gentleman that you referred to was able 4 to come up to the ground floor level from the open area, 5 for example, to answer the telephone. 6 A. That's correct, yes. 7 Q. It is entirely my fault, Mr Downie, but what was the 8 name of the gentleman, I just did not catch it? 9 A. His name was David Godwin and he was a man of 10 considerable skill and ability. 11 Q. So you can recall that stair being put in and was it 12 a wooden construction or was it something more 13 substantial? 14 A. I think it was a wooden construction, yes. 15 Q. Do you actually recall after it having been put in that 16 there was an inspection by an inspector of the 17 Health & Safety Executive who expressed himself as being 18 satisfied and indicating that the prohibition notice no 19 longer applied? 20 A. I wouldn't personally be aware of that but if he had 21 come on that issue, he would have spoken to Mr McColl 22 and would have advised him accordingly. 23 Q. You see, again, Mr Downie, the Inquiry has no material, 24 no written material, to confirm that anything that was 25 done in response to that prohibition notice, but what page 73 1 you are telling us is that these wooden steps were put 2 in and you would have expected then that they would have 3 been looked at by the Health & Safety Executive and that 4 would bring the effect of the prohibition notice to an 5 end, but if that was done it was something that only 6 Mr McColl would be likely to have known about? 7 A. That is correct. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: We will stop there, Mr Martin. 2.00, please. 9 (1.02 pm) 10 (Luncheon Adjournment) 11 (2.04 pm) 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Martin, the model has been -- 13 MR MARTIN: It has been, my Lord. I wonder if I could leave 14 it until the next section of Mr Downie's Inquiry 15 statement. 16 Mr Downie, I was just dealing with the last part of 17 the section of your evidence on the basement and if 18 I can return to paragraph 60, the top of page 13: 19 "The basement was not used by ICL Tech Limited but 20 it was used by Stockline Plastics Limited. I am certain 21 that the prohibition notice would have been lifted as 22 HSE made regular visits. Also Mr McColl would not have 23 wanted to lose use of his storage space, as he would 24 have had nowhere else to work at that time. I am aware 25 that Stockline's premises for storing and cutting page 74 1 materials was in the well of the building which was not 2 at this time a basement. Consequently, if the 3 prohibition notice had not been removed then Stockline's 4 business would have shut down." 5 Mr Downie, we can obviously read your evidence but 6 I have to put it to you that the Inquiry, which has 7 heard from officers of the Health & Safety Executive and 8 has seen the documents covering their regular 9 inspections from the 1970s right through to the 1990s, 10 we have not identified any document that suggests that 11 any health and safety inspector ever made a visit to 12 deal with the stair put in in response to the 13 prohibition notice. 14 May I take it that your evidence is, therefore, just 15 an assumption or a speculation that that is likely to 16 have occurred but it may not have occurred? 17 A. That would be my understanding of it, but I would like 18 to go back to the point at which I think the prohibition 19 notice was put on the basement and that the basement was 20 not the open area and the plinth and the basement was 21 closed off; therefore wasn't used by ICL Tech who had 22 formerly used and was certainly not used by Stockline. 23 The wooden stair was put the to facilitate access to 24 the higher level of the workshop, the coating workshop 25 floor. I think that was where we were at when we last page 75 1 spoke of this. 2 Q. So it may very well be that, in fact, the response to 3 the prohibition notice was entirely in the hands of one 4 of the ICL Group companies and that what may have been 5 done was the closing off of the actual basement together 6 with the erection of this stair to give access to the 7 pit? 8 A. Yes, that would be a fair comment. 9 Q. Mr Downie, given that we know that in 1976, as a result 10 of the prohibition notice, the HSE were concerned about 11 means of escape from the basement. 12 What was done to retain the second stair which gave 13 access out of the pit when the steel floor was laid over 14 the top of the open area? 15 A. What was done to retain access out of the pit when the 16 floor was closed off and it became a basement? 17 Q. Correct. 18 A. That staircase would no longer be of any use and thus it 19 would be removed. 20 Q. Was it perhaps one of the items referred to in your 21 correspondence with Mr Reid at the time that the floor 22 was being laid where you referred to items or materials 23 being removed from the area to allow the installation to 24 be completed? 25 A. That would be one of a number of items. page 76 1 Q. So does that mean that after the steel floor had been 2 laid and the entire basement area had been created, you 3 knew that there was only one means of escape; that is, 4 through the door into the stairs in the stair tower? 5 A. That would be the case. 6 Q. Did it ever occur to you or was it ever brought to your 7 attention that given what the Health & Safety Executive 8 had required by way of the prohibition notice in 1976 9 that that might not be adequate? 10 A. That had not occurred to me in that way, but what I was 11 aware of from the fire authorities right from the outset 12 when the fire authorities started visiting the building 13 was that they used a rule of thumb that was that 14 a defined exit was within I think it was 40 feet of 15 a means of escape, then as long as that 40-foot limit 16 existed, it would be a safe means of escape. 17 The building at that point, I would like to say, 18 bearing in mind that the original basement was shut off 19 and was not accessible, was then about 33 feet from the 20 stairwell escape. 21 Q. In connection with the Fire Service we have evidence 22 from Group Commander of Strathclyde Fire and Rescue, 23 Mr McClintock, yesterday who visited the premises in 24 1993 and there is nothing to suggest from his