The benefits of Consultant and Contractor collaboration in Archaeology

• Great, thank you for the intro, Kenneth. Hi everybody, good afternoon. Guy and I are here to talk to you about the benefits of consultant and contractor collaboration with a current project we’re working on as a case study. And we’ll give you some real time examples of what we’re doing. Okay, so just to give you a brief overview of what we’re gonna talk about today. As I mentioned, we’re going to talk to you about one of our projects that we’re actually working on together at the moment and give you examples of positive collaboration that affects both, it benefited the client and to the archaeological record and industry. Guy is going to talk about what we’re doing from a contractor’s perspective.

01:19 - I’m gonna talk about it from a consultant’s perspective and then we will summarise in a what does this mean for the bigger picture and industry during these very strange times. And after that we’ll have a space for any questions? - Cool, so I have the happy job of just briefly introducing the archaeology part that we’re working on. So variously known as Middlesex Annex or the Bedford Passage Development or the Strand Union Workhouse. And the site is located in Fitzrovia. So just underneath the BT tower in West London and it’s really unusual to work in the West end because it’s broadly speaking very little archaeological remains in that area. Prior to the Georgian period in the 1700s, the site is basically field and fertilise the West of the city of London.

02:19 - But also then outside of the scope of Westminster as well. So our site lies in land belonging previously to the Duke of Bedford who was busy developing Fitzrovia through that period of the 1700s. And the site was actually a gravel and sand quarry. And so the earliest stuff we have on the site relates to the site being used for about mineral extraction and then the resulting infill landfill of the quarry they’re so much the same way we’d be land filling into quarries nowadays. And at that time, the requirements of the POLO and urbanisation and the parishes needed to construct work houses.

03:05 - And the work has actually built by the parish system Poland coven garden. And using this patch of land which was conveniently owned by their patron, the Duke of Bedford who was happy to donate this delightful landfill site former quarry square Patrick ground for them to build their workhouse on. And for the workhouse was built in the latter part of the 18th century. Very soon afterwards, they seek permission. And so you begin burying people at the rear of the work house.

03:36 - The image that you can see on the left there shows the after barrels have been completed. And so they then build over the top of the the burial ground at the rear. And now in the burial ground, we know that we have a population that partly belongs to the workhouse itself, but also the site is used then as an overflow burial ground from the small parish of St. Paul. And the latter part of this history is that the work houses, the parishes around the strand former union which is why it’s called the Strand Union and this becomes their workhouse, the workhouse they’re more central hospital. And where this is kind of interesting for us now is that the site then becomes part of the Middlesex Hospital and the site’s still owned by the University College, London Hospital Trust.

04:26 - And they’re actually now developing this site with a partial hospital function. We’re excavating a basement at the rear of the site where they’ll be able to instal MRI scanners. So there’s the continuity there which makes the project really famous and connected and beautiful to work on. - Yeah, okay. So to talk to you a little bit about the work and design of what we’ve done on site. On the left there, you can see Guy and I on the photo and some of the team working in a King post pile trench around the perimeter of the site that was designed to be less intrusive than sheet piling and to allow an excavation of the skeletons around the perimeter of the site.

05:23 - Where there would be subsequent secant piling. Now the secant piling would be utilised to support part of our excavation as well alongside the basement construction. I mean, predominantly from the engineer and the developer’s perspective it’s to build that basement, but we wanted to make the secant pile work a bit harder here and support our excavations. But we did have skeletons in an area where secant piling was proposed. So I spent time working with the design team, the engineers, architects, the contractor to design an excavation area that would allow us to excavate the human remains in this location quickly without having to open up a large area.

06:15 - We excavated the targeted area and then it allowed the following works to continue and the archaeology to slop around the programme. And we ended up going down several metres, lots of timber props in there as you can see. Interestingly in this area, the barriers are what the grave cuts were found to be quite discreet and spaced rather orderly. So we were thinking these may relate to the coven garden over spill in humiliations. We see quite a different character of burials in another part of the site.

06:59 - So the second phase of excavation where you can see on the right there underneath these big tents was completely different in character to the first phase on the left there. Big open area for which we facilitated by using these white marquees. The character of the burial ground in this location is much more disorderly into cutting grave shafts and multiple re cuts of grave shafts. And they’re not all at to West, some are North, South. One barrier was found prone as well. So there’s a real distinct character between the two areas.

07:48 - And interesting me actually, we kicked off the archaeological work in phase one at the start of the lockdown. So this site has been instrumental in outpace development of the soda toolkit and socially distanced safe archaeology. So yes, we tried and tested here. - Yeah and you can see a bit more information about that with the presentation that my colleague, Jess put together. So, Claire, let’s take over and talk about the contractor’s perspective a little bit then. Yeah, so I think the first sort of stuff I wanted to say about this, just to kind of frame the conversation a little bit.

08:39 - Firstly, that we’re mindful of the audience here. So I’m aware and as was kind of introduced at the beginning same as the managers organisation effectively. I’m mindful that we’re probably, or possibly speaking to other managers of other archaeological organisations. But also I just wanted to make sure that we’re thinking about other potential viewers who are other professionals but also within the wider archaeological community. And I think that’s something that’s been really kind of brought home over the recent weeks talking about this split between academic and commercial archaeology.

09:22 - Which to some degree as a divide which is being attempted to be forced on us I think a little bit by the press and by the kind of political situation around the Stonehenge project. And broadly the whole point of this paper really this talk is actually to act as a kind of a call for us all to work together. And to in a way unify again this kind of division within the sector. And to be mindful that really what we’re all trying to do here is actually do the historic environment and to do the off logical record, the justice that we think it deserves. And then kind of flowing from that I think it’s also worth saying that neither of us were sort of arrogant that we’re gonna suggest that the consultant and the contractor working together is like a revolutionary idea.

10:11 - I’m sure that there may well be other people in the room that have already kind of started to think about working in that way or already that it forms part of their practise. But we think it’s a kind of an important evolutionary move to try and just develop and think about different ways that contractors and consultants can work together. And we want it to be really clear about the fact that we’re not actually here talking about procurement. So this is not about how our political projects should be procured, it’s more about how you would work once they have been procured. So it’s vital to maintain a kind of robust process around the archaeological tendering process to make sure that they’re kind of the conducted in a manner which is measurable and objective and ethical.

11:05 - And it’s vital that we don’t introduce a commercial kind of conflict of interest through work, through this kind of approach. And so really what we’re talking about here is once procurement have been completed, then it’s about how can we work together to put forward blended teams? How can we work almost like a hybrid? What can the contractor offer to the team for the consultant’s benefit and what can the consultant offer to the contractors’ team? And clearly there’s loads of different things in different combinations between different contracting units and different consulting organisations. And so really we’re just to give kind of a one example from our experience on this project and from my perspective which I think has been very productive is the way that our team has been working together on the engagement, the public engagement programme and the team engagement programme. And this is where members of Claire’s team have worked directly with members of my team to produce a sort of a small, like a group or a committee where they’re working together to answer that requirement within the brief. So it’s something where effectively we’ve created within the structure, a sort of a standalone group to go forth and develop a programme around how can we talk to the public? How can we talk to our own team members? How can we make sure that people are engaged and understanding of what they’re doing.

12:40 - And also making sure that we’re giving the client that benefit of reaching a wider audience. And so we as the contracting unit have really benefited from members of Claire’s team coming in and giving perspective around things that we wouldn’t normally tackle. So thinking about going to national press or to work with TV, or it brings a different approach whereas our approach might be more centred around the archaeological groups or the local community. And so that’s really an illustration kind of an example from my perspective. And I think it would be interesting for you to hear a bit from Claire’s perspective as a consultant.

13:22 - - Yeah, when we started actually the delivery phase of the works on this project, it was an interesting time transition for me myself and the rest of the archaeological team that I see are all former archaeologists in the sense of we’ve worked with contractors where we’ve all got commercial and academic backgrounds. And we’ve all been either PMs or POS or senior archaeologists for archaeological contractors. And when we started out I see some of the questions I asked myself, well what sort of consultant do I want to be and what are my values? And my values haven’t changed in terms of archaeology. We’re still regulated by the same SEFA guidance. I’m still doing archaeology because I love archaeology.

14:22 - And in the sense of I want us to be a little bit different thinking about what sort of consultant we can be and what we can bring to the table, real time site experiences is really important. And plus, we have all been in situations where perhaps the consultant contractor working relationship has been a bit difficult for various reasons. So one of the examples I’d like to give, like building on what Guy said about engagement is it’s been fascinating for me to facilitate different team members from both organisations be able to build something together. To skill share and share ideas. The engagement, scope and delivery that we will come up with takes things from both organisations and both experience and background and actually build something new, taking good bits for either side and different. Plus it’s nice to be able to give all of the team the opportunity to be involved in that programme and to work with other people. And to skill and idea share.

15:52 - It’s worked both those ways and it seems to have been a really positive thing for the entire team. And consequently, it’s watch this space in terms of what we do with the engagement for the archaeology on the site. It’s gonna be a bit different, it’s gonna be really special. I think it’s very exciting for the whole team. Furthermore, I’m very passionate about archaeology as a specialism within the construction industry. I think it’s really important particularly in the current climate. And I think we’ll get to this more in a minute. The fact that we work proactively in a way the construction industry. For example, when the architect is designing a building they’re the ones designing the basement slab, for example but the engineers is the one that’s gonna implement it. If both parties don’t talk to each other, the engineer comes back and says that the loadings don’t work, you have to redesign.

16:58 - So again, consultant and contracting don’t necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, there was a bit crossover. And the benefit to the client development and the archaeology and sort of successful collaboration approach is evident to see. Particular example from the annex is the L - P are skilled at the provision of digital information and being able to do that quickly. I’m generally looking up in the project dealing with the design team and the developer and I need real time information very quickly. And they’ve been able to provide that which allows me to track the programme model.

17:49 - The number of grave cuts, the occupancy, our progress, which yeah, it’s incredibly helpful. Plus it’s useful to have such real-time information quickly for the interpretation on site. And that is in turn disseminated to the archaeological team in that it’s very easy to focus on the feature you’re looking at. It’s of such benefit to the development of the archaeological team to be able to view the bigger picture information and what they’re digging part of. ‘Cause one day some of the team will be writing up the sites themselves.

18:28 - So just sort of summarising lesson two, how did these themes feed into the bigger picture and an industry view? I’ll pass over to Guy to start. - I’m zooming all the way out here and I have a question about British Civil Society and the way that we set everything up. So, you know, is the way that we treat our relationship within planning and within the way that the archaeological industry is structured, is it to do with our love of adversarial systems? So, when you think about our political system and prime minister’s question. Or you think about the way that we structure our legal system around the idea of like an adversarial conflict between two opposing groups of lawyers and courtroom battles and that kind of stuff. So I wonder to what extent that kind of structure of civil society has permeates its way into everything we do.

19:28 - And I think historically there has been an emphasis rightly or wrongly on the need for a consultant to act as almost like a counterpoint to a contract. And a contractor should be expected to act as almost a counterpoint to a consultant. And so that kind of adversarial thing, I wonder if that is some sort of artefact of the way that we organise ourselves. And our kinds of core, I guess, in this paper is for us to sort of say, well, maybe we can have more of a coalition based approach. Where really what we’re trying to say is, as a group, can we produce different outcomes or better outcomes? So we could think about archaeological outcomes.

20:10 - That might be things like, are we able to produce a better training programme for all the people that are working? Or are we able to collaboratively produce a safer working environment or are we able to change or improve the way we record things? Or indeed, are we able to collaborate on ways where ultimately the outputs are different? The archaeological publications are different, or the reporting is different. And then it’s also important and I think this is a fame relevant thing is to think about the client here. So obviously there are some benefits that we can bring to the client. Is it possible by us working together for us to rationalise our resources to make sure that we’re not doubling up or overlapping between the two organisations. And that gives one example of the way that we can drive a cost effectiveness notion.

20:57 - Are there other ways that together working collectively we can improve this cost effectiveness of the overall project, not just of giving this as a that’s your box, this is their box, whatever. But together, if we combine those, is there a savings to be made? Is there an improved way of working like that? I’m thinking quite out rightly in the commercial sense. And really, I just sort of leave this on the thought that this is really all about the wider industry in terms of our survival, isn’t it? So it’s so important for us to produce good outcomes, produce interesting output that encourage the voting public to continue voting for archaeology, to be a part of the planning process. And it’s also vital that we would use good outcomes for clients because they after all, are the people funding this. So producing good outcomes for them, ensuring that the funding streams continue and that they’re well used and appropriately used.

21:58 - And then produce a good outcomes that drive public engagement and enjoyment of the historic environment and the archaeological record. - Absolutely, and I’ll build on that and say, given the difficult economic times we live in, archaeology within the planning process and keeping it there. We are gonna have to adapt, innovate and continue to show why we need to be there. And we need to think carefully as an industry from curator, to contractor, to union, to surveyor, to everybody to keep ourselves in the place where we want to be and contributing to development in the UK. That we are part of the development process.

22:56 - They’ve always felt there’s not enough skill sharing or peer review in archaeology in terms of field work or do we need to be quite so defensive over what we’re doing? Isn’t it nice to skill share and create something together and share that knowledge? It’s been a pleasure to see the way L - P recording systems are different in some of their digital innovations. And ultimately in engaging people that is of benefit to the client and the archaeology. Any questions? - Thank you Claire, thanks Guy, that was excellent and stimulating. And Guy, the notes that I’ve been making our workflow important is that we produce good outcomes for clients to ensure funding streams and for the public to ensure political support. I might be using that very phrase, that quote again in the future repeatedly. - That’s great to hear. I think it’s such a fundamental thing.

24:02 - We always have to be mindful that the whole industry is at risk of deregulation. One of my key, I won’t say it keeps me up at night, every night but I have some consensus on that. - Ecology was mentioned by the prime minister, but not archaeology. And it does make you wonder where the thought process will go next. In which case, absolutely, we need to be thinking ahead of the game in advance of that. Demonstrating why we’re important and what we can deliver. And again, I do think it’s really important that we work well within construction because this is the slice of the pie of where we come. - Yes, I agree. It is actually remembering that we are a part of that architecture, engineering construction sector. And not to imagine that we’re something somehow special and different that sure, the rules for archaeology will be a little bit different, but the overall concept is not where we are part of a bigger development sector. No, let’s see, does anyone else have any questions for our speakers? - [Moderator] It looks like Rob, your hand is raised. So if you wanna unmute yourself and ask.

25:32 - - Hi everybody, thanks for that Guy and Claire. Which is Ken just said was very interesting. I do have to say some of it is slightly surprising in the sense that isn’t this the way that we’ve all been doing it for quite a long time anyway? I’ve been a consultant those of you who know me for far longer than is probably healthy. And in relation to the relationship with contractors and consultants, as far as I’m concerned, your comments Guy about the issue of adversarialism, if there is such a word. Obviously I’m aware that it happens but in relation to the relationship between the consultants and the contractor there should be no adversarial relationship at all ‘cause we are absolutely on the same side.

26:26 - We need you guys to do your bits well, properly on time and so forth. So does our client. And you need us as in the consultants, again, to be doing the same back for yourselves and working in collaboration even on the more simple stuff like a straight forward five trench evaluation right up to the multi-million pound excavation. So, I truly hope that there isn’t an adversarialism between contractors and consultants ‘cause I don’t think that helps anybody. Our clients, yourselves, ourselves, all the members of public. I’d certainly second everything that you say there.

27:06 - I think the problem to do with adversarial nature is and this is not being critical of curators here but that’s where the adversarial nature comes in which is the basis of the planning system of the developer. Not necessarily against the local planning authority but having to fight their way through the planning system. So if there is some adversarial actions, I think it’s a byproduct of the planning system rather than between the contractors and curators. Because that’s just silly for us to be able adversarial with each other. - Yeah, so I mean, I did frame the beginning of this by saying that probably from other people in the room this might not be revelatory working closely together.

28:00 - I’m glad to hear that we seem to be on a pretty similar page on that and as I said at the beginning I’m not sure if this is massive news to anybody. But I think it’s worth showing the benefits as it were. - I think what we’re doing slightly different trying to highlight is the skill sharing and the particularly with the engagement the design and delivery being slightly more hybrid approach than previously. - Yeah, well, if I could just jump back in, I mean we’d been working or I’ve been working on redevelopment of Brentford town centre now since 2012 I think it must be. It’s about five hectors for the area. It’s a massive scheme that we’re now currently towards the end of the phase one of the mitigation works and there is a lot more to do.

28:56 - It’s been very much from the point of which we got planning commission very much a partnership approach between ourselves, our clients, the local council, historic England, Mueller Herrara contractor. Where there’s been quite large elements where they have actually been doing what many, many people perceive as the consultants job such as we had to do what’s been termed as an enhanced desk based assessment which was really more of a research document, to be honest. And it’s ended up as a big partnership between ourselves, the client, the contractors, the war graves commission, the ministry of justice, MFCLG, the client. The list gets longer and longer. The where it’s not worked out is that we were about to start a very big programme of public outreach. Again, that was very much a partnership between ourselves Mueller and Barrymore, our client and historic England and then COVID came along. So none of it could happen. So we’re about to relaunch it digitally.

30:04 - But that partnership really comes together is pulling everybody’s together as best as they can. - That’s great that you can act in that kind of leadership role, isn’t it? You have that agency to do that. And I think that’s brilliant. - I just start a little bit at this point to see Rob Sutton waving in the background. But just to follow on from Rob B has just said, and came back to what Guy said about what is being seen as the good relationship here between Iceni and L - P and what Rob has just been talking about consultant contractor relationships being inherently corporative. And yes they are and this is, I was gonna say modern, it’s the contemporary way. It is the way that things are done now. It has not always been the way.

30:57 - There’s still some residual adverseness within the system particularly when perhaps let me talk in a cliched sense. But perhaps when the contractors see the consultant as being more closely aligned with the client’s quantity surveyors than with them and that they see that there’s pressure coming down from client side on the contractors. Now, I recognise that with modern consultants and here I’m talking modern consultants like Oryan or like Iceni, this is less likely much less likely to be happening. But there is still some of that. Still some of that is an understanding of residual practise. - You mentioned quantities of that kind because actually my experience here is that since I’ve become more engaged with quantity surveyors that my relationships have improved with other parts. - But that’s a good thing too. - So, yeah, absolutely.

31:58 - You start to understand a little bit more the parameters and the mechanics as it were. And I think that’s been quite a helpful thing for me. I won’t any name any names, but QS has been very good. - Well, again, a lot of contractors and consultancies are using QS now and it ties back to the fitting within the construction industry. Construction QS have torn the hair over archaeology in the past ‘cause we don’t naturally think in the same way.

32:30 - And actually by having our own QS and QSs that work with archaeologists who are doing more than just the archaeology, sometimes low groundwork and things on big infrastructure projects. Actually we’re doing more as an industry what construction contractors expect to see and it’s actually making things easier I think. - Thank you. - Let me just dive in in there, Ken. - Yes, please do. - It’s very enjoyable, lovely project, great outcomes. Well done both of you. - Thank you. - Yeah, to a certain degree, repeating a little bit what Rob said is that I see less conflict in relationships today than I did 15 years ago. Well, I’ll tell you what, I’ve been lecturing at Bohemians University for about little over a decade now.

33:23 - And I talk about a concept that they still teach in the same way they did when I was there 25 years ago. Which is about the curator, the contractor and the consultant, the three CS is still a module they teach. And I explained to them how I’m all three because yesterday I was all three. And I think that kind of breaking down of the silos which is what you’ve been talking about actually is what created the better product. And that’s what Rob recognises more often than not and I do too, breaking down those silos.

33:57 - And saying, this is what I bring for project, what do you bring to the project? What’s missing to make this project better? And I think that probably interesting and I don’t know if you touched upon it or if I missed it, but in your example, that Guy and Claire is that you probably didn’t know all of your strengths and weaknesses when you started. - Yeah, absolutely- - You do have a better position now. Yeah, you have a better understanding now. So for your next project that you work together and if you have outcomes like that and your next one I’m sure you will be working together again. You might actually set your briefs differently now knowing what you know.

34:33 - And I think that’s the point here is about that adversarial approach is that unless we’re setting out at the beginning of our projects, those briefs, this is what we can do, this is what you can do. This is what you can bring. I think what that’s brought together is better contractor consultant relationships that understanding briefs and roles and responsibilities. But I agree with Rob is that the conflict is probably coming ‘cause we’re not bringing in the curators into that dialogue, into that conversation, except with that great example that you’ve got of Brentford. But they’re rare, aren’t they? Let’s be honest with you, we don’t have many of those. And I think as an industry we should be setting ourselves up with early conversations with all of the stakeholders and setting out the framework for the roles and responsibilities and projects and say, do you know what in a traditional model with the three Cs, I’ll be doing this, you’ll be doing that.

35:22 - You’ll be doing that, but we’ll start again. And then let’s start, let’s create a team framework which says, you know what, you’re really good at that. Can you do that on this job? And that’s exactly what you achieve with your business. - It plays a bit on this conversation at the moment we see a lot of lot more joint venturing. And I think that that’s a similar thing in terms of silos.

35:42 - Certain unit have or certain organisations have skills and by partnering you’re seeing that collaborative thing working really well. I think that’s something that we’re seeing increasingly in the industry, wouldn’t you say? - I do believe so. Absolutely, I mean, the way in which we work with Oxford Archaeology, our competitor for 30 years. We don’t even think of it in the same way now the way we worked with them on projects. The kind of conversations we have with them about the way we do business and the way they do business, we would never have had 10 years ago.

36:14 - So we have evolved as an industry in that sense. And I think that’s another example of those kinds of breaking down silos to achieve better products for our clients as they compass. If that’s the driving force, then you kind of go, well why those silos here in the first place? We put them in place in an attempt to deliver something. We’ve now found a better way to deliver the same thing. And just coming back to your point there, Claire, about QSs I’m currently employing two full-time QSs.

36:38 - - Good QS work their way in goals, don’t they? - And they’re cheaper than me. That means they’re worth double their weight of gold. - [Moderator] Does anyone else have any sort of comment or question they’d like to put forward? - I’m just thinking of the Rob Sutton thing. If the QSS are worth double their weight in gold, that sounds like he is worth his weight in gold, which is fantastic. I think your point there Rob is about the curator, contractor, consultants being three different things as defined in 1990.

37:29 - And as we have just marked the 30th anniversary of PPG 16 it’s they are still concepts, but as you quite rightly just described one individual and one organisation can be all of these things. Just to give you all the little heads-up profiling the profession survey is coming back. It will be on your inboxes next week, perhaps. And we’ve moved away from asking people to define their organisation as one thing or another. They can, if they think their organisation just does one thing.

38:06 - But they can say in percentages, how much of the organization’s effort goes into things that we might think of as being a contractor or being consultant or being curator or being an academic institution, et cetera, any who. - I think that’s been reflected more and more at micro level as well with archaeologists actually being able to do survey, processing, digging. For a while it felt like things were becoming a bit siloed. But I think particularly these field team is everybody can do everything, which is very first versatile and perhaps an interesting parallel to the way things are going at high level. - And that actually makes me think about things you were saying earlier about skill sharing and sharing expertise between individuals.

39:05 - And once upon a time we were terrified of letting the competition get skills like we have. But I really, really hope those days are passed now. And what are your feeling is about the training over spill? You train your people, but you train other people too. You train your people and then they go and work for your competitors. And that’s not ultimately in the short term, it’s a problem but ultimately it’s not. - I think you have to feel quite zen about that. In the sense that you have to believe that it’s gonna come back to you one day. Otherwise the sensation, sometimes it’s filling a bucket with a hole in it, but yeah. - I used to be precious… Sorry, Guy, I used to be very precious about those kind of things. And maybe, I don’t know ‘cause I’ve been doing it for 20 years.

39:57 - I think it’s probably about four or five years ago it just switched maybe in my head and I just went, nah, why am I trying to keep this from my gang? I think you’ve changed your perspective on legacy then. And it then becomes about a different place. So that makes me sound grandiose. But I mean, genuinely that wasn’t my intention then, but it’s reflected about that exact point. - I think there’s two- - You have to believe that by being generous, by us providing half of the battle, it will ultimately come back to benefit you one way or another. - Well, sometimes these people come back to work with you in the future.

40:32 - Or they go out and they sing your praises. And also from a bigger picture perspective, it’s helping to facilitate the progress of our industry. When you’re in the position when you can’t offer someone more than a three months contract, there’s got to be some gifts there. - Yes, I think you’re dead right in all of you in several ways there. The idea that you want your organisation to have a reputation as being a good place to work.

41:06 - And that’s one of the ways that you help people think it’s a good place to work. But yeah, losing that preciousness and knowing that you’re helping the sector as a whole has to be a good thing. Equally, having a strategy of not offering your staff training because you’re scared you’ll lose them equates to having a strategy of wanting your staff to be less skilled than the competition. And that’s not a good one to have in so many ways. - It’s like breeding children up. I think, yeah, you have to bring them up to be independent and leave you and you don’t want them to leave but you’ve got to make sure they’ve got the skills to do so ‘cause you ain’t gonna be around forever.

41:45 - So I think that’s the way you have to look at it. - It’s a great analogy. And eventually you hope that you’ll be able to have a good relationship with them when they are grown. - Depends on where the damage done to anything at our part or not I suppose. - Yes, yes, I must phone my mum at the weekend. But does anyone else have any comments at this point please? Comments or questions? .