Stephen Williams MP (former Building Regulations Minister 2013-2015) gives evidence about his limited engagement with fire safety concerns. Admits he signed off declining APG meeting requests without reading submissions, and describes officials as 'batting away' the APG's concerns. Reveals 'they are furious with you' when he overruled officials.
00:00:25 would you ask Mr Williams to come back in please thank you
00:00:41 all right Mr Williams ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes Mr milet yes thank you very much Mr chairman Mr Williams um we were looking uh at the letter which went out today
00:00:52 uh at the letter which went out today vus under your hand on the 16th of May 2014 before we broke um now before you sent that letter um Brian Martin had drafted you a submission let's look at it it's at CLG 3011
00:01:09 295 there it is it's from Brian Martin 13th of May 2014 addressed to you uh do you remember reading it at the time yes you do good now um if we look
00:01:20 time yes you do good now um if we look at the first issue there it says issue David amus chairman of the all party parliamentary fire safety and rescued group has written to you in response to your letter to the honorary secretary of the group the group have argued that a
00:01:32 the group the group have argued that a review of approved document B should be brought forward and have invited you to meet with them uh and then under the recommendation it says this that on this occasion you decline in bold the invitation did you meet Brian Martin and
00:01:45 invitation did you meet Brian Martin and discuss this submission with him probably not um is is the answer to that um again I'm try I'm trying to avoid giving you long long answers but a
00:01:56 avoid giving you long long answers but a little bit of context here again I have Minister's office Works we've covered correspondence these this is invites ministers are bombarded with invitations to meet not not just from
00:02:09 invitations to meet not not just from members of the public and lobbyists and so on but from other members of parliament as well the default position is to decline and to reject the interview the the the the the invitation
00:02:20 interview the the the the the invitation so when I saw this I would not have thought it unusual to initially decline the invitation I would have signed the decline
00:02:31 decline um without giving it that much thought because i' I'd turned down lots of other meetings with people about a myriad of issues prior to this so while while in
00:02:42 issues prior to this so while while in isolation you might indeed wonder why did I agree to decline the invitation well that was the normal practice I see but as I'm sure we'll come on to that changed so you didn't ask him why am I declining this invitation
00:02:54 declining this invitation um I don't think I did um because it was routine to turn down uh meeting requests with ministers me ministers have a
00:03:05 with ministers me ministers have a pretty jam-pack diary so the number of um reactive invitations that you that you accept obviously has to be limited
00:03:16 you accept obviously has to be limited if we look at paragraph three under background it says this the current edition of approved document B was published in 2006 since then the department has been regularly lobbied to instigate another review or make
00:03:27 instigate another review or make specific amendments a common call is to extend the provisions for sprinkler protection yeah following the lckel house fire the coroner criticized the complexity of the guidance in approved document B and called on the government
00:03:38 document B and called on the government to revise it the Secretary of State rejected this but did commit to a review which would deliver a re a revised document in 16 stke 17 preliminary work
00:03:49 document in 16 stke 17 preliminary work is now underway now just pausing there were you aware at this time that the last major review of approved document B had taken place in 2006 and that was for the published in
00:04:00 2006 and that was for the published in the April of 2007 soorry was I aware prior to receiving this submission were you aware at this time seeing this document before seeing this document almost certainly not right did
00:04:12 document almost certainly not right did you consider at the time that that a decade between major reviews of the associated guidance uh on fire safety in the building regulations was uh
00:04:24 the building regulations was uh adequate um well this you this is not a detailed policy submission this this this is uh something the diary secretary one of one of the four private
00:04:35 one of one of the four private secretaries would have gone through with me reject reject reject reject and I probably just signed the letter and saw the recommendation was not to have a meeting and I don't think uh there would
00:04:46 meeting and I don't think uh there would have been a deep thought process as to why the meeting request was being declined I see did did that tell us that you would get to look at the issue on this piece of paper you look at
00:04:57 this piece of paper you look at recommendation see the word decline and bold and
00:05:00 bold and not really look at the rest no I wouldn't assume that um it's a very short submission so the chances are I read all of it and of course I was aware of these issues the in the pre- Lun session we've you we've discussed the
00:05:12 session we've you we've discussed the coroner's letter uh and the response from from the Department already so I was aware of the background uh I was aware of the existence of the of of of
00:05:23 aware of the existence of the of of of of David Amos and uh and Ronnie king um so I wouldn't have given that much further thought to it right now um in relation to paragraph four there the
00:05:34 relation to paragraph four there the part I read to you at the end preliminary work is now underway in your second witness statement we don't need to go to it it's page six p and Page seven paragraph 13 there that and as you
00:05:46 seven paragraph 13 there that and as you say you weren't a you weren't provided with any further information which would have enabled me to have a more detailed understanding of what exactly the preliminary work was is that
00:05:58 preliminary work was is that right that was right right at this stage but I know okay what what the next document is likely in your sequence uh that that change fairly quickly after this right well at this stage before we
00:06:11 this right well at this stage before we look ahead too far did you not think to ask Mr Martin what is the preliminary work that is now
00:06:19 underway no but
00:06:23 then I'm being assured that um work is underway in 2014 to deliver something by 2017 at that stage I I'm just thinking
00:06:35 2017 at that stage I I'm just thinking you what my thought process would have been at the time to be told 3 years before something that the preliminary work is underway is is you is hardly surprising in in any sense um so I might
00:06:50 surprising in in any sense um so I might have thought I I I can't be sure eight 8 years on that that it was reasonable to decline the invitation because at that stage we were in the very early stages
00:07:02 stage we were in the very early stages of preparing for for the review of the document right um well in the middle of that paragraph you see it says the Secretary of State rejected this and that's the call on the government to
00:07:14 that's the call on the government to revise approved document B was that your understanding that the Secretary of State Eric pickles had rejected the coroner's recommendation to revise approved document
00:07:26 revise approved document B it's read reading it now boldly it's it's slightly contradictory paragraph isn't it because the first sentence says the Secretary of State rejected the recommendation to revise it and then it
00:07:38 recommendation to revise it and then it says the secret did commit to a review which would deliver a revised document well if you revised the document then you've clearly gone through a process of revision so so um it's a slightly
00:07:49 revision so so um it's a slightly schizophrenic um paragraph but all I imagine I drew from that at the time was we are going to do something in response to the coroner's letter the SEC state
00:08:00 to the coroner's letter the SEC state has already said what it's going to be the preliminary work for that is now underway so meeting someone with a concern about it at this stage it's reasonable to say no you maybe in six
00:08:12 reasonable to say no you maybe in six months time um if that letter if if this request had come in I'd have said well it's entirely reasonable to meet with him now I'm really just trying to understand what your thoughts were at
00:08:23 understand what your thoughts were at the time about whether or not Eric pickles had or hadn't rejected the coroner's recommendation to revise approv document B now here we see a record of the fact as it is said that he rejected it my question is is that
00:08:35 rejected it my question is is that something you knew at the time
00:08:39 time um we've already had a discussion about the window competent persons scheme I I think similar wording would have been uh uh in that document that the secretary
00:08:51 uh in that document that the secretary of state had it it's a bit looking at it now it's a bit difficult to understand what what what this means because he clearly hadn't rejected you must ask him about it I'm
00:09:03 rejected you must ask him about it I'm sure you will he clearly hadn't rejected out of hand the principle of revising part part B um and indeed work work was underway and he had set a timetable for
00:09:17 underway and he had set a timetable for publishing a revised document it's it's it's it's a to to be honest chairman is it's quite a poorly worded paragraph did you ask me but but but I'm saying that now I don't know whether I thought at the time this is a
00:09:29 whether I thought at the time this is a poorly worded paragraph well if you'd read it at the time is there any reason why I did read it at the time if there well if you read it at the time why did you not ask Mr Martin what does this mean I don't understand this paragraph
00:09:40 mean I don't understand this paragraph could you explain it to me please yeah that that that's a perfectly fair question um I I suppose I could have done but as I said the context of this is
00:09:52 this is that every Wednesday morning I've I've explained already that that we had this this prayers meeting what happened in my office immediately afterwards in the next hour or so was
00:10:04 afterwards in the next hour or so was that the diary secretary would sit down with me and one go through everything I was going to be doing in in in the next week but also go through all the invitations where the advice was to
00:10:16 invitations where the advice was to accept or decline and obviously it was open to me to overturn in either direction if I didn't want to see someone ultimately it was up to me that even if they said I should see them that perhaps I might not want to um
00:10:29 perhaps I might not want to um so I it is impossible for me to know now how many Diary invitations Robert was his name uh would have gone through with me
00:10:39 me on on whatever Wednesday was in in that week it may have been you know quite a few others but I said the the routine thing anyway was to decline the invitation okay um if we look at the
00:10:50 invitation okay um if we look at the submission at the foot of the page if we scroll down please it says consideration the department has been very clear on its position in relation to Sprinklers and to the next review of approved document B bringing this review forward
00:11:02 document B bringing this review forward would require the allocation and reallocation of resources and it is unlikely that the new evidence will justify any significant change against the government's regulatory policies as such we recommend that you decline to
00:11:13 such we recommend that you decline to meet on this occasion did you read that paragraph Yes I would have done but I'm not sure it you it changes what I've already said to you it was a it was a diary request and Tak the stages you
00:11:25 diary request and Tak the stages you read the paragraph Yes I I I I assume that I did yes right uh what therefore was your understanding when you read this paragraph of what the words uh
00:11:36 this paragraph of what the words uh requiring the allocation and reallocation of resources meant well I hadn't met everybody in the building regulations team because there were several parts that I never dealt
00:11:47 were several parts that I never dealt with in the time when I was a minister but you I think it would have been reasonable for me to assume that there was there were dedicated officials to each each part of of of the building regulations uh through I think to part P
00:12:00 regulations uh through I think to part P at at at the time and other streams of work were ongoing so we're in mid 2014 I knew at that point because I was
00:12:11 2014 I knew at that point because I was heavily involved in it that there was an enormous piece of work on the housing standards review which was drawing to a conclusion in fact I think was concluded more or less at this time and a lot of
00:12:22 more or less at this time and a lot of officials were working on that project the next big thing that was coming down the tracks was was the drafting of the legisl well the agreement first of all
00:12:33 legisl well the agreement first of all for zeroc carbon homes to be in the Queen's speech which I think is pretty simultaneous with this submission and that as I said I think in the first session chairman this morning was what
00:12:44 session chairman this morning was what Nick CLE said to me was my number one priority as the liberal Democrat minister in that department to deliver the zeroc carbon homes legislation and that would require uh you know a lot of
00:12:56 that would require uh you know a lot of official time given that the time frame for doing those two things was by effectively March 2015 when the coalition government because of the fixed to imp parment Act was coming to an end then that's what I would have
00:13:09 an end then that's what I would have understood by that that officials are allocated to these big chunks of work part B revision is scheduled to come after that moving people off off those
00:13:22 after that moving people off off those programs now would quite obviously disrupt work that was currently underway and the you know those weren't trivial issues it's not as if I was been asked
00:13:33 issues it's not as if I was been asked to
00:13:34 to substitute an important thing for our less important thing um they were important pieces of work can you tell us why there's no mention in this briefing note uh of any
00:13:49 mention in this briefing note uh of any external far spread or guidance about the refurbishment of older housing stock uh which are matters which the current as I showed you this morning had
00:14:01 as I showed you this morning had recommended well short answer no but clearly I'm not in a position to tell you why something isn't in a submission uh and again when you saw this submission and the reference in the
00:14:14 this submission and the reference in the first paragraph that you'd been written to uh did you not want to see the letter so that you could understand the submission in full um we're in danger of repeating ourselves here chairman this this was a
00:14:25 ourselves here chairman this this was a DI no because because this because this submission submission is almost the wrong word for it it it's it's a diary request issue it's it's it's not it's it's not
00:14:37 issue it's it's it's not it's it's not it's not a submission about going into an in-depth policy discussion it's it's do you meet this person yes or no and there were lots of people who I did meet who I personally
00:14:49 people who I did meet who I personally may not have want to have met but the advice was to meet them and uh equally there there were lots of meetings where the advice was to decline this this was you routine there's nothing extraordinary about it now in fact it's
00:15:01 extraordinary about it now in fact it's right isn't it that you didn't in the end decline to meet the APG but confirmed your attendance with him on the 17th of June can I tell you the back how that happened yes please um David
00:15:13 how that happened yes please um David when he got the rejection letter uh came up to me uh while voting and said Stephen I'm very disappointed that you refused to meet me um uh can you have a
00:15:25 refused to meet me um uh can you have a rethink and I said well why what what do you want to talk about he told me about Sprinklers and whatever and I said okay I'll go back and tell officials that we'll have a meeting as I said I I liked
00:15:36 we'll have a meeting as I said I I liked David Amos we oppose each other in virtually everything he's a Essex boy euroskeptic who oppos samesex marriage was a thatcherite Tory nothing in common but personally we got on and and you
00:15:48 but personally we got on and and you know we liked each other so he this is a good example of why voting in person is is good for Parliament because it enables backbench MPS to grab hold of
00:16:00 enables backbench MPS to grab hold of ministers uh and say can I callor you about this uh and this is one of those occasions so I went back to the whenever it was probably the next day because that would have been late at night uh
00:16:12 that would have been late at night uh and said to um either K or Robert the diary secretary actually uh go back to the officials and say we're going to meet them after all and that's how the meeting was set
00:16:23 up now in your statement you say and this is your second statement of paragraph 25 we don't need to go to it that you you wanted to meet him uh and reassure him that his views were taken into account you also say the meeting in
00:16:35 into account you also say the meeting in fact lasted u a maximum of 30 minutes is that right yes that's my recollection but again that is routine meetings with ministers were nearly always around
00:16:46 ministers were nearly always around about 30 minutes right and would you say from those two meetings or the one that lasted no more than 30 minutes that you had an indepth conversation with David Amos about his specific concerns
00:16:59 Amos about his specific concerns well there's there's a subsequent submission to to the document that's on screen at the moment which which the front page is largely the same apart from it takes out the decline of the
00:17:10 from it takes out the decline of the meeting and on the reverse uh it it says these are the topics that we would expect you to discuss um lines to take I think it's almost certainly called so I
00:17:21 think it's almost certainly called so I would have my recollection of the meeting is that which was in a committee room on the top floor of parliament is that after the preliminary niceties David would have said Minister thank you for coming tell us you know tell tell us
00:17:34 for coming tell us you know tell tell us what's going on in your department you know our concerns and I would have worked my way through uh those issues which which are in the subsequent uh submission and at that point I think
00:17:47 submission and at that point I think David said Thank you and hand it over to Ronnie King and said Ronnie will now ask some
00:17:53 some questions and my recollection is that Brian answered those rather than me now let's go to your second statement please page 13 this is cg3 34921 Page uh 13
00:18:06 page 13 this is cg3 34921 Page uh 13 paragraph 26 you say although I would not have said it out loud I also knew that that the time for making policy decisions about the outcome of the review would be after my time as minister in the department I recall
00:18:18 minister in the department I recall thinking that I'd given Mr Amos and the APG an opportunity to make his points in person to both me and the relevant policy
00:18:27 policy officials um what was the point of letting Mr Amos and the APG make their points to you if you had no intention of doing anything about them I think that's um a bit rude to be
00:18:39 them I think that's um a bit rude to be honest um that was certainly not the not not my my um thoughts at the time uh at all I I gave David an opportunity to to make his points although most of them as
00:18:50 make his points although most of them as I say were in fact made by Ronnie King not not David um because I thought it was important for them to have an opportunity to a they views he he was clearly frustrated he felt he'd been
00:19:02 clearly frustrated he felt he'd been ignored I gave him the opportunity face to face to have a meeting not only with the minister but with the relevant official as well the review itself would be led by
00:19:14 well the review itself would be led by the evidence that came in some of it from the building research establishment some as I'm sure will come to from from other sources and opinions from the from
00:19:25 other sources and opinions from the from David and Ronnie would be in that mix but you know they weren't they weren't the trump
00:19:32 card well let me put it differently since
00:19:36 since perhaps let me put it differently you say I wouldn't have said it out loud I knew the time for making policy decisions about the outcome of the review would be after my time as Minister well why why not say it out
00:19:48 Minister well why why not say it out loud um well David and I both both knew that we we knew yes he probably voted against the six to parament act actually but we both knew that whatever happened
00:19:59 but we both knew that whatever happened that government was going to end with the with the dissolving of parliament in in March 2015 so we're what are we n nine months roughly away from that uh at
00:20:10 nine months roughly away from that uh at this particular point in time the review timetable was to have a a fresh document whether you call it revised or or whatever in place as I understood it by
00:20:22 whatever in place as I understood it by 31st of March 2017 so quite clearly the the Lion's Share of of of that work was going to be done after March 2015 when even the most
00:20:35 done after March 2015 when even the most optimistic of of theologists were not expecting uh the coalition to continue beyond that point so you know I'm an optimistic person but I wasn't that optimistic that I would still be in
00:20:46 optimistic that I would still be in office throughout 2015 and 2016 so it was the purpose of the meeting essentially to receive from the APG what they wanted to tell you so that you
00:20:57 they wanted to tell you so that you would act essentially as as a channel to the officials in your department who would be staying on Beyond 2015 yeah I think I that's perly fair summary of what I I wanted to achieve on David's behalf I see and did you therefore
00:21:10 behalf I see and did you therefore expect Brian Martin or and others in the department to take responsibility uh for receiving what David Amos told you and moving forward
00:21:21 David Amos told you and moving forward with them yes
00:21:26 yes were you aware that Brian Martin did not regard the promise made by Eric pickles to the SE to the coroner that he'd made in May
00:21:37 he'd made in May 2013 about producing a new version of ADB in 2016 to 17 as an absolute commitment no he didn't he never he he no he I can definitively say even with
00:21:50 no he I can definitively say even with the elapse of time since then that he never said anything that closely resembles even that phrase uh yeah there is a document and that's why I used the yeah but it's not a
00:22:02 why I used the yeah but it's not a document that I would have seen no no I'm not suggesting it is I'm just I'm asking you whether in fact you ever knew that Brian Martin's view uh was that the undertaking given by the Secretary of
00:22:13 undertaking given by the Secretary of State to the coroner in May 2013 was not an absolute commitment no I wasn't but if if you think about that would have been chairman quite extraordinary from an official to say to allbe at
00:22:25 an official to say to allbe at administer from a different party that I do not agree with the Secretary of State's decision and that as candid as I encouraged officials to be with me that would have been way over step in the
00:22:37 would have been way over step in the Mark I think if he'd said that and he didn't now let's go to cg10
00:22:44 cg10 6341 this is uh a further submission to you which you rightly predicted uh dated the 11th of June 2014 from Brian Martin to you you can see the date there copy
00:22:56 to you you can see the date there copy to all ministers uh as well as Bob LED Lou Upton issue uh and it says here David amamos chairman of the APG has invited you to attend a meeting of the group to discuss the timing of the review of Part B fire safety of the
00:23:08 review of Part B fire safety of the buildings regulations lines to take are at flag a yeah uh and if we look down the page we can see that what is written there largely uh replicates uh what was
00:23:19 there largely uh replicates uh what was in the submission I showed you before yeah so it's the other side of the page that's more relevant yeah right um and then let's go to page two
00:23:30 two um flag a lines to take can I take it you read this document absolutely of course I did yeah um and it says what's happening with Part B of the
00:23:41 happening with Part B of the regulations four four bullet points I'll read them to you following the LA house fire the coroner called on the government to simplify the guidance in approved document B the Secretary of State committed to a review which would deliver a revised document in 2016 to
00:23:54 deliver a revised document in 2016 to 17 the intention being to simplify the guidance where possible and to update and revise the technical content at the same time preliminary work leading to that publication has already started a
00:24:05 that publication has already started a review of such an important document significant activity and covers a wide range of complex issues and conflicting views this is not something that can be done overnight the department has commissioned the building research establishment to look at seven work
00:24:17 establishment to look at seven work streams these are all complex issues and B are fully engaged with industry experts and other partners and then you got seven bullet points there let's just look at them one periods of Fire
00:24:28 look at them one periods of Fire resistance two maximum fire compartment sizes three construction Details four fire protection of basements and basement car Parks five sprinkler
00:24:39 basement car Parks five sprinkler provision six space separation seven means for of Escape for disabled people um first what work leading to the
00:24:50 people um first what work leading to the publication of revised um ADB had been started as at June 2014
00:24:59 um I I assume what is covered in uh bullet point four that you just read out the points 1 to 7 now I know from the pre- lunchtime session you revealed to me that in fact uh this this work had
00:25:11 me that in fact uh this this work had started before the coroner's letter I did not know that so I would have taken at face value that this this was the work that was underway and by by this stage I knew what the BR was um can't be
00:25:24 stage I knew what the BR was um can't be sure the exact date but it's possible i' had been there by then as well I certainly went there in mid 2014 and spent a full day with them so I I knew the bonafides as it were of of of the BR right right did you um
00:25:37 right right did you um so did you think looking at this that the Department's commissioning of these seven work streams was a response to the coroner's
00:25:45 coroner's recommendation well well I probably did and that would have been a reasonable assumption given the way that the the the lines to take are written I certainly had no reason to suppose otherwise were you aware that none of
00:25:57 otherwise were you aware that none of these work streams dealt with the with external far spread or the refurbishment of older housing stock no um let let let me explain to
00:26:08 stock no um let let let me explain to you we've gone through H how a diary session works for a meeting with somebody what would have happened was and this would be the same for any meeting with you know any including an official that this brief would have gone
00:26:19 official that this brief would have gone in my
00:26:20 in my box probably 48 hours before so I I would have read it late late one night uh during the week or possibly over weekend uh then prior to the meeting
00:26:31 weekend uh then prior to the meeting itself this is the meeting with David and Ronnie um my recollection is that Richard Harold and Brian Martin uh met with me um about half an hour before the
00:26:43 with me um about half an hour before the meeting we talked through these lines so I'd already read it I had questions in my mind and uh Richard and Brian took me through this submission um and answered
00:26:56 through this submission um and answered any of my questions um right um so um did they tell you looking at the third bullet point preliminary work leading to that
00:27:07 preliminary work leading to that publication has already started do they tell you what that work comprised of at that
00:27:13 that point no my my my recollection and I think this is in my in one of my two statements that it was at this meeting that that the the the design principle
00:27:24 that that the the the design principle of compartmentation was explained to me by Richard Harold I mentioned the sort of gender diagram uh earlier and we we spent quite a lot of time uh discussing
00:27:35 spent quite a lot of time uh discussing that that that the way that ADB was structured I think go all the way back with previous versions to the 1960s I saw your picture of Ronan point that you
00:27:47 saw your picture of Ronan point that you showed to um Mr Warton um was were written in such a way is to make sure that the spread of fire was within a reasonable time uh was impossible
00:27:59 reasonable time uh was impossible um both by the walls of the flat itself uh and by the front door and if there was an internal vti to to the fire doors themselves as well and I mentioned to
00:28:10 themselves as well and I mentioned to you I was familiar with with all of these issues both because as a consc MP had spent a lot of time in such flats and indeed as uh a temporary London resident during the week I lived in a
00:28:21 resident during the week I lived in a block of Flats on the 10th floor Mr William I'm I'm very sorry to interrupt you and I don't mean to to stop you but I I I I just wanted a specific answer to a specific question looking at the third bullet point there preliminary work
00:28:33 bullet point there preliminary work leading to that publication has already started did they tell you what that work comprised no um I'm I'm sorry if my answer wasn't clear chairman what what
00:28:44 answer wasn't clear chairman what what I'm trying to say to you in in that half hour pre- meeting it would have been called I recall discussing point one and point two um I don't we we dis also
00:28:57 point two um I don't we we dis also discuss sprinklers uh as well because that was as I understood it from what Brian had told me that was Ronnie King's main issue over a long period of time that sprinkler should be installed in
00:29:08 sprinkler should be installed in buildings so we certainly discussed those three out of the seven um and given the half hour uh I don't think there was time to discuss anything else and the meeting itself with the APG that
00:29:20 and the meeting itself with the APG that seamlessly followed we went from the ground floor to the top floor so almost seamlessly um again was only half an hour so no we didn't go in detail through all of those seven points but we did discuss the three that
00:29:32 points but we did discuss the three that I have
00:29:36 mentioned right um now if we go to H 30 48451 this is an email chain where your attendance at the 17th June meeting is
00:29:49 attendance at the 17th June meeting is confirmed and the briefing and the lines to take from Brian Martin sent into your private
00:29:54 private office now if we go to the top of the chain and of of course you were not um uh personally on this email chain but um your office was but if you go to the
00:30:05 your office was but if you go to the very top it's an email from Mike Ling sorry to Mike Ling from Louise Upton subject FW APG on fire safety 17th June and and
00:30:17 FW APG on fire safety 17th June and and it says this um for interest Brian batting the APG away uh now were you aware at the time that your officials were simply batting
00:30:29 that your officials were simply batting away the apg's concerns with the briefing that you received no can you account for why at least on the face of this document your officials appear to
00:30:41 this document your officials appear to have regarded the APG as something to be battle batted away rather than embraced and
00:30:48 and understood this um chairman this is the first time I've seen this and I'm pretty
00:30:55 horrified is is is is my genuine reaction
00:30:59 reaction right um there's no excuse for that but but it is the first time I've seen it cuz
00:31:05 cuz it's yeah mean my my my my my outer office isn't copied in either so you I didn't I neither officially saw it or actually saw it and um that is a very
00:31:18 actually saw it and um that is a very unfortunate wrong phrase can you account for how such an attitude evolved within the officials in your department it I I don't think I can chairman I
00:31:32 I I don't think I can chairman I understand why you have to ask me that but I I can't answer for how other people felt about other people I don't even know who Mike Lin is I've never heard of him now you mentioned your
00:31:43 heard of him now you mentioned your meeting uh with Brian Martin uh and Richard Harold I think before the meeting yes um you cover it a little bit in your second statement um let's look at it um page 12 paragraph 24 please CLG
00:31:56 at it um page 12 paragraph 24 please CLG 3034
00:31:58 3034 291 um paragraph 24 uh you say I distinctly recall getting this impression of frustration from my briefing meeting with Bob lsum and Brian Martin prior to my 17th June 2014
00:32:10 Martin prior to my 17th June 2014 meeting with the APG you refer to Bob meeting Bob ledom and Brian Martin um it was it Bob lsum or was it Richard Harold or both as well as Brian Martin at that
00:32:21 as Brian Martin at that meeting sorry just let me
00:32:32 it was definitely Richard who drew the diagram at that meeting so maybe all three of them were there I'm I'm sorry if that isn't clear here I think I do mention somewhere else in the statement that he was at this meeting that Richard
00:32:44 that he was at this meeting that Richard drew the diagram right so I'm sorry it's not you right now I don't think Bob was there but um I'm not sure now what was it that gave you the impression of
00:32:58 it that gave you the impression of frustration with the
00:33:01 APG um this is a difficult issue obviously
00:33:06 obviously um when when I told the office that David come up to me and said he wanted the meeting and I'd agreed to have it he said well they won't like that and I said well would say well I actually said
00:33:19 said well would say well I actually said but it was tough something we we're having it um and then K did say before we had the pre- meeting because he would have accompanied me to the pre meeting
00:33:30 have accompanied me to the pre meeting because it was a building regulations issue and he tended to come to all of those meetings with officials that they are furious with you uh for doing this but they won't say it to your face I I
00:33:42 but they won't say it to your face I I clearly clearly recall that so so Brian Bob neither Brian Bob nor Richard ever said anything to me personally that was
00:33:53 said anything to me personally that was devaty either about David Amos or Ronnie King I'm very clear about that but my private secretary did tell me that they were annoyed with me
00:34:07 were annoyed with me um that their no Minister had effectively been overturned and I'd agreed to the meeting and you say they were annoyed with you you mean your officials yes
00:34:22 right right why why did you tolerate that attitude by your officials it's not for them to to be annoyed with you if you decide to meet another minister in response to a request I think officials
00:34:34 response to a request I think officials are human beings they they have they have their personal opinions as well as their professional viewpoints and um possibly I was the minister that irritated them the least in terms of
00:34:45 irritated them the least in terms of what they were dealing with at the time but it doesn't mean you they were quite a liberty to be irritated by decisions that other ministers in the department made as well and I'm sure they were were
00:34:56 made as well and I'm sure they were were you given the but the point is important Point chairman is that they did not say that to the minister themselves that say would be crossing the line were you given the impression by Brian Martin or Richard Harold or perhaps Bob Bob ledson
00:35:08 Richard Harold or perhaps Bob Bob ledson that the apg's concerns as a matter of substance were unfounded or invalid or did not require the Department's time and
00:35:18 and consideration I wouldn't use any of those words but they they certainly did give me first of all the procedural um point that they are entitled to their views um but
00:35:32 they are entitled to their views um but that's what they are there are views about a complicated issue to which there are many views that could be fed in to to ministers and and officials from from other people and I just wanted to make
00:35:44 other people and I just wanted to make sure that those views whether or not they were valid or coherent or or backed up by evidence were were at least in the mix of what the department was going to
00:35:55 mix of what the department was going to consider um but I knew of course at this stage that the other viewpoints uh were being fed in as well in fact you that that's what I told told the
00:36:06 that's what I told told the meeting um now was this the first time you'd met with members of the APG well no obviously I knew David Amos personally um it was the first time I'd ever heard of or met Ronnie Ronnie
00:36:17 ever heard of or met Ronnie Ronnie Ronnie King yes and the first sorry the first time I saw him in person now Brian Martin attended with you as you say in your first statement that that's right he was he was he was sat to my right uh it was a horseshoe House of Commons
00:36:30 it was a horseshoe House of Commons committee room you'll be familiar with from TV uh David and Ronnie King were directly opposite me but probably as close as you are chairman uh to me at the moment but we were the only people
00:36:42 the moment but we were the only people there and what part did Mr Martin play in the
00:36:46 in the meeting that that that genuinely is hard for me to be certain about but given that David did hand over to Ronnie to ask questions
00:36:58 ask questions um I would almost certainly have asked Brian to
00:37:02 Brian to answer what was discussed at the meeting timetable and sprinklers from from
00:37:10 memory now if we go to rki but they but but but no again is this perhaps unsatisfactory but the the APG themselves didn't um didn't um take
00:37:25 APG themselves didn't um didn't um take a record of their meetings unlike other apgs or and certainly a select committee is is is has a stenographer and everything is on the record in this part of parliament's work whereas an APG is
00:37:39 of parliament's work whereas an APG is is an informal discussion ministers are not accountable to them so no record of the meetings are kept by government and it's up to the APG whether they keep a record and it seems in this instance no record was kept so I'm afraid you are
00:37:52 record was kept so I'm afraid you are having to rely on my memory that it was the timetable and sprinkles that we discussed
00:37:57 discussed can we go to rki
00:38:00 rki 602
00:38:03 602 please here are the apg's minutes of the meeting of the 17th of June 2014 and we can see that uh the list who of those in attendance David Amos Roger
00:38:16 of those in attendance David Amos Roger Williams Pete Alis Snick reinford uh Ronnie King Etc and a long list uh of those there and an even longer list of those who uh whose apologies were noted can we go to page
00:38:27 apologies were noted can we go to page three please halfway down the paragraph starting the minister you see that the minister then explained and halfway down that um it says well I'll show it to you
00:38:38 that um it says well I'll show it to you it says the minister then explained that a review of building regulations approved document B has now commenced to be completed and published in 2016 to 17 this involves a lot of stakeholders and interested parties and needed to be structured considered and thorough he
00:38:50 structured considered and thorough he was of the view that any changes felt necessary should form part of the review which he wasn't minded to bring forward now that is what you were told to say so it appears in the briefing note handed
00:39:01 it appears in the briefing note handed to you by Brian Martin yes that's one of the lines to take yes yes did you deter from the agreed script at all during that
00:39:12 that meeting
00:39:14 meeting that's hard to know because um I said to you earlier that one of my personal frustrations as a minister that you were not meant to extemporize you you are
00:39:25 not meant to extemporize you you are there as an official representative uh with corporate responsibility for other ministers and the government uh as as a whole you're not there to offer personal opinions or deviate from what is a
00:39:38 opinions or deviate from what is a government position in this Casa in and on this occasion a government position that had been set out by the Secretary of State of my own department so my guess is despite my normal inclination I
00:39:49 guess is despite my normal inclination I probably didn't extemporize away from it uh the note goes on the on admin sec reemphasized to members and the minister that the all party group wasn't asking
00:40:00 that the all party group wasn't asking to bring forward the review of building rank's ADP but for small amendments stroke updates to the approved document to be made as was permitted and and had occurred in 2010 and 2013 the last major
00:40:11 occurred in 2010 and 2013 the last major review of the approved document was in 2005 making 11 to 12 years before any changes will take effect there are potentially significant Life Safety benefits making those two small and
00:40:22 benefits making those two small and simple amendments now do you you recall Mr King making those comments I I don't and um uh chairman this is the first time I've read this so I now have
00:40:35 first time I've read this so I now have to slightly withdraw what I said earlier I didn't think a record of the meeting had been routinely kept um it this has not been shown to me was not shown to me uh at the time as as a record of of the
00:40:48 uh at the time as as a record of of the meeting when you say and the other people on the first page who are listed um didn't say anything to the to the best of my recollection it was only Ronnie King who
00:40:59 Ronnie King who spoke right um I take it that you didn't see see this minute after the meeting no no no no absolutely not I'm literally reading it for the first time understood
00:41:10 reading it for the first time understood um in any event after this meeting did you understand that significant Life Safety matters were being held up by the revision process of approved document B taking until 2016 or 2017
00:41:28 and not being held up is entirely Fair as a summary of what I might have thought at the time because work was underway so it at that point in
00:41:41 work was underway so it at that point in time neither I nor officials were holding anything up what what was under discussion was whether 2016 17 whatever that means unfortunately does sound as
00:41:53 that means unfortunately does sound as though several of us had different interpretations our mind as to what what it meant but whatever it meant that's that's two years down the line from from where we are at the moment at this point in time in the
00:42:05 moment at this point in time in the summer of
00:42:07 summer of 2014 I did not think that a review of Part B was being held up now if we look at your second statement please page 10
00:42:18 at your second statement please page 10 paragraph 19 you say I was not asked to and did not give any consideration to potential amendments to the building regulations with regard to any issues raised in relation to the fire at na house similarly I was not given any
00:42:29 house similarly I was not given any advice on and so did did not give consideration to potential changes to approved document be which might go wider than simplification of wording that's what you say in your statement
00:42:40 that's what you say in your statement now can we go back to the document please we were looking at page three just below halfway down you can see that the OD the honorary admin SE that's Ronnie King uh said that the APG wasn't asking
00:42:53 King uh said that the APG wasn't asking to bring forward the review of building reg's ADB but for small amendments and updates to the approved document to be made as was permitted and had occurred in 2010 and
00:43:04 in 2010 and 2013 so looking at that do you accept that you were being asked by the APG to make specific amendments to approve document B yes
00:43:16 document B yes my my recollection is that possibly straight after this meeting I can't remember where I went next it probably on to something utterly different
00:43:27 different um but possibly the next time I saw the relevant
00:43:31 relevant officials was that the view was that the APG which which really is Ronnie king um was not only wanting to change the time
00:43:45 was not only wanting to change the time scale whether it's the back stop date of 2016 2017 or peac me as you say uh amendments earlier but but also wanted to be the Arbiter and what those changes should be and that clearly is not a
00:43:56 should be and that clearly is not a position
00:43:57 position that any government would accept that that the review of such an important document as you've said several times a document that that has at the heart of it the protection of of life should
00:44:09 it the protection of of life should should be based on properly sourced evidence possibly from a variety of sources and and should not follow um the the the opinions considered as
00:44:21 um the the the opinions considered as they may be of of of one individual and you I would have been definitely uh irresponsible if i' said as a result of this meeting well let's
00:44:33 as a result of this meeting well let's make all the changes that they would like to make at the time that they would like to make me the officials were them been quite within their rights to say no minister to me and it would have gone to the Secretary of State probably to you
00:44:46 the Secretary of State probably to you underline the timetable that had already been agreed and I I think chairman there's another relevant issue you mentioned the Mr milet mentioned the
00:44:57 mentioned the Mr milet mentioned the regulatory environment uh in the first session I think this morning um there was the policy of the government that regulation should not be updated in a
00:45:08 regulation should not be updated in a peace Mill fashion because that wasn't helpful to anybody that regulation should be a considered whole body work and should be updated on a date that was known to everyone I think they were
00:45:19 known to everyone I think they were called common commencement dates this is a reform that the Coalition did introduce from memory the common commencement dates were the 1st of April and the 1st of October anyway six months apart in a year I'm pretty sure those those those were the
00:45:31 pretty sure those those those were the dates and there should be no surprises for anybody uh external to government you go through a process you revise everything at the same time and publish
00:45:42 everything at the same time and publish a new regulation including a building regulation on a common commencement date you don't make peac meal changes and that so that wasn't you know that that's not my view or Brian
00:45:54 that that's not my view or Brian Martin's view or Bal Leon's view that was government policy from the very top of
00:46:07 government do you accept looking at this note that you were being asked to make specific amendments to approve document B I accept what I was being asked to but
00:46:19 B I accept what I was being asked to but the reasons I've just said just because someone asks a minister to do something uh doesn't mean you then immediately think I'm must do that if other people are telling you um there is a process we
00:46:31 are telling you um there is a process we are going to follow it and what these people are telling you will be taken into account and there are later occasions when when that point is made
00:46:42 occasions when when that point is made the r we
00:46:43 the r we assured they may well have been the irritation may have gone two ways that that Ronnie Kim was irritated with officials officials were irritated with Ronnie King but at every point in that
00:46:54 Ronnie King but at every point in that process they were being assured in what came from me that their their viewpoints were going to be taken into account and on it was probably the very last
00:47:05 on it was probably the very last occasion that I said anything on the record about this in March 2015 which was um uh an a German debate in the house of commments I reiterated all this that the timetable was on track and that
00:47:18 that the timetable was on track and that sprinklers would be looked at I I know you're not allowed to necessarily look at what's in hord or whatever it's part of the inquiry rules but can you take it from me that I did say that on the
00:47:29 from me that I did say that on the record in March 2015 which was two weeks before I ceased to be a minister effectively so at that point I was giving public assurances on the record that what what had been asked for had
00:47:42 that what what had been asked for had been listened to including the substantial issue of sprinklers and it would be taken into effect and that was agreed with officials including um not just Brian Martin but Lis Upton who was
00:47:54 just Brian Martin but Lis Upton who was the actual fire safety expert in the department um can we go back to your statement then please when I just referred you to it second statement page 10 paragraph 19 first sentence where you
00:48:06 10 paragraph 19 first sentence where you say I was not asked to and did not give any consideration to potential amendments to the building regulations with regard to any issues raised in relation to the fire at LEL house did
00:48:17 relation to the fire at LEL house did you not understand that that was exactly what Ronnie King was asking you to make specific amendments to cater for what had happened at
00:48:30 what had happened at lacol so I think I think my answer in paragraph 19 here is a general statement that officially during my period as a minister I
00:48:41 minister I wasn't asked by by the Civil Service to consider particular changes that might be made to approv document B simply because the timetable for that
00:48:54 because the timetable for that consideration was however it panned out going to be after my time as a minister so delving into the detail of what is or what isn't in Part B would have taken place if it had
00:49:05 Part B would have taken place if it had progressed on time
00:49:08 time probably in the Autumn winter of 2015 2016 gone out to consultation with industry thereafter and somehow produced a revised document according to the
00:49:19 a revised document according to the timetable the Secretary of State set out but detailed consideration of what's in and what isn't in Part B was was never an issue that I was going to be the Orbiter of did you ever consider making
00:49:31 Orbiter of did you ever consider making more timely amendments or looking to make more timely amendments to ADB to address the corer specific concerns and the apg's specific concerns rather than
00:49:42 the apg's specific concerns rather than waiting another three years to revise the whole document I've already said uh chairman that there were cross government rules about the regularity of revision to regulation and that revision
00:49:54 revision to regulation and that revision to regulation should be a complete piece of work rather than a PE me piece of work that that that was you that was not my decision but but it's not a
00:50:05 not my decision but but it's not a decision I disagree with I'm not you know deviating from it I think that is a reasonable position for the government to have taken at the time and it's reasonable for society to uh expect that government goes
00:50:18 to uh expect that government goes through an evidence-led process and only regulates and reregulate regulations on a predicted basis that's probably an improvement and what had happened
00:50:29 before is it the case that you were never intending to make any amendments to approve document B other than to simplify the wording or is that wrong it it it's it's a question that
00:50:43 wrong it it it's it's a question that I'm not in a position to answer because as I've tried uh just now to explain the substantial content of adbb was not something during my 10
00:50:56 adbb was not something during my 10 years Minister that I would be deciding I my my role at that time in the sequence of events was to make sure it
00:51:07 sequence of events was to make sure it was on track that the research had been commissioned which I think you're going to probably going to come to uh and that at the time I left office in well
00:51:18 at the time I left office in well effectively March 2015 but officially May 2015 that I'd done what I could to make sure that that review by 2016 17 would happen and I'm pretty sure I did
00:51:29 would happen and I'm pretty sure I did that can we go back to the notes please of the APG meeting par page three
00:51:37 again thank you and if we go to page three U towards the bottom it says this the requested update of the BR report replacing the one shown on clg's website from 2005 to 2012 and underpinning the
00:51:50 from 2005 to 2012 and underpinning the regulations together with the removal of the N classification of window panels on outside walls of tool blocks of flats replacing it with a requirement for fire resistance was easily achieved wasn't anything new and didn't need to wait
00:52:01 anything new and didn't need to wait until 2017 to effect now Ju Just pausing there did did you recall that the BR report referred to there uh was a br cost benefit
00:52:13 to there uh was a br cost benefit analysis commissioned by the sprinkler industry and safoa the Chief Fire Officers
00:52:18 Officers Association so I did did I know it was there yeah did you know it was that did you know that it was a cost benefit analysis done by BR commissioned by the sprinkler industry and the Chief Fire
00:52:30 sprinkler industry and the Chief Fire Officers
00:52:32 Officers Association um I I can't it's difficult for me to say now whether I knew that at the time but if I did know it given that the BR are a
00:52:43 did know it given that the BR are a worldclass building research institution and I assume the sprinklers industry would want more sprinklers it would not have been unreasonable for for them to express an opinion on it did you know
00:52:55 express an opinion on it did you know well did you know anything anything about class Nord no was this the first you'd heard of class Nord or national class Nord uh I don't recall got a pretty good memory for lots
00:53:08 recall got a pretty good memory for lots of lots of things but I I generally don't recall any discussion about what class n was you didn't ask Brian Martin what's class North or class o as some
00:53:19 what's class North or class o as some sometimes people call it well I've just said to you that we're working through a notes I've not seen before so no is the I can't ask a question about a note I've not
00:53:32 seen no but you can help me with your recollection do do you recall asking Brian Martin a question what is class Nord or what is class o it's the first I've heard of it no but in order for me
00:53:43 I've heard of it no but in order for me to ask Brian or anybody else more likely Richard what what what is class not someone would have to have said to me something about class
00:53:54 have said to me something about class North that wasn't in itself self explanatory and I don't recall any discussion about class nort at all I don't know what it is now so uh did you ever become aware of
00:54:06 so uh did you ever become aware of criticism or concern over the national classification standards for reaction to fire on external walls of which class nort was one no no no continuing with
00:54:19 nort was one no no no continuing with the notes Sprite it says this at the top of the page Brian Martin said firstly that the odd admin SEC was in a minority of one in our for this the panels under the windows at Lael house were only part of a composite structure and it wasn't
00:54:31 of a composite structure and it wasn't as simple as was being suggested a combination of events had led to the first spread at lachel house secondly in relation to the update of the quoted BR research on clg's website he said that because CLG hadn't commission the 2012
00:54:43 because CLG hadn't commission the 2012 BR report they didn't need to act upon it the admin and admin SE was quite astounded and challenged both
00:54:54 astounded and challenged both statements and can you remember what was the combination of events as you understood it at the time that had led to the laal house fire um I think I said to you this this morning that the discussion that I had
00:55:07 morning that the discussion that I had about the circumstances that led to the LA lacol house fire were very short and at most on only two occasions I think when the November 2013 submission was
00:55:21 when the November 2013 submission was sent up to me about the competent person scheme for Windows and in preparation for this meeting yes when when Richard Harold explained comp compartments to
00:55:32 Harold explained comp compartments to me so there those are the only two occasions
00:55:36 occasions that a discussion about lacol house would would have taken place and they would have been very very short discussions not you know not not an in-depth
00:55:46 in-depth analysis can I just ask you to look at cg3 is1 19243
00:55:58 this is a letter addressed to you dated the 12th of March 2014 uh uh from the APG uh Ronnie under the hand of Ronnie King as you can see if you go to the
00:56:10 King as you can see if you go to the foot of page or the middle of Page Three Can I just direct you uh to um page two please now this of course is before a few months before this meeting
00:56:23 few months before this meeting um I suppose I ought to ask you first whether you ever seen this letter before um I should I can't be sure but no look at to be fair to you it's a
00:56:35 no look at to be fair to you it's a question better answered by reference to the first page which I which is now on the screen does it look familiar to you you
00:56:43 you think I'm not being evasive chairman it's it's very difficult for me to say that a letter is is familiar um I have already told you that both as a minister
00:56:54 already told you that both as a minister and a member of parliament I would have seen hundreds of letters you know every week or fortnite and I it I'm a human being I can't I can't remember seeing a letter that
00:57:08 can't remember seeing a letter that was not something that I had a strongly held personal view about so there's no reason for it to stick in my memory is what I'm trying to say no fair enough let let me see if this what I'm
00:57:19 enough let let me see if this what I'm about to show you triggers a recollection foot of page two Mr King says this it seems seems astounding to me that although clarification was given by the
00:57:30 clarification was given by the department at the inquest that the composite panels under the external wall window sets of flats at laal house were only required to be classed n to comply with the building regulations and need not have had the fire resistance
00:57:42 not have had the fire resistance required under the former section 20 London building acts that this dangerous situation allowing fire to spread externally into flat 79 within 4 and a half minutes has still not been
00:57:54 half minutes has still not been corrected in the approved document guid now do does that trigger a recollection do you recall reading that at this time in a letter that particular Point um
00:58:05 in a letter that particular Point um does trigger a memory but I can't be sure that it's in the context of this letter or the discussion I had um before the APG meeting or or indeed in November 2013 about the circumstances of lacken
00:58:18 2013 about the circumstances of lacken Hol as I said it the way it was explained to me was that the windows had not been installed although it was a complicated issue not been installed in compliance with the regulations the
00:58:29 compliance with the regulations the plastic had melted melted down the building and had melted probably I assume the windows in the flat underneath and had caused combustion but it was an extraordinary event and so so that really is the
00:58:43 event and so so that really is the beginning and the end chairman of my knowledge of what happened at lacol you you you might say to me Mr mil well why didn't you want to know more well did I really need to know more I understood
00:58:55 really need to know more I understood something had gone wrong catastrophically and sadly wrong uh for for the for the people concerned but steps were being taken to address it with the windows uh uh submission that I
00:59:07 with the windows uh uh submission that I had seen in November 2013 and there had been a commitment to revise Part B so so so so yes it does trigger a memory but I can't be sure whether it's
00:59:18 memory but I can't be sure whether it's because of this letter or because of the verbal discussion uh I had with Richard HL and Brian Martin um a month later
00:59:30 think a month later being what mid July sorry I I've only got page three on on my screen I can't see the date the date letter I showed you was March um we go back to page one we can see 12th of
00:59:42 go back to page one we can see 12th of March 2014 right well but that stage we had had the discussion in November 2013 um about the windows scheme where competent persons in general were were
00:59:53 competent persons in general were were explain to this was something i' you never heard of uh before how how competent person schemes worked and and La andol was mentioned to me but I say
01:00:04 La andol was mentioned to me but I say very
01:00:05 very briefly but there wasn't you there wasn't any reason for me to have any more knowledge than was already being given to me um I'm not
01:00:16 already being given to me um I'm not trying to hide behind officials being the experts and ministers being the generalist but in something like this that is generally the position
01:00:26 whether you have the technical knowledge or not of course which is well there's a lot of technical jargon in this letter isn't technical language sorry in in in in this letter that I could have could unpick every single one of it and ask
01:00:38 unpick every single one of it and ask officials explain this this this and this to me but given that they understood it was it really necessary for me to understand everything that my officials
01:00:48 officials understood when you ask that's a rhetorical question you've asked a rhetorical question and what is the what is the actual answer I I think the actual answer from me to my own rhetorical question is I don't think that's a reasonable expectation of of a
01:01:00 that's a reasonable expectation of of a minister it's not it's not what the role of a minister is in our parliamentary democracy is to know everything that their officials know why would you need officials otherwise so so your knowledge
01:01:14 officials otherwise so so your knowledge cannot mirror the knowledge of an official you you can understand sufficient of what they understand to make important decisions at critical Milestones but you can't understand everything behind that that otherwise
01:01:27 everything behind that that otherwise you'd never get anything done you Atley said that the worst ministers are experts yes because they they're constantly second guessing their officials no wouldn't you want to be satisfied when you were corresponding
01:01:39 satisfied when you were corresponding with your fellow parliamentarians such as David
01:01:42 as David Amos um that their concerns had been fully thoroughly robustly and rigorously addressed by your officials through you so that you could at least
01:01:54 so that you could at least understand that they were being fully addressed you don't need to understand the technical the line technical material but at least be able to understand in your own mind that the matter was was being
01:02:06 mind that the matter was was being properly looked at yes absolutely chairman that that certainly is what a reasonable expectation of what a minister should do that should reasonably expect that if
01:02:18 should reasonably expect that if something is drawn to the attention of policy officials in their Department that they're not just taking note of that they are considering it um but as I did say earlier there are lots of
01:02:31 did say earlier there are lots of experts offering them views now I I don't know whether going back to the note of of the meeting whether Ronnie King was really in a minority of one in his opinion about something that was
01:02:43 his opinion about something that was Brian Martin's opinion of Ronnie King's opinions but you know I wasn't to know whether he really was in a minority one but that is what I was told but how would you stop yourself simply being a
01:02:54 would you stop yourself simply being a mouthpiece for your officials uh on whatever it is they felt uh you needed or didn't need to
01:03:03 say because on lots of issues I never was a MTH anyone knows me so I'm not I'm not a mouthpiece for for other people but when you're given advice your profession is is is given advice to
01:03:14 profession is is is given advice to people people who take that advice are not your math piece are they they taking your advice because you are the professional person to offer them advice and that's why you're being paid and same is true of of of of a civil servant
01:03:26 same is true of of of of a civil servant a civil servant is there to give advice to a minister and a minister must there must be a reasonable expectation that you take that advice at face value if
01:03:37 you take that advice at face value if lots of other people come into you and and give contrary viewpoints to what your official is is saying then of course you think well how about is this person really giving me the whole
01:03:48 person really giving me the whole picture but that wasn't the case here there weren't lots of other people beating down the door to my office and saying do you know what Ronnie King is is is right on this your officials are
01:04:00 is is right on this your officials are not up to it don't listen to your officials listen to him nobody said that to me not a single person and there were plenty of plenty of people could have done but they
01:04:11 done but they didn't now so so yes so it's yes I did trust my
01:04:15 trust my officials let's move on in the time July 2014 cg3 is 1 19260 I don't think we need to look at this in any detail but this is a a
01:04:26 this in any detail but this is a a document which gives us a Time Mark um when you signed off on the building regulation and standards external research and implementation program do you remember doing that yes I do right uh and that program is this right
01:04:37 uh and that program is this right included carrying out an independent review and evaluation of approved document B amongst lots of other things yes and by the time you left the department in May 2015 uh had that review begun yes it had begun yes what
01:04:51 review begun yes it had begun yes what what what I did not know um and I've had to ask the question of the department in order to uh well to prepare for today I suppose um when did that research come
01:05:03 suppose um when did that research come back and I've been told it came back uh at the end of February 2015 and obviously coming back to the department means it came back to the officials not not to me or my my private office at the
01:05:16 not to me or my my private office at the end of February 2015 I had three weeks left so you quite obviously I wasn't shown it or or even advised that it that it come back and by the time you left
01:05:27 it come back and by the time you left the department in May 2015 did you think that the timetable to publish a new version of approved document B was on track or or not yes I did um because because we had commissioned this this this research I said the research from
01:05:40 this research I said the research from from memory because I have reread the submission in preparation for for today was was I think about1 and a half million pounds worth of research across lots of areas of the building regulations you all of which were
01:05:52 regulations you all of which were important in their own rights as I said earlier Part B is not the only important part of the building regulations most or indeed all of them to do with personal safety so there was a research on a variety of issues um being undertaken
01:06:05 variety of issues um being undertaken and evidence-based policy I think is the best policy now um let's go to cg3 is 11290 this is a letter from David Amos uh to you on the 5th of August
01:06:19 Amos uh to you on the 5th of August 2014 there it is and it's got a handwritten scribble uh SW build RS s it looks like SB um 5th of August 2014 now just
01:06:32 SB um 5th of August 2014 now just looking at it first paragraph to refresh your um what may or may not be your recollection thank you for attending the 17th June meeting of the all party group where you outlin the review of the building regulations approved document B
01:06:44 building regulations approved document B currently underway which involves a lot of stakeholders and interested parties and is to be completed in 2016 to 17 and just looking at that do you recall reading this letter at the time I can't
01:06:55 reading this letter at the time I can't can't be sure of course you'll have to show me the reply to obviously it is easier for me to to to remember my replies ra rather than to what I was replying to yeah yes I will I will show you the reply um in fact let's
01:07:09 will show you the reply um in fact let's since you've asked I'll I'll let's do that and then we'll come back to the letter because I got some more substance in it to ask you about but cg3 is 1 19439 we can go to
01:07:23 that there's your reply m I do recognize this letter you recognize this letter yeah do you recognize the letter that you were responding to um well as I say that that is harder for
01:07:35 well as I say that that is harder for anybody to do isn't it because you remember what you say rather than what somebody else says more more readily um but also this this sentence in this letter has been much quoted so it's it's
01:07:47 letter has been much quoted so it's it's not if he was been shown to me for the first time it's possible I wouldn't remember it but because it has been quoted I'm obviously familiar with this letter and and the tone of it which no
01:07:59 letter and and the tone of it which no doubt you're you're probably going to ask me about well let's go to the letter of the 5th of August from David Amos if we may um let's pick it up in the second paragraph It's the the previous document
01:08:12 paragraph It's the the previous document uh cg3 is
01:08:13 uh cg3 is 11290 and in the second paragraph it says you are of the view that any changes felt necessary should form part of that review which you weren't minded to bring forward the members decided to consider your response at a reconvene
01:08:25 consider your response at a reconvene meeting given the limited time available on 17th June and met again on the 22nd July where the matters raised were further discussed after giving full consideration to the matters before them and taking account of the 12 years which
01:08:36 and taking account of the 12 years which will have elapsed since the last review of the regulations approved document B there are issues which the group feels requires immed require immediate attention by simple amendments as has been undertaken in 2007 2010 and 2013 a
01:08:50 been undertaken in 2007 2010 and 2013 a sample of previous amendments to illustrate this process is enclosed at appendix a uh and um he then gives some examples or samples um the first is sprinklers in
01:09:03 samples um the first is sprinklers in residential and Commercial premises and then if we go to page two the second amendment being sought is in relation to fire
01:09:10 fire resistance for component parts of the external walls of blocks of flats over 18 MERS in height uh
01:09:18 height uh and there's then a reference towards the bottom of that page to the simulated tests uh did you ever seek to understand exactly why it was that it was said that
01:09:30 exactly why it was that it was said that fire performance standards for external walls were
01:09:36 unsatisfactory um no but as we've covered now quite a few times the review was underway and and anyone definitely was underway at
01:09:48 and anyone definitely was underway at this this this point not just in the research that you've told me the BR had been asked to do before the coron's letter
01:09:55 letter but but also to the research that was commissioned uh while I was the minister was was
01:10:03 underway so I so I knew that and I am sorry chairman to keep laboring this point that how Part B was going to be revised
01:10:14 that how Part B was going to be revised wasn't a matter for me right and and and I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain that in terms of the responsibilities that I held at the
01:10:26 responsibilities that I held at the time we we're we're now what five months six months away from the end as it were of of of of of that government when I
01:10:37 of of of of of that government when I had things that I could deliver in that period and was expected to deliver including the zero carbon homes legislation which which which is not a minor Point chairman I mean if if I
01:10:48 minor Point chairman I mean if if I guess there are members of the public watching but but energy bills are apart from the war on Ukraine at the moment probably the biggest issue in people's Minds so so it wasn't a trivial point that I was concerned with at the time
01:11:00 that I was concerned with at the time with my officials and was absolutely determined to land and deliver and get in place uh as a minister particularly as the other side of the Coalition were equally determined to frustrate me from
01:11:12 equally determined to frustrate me from doing that that that that's what my focus was on with my officials to doing what I could do within my remit within my at that point limited lifespan as as
01:11:23 my at that point limited lifespan as as a minister rather than deep diving into the issues that I couldn't influence and couldn't determine and certainly not prejudge uh that were going to happen
01:11:35 prejudge uh that were going to happen much later on in 2015 or even well into 2016 did you read this letter do you remember I'm I'm sorry to have to give
01:11:47 remember I'm I'm sorry to have to give you an answer I've given before it is very hard for me to be sure obviously I'm familiar with some of the issues because they'd come up uh in conversations before but I can't I can't
01:11:58 conversations before but I can't I can't give you a definitive yes or no which I know you'd like that I read this letter line by line but given that there are lots of uh pre historical precedence and Technical terms in
01:12:10 Technical terms in here I you if if I had read the letter in
01:12:16 in full I would probably have thought I'm having to reimagine what I would have thought at the time that yes these are clearly important issues but I'm not
01:12:29 clearly important issues but I'm not currently currently in a position to flick the dial on any of them I'm I'm just in a position to make sure that they're being considered and they'll be dealt with on a timely basis and what
01:12:42 dealt with on a timely basis and what whatever other criticisms may or may not be made of me when I did leave office in in March
01:12:49 in March 2015 it was the review was on track it's it's a valid opinion is to consider whether that timetable should have ended earlier in 2016 say but even but but
01:13:01 earlier in 2016 say but even but but even if people come to that Viewpoint it would still have been for subsequent ministers and as we now know there were several subsequent ministers to to to to get into the detail of what the new Part B should say right when you say when you
01:13:15 B should say right when you say when you left office the review was on track yes you tell us precisely where you'd got to the research had been uh commissioned uh the time table I've been
01:13:26 the time table I've been given no reason whatsoever to assume that it was off track and and we're back in the difficulty chairman I know you're not supposed to look at stuff that's in
01:13:38 not supposed to look at stuff that's in Hansard find an odd point but but I know you're not um but in March 2015 at a debate in Westminster Hall which is an German debate it referred to in my statement so I guess I can refer to it
01:13:49 statement so I guess I can refer to it that way for the inquiry by Jonathan Evans I confirmed on the record that the review was on track and certain issues such as sprinklers were definitely going to be considered so that that's my final
01:14:00 to be considered so that that's my final word on the subject as it were as as as a minister um what I later became a gas about as I'm sure lots of other people are that that after that point the
01:14:12 are that that after that point the review seemed to have spun out of control and and and wasn't delivered not only not delivered by whatever 2016 2017 means but you know not even delivered much later well I'm as angry about that
01:14:24 much later well I'm as angry about that as a lot of other people well do you accept that there was not even a discussion document approved by you as a minister by the time you left left left office yes I do accept that but but
01:14:35 office yes I do accept that but but there couldn't have been could there because because the the the evidence base was was commissioned the actual evidence that was commissioned in response to the coroner rather than the BR work that I now know because you've
01:14:46 BR work that I now know because you've told me was had started before um maybe the department anticipated that part P would need to be revised so I don't I don't see anything Sinister in that but those two pieces of work were being done
01:15:00 those two pieces of work were being done I did not know that the research had come back just before I I left the department no nobody told me or by the way Minister we've got this back and you'll be relieved to know that we can get on with it now um I didn't know that
01:15:13 get on with it now um I didn't know that but of course what I was able to say um at that debate in March 2015 was that the review was on track and that wasn't my opinion I've Been Told by um Louise
01:15:26 my opinion I've Been Told by um Louise and Brian that you can say that on the record I wanted to say on the record to Jonathan Evans um that we were dealing with it and specifically sprinklers were
01:15:37 with it and specifically sprinklers were going to be considered as part of the review yeah no you the debate was the safy Rosser debate was that's right yeah yes you you you tell us in that last answer that you've been told by Louise
01:15:49 answer that you've been told by Louise and Brian that you can say that on the record yes just ju just just just like so sorry now did you ask them before you went ahead and said it
01:16:00 them before you went ahead and said it on the record what precisely it was that had been done so that you could say it well I knew the research had been Commissioned I didn't I've already said to you I didn't know it had come back
01:16:11 to you I didn't know it had come back but in fact at that point I know now cuz I cuz I asked the department the research had come back probably two weeks before that debate took place so
01:16:22 weeks before that debate took place so therefore officials were uh speaking reasonably to me to say that you can say
01:16:35 that I mean that that that debate confirms again the 2016 2017 uh deadline so you were simply telling the debate
01:16:47 so you were simply telling the debate what you had been told in turn by your officials well yes but without scrutinizing it to find out exactly what the content was
01:16:59 it's I'm sorry I guess this is frustrating for you as well chairman I have to keep explaining how the Parliamentary process works this is a half hour adjournment debate it's not you it's not a all day debate or three
01:17:11 you it's not a all day debate or three hours debate it's a half hour adjournment debate where one backbench Member of Parliament uh has 15 to 20 minutes to put across their points to a minister uh the minister has 10 minutes
01:17:22 minister uh the minister has 10 minutes to respond to what they say um this is an occasion where you can slightly extemporize away from your prepared speech because obviously you're responding uh so I think the comment
01:17:33 responding uh so I think the comment about sprinklers for instance is me responding to Jonathan's comments but but the timetable information that we were on track uh to deliver a revised
01:17:45 were on track uh to deliver a revised document was given to me by Brian Martin who was the building regulations lead on fire safety and Louise Upton Who was the the general lead on fire resilience
01:17:56 the general lead on fire resilience within the department who normally worked to the fire Minister um this wasn't my debate this is another thing about parliamentary procedure chairman sometimes you sign letters on behalf of
01:18:08 sometimes you sign letters on behalf of other ministers uh and you reply to debates and oral and written questions on behalf of other ministers this debate was supposed to have been responded to by Penny Morant who was the fire Minister uh at the time who also met
01:18:21 Minister uh at the time who also met incidentally with the APG um at the same time as me and gave them ly the same government line as I did um it was her debate to respond to for whatever reason which I now can't recall she was called
01:18:33 which I now can't recall she was called away to an event in her constituency and I stood in so it was not quite done on the hoof but it it wasn't something I was expecting to do Mr chairman is that a convenient
01:18:45 do Mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes I think it is thank you very much I think it's time we had another break Mr Williams we'll stop there we'll resume please at 25 to 4 and again please don't talk to anyone about your
01:18:56 please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're out of the room all right thanks so
01:19:08 much thank you Mr milet 25 to 4 please thank
01:19:23 you
01:19:53 e
01:20:23 e
01:20:53 e
01:21:23 e
01:21:53 e
01:22:23 e
01:22:53 e
01:23:23 e
01:23:53 e
01:24:23 e
01:24:53 e
01:25:23 e
01:25:53 e
01:26:23 e
01:26:53 e
01:27:23 e
01:27:53 e
01:28:23 e
01:28:53 e
01:29:23 e
01:29:53 e
01:30:22 e
01:30:52 e
01:31:22 e
01:31:52 e
01:32:22 e
01:32:52 e
01:33:22 e
01:33:52 e
01:34:22 e e
01:35:02 would you ask Mr Williams to come back in please thank
01:35:16 you right Mr Williams ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes Mr yes thank you Mr chairman now um You respond to David amos's letter in the letter we looked at a moment ago CLG 301 9439
01:35:36 please
01:35:42 uh no uh 1
01:35:47 19439 yes thank you uh and you say this uh dear David thank you for your letter dated 5th August following our discussions of the all party fire and rescue group on the future of the fire safety aspects of building regulations
01:35:59 safety aspects of building regulations in your letter you argue that three issues should be given immediate attention in advance of the current exercise which is expected to be to be completed during 2016 to 17 I've neither seen nor heard anything that would
01:36:10 seen nor heard anything that would suggest that consideration of these specific potential changes is urgent and I'm not willing to disrupt the work of this department by asking that these matters be brought forward however I do acknowledge that the matters to which
01:36:21 acknowledge that the matters to which you refer are worthy of full consideration and I've asked my officials to ensure that they are included in the ongoing review regards Steven uh now um who drafted that
01:36:33 Steven uh now um who drafted that letter uh well again chairman I can't be absolutely sure but I I assume it was Brian Martin authorized by Bob Leon right now I I haven't shown you the
01:36:44 right now I I haven't shown you the three and a half Page Letter in full to which this is a response uh Which con contains three major matters of suggested amendments to approve document B
01:36:54 B uh including a long history of Cl class nort and what is wrong with it but given the careful and detailed letter to which this was a response this is something of a brush off would you agree I would and
01:37:08 agree I would and um I've already covered the fact that the these letters aren't necessarily personal correspondence of the individual happens to be a minister they are government correspondence to which I
01:37:20 are government correspondence to which I sign but I I alone am responsible for for it going out of the building um you you can see by my personalization of it um something of a
01:37:33 personalization of it um something of a hint that I probably felt it was a brush off which is why I've put I don't know whether you can read my handwriting uh happy to have a chat in the lobby as always so David and I liked each other
01:37:45 always so David and I liked each other um so I I didn't want to brush off is polite the polite way you put it I didn't want to give him a a a a brush off but I this is a hindsight
01:37:57 a a brush off but I this is a hindsight view chairman I I do now regret sincerely that this letter left the building I desperately wish I'd put a line through it and sent it back and saying try again
01:38:11 saying try again I well can you help us understand why it is how come it it is the case that you're signing off formal Letters by way of a brush off but hinting to the
01:38:22 of a brush off but hinting to the recipient that you'd be amable to a backstairs
01:38:30 chat dat David would have known and I would have known that I didn't realize that the extent of the bad blood but we both knew that the
01:38:42 the bad blood but we both knew that the Department's officials and Mr King were should we put it not the best of friends and and you know there was no Mutual admiration or or respect there we both
01:38:53 admiration or or respect there we both knew that
01:38:54 knew that um David would have known it I I knew it um but it wasn't how David and I felt about each other which is why I've put the handwritten note underneath and why indeed I mentioned before we talked
01:39:06 indeed I mentioned before we talked while while while voting um but but I just repeat again I I wish I don't know whether you can ask me this later on but this is one of the
01:39:17 this later on but this is one of the things where because this letter has been quoted and has distressed people you know with
01:39:29 hindsight I wish it hadn't gone and I wish um I'd taken the time to frankly just send it back and say it's unacceptable um and let let's give a
01:39:42 unacceptable um and let let's give a proper and considered view because it's not as if there weren't things we could have said we we've just discussed was the review on track had the research been commissioned had a team being
01:39:53 been commissioned had a team being identified probably within the department to to work on it um other things I I mentioned earlier the review of part P which is also relevant to fire
01:40:04 of part P which is also relevant to fire safety had been done I've been personally involved in that very heavily we we could have tabulated all of that and given a more thoughtful and
01:40:15 and given a more thoughtful and considered response um and I wish we had um I I I you don't don't know 19th September Parliament isn't sitting
01:40:27 19th September Parliament isn't sitting probably
01:40:30 probably um
01:40:32 um uh probably not sitting there Party Conference season normally so I don't know the context in which I signed that letter where I was or whether there was an opportunity for me to send it back or
01:40:43 an opportunity for me to send it back or whether the the other rule is an irritating one chairman is is is that the department monitored the speed to which letters were responded to it may well
01:40:53 may well what is it 5th of August 19th of September yeah that probably breaches the the response time um but obviously parliamentary recess covers quite a lot of that um I don't know what the reasons
01:41:05 of that um I don't know what the reasons were why I didn't send it back I generally don't know um again it may have been I was signing lots of letters saw this one thought it shouldn't be that way which
01:41:16 thought it shouldn't be that way which is why I've added the note but I wish now
01:41:19 now I'd taken my red pen and put a line through it said or whoever the private secretary was who was handing it to me at the time this is not good enough I I wish I'd done that
01:41:30 not good enough I I wish I'd done that and I'm sorry I didn't is it fair to say that you were being led uncritically by your
01:41:38 officials no it isn't um because I had a lot of officials who who reported to me across a huge variety of issues and I think I was a intellectually curious and
01:41:51 think I was a intellectually curious and critical minister uh I I was not someone who sat in the seat enjoyed being a minister and didn't care what I was doing I mean SC your inquiries is not to look at other stuff I did I know that
01:42:03 look at other stuff I did I know that chairman but you I I wasn't uh a minister who had no regard for what I was doing at all um in including part p as I just mentioned
01:42:15 including part p as I just mentioned where the most common cause of fires was was electrical faults and you know I did resolve that issue I I could have chosen just to you know let it Let It Go but I said to officials we're going to resolve
01:42:27 said to officials we're going to resolve this because it's important and it was something I could do in my time as as a minister Part B wasn't wasn't uh a document that I was going to be the not
01:42:40 document that I was going to be the not the author but the the official author of a minister or two down the tracks was going to be that but I was involved in the Preparatory stages Preparatory stages had taken place we should have
01:42:53 stages had taken place we should have said this much more fully in this letter that dear David please please understand I know you have cons concerns I know you don't like the
01:43:04 cons concerns I know you don't like the time table although they they never said exactly what What alternative timetable the department should have worked to that you there's nothing on on that
01:43:15 that you there's nothing on on that either to do with the end date or or when the peac meal uh uh issues you discussed earlier should have been introduced used so work was underway and I wish I wish this letter had never left
01:43:27 I wish I wish this letter had never left the building but it did and that is my
01:43:34 fault now I want to show you a briefing that you received from Bob ledson a little bit earlier in the same year April 2014 CLG
01:43:49 309744 and it's addressed to you and Nick BS from Bob ledson 30th of April 2014 titled meeting with Oliver Lewin Nick BS Steven Williams and Alex
01:44:00 Nick BS Steven Williams and Alex on the approved document 7th May 2014 now Alex Morton was a special adviser I think wasn't he a conservative special adviser yeah right and now Under The Heading background it says this the approved documents if we scroll down
01:44:12 approved documents if we scroll down thank you the approved documents are a fundamental element of the building control system setting out reasonable minimum standards to ensure health and safety in completed building work and to avoid failures such as structural
01:44:23 avoid failures such as structural collapse seen recently in Bangladesh and ltia and other issues such as New Zealand's leaky home crisis um and if we go to considerations uh it's right at the foot
01:44:35 considerations uh it's right at the foot of the page and over to page two it says under paragraph six we entirely agree uh that there is scope to significantly improve the approved documents and proposed to scope out a program of work
01:44:46 proposed to scope out a program of work aimed at ensuring guidance is as lean as possible whilst meeting industry needs for some approved documents where technical content is up to date we would concentrate on simplification and improving Clarity of language to make
01:44:58 improving Clarity of language to make life easier for Developers for some ads we will need to undertake a fundamental review because technical guidance is now getting out of date particularly Part B fire and part M access to and use of
01:45:10 fire and part M access to and use of buildings yeah what technical aspects of approved document B were considered to be getting out of date at this time um I I I don't know um
01:45:23 um I I I don't know um what the technical aspects would would have would have been that that were out of date C clearly the way buildings are constructed does change over time and you you want a regulatory environment to
01:45:34 you you want a regulatory environment to be well at least complimentary to uh or indeed ahead of of of of of how buildings are constructed but but not to fall too far behind any but I don't but I to answer your question directly no no
01:45:46 I to answer your question directly no no I don't what what the issues were did you
01:45:49 you ask um
01:45:54 possibly not other than the discussion that that you know from earlier answers that we had had about Windows and we had had about sprinklers I I didn't ask for
01:46:05 had about sprinklers I I didn't ask for a definitive list but chairman this does come back to the point that this was not something I was involved with contemporaneous uh with with this submission where was part M which I I
01:46:19 submission where was part M which I I think is um disabled access thank you um um I had a nod from the member of the panel which I was uh agreeing to I was in involved with um
01:46:33 agreeing to I was in involved with um and had lots of meetings with industry and um chaired a meeting at the design Council about updating the the the professional requirements of everyone in
01:46:46 professional requirements of everyone in the built environment to make sure uh that they took into account the needs of uh disabled people so that is something I was involved with at the time even in
01:46:58 I was involved with at the time even in a substantial sense um was Part B yes I was involved with but not at the detailed consideration stage well so I think it's reasonable for me to have
01:47:10 think it's reasonable for me to have more of an understanding of what what was needed in part M than what was needed in Part B because we were doing it well and and me sorry come do finish your answer I I I was just going to say
01:47:24 I shouldn't anticipate your questions I'm guess you might ask me what generally do I remember about this meeting I had quite a lot of meetings with allwin no I wasn't going to ask you right okay well I did have lots of meetings with all of I'd like to ask you
01:47:35 meetings with all of I'd like to ask you a focus question on the last sentence there which says for some ads we will need to undertake a fundamental review because technical guidance is now getting out of date particularly Part B
01:47:46 getting out of date particularly Part B fire question did you ask whether there was any public safety implication arising from the fact that B fire was getting out of date um well I think I knew it
01:48:00 date um well I think I knew it was perceived as being out of date because that's why the department had committed to a review no did you did you ask the question are there any public safety
01:48:11 question are there any public safety implications from the fact that part B is out is getting out of date did you ask any official that question I don't think so but again
01:48:24 question I don't think so but again you're you're asking me to remember what I asked at a particular meeting and I I I so I'm telling you I don't think I did but this but
01:48:35 you I don't think I did but this but this was a meeting which you had lots of fingers in the pie um as I said there were numerous meetings with Oliver Lewin because he was the minister for government policy so you had his own
01:48:47 government policy so you had his own views on everything the department was doing and lots of other departments so I was regularly summoned to number nine Dow in Street to to go through issues with him in particular on zeroc carbon homes uh and
01:48:58 particular on zeroc carbon homes uh and space standards you where he made it quite clear if you weren't here we wouldn't be doing you we we as in conservatives would not be doing this as a self-style curious Minister did you not want to know get to the bottom of
01:49:11 not want to know get to the bottom of whether there was a public safety risk in allowing Part B to become out of date well I didn't think I was personally because you you made the question
01:49:23 because you you made the question personal I did not think I was personally presiding over a situation where the document was if you like deteriorating out of date I thought I
01:49:34 deteriorating out of date I thought I was the minister that was in post while the evidence was gathered to make sure that the document was brought up to date but the actual bringing up to date of
01:49:46 but the actual bringing up to date of that document I knew was not a matter for me so I think it is reasonable for me to be less curious as you put it I put it uh about the detail because the
01:49:59 put it uh about the detail because the substance was not going to be determined by
01:50:04 me can we go then to the note of the meeting cg3
01:50:14 35301 uh this is an email sent on the 8th of
01:50:18 8th of May
01:50:21 May 2014 uh with the of the 7th of May meeting attached to it uh and it went from
01:50:28 from uh bus's office it looks like at the very top to Richard Harold copied to a cast including Brian Martin and uh it says thanks for preparing this briefing
01:50:39 says thanks for preparing this briefing note for the meeting with Oliver Lewin and Alex Morton a brief note in actions below and if you look down the email at page two please you can see fifth bullet point down
01:50:53 uh it it says there NB noted do you see NB noted yes NB noted he's still ke for a program of work to streamline stroke put the existing approved documents into
01:51:04 put the existing approved documents into plain English this should be scoped to take place once the housing standards review has been completed at the end of the
01:51:10 the year yep now do you remember that being discussed at the meeting no but but you know as I said I had lots of meetings with Oliver Nick
01:51:21 had lots of meetings with Oliver Nick Nick BS was the minister for planning uh with which I had a joint responsibility for neighborhood planning uh he wasn't the minister who presided over building regulation
01:51:34 who presided over building regulation building regulations so it I like Nick so I don't want to be rude about him and he's not here anyway um that might be a slightly naive comment that by the end of the year by the end of 2014 the whole
01:51:47 of the year by the end of 2014 the whole of the building regulations to be put into plain English was perhaps ambitious well it's the approved documents in fact but I mean did did you ever challenge the timetable the idea that there
01:51:59 the timetable the idea that there wouldn't even be a plain English review uh uh scoped until after the housing standard review had been completed well just because Nick said he was Keen for something to happen didn't mean that it
01:52:11 something to happen didn't mean that it had been agreed by the department including the Secretary of State and all the processes that would be gone through that's a major exercise isn't it um ask me if I remember I I generally don't remember
01:52:23 don't remember that
01:52:24 that particular comment being made you major has been a comment he made and no one responded to it um I so I don't remember it but it it's it's not an easy ask that he was making Oliver Lewin wanted um the
01:52:37 he was making Oliver Lewin wanted um the housing standards review to to say that houses should look nice you know like like all the houses in West Dorset um probably heavily influenced by a
01:52:48 probably heavily influenced by a significant person um in that respect but that doesn't mean it can realistically happen I think putting all of
01:52:56 of the all of the documents in into plain English by the end of 2014 was um not something I ever had advice over I generally don't remember this I I
01:53:07 over I generally don't remember this I I would have remembered it if if subsequent to this meeting officials had come to me and said well Nick B's asked for this this is why it can't be done this is why it can be done or this is when it could be done by I don't think that happened so it's it's a minuted
01:53:18 that happened so it's it's a minuted remark that the minister made and that's that that's fair enough but I don't think it was realistically anything that was expected to be taken forward uh now so David Amos writes to you again in
01:53:30 so David Amos writes to you again in October
01:53:32 October 2014 moving further back into the year can we go to cg3
01:53:38 30867 and he responds to your 19th of September letter that we've just looked at as
01:53:47 at as follows dear Steven thank you for your letter of the 19th of September last in reply to my letter of the 5th of August which was considered by the group at its meeting on the 21st October the group
01:53:59 meeting on the 21st October the group notes that you have neither seen nor heard anything that the matters raised suggest that they were urgent and that you were not therefore willing to ask for them to be brought forward they were at a loss to understand how you had
01:54:10 at a loss to understand how you had concluded that credible and independent evidence which had Life Safety implications was not in the capital letters not considered to be urgent when Amendments of much lesser importance to
01:54:21 Amendments of much lesser importance to the approved document been made between reviews as a consequence the group wishes to point out to you that should a major fire tragedy with loss of life occur between now and 2017 in for
01:54:33 occur between now and 2017 in for example a residential care facility or a purpose-built block of flats where the matters which had been raised here were found to be contributory to the outcome then the group would be bound to bring this to others attention return the page
01:54:47 this to others attention return the page I'm sorry that we could not come to a satisfactory agreement on a Way Forward during our discussions and changes of Correspondence best regards David Amos MP chairman now in your statement you
01:54:58 MP chairman now in your statement you say you don't recall seeing this letter that that that's correct and because um this this letter was put into the public domain as it were um I did
01:55:10 the public domain as it were um I did not recall ever seeing it and asked the department did I see it and was there a reply and it could not be traced I mean I noticed there there's no signature I
01:55:22 I noticed there there's no signature I think this is a draft I'm speculating chairman this is a letter that was drafted by Ronnie King but not sent by David Amos I I don't know but but um I do not recall see it it's quite starkly
01:55:34 do not recall see it it's quite starkly worded letter so I think it's something I would
01:55:37 I would recall uh I would recall seen if I had seen it um but I'm pretty sure I didn't and when I checked with the Department um what did we do about this letter that
01:55:49 um what did we do about this letter that there is no record of it being received there is no record of of a response obviously there couldn't be because uh the department didn't have a copy of it there is no chasing of a response so I
01:56:01 there is no chasing of a response so I assume it didn't reach us either because David didn't send it uh or because well it didn't reach the department for whatever
01:56:13 reason what do you say about its contents now you're asking me to comment on something that I didn't see and possibly was never sent well let me put Let Me put this to you do you accept now
01:56:24 Let Me put this to you do you accept now looking at it that the concerns of this group brought repeatedly to your attention as Minister were not exaggerated doomsaying but a genuine vision of mass death based on a deep
01:56:37 vision of mass death based on a deep technical knowledge and wide professional experience held by the members of the APG no why not because I don't think the members of the APG did have the Deep the way you just put it did have the Deep technical knowledge
01:56:49 did have the Deep technical knowledge and experience um Ronnie I don't know anything about Ronnie King I just knew he was a campaigner for for the fire safety of a long perod I'm I think he'd been a Chief Fire officer so obviously he had
01:57:01 Fire officer so obviously he had professional experience uh he was I'm pretty sure in the same way as officials drafted my letters I'm pretty sure he would have written all the letters that came to the department either to me or
01:57:12 came to the department either to me or indeed qu all of other ministers uh from David Amos um but I don't think it's fair for you to say as you just did that the group itself self had had detailed
01:57:23 the group itself self had had detailed technical knowledge and a detailed technical knowledge by implication that trumped the and was counter to the the Professional Knowledge that the
01:57:35 Professional Knowledge that the Department's officials who were there to advise me might might have had very well how would you then describe that last paragraph the one that begins I am sorry
01:57:47 paragraph the one that begins I am sorry that we could not no I'm sorry you're quite right uh the last paragraph sorry as a consequence the group wishes to point
01:57:56 point out was that just hysterical over statement or was there something in what they were telling
01:58:05 you it's it I suppose fness doesn't come into this but it is it is quite difficult for me to comment on a draft opinion that
01:58:17 me to comment on a draft opinion that was not received by the department or shown to me and and the department has no record of receiving I've been told this well wait a minute I just to point out to you that it Bears a CLG number which means it was disclosed To Us by
01:58:29 which means it was disclosed To Us by the department well well that's where we got it from yes that that's because it's been I I think chairman I'm slightly a disadvantage here because I don't know the chain of events that's happened it
01:58:42 the chain of events that's happened it it was a letter that was I think sent to the Press uh after the grandall fire uh saying you you were warned but
01:58:54 fire uh saying you you were warned but then the depart when I asked about this in 2018 which is the first instance I was asked to go into the depart back into the department to go through all the submissions and meetings and
01:59:06 the submissions and meetings and anything that was in any way relevant to to your inquiry chairman uh leave uh folder full stuff we spent a day in it rather like we are now I mentioned this letter um because you know quite
01:59:19 letter um because you know quite obviously it is her uh her horrific uh implication and the department didn't have
01:59:27 have it so so so so this which unlike the other letters that we've looked at chairman uh isn't doesn't look topped or tail personally and looks like a draft
01:59:39 tail personally and looks like a draft from a computer which was obviously written by Ronnie king um May maybe David decided not to send it but but we can't possibly know that let's go to another letter then
01:59:51 another letter then cg10
01:59:55 7860 and and this doesn't go to you so should point that out straight away and obviously has been received because it's got the date stamp and everything on it it's 1st of December 2015 sent to James
02:00:06 it's 1st of December 2015 sent to James Warton MP who I think was your your successor on building regulations and local economies yeah but not on all the other stuff uh on building regulations yes uh and if we look at the second
02:00:19 yes uh and if we look at the second paragraph um what is said by S David here is this over the past two years of Correspondence between your predecessor Steven Williams and myself the group has felt continuous frustration over dismissive responses to its well-founded
02:00:31 dismissive responses to its well-founded and justifiable concerns whereas yesterday we did find a more considerate tone to the discussions which was welcomed by all now now leaving aside the part of the sentence after the
02:00:42 the part of the sentence after the whereas were you aware during your time as Minister that um the APG considered that it had felt continuous frustration over dismissive responses to its well-founded and justifiable concerns
02:00:55 well-founded and justifiable concerns David never said that to me off the Record he um as a parliamentarian he would have had many opportunities to say
02:01:06 would have had many opportunities to say it on the record um he could have asked me an oral question could have put down a written question he could have gone to the Press could have done all sorts of things to say he thought um that he his
02:01:17 things to say he thought um that he his concern had been dismissed but to the best of my knowledge none of those things happen
02:01:25 so you know this this is an opinion from one Euros skeptic conservative MP to another Euros skeptic conservative MP then they thought he was nicer to them
02:01:37 then they thought he was nicer to them than I was but I I don't think I was ever not nice to them some of the letters I've I've already you know expressed my regret chairman that um I wish with hindsight um I i' I'd rejected
02:01:50 wish with hindsight um I i' I'd rejected or amended them but but there was certainly
02:01:54 certainly [Music]
02:01:55 [Music] no either malicious or um unfriendly dismissal of their Viewpoint at all I mean i' given the i' given them the meeting the meeting they desperately
02:02:06 meeting the meeting they desperately wanted they they had against against the advice I was given so I hadn't been dismissive I think that that is actually I'm thinking about it obviously I've never seen this before that is an unfair
02:02:17 never seen this before that is an unfair statement um I was not dismissive of them they they got an opportunity to put in person to the official who I now know
02:02:28 in person to the official who I now know there was uh ill feeling towards reciprocally uh at the time they got an opportunity to speak directly uh to him and and assurances that their viewpoints
02:02:41 and and assurances that their viewpoints would um be part of the consideration for the review of Part B at this point in December 2015 I think I should point out chairman we now know the research should be been in the Department's hands
02:02:53 should be been in the Department's hands from the end of February 2015 onwards that there's been ample time in this period for the group for Ronnie King for
02:03:05 for the group for Ronnie King for officials and for James Warton to have done a detailed consideration of what that research showed and you given some sort of parliamentary update or or or
02:03:16 sort of parliamentary update or or or indeed given an update to to the group um because they knew the research had been commissioned so I would have thought their main concern should have been rather than slagging off uh a a departed
02:03:30 slagging off uh a a departed Minister the the concern really should have been in December 2015 why isn't this review on track the the work has been done whatever they thought of me the evidence base had been
02:03:42 thought of me the evidence base had been handed over and they'd had uh seven months at this point to consider that evidence base so I think this letter chairman
02:03:54 chairman is well I'm not going to give it much Credence because at this point they they could have made a lot of progress and it's for them to answer why they didn't well have you read the rest of this letter I well you haven't shown it to me
02:04:05 letter I well you haven't shown it to me yet
02:04:07 yet well so you don't know actually what was in this letter apart from the first paragraph I've read to you no I've never I I won't have seen letters from no
02:04:18 I I won't have seen letters from no um one MP to to to a subsequent Minister mean one of the issues in preparing for this when I was asking questions uh about it is
02:04:29 questions uh about it is that the officials were not uh allowed to tell me what had happened I mean obviously chairman when when the fire happened I like everyone else was absolutely horrified but my horror was
02:04:42 absolutely horrified but my horror was perhaps an informed horror because how could this happen which everyone would have been asking I was even more so asking how could this happen because because the building regulation should
02:04:53 because the building regulation should have been written and designed in such a way as I've been told that such a thing was impossible but in any event I did know that a review had been commissioned and at the point that I left office in
02:05:04 and at the point that I left office in March May
02:05:05 March May 2015 an Evidence base existed for a revised document to be put into place Min is 18 months before before the fire itself um and I think it's not for me to
02:05:20 itself um and I think it's not for me to criticize your questions Mr Miller but for you chairman but I think we should be more focused on that rather than what they thought of me
02:05:29 right I have a point to put to you this is why I'm asking it's right isn't it that these letters that you allowed your officials to write in which you signed and left out of let go out of the
02:05:40 and left out of let go out of the building were intended to be dismissive given that your own officials have drafted them and that their approach as we've seen was that the APG was something to be battered away what well
02:05:52 something to be battered away what well that particular phrase of course was in the email that I I I did say CH I was shocked to see um so while I was aware while I was in office that there wasn't much mutual respect I did not know that
02:06:06 much mutual respect I did not know that it had gone beyond that to M Mutual contempt maybe which is the next stage beyond mutual not having mutual respect I I I didn't know that
02:06:17 mutual respect I I I didn't know that and that's only become apparent to me uh today and and in oral evidence that you were taking last week I'm I'm really simply asking to what extent you are
02:06:28 simply asking to what extent you are prepared to accept uh that a feel an expressed feeling of frustration over dismissive responses to well-founded and justifiable concerns as said here was
02:06:39 justifiable concerns as said here was justifiable do you accept any of that or do you reject it I think they're quite within their rights to say that they felt they'd been dismissed uh I would
02:06:52 felt they'd been dismissed uh I would say that
02:06:54 say that they were not dismissed out of hand um they they did get that meeting they also met with um Penny morens who was the fire minister at the time um late in the
02:07:08 fire minister at the time um late in the second half of 2014 and I believe she held held the government line if if I can put it that way on on the timetable and and the issues that would be considered in the
02:07:21 issues that would be considered in the same way way as I did they've not chosen to stick the boot into her let's go back to your first statement please CLG 30308 72 page 7
02:07:34 statement please CLG 30308 72 page 7 paragraph
02:07:35 paragraph 24 you say there finally I would like to note that on 3rd of March 2015 I confirmed the timetable for the review of approved document B in the Westminster Hall debate uh called by
02:07:46 Westminster Hall debate uh called by Jonathan Evans mp uh uh I said following the lckel house fire to which my honorable friend referred the coroner called on the government to simplify the guidance in approved document B of the building
02:07:57 approved document B of the building regulations you can go over the page please uh my department secretary of state committed a to a review which will deliver a revised document in 2016 to 17 the intention is to simplify the
02:08:09 the intention is to simplify the guidance where possible and update and revise the technical content at the same time my honorable friend mentioned sprinklers they're recognized as highly effective fire protection measure it's too early to say how
02:08:22 measure it's too early to say how excuse
02:08:23 excuse me how uh they will fit into the revised approved document but he should rest assure that the potential benefits will not be ignored I'm not aware that there were any delays to the work during my
02:08:34 were any delays to the work during my time in the department the ultimate responsibility for ensuring its completion lay with the Secretary of State although the day-to-day responsibility will rested with the buildings regulation team now uh I've covered this before a
02:08:48 team now uh I've covered this before a little bit Mr Williams but let's just see if we can go through a focused list uh of um matters now first it's right isn't it that the seven work streams had
02:08:59 isn't it that the seven work streams had not or the P the reports on the seven work streams had not been published by the department in TW March 2015 had they uh if you're telling me that's the case then I've have no reason to doubt
02:09:11 case then I've have no reason to doubt you they were published in February 2019 did you know that no I'm afraid afraid I didn't and that does rather surprise me so when you got up uh in Westminister
02:09:22 so when you got up uh in Westminister Hall at this debate did you know uh that those seven workstreams reports hadn't been published by the department no you didn't no did you assume that they had um I I chairman I already said to you
02:09:35 um I I chairman I already said to you that this was a debate that I wasn't replying to in my own capacity as a minister I was standing in for Penny Morant so
02:09:44 Morant so I the amount of discussion we would have had about it was was was quite limited but no I did not know that the BR research streams had not been published did you know whether any well any other
02:09:58 did you know whether any well any other nor do I know why why why they took took as lot as 2019 to published did you know that no other research on fire safety in highrise buildings or any other of the matters
02:10:09 buildings or any other of the matters set out in any of the coroners recommendations had been commissioned well research had been commissioned in um I think it's July isn't it 2014 it's not at March uh 20 no
02:10:22 isn't it 2014 it's not at March uh 20 no not at March 2015 no the research was commissioned in in July 2014 I believe what research was that the the research the one and a half million pounds worth of research what whatever it was across
02:10:34 of research what whatever it was across various uh building regulations but including Part B we've we already discussed this this morning there was a submission on on the Department's research budget for 2014 2015 did
02:10:47 research budget for 2014 2015 did you at the time of this um speech this is where Mar 2015 yes where had that got to well I know now cuz I've had to ask the question uh subsequent to leaving office that the research came back I
02:11:00 office that the research came back I think I've already said this Mr chairman on the record came back at the end of February
02:11:08 2015 did you know that no usability study had been commissioned on Part B I I don't sorry you're going to have to explain that question to me well um
02:11:19 to explain that question to me well um have you ever heard of a usability study no right uh did you know that no formal Part B working party had been established at this time no did you find out did you
02:11:33 ask Mr chairman we are going round and round here that during my time as Minister which you know ended two weeks later from from this from this comment
02:11:44 later from from this from this comment the the research base had been Commissioned I know now I didn't know absolutely at that point that it had come back back and was with officials to be digested as it were so at that point
02:11:57 be digested as it were so at that point the
02:11:58 the evidence-based review of Part B was ready to go and would would have been I would have thought a priority item for the subsequent government in which
02:12:09 the subsequent government in which obviously I was not involved I I'm sorry if this is worrying you a little and I know it's been a long day but I'm just trying to get a shopping list together of things that had or hadn't been done and what and what you don't worry about my feels so
02:12:21 what you don't worry about my feels so let's just see if we can so so you don't know about the usability study um uh no formal take this from me that there was no formal Part B working party
02:12:32 no formal Part B working party established as at March 2015 take that from me did you know that no but I guess you'd have to get into definitions about that I mean I had been told because we we we we've talked
02:12:43 been told because we we we we've talked about them that Preparatory work was underway I'm not sure who would have been doing that PRI Preparatory work in the department maybe it was one person maybe it was only Brian Martin but
02:12:54 maybe it was only Brian Martin but whether he was assisted by Louise Upton or Richard Harold or other officials I never met I'm obviously not in a position to say but given I was told Preparatory work was underway we've got
02:13:06 Preparatory work was underway we've got two blocks of research one from the BR one going out uh commercially as it were in a bidding process um why would I have assume that Preparatory that a team wasn't in place
02:13:20 Preparatory that a team wasn't in place I had no reason into doubt that there was uh did you know whether any impact assessment had been done that would not have been the appropriate point to do an impact assessment because a revised Part B had
02:13:32 assessment because a revised Part B had not been written you you do an impact assessment a government would do an impact assessment a local Authority would do an impact assessment when it is ready to go public as it were and it
02:13:45 ready to go public as it were and it should uh have in its impact assessment the financial implications for business the human rights implications and equalities and diversity implications all of those are are legal requirements
02:13:56 all of those are are legal requirements I believe but obviously you don't make that impact assessment until you know what what the new regulation is going to be at March 2015 which is the back
02:14:07 be at March 2015 which is the back update you're asking me about what did I know we were you know no draft of no no new draft of of a Part B could possibly have been made because the research had only just come back and you knew
02:14:19 only just come back and you knew presumably also that they' had been as yet no public consultation on any draft well there couldn't be a public consultation on a draft that hadn't been drafted no so are you able just to having got done
02:14:31 so are you able just to having got done through this exercise just tell us in positive terms what had been done to progress the carrying out of the promise made by the Secretary of State to the
02:14:42 made by the Secretary of State to the coroner as at March 2015 I I think
02:14:48 um three things that certainly uh happened um one is that the the competent person scheme as regards window installers had been looked at in
02:15:00 window installers had been looked at in November 2013 and we've discussed that although I accept you say she didn't necessarily ask for that but it it was it was a material issue G given that that that was part of why why
02:15:12 given that that that was part of why why the fire spread from one flat to the flat below um research had been commissioned from the BR I did not know um it is you that has told me so you
02:15:24 um it is you that has told me so you chairman that that um that BR s uh work streams had in fact been commissioned before the coroner's letter uh other people will have to tell you including the Secretary of State of course you was
02:15:37 the Secretary of State of course you was in office either side of the coroner's letter was I wasn't um whether that was to anticipate what the coroner might want the department to do and that they
02:15:48 want the department to do and that they knew internally that part B needed to be revised um so that was in progress and the
02:15:56 the research um into several uh building regulations that I authorized in July I think it is 2014 was had had also been
02:16:07 think it is 2014 was had had also been done but but I didn't know that had it been completed I I did not know that and and you know those I think those are reasonably substantial things
02:16:19 those are reasonably substantial things so so so PR a lot of progress had been made um by March
02:16:25 March 2015 but given that however we interpret the 2016
02:16:31 the 2016 2017 end date for the delivery of a new Part B I I I think the grounds were well laid for that timetable being
02:16:41 met and you say in the second sentence of paragraph 25 the ultimate responsibility for ensuring its completion lay with the secretary of
02:16:53 State yeah yes well that's the case in any government Department yes yes uh although the day-to-day responsibility would have rested with the building regulations team yes now the one person
02:17:04 regulations team yes now the one person missing in that hierarchy you described there is you is your evidence that you bore no
02:17:11 bore no responsibility I don't think that's a fair characterization of what I've said to you in the course of today well I just wonder whether you can help us why it is that
02:17:23 whether you can help us why it is that you don't appear in that list you got the Secretary of State at the top with the buildings regulation team with a day-to-day responsibility the where is your where is your responsibility
02:17:36 the I've already we're going round and round but I've already said that delivery of a new document was not my responsibility because it could not be my
02:17:47 because it could not be my responsibility given the timetable that had been set out by the Secretary of State I'm guessing that's why I've mentioned the Secretary of State there but you on approved
02:17:59 but you on approved document is a major regulatory uh impact to be published by the government and therefore ultimate
02:18:10 therefore ultimate responsibility lies partly with the Secretary of State perhaps it should have said there but of course given what I said earlier about the mechanics of of government it would have other secretaries of State
02:18:21 secretaries of State and indeed number 10 in the treasury would would have had a view as well but that you know that that would have come down the
02:18:27 down the tracks maybe in mid 2016 uh with a right round uh uh approval stage so the ultimate responsibility would not have rested
02:18:39 responsibility would not have rested with a junior Minister whoever that Junior Minister was and the day today fairly obviously uh to make sure that things are on track and been been
02:18:50 that things are on track and been been done professionally uh does lie with the building regulations team who are the professional staff engaged by the department who are all still there or mainly still there um and throughout
02:19:01 mainly still there um and throughout this period right and just taking paragraph 25 perhaps we can insert something then so we've got the ultimate responsibility with the Secretary of State the day-to-day responsibility with the building regulations team the
02:19:12 the building regulations team the officials uh could you just um insert something to tell us what your responsibility was well well the first sentence does does start with i Mr
02:19:24 sentence does does start with i Mr Millet through you chairman um so I I was not aware I was generally not aware that there were any delays doing the work while I was the minister so that that is a statement of my position my
02:19:38 that is a statement of my position my responsibility my retrospect sorry um yeah retrospective memory of what happened uh at the time nobody said to me this is off track we need to do more
02:19:50 me this is off track we need to do more um
02:19:51 um uh can we have more resources or or whatever those those conversations never happen
02:19:58 happen so if if this answer 25 is to you what was my feeling when I left office or my feeling when I left office is that i' not been given uh any information to
02:20:09 not been given uh any information to lead me to believe that I was handing over um suboptimal work would would it be fair for us to understand that while during your time 's Minister which of
02:20:21 during your time 's Minister which of course did not extend over the whole period for the review your responsibility was to ensure that the work was progressed and kept up to
02:20:32 work was progressed and kept up to speed yeah yes chairman that that that certainly is fair and and I think in response that it was up to speed at March 2015 I mean that there's a big gap
02:20:43 March 2015 I mean that there's a big gap in between March 2015 when the research comes back and the 2017 commencement date wherever it is in 2017 that would have allowed plenty of time for
02:20:54 have allowed plenty of time for officials to consider what that research says to come to their own conclusions to present that conclusion to um James Warton or Gavin Bell who I know you'll
02:21:05 Warton or Gavin Bell who I know you'll seeing shortly and to come up with some sort of agreement as to what what they were going to do um but but that part of the chain I I was not involved with and
02:21:16 the chain I I was not involved with and I knew I wasn't going to be involved in it now um can I then show you uh the department submissions made at the beginning of this module uh these are written submissions to the inquiry can we G please to CLG
02:21:29 to the inquiry can we G please to CLG 3036
02:21:33 387 and if we go to page two paragraph
02:21:40 7 it says this reflecting on its role in the issues to be examined in this module the department continues to learn the lessons of the past and has conscientiously explored where its actions contributed to an overarching
02:21:52 actions contributed to an overarching building safety system that has subsequently been shown to be unfit for purpose with catastrophic consequences our work over the past few years has found that the department did not have a good understanding of how the regulatory
02:22:04 good understanding of how the regulatory system was working in practice nor of how well it was being enforced there was insufficient oversight of the system by government and the right assurances were not
02:22:13 not sought now clearly restricting your answer to the period the only period for which you can answer namely the time you were a minister Mr Williams do you agree
02:22:24 were a minister Mr Williams do you agree with paragraph with that part of paragraph 7 I've just read to
02:22:30 you so sorry I'm I'm I'm reading it again yes take take your time over it because obviously this is not my statement I had no no no hand in uh
02:22:41 statement I had no no no hand in uh putting this
02:22:48 together um so the sentence if this is what you're asking about telling me if it's not our work over the past few years has found the department did not have a good understanding is that in particular what
02:22:59 understanding is that in particular what you want me to comment on well let's take it in stages the first sentence
02:23:07 um subsequently been shown to to be unfit for purpose with catastrophic consequences yes but um subsequently I guess is 2017 um
02:23:22 um subsequently I guess is 2017 um when when a new when when a new Part B was meant to have been in place yes my question is do you agree uh on that sentence uh that the
02:23:33 agree uh on that sentence uh that the the building safety system overseen by your department for the time you were overseeing it was has been shown to be unfit for purpose with catastrophic consequences the there were many
02:23:44 consequences the there were many building regulations not just Part B and while I was a minister some of the those parts were revised and you know I'm I'm responsible for um working with
02:23:57 responsible for um working with officials to uh achieve those those those revisions or or those um interpretations particularly in case of part p with electrical safety and I said
02:24:08 part p with electrical safety and I said we were looking at access uh as well those pieces of work were done while while I was a minister that the catastrophic failure this is obviously a
02:24:19 catastrophic failure this is obviously a reference to part B um I don't know how many times I can say this but in the period that I was in office the department was working on
02:24:30 office the department was working on coming up with a Part B the first part of coming up with a new Part B is gathering the evidence and that was done um
02:24:39 um well um I I don't know the date of this statement I guess it was uh sometime last year um but the point is that in 2015 is it would have been a reasonable
02:24:52 2015 is it would have been a reasonable expectation of anybody that it was possible to deliver a new Part B according to the timetable that had been set out and reiterated repeatedly by the
02:25:03 set out and reiterated repeatedly by the Secretary of State by Me by other ministers you've talked to in ministers you that you haven't talked to as as well um so yes that there were catastrophic consequences of a new Part
02:25:16 catastrophic consequences of a new Part B not being in place po possibly but the the point I'm trying to make chairman is that as
02:25:23 that as of May 2015 when I ceased to be a minister um I don't think it's fair to say that we were not addressing um the risk that there would be a catastrophic
02:25:35 risk that there would be a catastrophic consequence because I think we were addressing
02:25:42 it well had anybody ever brought to your attention I think I know the answer to this but it helped me the fact that the part of approved
02:25:54 the fact that the part of approved document B dealing with the com use of combustible insulation over 18 M uh was unclear open to interpretation and misleading no no no um chairman that
02:26:09 and misleading no no no um chairman that the the the clad in and combustibility issue is something I you heard a lot more about since 2017 than I heard about in between 2013 and 2015 which was next
02:26:22 in between 2013 and 2015 which was next to
02:26:22 to nothing and looking at paragraph 7 a little bit lower down it says had the building regulations British standards and Strat guidance been followed and enforced with reasonable diligence a large scale cladding fire could not have
02:26:34 large scale cladding fire could not have happened the department should have done more to take on board the learning and recommendations triggered by other fires including the tragic events at Lael house including exploring whether the
02:26:45 house including exploring whether the system was working as intended similarly correspondents if you turn the page Pages Turn the Page to page three
02:26:56 please I'll just pick it up at the at the top of the page there Mr Williams including exploring whether the system was working as intended similarly correspondents from the all party parliamentary group on fire safety should have been addressed in a timelier
02:27:07 should have been addressed in a timelier manner with more Dum to probe the issues raised by them is there anything in what I've just read to you from that paragraph there that you disagree with I
02:27:18 paragraph there that you disagree with I don't disagree with it
02:27:23 but
02:27:26 timelier it's an interesting word isn't it
02:27:30 it um given I've said chairman it was never clear what what David amus and Ronnie King wanted in terms of timelier um or
02:27:42 King wanted in terms of timelier um or indeed Corin I I believe didn't say that 2016 2017 is not acting in a timely fashion if I can put it that way by the time I left office a body of work a body
02:27:56 time I left office a body of work a body of evidence was in place to enable a new Part B to be put in place certainly in in a timely fashion so the timelier manner I don't you I'm not disagreeing
02:28:08 manner I don't you I'm not disagreeing with it but I I don't think is uh a description that applies to the period that I was responsible for this area of policy um what I don't understand um and
02:28:20 policy um what I don't understand um and haven't been told is is is why given that position in in May 2015 why a new document whatever it said and of course that that's something chairman we don't
02:28:31 that that's something chairman we don't know um I don't know what the evidence said uh I don't know what officials would have made of the evidence been said I don't know what a minister would have made subsequent Minister would have made of that evidence so you we can't
02:28:42 made of that evidence so you we can't draw the conclusion that a new part be address would have satisfactorily addressed everyone's concerns we just don't no um but I certainly couldn't have known that in in May
02:28:58 2015 yes thank you very much Mr Williams um M Mr chairman uh I've come to the end of my examination of this witness at least on what's uh in front of me there may be other questions I yes should just
02:29:09 may be other questions I yes should just go back over because there are a number I haven't asked uh and just to see whether I need now really to do that and to see whether there are others that need to be asked from outside right thank you well Mr Williams at this stage
02:29:21 thank you well Mr Williams at this stage in the proceedings we have to have a short break partly to enable Council to check that he's not omitted anything though you may think that's unlikely and also to allow other people who are following the proceedings from elsewhere
02:29:33 following the proceedings from elsewhere to suggest questions that perhaps we ought to be asking you so we'll rise now um 20 to5 going to give long enough Mr Millet uh yes I think so right well I
02:29:45 Millet uh yes I think so right well I say 20 to5 if if Council needs longer then uh he can ask the user to come and tell us but we'll say 20 to 5 and then see if there are any more questions for you at that stage all right would you
02:29:56 you at that stage all right would you give the US
02:30:05 please right Mr M 20 to5 then but if you need longer will you ask the Asher to come and yes thank you Mr chairman I
02:30:18 will
02:30:48 e
02:31:18 e
02:31:48 e
02:32:18 e
02:32:48 e
02:33:18 e
02:33:48 e
02:34:18 e
02:34:48 e
02:35:18 e
02:35:48 e
02:36:18 e
02:36:48 e
02:37:18 e
02:37:48 e
02:38:18 e
02:38:48 e
02:39:18 e
02:39:48 e e
02:40:22 would you ask Mr Williams to come back in
02:40:35 please right Mr Williams let's see if there are any more questions for you okay yes Mr yes just I think one or two um Mr Williams you've given us some evidence earlier today about your um Your Role uh in zeroc carbon homes yes
02:40:49 Your Role uh in zeroc carbon homes yes yes in that connection did you ever become familiar with the use of thermal insulation and and the products used uh to make homes better
02:41:00 to make homes better insulated um no uh is is the answer to that obviously I know that wall cladding is is it can be beneficial for for insulation of properties and have seen
02:41:11 insulation of properties and have seen uh some being installed um on onto houses it's it's an issue for the retrofitting of older houses in particular we're not going to be able to tackle um carbon emissions from homes if
02:41:24 tackle um carbon emissions from homes if we don't retrofit the vast majority of our housing stock that was built 100 or even 200 years ago like Georgian houses Victorian houses even houses vial 1970s
02:41:36 Victorian houses even houses vial 1970s that were very poorly insulated did you ever have calls to consider the relationship between the use of of uh combustible thermal insulation materials on the one hand for
02:41:47 insulation materials on the one hand for their thermal benefit and their fire safety performance on the other no e um no no chairman even even
02:41:58 other no e um no no chairman even even though Rich Richard Harold was the official who I worked with most closely on drafting the zeroc carbon homes legislation of course that you know that
02:42:09 legislation of course that you know that is actual legislation it's in the infrastructure act 2015 that I delivered um even though he'd also been in meetings with me that we've discussed today
02:42:19 today he never made the crossover point to me that of course there could be an issue with this so so no I I I didn't it was more about energy loss from from the buildings and other things that the
02:42:31 buildings and other things that the house building industry could do uh to make sure
02:42:35 make sure that uh climate change is mitigated yes thank you now um we've been through a lot of evidence together uh today and I'm very grateful to you for that looking back on that evidence and
02:42:46 looking back on that evidence and looking back on uh all the material and your time as minister is there anything that you would have done differently um me that's a hindsight question
02:42:58 um me that's a hindsight question chairman and you know this is this obvious I've thought about this and it's it's it's a it's a difficult question to say that if you're a politician that your life can be littered with regrets
02:43:10 your life can be littered with regrets to some extent because there were lots of things you invested time on that came to nothing um possibly as a liberal Democrat more exposed to that than a lot lot of people uh in terms of what we were trying to achieve um so maybe I'm
02:43:23 were trying to achieve um so maybe I'm used to that um and other issues that therefore I could have spent more time on so I guess the direct answer chairman is obviously now um I wish I'd been able
02:43:37 is obviously now um I wish I'd been able to push the timetable at least to some extent for for a review of Part B while I was in office but I don't think I have thought about this very carefully that
02:43:49 thought about this very carefully that was ever any critical moment in time when I could have dragged the timetable forward to any material con to any material point that
02:44:00 material con to any material point that might have made a difference as I've said a few times the the elapse of time in between when I was due to leave office and that was a certainty it was one of the things that was a certainty in in politics at this point was the
02:44:11 in in politics at this point was the Coalition was coming to an end and the new Part B was quite a way off into the future even if I had been able to pull that timetable back uh a little bit 3
02:44:24 that timetable back uh a little bit 3 months say 6 months maybe um I I can't foresee what that part B would have said so while while I do wish um I said to
02:44:35 so while while I do wish um I said to officials is there any way we can speed this up which is what David and Ronnie King were asking for Al never been quite clear as I say about what they wanted
02:44:46 clear as I say about what they wanted um I wish I had done that but but you know I was working in in an environment where it was very difficult for me to be reactive and reflective it was a very um uh time
02:45:02 reflective it was a very um uh time period in my life when I've never worked so hard I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that I'd been a lazy Minister a dil uh Minister you know I I i' put into it everything I had uh at
02:45:16 i' put into it everything I had uh at the time and there were lots of things that with the help of Department officials I think we achieved and made it a a quality difference to people's lives um but I I while I regret the tone
02:45:29 lives um but I I while I regret the tone of some of what's been said I think I was clear about that earlier I I don't think there is anything I could have done to materially make a difference to what happened in July
02:45:44 2017 thank you very much well I've come to the end of my questions Mr Williams and remains for me to thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and helping us with our investigations we're
02:45:55 helping us with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you thank you very much yes and on behalf of the panel Mr Williams I should thank you again um it's very helpful for us to hear from members of the government it gives us an
02:46:06 members of the government it gives us an insight into the relationship between ministers and the department which we shouldn't otherwise have the benefit of so thank you very much for giving us a day of your time to answer questions I
02:46:17 day of your time to answer questions I hope it's not been too disagreeable but anyway it's over now and you're free to go thank you very much indeed thank you chairman thank you Mr
02:46:33 M well thank you very much Mr milet that's certainly enough for today it is and we have another witness tomorrow morning we do we have we have Lord barwell who will be examined by Miss gra Queens Council good thank you very much
02:46:45 Queens Council good thank you very much well then uh We rise now and resume at 10:00 tomorrow pleas thank you very much