Evidence from Stephen Williams MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at DCLG (2013-2015), regarding building regulations, deregulation policies, and the Lakanal House coroner's recommendations.
00:00:28 um
00:00:32 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear evidence from mr stephen williams who at one time was the junior minister in the department for communities and
00:00:43 in the department for communities and local government yes yes mr chairman good morning good morning members of the panel um uh i now call mr stephen williams please
00:00:59 good morning mr williams good morning i understand you're going to a firm yes and the words should be there on the screen in front of you would you read them out please i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i
00:01:11 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth are nothing but the truth thank you very much would you like to sit down please and make yourself comfortable
00:01:25 all right yes mr mate yes mr chairman mr williams good morning good morning can i start by thanking you very much for coming to this inquiry and assisting us with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you uh if you have any
00:01:38 grateful to you uh if you have any difficulty understanding any of my questions or you would like me to repeat them then i can do that or i can put the question in a different way can i also ask you please to keep your voice up
00:01:50 to keep your voice up and to speak slowly say that the transcriber who sits to your right can get down everything you say in a nice clear way please also don't nod or shake your head you have to say yes or no otherwise it doesn't come out on the
00:02:02 otherwise it doesn't come out on the transcript we're going to take the usual scheduled breaks that we normally take during the course of the day but of course if you need a break at any other time then just just let us know and we can do that mr millet i'm sorry to drop
00:02:14 can do that mr millet i'm sorry to drop you at such an early point but i think that the transcript on view in the room is not running it may just need refreshing as mine did
00:02:25 as mine did right i think well oh it's up there now it's up there now i think
00:02:30 think thank you very much very good now mr williams you've provided two witness statements to the inquiry i'd like to put them to you if i can your first statement is clg3030872
00:02:46 and that's the first page dated the 22nd of april could you please go to page 22 and you can see a signature there above your name under the statement of truth at the foot of page 21. is that your
00:02:57 at the foot of page 21. is that your signature yes it is have you read this statement recently yes i wrote both my statements again over the weekend right can you confirm that the contents of this statement i'm putting to you are true i can
00:03:10 now your second statement is that clg3034291 [Music]
00:03:19 and that's dated the 12th of july 2021 that's its first page can we please go to page 16 and you can see a signature there
00:03:27 there uh just under the statement of truth again is that your signature it is and can you confirm that the contents of this statement are true yes i can and as you've said you've read it recently have you discussed your statements or the
00:03:38 you discussed your statements or the evidence that you're going to give today with anybody before coming here no one other than the legal team right now i get to start by asking you some brief questions about your background i think it's right that before you came into politics you were a tax consultant
00:03:51 into politics you were a tax consultant that's correct yes and you were elected to the avon county council in 1993 yes yes bristol county council sorry city council in 1995 yes and yeah i think you remained a
00:04:02 yes and yeah i think you remained a councillor there until 1999. that's correct yes and then you stood as a liberal democrat candidate and you gained bristol south in 2005 at bristol west actually bristol west
00:04:15 at bristol west actually bristol west uh and held various roles until you were appointed parliamentary under secretary yes yes
00:04:20 yes yes and that was at the dclg in october 2013. that's correct 7th of october i think and is it right that you held that position until the 8th of may 2015.
00:04:31 that position until the 8th of may 2015. yes um i lost my seat at the general election and all the democrat ministers uh resigned on block on that day yes are you still a member of the liberal democrat party i am but i'm no longer
00:04:43 democrat party i am but i'm no longer actively involved in politics and obviously as you just said effectively i've been out of office for um almost seven years now right
00:04:53 right now um i'd like to turn then to the department and the building regulations and how the two related to each other can we start please with your first statement go back to that clg
00:05:06 statement go back to that clg 3030872 page two paragraph four you see you say there i was parliamentary under secretary of state for communities and local government from 7th of october 2013 to 8th of may
00:05:18 from 7th of october 2013 to 8th of may 2015 the ministerial team at dclg was led by the secretary of state who was eric pickles mp the permanent secretary was bob kerslake and from then and then from 1st of march 2015 melanie dawes
00:05:31 from 1st of march 2015 melanie dawes how closely did you work with the then secretary of state eric pickles in in that period between october 13 and may 15.
00:05:40 15. well
00:05:40 well this may surprise you we never actually met um before i was appointed and i knew lots of conservative mps also been an mp for eight years uh by that point but but we've never met before
00:05:52 we've never met before uh so obviously there was a you know initial getting to know each other sort of a part part to the role um much my surprise we got on better than i thought we would um obviously we're quite different personalities and quite
00:06:04 quite different personalities and quite different values but we certainly got on quite well for the for the almost two years i was there um we met formally every wednesday morning um the civil service has something or departments so something
00:06:15 something or departments so something called prayers where the ministerial team the permanent secretary all the director generals and other senior officials all meet together in a large meeting room in the department uh eight o'clock every
00:06:26 department uh eight o'clock every wednesday morning and i used to sit next to eric so that we could confer with each other about things that we were discussing about what was going to be happening that week so we saw each other formally uh every single wednesday when
00:06:38 formally uh every single wednesday when parliament was sitting um if i wanted to or if he wanted to we saw each other informally uh as well um but we couldn't just walk into each other's offices civil service
00:06:50 into each other's offices civil service is very structured and hierarchical so we had to be you know walked by our private secretaries from one office to the other and escorted back very strange arrangement but but there we are so yeah so we had plenty of time
00:07:01 we are so yeah so we had plenty of time together right and what about the permanent secretary bob kerr's lake and then from 2015 melanie dawes um how closely did he work with them not so much with bob kerslake um
00:07:14 so much with bob kerslake um that wasn't because i didn't want to he didn't want to he was also head of the home civil service so in practice i think he spent quite a lot of time away from the department um the deputy permanent secretary
00:07:25 um the deputy permanent secretary um
00:07:27 um helen daniels i think from memory silly helen something her name was was was the person who i suppose really ran the department and i met with her on a regular basis both formally uh and informally as the only
00:07:40 formally uh and informally as the only liberal minister in the department i think she was she was there to look after me as it were right okay and melanie dawes as you can see from the date uh
00:07:49 uh i'm not sure we ever ever even met because she effectively started three weeks before the general election and and
00:07:57 and and in general can you remember what were the main priorities for the department during your time as parliamentary under secretary
00:08:04 secretary you mean the department in a wider sense or my my my responsibility the department in the wider sense um
00:08:11 um well i suppose one of the biggest issues was
00:08:13 was was it this was what would not be called the age of austerity the department had taken a heck of a whack uh in the first comprehensive spending review of the coalition in 2010
00:08:24 coalition in 2010 i think from memory probably took the biggest hit of of any department i mean the coalition took the decision to protect the nhs school spending police spending and so on and and of course um dwp spending
00:08:36 on and and of course um dwp spending those are all the big spending departments then you're left with smaller departments that disproportionately took took expenditure cuts including the ministry of justice which is probably of interest to you
00:08:47 which is probably of interest to you so the department had had taken quite a big hit in expenditure terms the secretary of state i would say was quite keen to please the treasury on the on on on that front
00:08:58 on that front um
00:08:58 um so that that was one big background uh issue um for local government itself and obviously as a democrat minister and we ran we still ran in those days lots of councils
00:09:09 councils a lot of my time was spent with with local government colleagues i'm trying to defend some extent what the government was doing in terms of the department's um other priorities as far as it affected
00:09:22 other priorities as far as it affected me um
00:09:24 me um there's a little bit of creative tension there in between two parties who were in government together for for the first time
00:09:30 time so
00:09:31 so i wanted to make sure that the department dealt seriously with with climate change when nick clegg appointed me to the role um there wasn't much of a pep talk or
00:09:42 there wasn't much of a pep talk or handover but he said the one thing i want you to deliver uh is zero carbon homes uh in order to affect climate change and to reduce people's home energy bills so that was
00:09:53 people's home energy bills so that was you know my main priority while i was a minister but you know lots of other things uh cropped up both proactively and reactively while i was there thank you now let's go to page two of your statement paragraph six
00:10:05 your statement paragraph six at the bottom and over to page three um you say as a minister i was nominally responsible for the following policy areas of dclg a integration and race equality b
00:10:17 a integration and race equality b localism decentralization and community rights
00:10:20 rights c building regulations and standards d empty homes and e climate change and sustainable development it is however important to understand that mhclg is a very large government
00:10:32 that mhclg is a very large government department covering a wide range of policy areas and as the only liberal democrat minister in the department as part of the coalition government i was expected to have a degree of oversight of everything the department was doing to that extent my box was probably
00:10:45 to that extent my box was probably larger than that of other junior ministers in the department at the time now you say nominally responsible for the identified policy areas what do you mean by that by nominally responsible
00:10:58 mean by that by nominally responsible the honest answer i don't know why that word is there now i was responsible uh though those those were in my portfolio i was the only reason normally might have been
00:11:05 have been put in there is of course the secretary of state is also responsible for all of those
00:11:09 those areas um
00:11:11 areas um as i said i've reread these statements over the weekend there is actually the mission there there should be an f i was also responsible for local economic development uh local enterprise partnerships and was vice chair of the cabinet committee
00:11:23 was vice chair of the cabinet committee on uh local economies so there was a sixth
00:11:26 sixth direct responsibility but i also as as i say here you had to keep an eye on what what the blue side of the coalition was doing as well and so the word probably in in that it's
00:11:37 and so the word probably in in that it's about my boxes is superfluous really it certainly was large right um did the other junior ministers have any responsibility for the building regulations or was it just you
00:11:49 just you i think officially it was just me um also the secretary of state would have been responsible there would have been some crossover with the the fire minister on i know
00:12:01 with the the fire minister on i know because i watched last week you've already interviewed uh brandon former colleague brandon lewis uh there was a second fire minister halfway through my time in office penny mordent as well so they they would have had
00:12:13 they they would have had some role in that and other departments took an interest um you may come on to its but during the housing standards review several other departments took an interest in what we were doing at the time
00:12:23 time and how did you manage to stay on top of such a a broad and wide-ranging portfolio
00:12:28 portfolio um by having five or six hours sleep at night right i mean quite quite often i would start the day straight straight after breakfast and be working until one o'clock the next morning
00:12:38 morning and with these topics and the five you've listed in indeed the sixth you've added typical of the range and breadth of topics which are parliamentary under secretary uh in the in that government had to deal
00:12:50 uh in the in that government had to deal with
00:12:51 with um well yes and no no explain that yes for liberal democrat ministers no for conservative ministers i mean the balance of of ministers in that government was obviously uh on the
00:13:02 that government was obviously uh on the same ratio as members of parliaments that made up the coalition parties so i think from memory there were 15 liberal democrat ministers we didn't have a minister in every department but where we did have a minister
00:13:14 we did have a minister we often had heavy responsibilities i think that was done deliberately to give us a flavor of everything that the department did but we all also had to keep an eye as far as we could on what
00:13:26 keep an eye as far as we could on what our conservative coalition colleagues were doing and did that context that you just explained to us present policy challenges in relation to the issues over which you were
00:13:37 to the issues over which you were expected to have oversight yes because obviously we were two different parties while we formed a coalition agreement to work together for five years and that's an important point you know
00:13:48 and that's an important point you know it was a five-year policy deal um you know we had different values and in some cases different priorities to the other side of the coalition i would say the government was
00:13:59 i would say the government was remarkably harmonious for the for those five five years but but they were points of tension some of which are public and some of which were handled privately and
00:14:10 and were there any points of policy challenge in relation to building regulations and the approved documents um
00:14:18 um yes i i've mentioned stereocarbon homes and housing standards review already there were certainly tensions in in that area for instance in the housing standards review i was determined to
00:14:30 standards review i was determined to reintroduce uh space standards into the building of houses uh space standards were introduced i think by lloyd george with the building research establishment land home fit for heroes etc were
00:14:42 land home fit for heroes etc were abolished by thatcher um i wanted to bring them back and there was a big campaign
00:14:47 campaign uh to persuade me to do that that was resisted by the conservatives but we prevailed on that and likewise zero carbon homes was something we wanted to do and they certainly didn't
00:14:58 do and they certainly didn't uh and after 2015 they suspended the legislation so those were two big areas of tension now in the list we looked at we saw building regulations and standards how
00:15:09 building regulations and standards how much of your time and i know it's a broad question but how much of your time would you say was dedicated to that area of your portfolio um you can see it's roughly a sixth of
00:15:20 um you can see it's roughly a sixth of the responsibilities and then if you add monitoring the other ministers and being on cabinet committees that were nothing to do with the department there were eight responsibilities um i wouldn't say it was an eighth or or
00:15:32 i wouldn't say it was an eighth or or sixth it's hard to say but it but it was you know definitely a minority a small minority of the time uh that i spent every week but where there would have been peaks and troughs so when we were
00:15:43 been peaks and troughs so when we were doing the zero carbon homes legislation you know i would easily spend almost an entire week uh with officials when clauses were being drafted when we were meeting lobbyists and house builders and so on from outside so
00:15:55 house builders and so on from outside so sometimes
00:15:57 sometimes i would spend you know days on building regulations and then there might be a gap of weeks where i might do nothing at all right
00:16:03 all right and who decided that zero carbon homes and housing standards review would be the main focus of your time as it turned out between 2010 and 2015. well while taking climate
00:16:14 2010 and 2015. well while taking climate change seriously and um in particular reducing sort of energy wastage in people's homes was something that was in the liberal democrat manifesto so that was definitely our priorities as i said nick clegg i think the only thing i
00:16:26 nick clegg i think the only thing i remember him saying to me was uh he wanted me to deliver that and at that point it hadn't been agreed um there was a battle to come over what was in the final queen speech the 2014
00:16:37 final queen speech the 2014 queen speech in in may 2014 before we secured it um the housing standards review was something that i'd inherited i think
00:16:48 something that i'd inherited i think i would imagine that was probably um generated by officials and something that they wanted to do is a broad-ranging review of of what local government did uh in the area of of of
00:17:00 government did uh in the area of of of planning and and standards um so as well as covering uh dimensions of houses you know home security flood risk uh disabled access a whole range of issues
00:17:11 disabled access a whole range of issues enormous piece of work um that had started under my predecessor don foster so i came in sort of midway through to it and
00:17:19 it and i had to bring it to a conclusion and make sure it was brought to a conclusion in a way that was well liberal i suppose and before you became parliamentary under secretary did you have any knowledge about the
00:17:30 you have any knowledge about the building regulations and the system of building control not not really i mean i'm sorry i mean i knew
00:17:36 knew i knew there were building regulations and you mentioned in your introductory questions that i'd been i've been a three-term local counselor so obviously you know i knew that was a function of local authorities but i knew
00:17:49 local authorities but i knew far less about them than i did about planning and development control i think politicians get much more involved in that side of things was the regulatory aspects of how you construct something
00:18:00 construct something i've never really been involved with before and were you aware that the building regulations primarily imposed functional or performance-based requirements i i wouldn't i wouldn't have thought about them in in those particular terms
00:18:13 about them in in those particular terms i i just knew they were a guide a template for developers to to use when constructing a building right were you aware that they were supplemented by statutory guidance on common building constructions by
00:18:25 common building constructions by something called the approved documents well i wasn't when i was appointed but obviously over time um uh from roughly november 2013 onwards
00:18:37 um uh from roughly november 2013 onwards you know more things were explained to me as as things cropped up so my understanding grew and i'd obviously i think i'm an intellectually curious sort of person um in life in general but
00:18:48 sort of person um in life in general but but also about the responsibilities i had um most of the other areas of the portfolio i had to sort of feel for this i knew nothing about other than they existed so i was
00:19:00 they existed so i was keen to to get an understanding were you provided with any kind of introduction or briefing about the building regulations and the supporting statutory guidance the approved documents when you
00:19:11 guidance the approved documents when you when you took office yes in in my first probably five or six weeks there was a whirlwind of introductory briefings you know as you'd expect means being a minister is effectively a different job
00:19:22 minister is effectively a different job you even have a different salary and and hr
00:19:27 and hr regime as a as as a minister um so there were lots of introductory sessions and that's that's my overriding memory of my first
00:19:35 first couple of months in office that there was a conveyor belt of officials coming to see me starting with bob kerslake and all the deputy permanent secretaries and then going through each area that i was the
00:19:46 going through each area that i was the minister for the six areas that uh that we've uh talked about but also also all the other areas as well so i was comprehensively filled up with information probably in the first six
00:19:57 information probably in the first six weeks did anybody actually sit you down with the building regulations and the approved documents and showed you how they worked no um that that um
00:20:07 um that the director general i think was peter schofield he's mentioned in the statement
00:20:12 statement uh i think gave me an um a general view of what what they were and i think later on i would have met bob ledson and then some of his officials to talk about detailed aspects
00:20:25 officials to talk about detailed aspects um we never actually went through uh any of the any of the documents themselves i was shown them um i mean there were a lever arch file each and
00:20:36 there were a lever arch file each and they were they were available in the department and i was shown you know that that's where they are and that's how big they are um but i was told you you're not expected to to understand them um that's what we're
00:20:47 to understand them um that's what we're for did you ever come to look at approved document b on fire safety during your time in office no no look at paragraph 13 of your first statement please which you'll find on page four
00:20:59 please which you'll find on page four uh you say there in respect of any role in respect of my role in decisions these were taken in the usual way for a junior minister in a government department submissions were prepared by officials
00:21:10 submissions were prepared by officials and presented to my private office where my private office thought it appropriate considering the workload at the time and the priority of the particular submission it would be placed in my box and i would consider it
00:21:21 in my box and i would consider it depending on what the submission requested some submissions would be for information only for example and not require a decision i would either respond requesting further clarification approve or decline the recommendations
00:21:32 approve or decline the recommendations or just note the actions as appropriate and just focusing there on what you when you say when my private office thought it appropriate in the third line what does that mean
00:21:45 what does that mean um
00:21:47 um well a lot of there's probably a lot of incoming paperwork in into a minister's outer office i believe it's a bit of an odd term but you know the outer office of i had four
00:21:58 you know the outer office of i had four private secretaries who looked after me one of them was a diary secretary pa and then there were three uh uh private secretaries who specialize in different policy areas uh for me um and that
00:22:09 and that went right across the department given given my role um they would have selected what was i suppose one where i needed to make a decision and we came upon a scheme where
00:22:20 decision and we came upon a scheme where we'd have a color-coded file every night a red folder was where i needed to make the decision um a yellow folder was um
00:22:31 um a yellow folder was um items submissions of interest because they were politically sensitive but we were being dealt with by tory ministers and the special advisor had some role which you might want to ask about i had
00:22:43 which you might want to ask about i had some role in deciding what went into that folder then there was a green folder which was stuff to read if you've got time to be perfectly honest uh i obviously worked for the red folder the
00:22:54 obviously worked for the red folder the yellow folder i rarely unless it was a very long train journey got got to the green folder but they were all press clippings and things such as that now red folder which is the one where you
00:23:05 which is the one where you where material was placed where you needed to make a decision who in your private office was responsible for deciding what should go into the red folder
00:23:16 folder uh or
00:23:17 uh or not the red folder um the
00:23:20 um the the the principal private secretary uh was someone called kurma kendrick so i guess he would have taken those decisions
00:23:28 decisions um
00:23:29 um with with his two assists assistant private secretary colleagues and how did he or they decide when it was appropriate or necessary for you to review particular submissions and
00:23:41 you to review particular submissions and make particular decisions well with that i'm not sure i i i can answer what their thought processes were but um i i'm not aware that you know
00:23:52 but um i i'm not aware that you know they they received 20 submissions and decided i should only see 15 of them um if they required a decision by by me then all of them would have gone into the red folder that i suppose they may have been
00:24:03 folder that i suppose they may have been you know a layering of um of them over time so i wasn't presented with 20 submissions on monday and nothing on wednesday for instance but but beyond that anything that required a
00:24:15 but beyond that anything that required a decision by me i would have expected to have gone into the red folder otherwise no one could make a decision well that's what i'm really seeking to understand better
00:24:25 better who decided whether
00:24:28 whether you needed to make a decision well the submission would be written in that way i mean submissions obviously written by the policy officials at the permanent staff in the civil service and a submission would make it clear
00:24:41 and a submission would make it clear what was required whether the minister was being informed about something the progress on something or some development or something or whether a decision was needed and i suppose it would say you know when a
00:24:52 suppose it would say you know when a decision was needed if
00:24:56 if a submission came into your private office
00:24:59 office into kermit kendrick's domain and and those helping him would it would it mean that automatically that submission would find its way into your red box or red folder
00:25:10 its way into your red box or red folder or was there a filtering mechanism whereby mckendrick or other officials in your your your private office might decide that you didn't need to make the decision or didn't need to make it now
00:25:24 decision or didn't need to make it now i don't think they would have had the authority to say i didn't need to make the decision um if if if the submission had come from an official saying a minister needs to decide this and he was addressed to me i
00:25:35 decide this and he was addressed to me i don't
00:25:36 don't see how how they could not put it into the red folder um but if if i didn't need to make the decision now then they might hold it back if if plenty of other decisions to make they
00:25:47 plenty of other decisions to make they might save it up for the weekend or something right but but you know there were
00:25:51 were time deadlines for responding to certain things
00:25:54 things because it wouldn't just be submissions on policy that would come through it would be correspondence which i'm guessing you're going to come to there would be draft oral question replies
00:26:05 would be draft oral question replies there will be written parliamentary answers and and all of those have a time limit so i suppose it depended on what was time critical in in a given week but i am supposing um i'm not saying
00:26:16 but i am supposing um i'm not saying that's necessarily how he decided no okay um did anybody in your private office have a detailed knowledge or understanding of the building regulations and the associated guidance
00:26:28 regulations and the associated guidance um
00:26:29 um kerr had been a minister's private secretary for quite a long time i'm in danger of getting the number wrong now but he did joke to me that i
00:26:40 wrong now but he did joke to me that i think i was minister number 12 or something um that he dealt with he'd been in other departments but he'd been in that department for a while and um
00:26:50 um yes he he he had a reasonable understanding of of building regulations and certainly knew all the officials who who came to see me from time to time he knew all of those quite well looking at paragraph 15 at the foot of
00:27:02 looking at paragraph 15 at the foot of the screen foot of page four you say as the building regulations and approved documents are very technical when i was called upon to make decisions in respect of them i relied upon the advice i was
00:27:13 of them i relied upon the advice i was given by officials most of whom i understood to have been in post in the area for some considerable time and who had a great deal of experience and subject matter expertise i had no knowledge of the building regulations
00:27:25 knowledge of the building regulations all the approved documents prior to joining the department is it fair to say on the basis of what you say here that you had no knowledge or expertise which could form the basis of a
00:27:36 which could form the basis of a challenge of any officials who did have subject matter expertise
00:27:43 um
00:27:47 we live in a parliamentary democracy where where ministers are appointed for their general skill set your ministers may may have particular skills and expertise and i've certainly had some both
00:27:58 i've certainly had some both professionally in tax in the economy and through parliamentary and local government experience inserting other areas as well but i don't you know we don't have a technocratic government in in this country some other countries do
00:28:10 in this country some other countries do but but we don't you know ministers are there to apply i guess political judgment common sense judgment
00:28:18 judgment what what you know what what is good for society and in a technical area which is you know what we're concerned with here i suppose there's less latitude less less less room for maneuver for
00:28:29 room for maneuver for a politician to challenge what a technical expert in the official is saying to some extent you have to take what they're saying at face value but you know that doesn't mean i was a pushover or rollover for them
00:28:41 pushover or rollover for them no how did you ensure though given the lack of technical expertise which as you say might come naturally with the j with the way in which government works in this country but how did you ensure
00:28:53 in this country but how did you ensure that officials within your department were giving sound advice about for example the balance between fire safety on the one hand and economic considerations on the other
00:29:06 i see what you're saying i'm i i i'm not sure that ministers to some extent can second guess officials
00:29:17 second guess officials if
00:29:17 if if they are an expert on what they're advising you i mean there are several different types of policy civil servants those are the fast streamers which are you know i guess we're all familiar with who move around
00:29:29 we're all familiar with who move around from function to function indeed from department to department um there there are people who move around internally inside the department but aren't uh
00:29:38 uh fast streamers but there are some experts and and they might spend six months in one area and that happened to me while i was a minister that i had met someone previously who was
00:29:49 i had met someone previously who was trying to advise me on race equality and then six months later he was trying to explain the local government settlement to me because he'd moved and that you know that happened with regularity the joke that ministers revolve and the civil service is permanent i don't think
00:30:01 civil service is permanent i don't think is fair or true but but in this area uh a technical area i mean the officials had been in place for some time and to that extent yes they did have an advantage uh
00:30:13 have an advantage uh over me and i watched your evidence session last week with brian martin and you were asking him questions about his time in building control in the 1990s
00:30:24 1990s so you know he had quite a lot of experience and i had zero right now if we go to paragraph 11 of your statement please top of page four first statement
00:30:35 first statement here you are answering a question about who held the key roles in mhclg in fire safety policy building regulations uh
00:30:43 uh and building regulations technical uh and you can set out the you've set out the answer then i won't read it out to you but you identify peter scofield john bright bob ledson anthony burden and brian martin
00:30:55 brian martin in practice who was it you relied on to advise you on the building regulations and associated guidance obviously there are lots of building regulations you would work your way
00:31:06 regulations you would work your way through the alphabet and not all letters are used uh principally it would have been bob ledson um but over time um i came to rely on richard harrell who's mentioned in d
00:31:19 richard harrell who's mentioned in d uh but rather more um when he was head of policy and had a way of explaining things to me almost in layman's terms i suppose he was an architect i think by practice and
00:31:30 was an architect i think by practice and i have an interest in architecture so we were able to to relate to each other bob was rather drier
00:31:36 drier i i would say and
00:31:39 and how often
00:31:41 how often would you meet with first bob ledson to discuss building control matters building regulations matters um i'm not sure there was any routine uh nature to the times that we met we
00:31:53 uh nature to the times that we met we only met when we needed to um i
00:31:58 um i i met richard more often particularly if i had questions when a submission came to me and you know i wrote on it needs discussion um it would be richard you would come and explain something to
00:32:10 you would come and explain something to me right and that was from january 2013. what about his predecessor uh 2014 i think you mean 2014. what about his predecessor anthony
00:32:21 2014. what about his predecessor anthony bird i don't i don't i don't recall meeting him i'm not saying i didn't but obviously that's now quite some time ago and he's right at the start of the time i was a minister and i
00:32:31 and i as i've already said there was a whirlwind of of meetings with with different people uh at that time i'm afraid
00:32:37 afraid no disrespect to mr bird but i don't recall meeting him were you aware at any time from any of your discussions with either richard harrell or bob ledson that officials
00:32:49 harrell or bob ledson that officials within the building regulations division in the department didn't think it was part of their task to oversee or review the success of building regulations as a scheme or built the building control
00:33:01 scheme or built the building control system
00:33:06 i'm not i'm not sure we ever discussed remits
00:33:11 remits in that sense um i did know and my understanding grew that
00:33:18 that the application of of the standards was done at a local level literally at site level
00:33:24 level and was primarily a function of local government uh local authority building control inspectors sometimes that would be done by private companies uh engaged by the
00:33:35 by private companies uh engaged by the developer i didn't know that when i became a minister but by asking questions i got to understand that that was the case and indeed i met quite a lot of building control people because i was curious to
00:33:46 because i was curious to understand more about them i met with their national association i think i went to their award ceremony and i spent a full day uh in a department with them
00:33:58 department with them on a visit which by coincidence more than anything was was was in bristol and i spoke at their annual conference in in nottingham and spent spent a full day with them so you know i got i got more over time i got more of the flavor
00:34:10 more over time i got more of the flavor for
00:34:11 for what they did and and yes indeed it the
00:34:15 the monitoring what people do on the ground was a function of local government not central government and so i guess central government made the policy parameters but but but
00:34:26 the policy parameters but but but monitoring adherence to them was was a responsibility to charge somewhere else right
00:34:31 right you say the national association what was his name i think he was the la from memory was the labc an abc who did he meet at the nabc do you remember
00:34:42 he meet at the nabc do you remember i um
00:34:44 i um i can visualize him i can't remember his name i'm not sure a little no i know
00:34:51 i know um he
00:34:52 um he um
00:34:52 um uh
00:34:53 uh i'll say it just to be i'll put you he was a man who had a profound physical disability everyone in building control will know who i'm talking about i'm afraid i can't i've got memory lapse i can't remember his name that's okay and do you remember
00:35:05 his name that's okay and do you remember the year when you gave your when you made your visit and gave your speech presentation um well i met met him several times at various events um it would have been throughout 20 probably the last the second half of 2014. and
00:35:18 the last the second half of 2014. and what was the topic of your address to the nabc
00:35:21 the nabc um
00:35:23 um um
00:35:24 um you're asking me can i remember the contents of a speech i made eight years ago
00:35:29 ago in mind i made lots of speeches the title may help i can't even remember the title
00:35:36 one of the pain barriers i had to go through as a minister was that speeches were written for me was up until 2013 i've been responsible for my own speeches and tend not to use
00:35:49 my own speeches and tend not to use notes so if i do that you know just got bullet points i didn't have a massive research team behind me as an opposition politician or as a spokesman within the liberal democrat side of the coalition between 2010 and 2013 so i was used to writing
00:36:02 2010 and 2013 so i was used to writing my own things knowing what i thought and extemporizing um as a minister you have to read the line um both when answering questions and when making speeches i absolutely hated that
00:36:12 that so whatever it was i read it out i i do remember
00:36:16 remember um
00:36:17 um sort of drying up a bit um because i was probably bored without reading it out and then extemporizing but that's all i can remember about the occasion so this is a speech eight years ago of course
00:36:28 is a speech eight years ago of course now um
00:36:29 now um whose responsibility did you understand that it was within the building regulations team to keep up to date with current issues in the construction and housing industry within the building regulations team yes
00:36:43 i i i'm not sure i i i would would have known at the time which individual was responsible for keeping up to date with what was going on on the ground i mean richard harold as i said here was head of technical
00:36:55 as i said here was head of technical policy and i believe um i i think he he was an architect would have been able to understand uh developments in in in that field
00:37:06 field as to how
00:37:09 as to how other people in the building regulations team
00:37:12 team kept up to date um cpd as uh you and i would call it um i i really don't know but to some extent why should i well okay did you ever challenge any of
00:37:23 well okay did you ever challenge any of these officials advice in respect of building control matters or building regulations matters
00:37:34 i don't think there was any conflict between us i mean broadly some of the things that i wanted to do they were supportive of so you know they were supportive of getting
00:37:46 you know they were supportive of getting a space standard reintroduced into the housing standards review and
00:37:51 and the officials generally were minded to help me on doing something about climate change so actually we probably agreed on quite a few things my question isn't about challenge in the sense of oppose but challenge in the
00:38:03 sense of oppose but challenge in the sense of scrutinize interrogate examine closely
00:38:06 closely yeah yeah whenever someone came to to see me in my office i would frequently bombard them with questions right did you ever examine the line management system to satisfy yourself
00:38:17 management system to satisfy yourself that the junior officials were being adequately supervised by the more senior no absolutely not that's not the job of a minister right whose job was it that that that job would have been well
00:38:28 that that that job would have been well peter schofield the official identified under a and i guess he he would be responsible to the deputy permanent secretary i mean that the career structure within the civil service is quite properly nothing to do
00:38:39 service is quite properly nothing to do with with ministers other than your private office so my private sector has changed over the time i was there and i recruited the replacements but policy officials
00:38:51 but policy officials ministers have no role at all on on their recruitment or or their progression and some people listening to this might find what you've just said surprising but well they shouldn't um
00:39:03 but well they shouldn't um because ministers are effective if the government was a company then ministers i suppose are non-executive directors then they're not you know they're not the chief executive and chief finance officer
00:39:15 and chief finance officer they're there to lend a common sense and political steer to what officials are doing
00:39:22 doing they're not necessarily there to make sure they're professionally competent or generally competent for what they're doing i mean the civil service is very hierarchical and does have a line management system
00:39:33 management system and that to your understanding was a constitutional matter a matter of the structure of government i think i think it is a constitutional matter yes you do have a degree of separation in between the political masters as it were and the
00:39:45 the political masters as it were and the professional masters within our government i'd like to ask you about deregulation and your understanding of the effects that it had on the department during the time as parliamentary under secretary
00:39:56 time as parliamentary under secretary now then um on that subject do you recall but the one in one out policy as it became known is this right was an administrative policy introduced in 2011 and operated
00:40:07 policy introduced in 2011 and operated within government whereby in theory no new regulation would be introduced without a compensating reduction in regulation being made the other way
00:40:19 regulation being made the other way yes i was i was generally aware of that before i became a minister i was becoming a little bit more aware of it in practice uh as as a minister um
00:40:29 um i'm not sure you can describe it in absolute terms as one in one out in terms of impact um so it's not saying you you abolish
00:40:40 um so it's not saying you you abolish all
00:40:41 all fruit and vegetable regulations on one hand and introduce a small regulation on on light bulbs on the other hand um i don't think it quite worked like that
00:40:52 don't think it quite worked like that well let's see um as a policy were you a supporter
00:40:58 i wouldn't say i was keen on it um and that when that that that would be i suppose i suppose a bit of tension in between
00:41:05 between uh myself general myself in particular and my little democrat colleagues in general and conservatives your governments for quite a long time have used rhetoric about this issue about your bonfire of red tape and all this
00:41:16 your bonfire of red tape and all this stuff going going right back to the thatcher days i think michael hesseltine i think may have invented that phrase the labor government renamed an entire government department to be business
00:41:28 government department to be business enterprise and regulatory reform um the one that we now call business and energy um so that mantra had been around for quite some time as as to what practical impact it had i think
00:41:41 practical impact it had i think historians need to adjudicate on that did you have any direct experience yourself in when in government of the one in one out and later one in two-hour policies the housing standards review was was uh relevant in in that area
00:41:56 was was uh relevant in in that area um because they're around about for memory 334 um housing authorities and therefore planning authorities you know in two tier areas would be the district that
00:42:07 tier areas would be the district that would would be responsible that's why there's so many of them um and they could have different standards on all sorts of things so there was a big rationalization exercise to have some
00:42:18 rationalization exercise to have some national standards and so the new space standard that we introduced was a national standard that local authorities could choose to adopt or or or not
00:42:28 or not um i remember being given some a3 diagram with lots of circles you know rather like a very complicated venn diagram of of how different standards and regulations sort of overlap with each other were different in different
00:42:39 each other were different in different places so there was a rationalization side to it which intellectually i could support but if you're asking i guess this is what you really want was i a deregulatory minded minister no
00:42:51 was i a deregulatory minded minister no i wasn't
00:42:53 i wasn't i'm a liberal interventionist and if you you obviously have looked a little bit my background you know that that is supported by my activities before i became a minister um
00:43:02 um did you think that the one in one out policy or the or latterly the one into our policy applied to fire safety i'm not sure i'd i'd i had
00:43:14 i'm not sure i'd i'd i had any opinion on that at the time you certainly never expressed to me in those terms you know no one ever said to me that
00:43:20 that um in order to introduce something new in fire safety we have to abolish something in weights and measures or whatever or or indeed the other the
00:43:31 whatever or or indeed the other the other way around because we want to introduce something new in weights and measures we can have to reduce the number of fire extinguishers though that conversation never took took place so i i never felt that fire safety was
00:43:44 i i never felt that fire safety was being compromised by by by that one in one out or what later became
00:43:49 became one in two hours let me just ask you a little bit about the policy before coming back to the question of fire safety when it doubled to one in two out how was the two measured as opposed to
00:44:00 how was the two measured as opposed to the one
00:44:03 i'm not sure i can answer that because of course this is a cross-government issue
00:44:08 issue so dclg as it was then may may have wanted to introduce one new regulation and obviously the space standard was a new regulation that doesn't mean that dclg had to surrender
00:44:21 doesn't mean that dclg had to surrender to to as i understood it to to regulations itself that the surrender of two regulations could have been made by the ministry of justice or or or the home office and there was
00:44:32 or or the home office and there was um you know a cross-government view of that there was a committee um which i did actually go to once it was very the first thing i did officially as as as a minister and i think it's referred to in
00:44:43 referred to in one of one of one of the statements in november 2013 i think it was chaired by francis maude but there were ministers on there from each department and that's where all this sort of matching up was done
00:44:55 done and
00:44:58 to your recollection was fire safety or health and safety generally a legitimate target of deregulation across government
00:45:12 of deregulation across government well legitimate target is a slightly loaded phrase all right let me try let me try it differently was any ex exemption made for health and safety in general or fire safety in particular
00:45:23 safety in particular from the deregulatory uh policy so far as you were aware i as far as i was aware at the time i'm gonna recall now i don't think there were
00:45:34 think there were exemptions but that of course is not to say that if you came to a discussion about what what might be given up in return for something new being drawn in i think
00:45:48 something new being drawn in i think i can only speak for myself and possibly my former liberal colleagues that we would not have accepted watering down of health and safety
00:45:57 safety um
00:45:58 um i mean there was a big row about this i've just remembered something so thank you for prompting me over hiring fire uh the tories commissioned someone has gotten his name to prepare a report saying people can be fired at will this
00:46:09 saying people can be fired at will this is just what's just happened to the pno people
00:46:12 people and we fought that tooth and nail as something that they wanted to introduce um as reducing people's rights and whether it's health and safety or whether it's employment rights i think we can put them in the same
00:46:24 we can put them in the same area
00:46:25 area we would have wanted to defend those areas even if others were not so keen on defending them
00:46:34 richard harold told us in his evidence that the coalition government had adopted a far more rigorous approach to deregulation with increased scrutiny of regulatory proposals would you agree with that
00:46:46 would you agree with that i'm i was i was aware that there was a more rigorous process as i said there was there was a cabinet subcommittee specifically on it and i do recall
00:46:57 and i do recall there
00:46:58 there was also an attempt to make it clearer for people who had to after all follow these regulations uh on on the ground in in in business or in communities so there would be two common commencement dates which i think were
00:47:10 commencement dates which i think were april the 1st and the 1st of october so there weren't lots of amendments to different regulations coming out you know every week throughout the year there would just be two occasions uh that regulations would change to give
00:47:21 uh that regulations would change to give people time to to prepare for for adhering to those changes and that to me makes sense we've seen documents from 2012 which stated at least to the star chamber as
00:47:33 stated at least to the star chamber as it was called that the department uh was a deregulating department um would you agree with that description from your experience of your time there
00:47:46 from your experience of your time there i never heard the department described in those terms myself okay were you aware of the pressures civil servants felt to deliver on deregulating policies at the time and particularly
00:47:58 policies at the time and particularly that pressure within the building regulations division
00:48:04 no um i think i had i'd like to think i had a fairly open relationship and candid relationship with my officials
00:48:15 officials um but you i don't recall them saying to me we're under pressure from the other side to
00:48:21 side to deregulate some of the officials giving evidence richard harrell in particular day 243
00:48:27 day 243 um page 43 lines one to six told us that even whether a regulatory proposals which might be superficially attractive once it was recognized that it was regulation
00:48:39 regulation in some way then they would pull back because it wasn't the way that the government today would drive change i can see why richard might say that um
00:48:50 i can see why richard might say that um it's not for me to preempt what a subsequent witness is going to say to you or what you might ask him but eric pickles certainly
00:49:00 certainly often made remarks about regulation i mean this is a ridiculous example with hindsight but we had an almighty fight about the the 5p tax on on bags
00:49:11 tax on on bags no one now wants to go back to everyone getting new bags when they go shopping that was a little democrat initiative eric fought that tooth and nail as as regulatory madness or whatever he's a man for colorful phrases and we had a
00:49:24 man for colorful phrases and we had a huge bun fight about it
00:49:26 about it how much of that was genuine and how much of it was for show it was for other people to judge but in
00:49:35 actual terms was it correct or was were the officials
00:49:42 observations on this correct that even where there were superficially attractive perhaps regulatory proposals that there was an overriding policy against them if they involved new
00:49:53 against them if they involved new regulation it did it certainly was was the case that that eric was skeptical about regulation as i say how much of that
00:50:04 much of that he genuinely felt how much of it was trying to please the treasury which is you know something that all ministers have to dance to the treasury tune unfortunately on the number 10 team um
00:50:16 um and if richard if richard said that to you and that he obviously felt that then it's not for me to challenge that thought but i don't recall him saying to me he felt under that pressure
00:50:27 saying to me he felt under that pressure um he certainly did have candid discussions and you know eric thought you know most of the officials were guardian reading pinkos right um so i was more likely to be there earlier than he was right
00:50:38 than he was right that's a phrase he would have used but i didn't make that up i mean did he ever come to you uh and and ask for your help um
00:50:47 um in
00:50:49 in making regulatory change or clarification even in light of the fact that he'd felt that there was a pressure the other way not to introduce regulation i think it was probably
00:51:00 regulation i think it was probably richards who told me about the space standard um
00:51:07 um being a when i was i was vaguely aware of this because i'm you know i'm interested in social policy i think it was first him that said look you've got an opportunity here to introduce a regulation that would be
00:51:18 to introduce a regulation that would be very popular and so he was i think he was an architect the royal institution of british architects had a big campaign on reintroducing the space standard for private sector housing uh it still
00:51:31 private sector housing uh it still existed in social housing the parker morris standards they called if you want to look them look them up um
00:51:38 um so i think he was helpful to me in getting a new regulation so i i knew what his mindset was he was a regulatory person and and so was i so i suppose he might have thought of me as an ally in
00:51:49 might have thought of me as an ally in that respect but i generally can't recall
00:51:52 recall him
00:51:54 him telling me that he felt or other officials felt under pressure to deregulate and i you know i suppose there's a line to which he could walk up to
00:52:05 a line to which he could walk up to and that might have been overstepping the remark if he expressed or anyone else expressed frustration with other government ministers even though i did encourage officials to be
00:52:14 be candid with me were you aware that the building regulations department didn't give any consideration to whether any of its work might legitimately be the subject of an exemption from the deregulatory policy
00:52:26 exemption from the deregulatory policy no
00:52:27 no can you account for why no exemptions for the life safety parts of the building regulations was even considered at any time by the building regulations division
00:52:36 division i can't but but but then you know i became a minister for the the last the last third roughly of of of that government and i guess the parameters of
00:52:48 the parameters of of of that attitude were decided in 2010 2011 right does it surprise you that officials within the building regulations division did not even take any advice on whether if clarification
00:53:00 if clarification of the building regulations or statutory guidance documents was all that was needed
00:53:05 needed um the deregulatory policies were engaged
00:53:09 engaged um well that's the first i've heard that so i'm trying to think whether that surprised me or not um
00:53:18 i'd like to think that if those officials felt that they were being put under pressure to dilute
00:53:25 dilute health and safety rights uh and and and stand it's that they would have found a way of resisting it right whether resorting to
00:53:36 it right whether resorting to i don't know government lawyers i mean obviously they're internal government lawyers as well as external ones but but i don't know as i said i mean a lot a lot of those
00:53:45 those attitudes would have been baked in in the first year of of that government and obviously i i was not party to them were you aware that officials were working
00:53:54 working officials in this division were working on the basis that any change to the guidance in the approved documents needed to be the subject of a regulatory impact assessment because there would be a potential cost to industry even of
00:54:05 a potential cost to industry even of just reading whatever was put out by the department well
00:54:11 well yes um
00:54:12 yes um because i i i can vaguely recall reading impact assessments of of different regulations and of course regulations could be on something to do with race equality or homophobia
00:54:24 with race equality or homophobia my question was on the approved yeah yeah but the point i'm making is you you would expect an impact assessment to be part of the process
00:54:32 process for introducing new regulation on on business or on individuals with whatever it happens to be it would be rather surprising if you didn't have an economic impact assessment and you have
00:54:44 economic impact assessment and you have to in any way understand you to have to have a human rights and diversity and equality impact assessment as well did you understand the department had officials who would advise on that because they worked to me
00:54:55 because they worked to me did you understand that it was envisaged that the government's regulatory policies would
00:55:01 would have an effect on those parts of the building regulations which were concerned with with life safety
00:55:08 safety i'm sorry can you say that again yes did you understand that that that let me put it slightly differently did you ever have a concern yourself that the government's wider priority in reducing regulation and red
00:55:21 priority in reducing regulation and red tape
00:55:21 tape had
00:55:24 increased competition among regulatory bodies which led to a focus on cost cutting
00:55:32 and sure what do you mean by competition amongst regulatory bodies but certainly in the area of electrical safety part p of the building regulations there were
00:55:44 of the building regulations there were competing commercial regulators and that's something we we did
00:55:50 did resolve
00:55:51 resolve uh
00:55:52 uh while i was a minister i mean it was the main issue that the select committee uh the cross party officials select committee uh was concerned about in the timeline as a minister that if you wanted to make sure you were going to a
00:56:05 wanted to make sure you were going to a competent electrician how how could you judge that when there were lots of different authenticating bodies and they all for commercial reasons you refused to cooperate so in
00:56:16 reasons you refused to cooperate so in the end i got fed up with this and called them in and told them if they didn't cooperate we'd make sure they did um so to that extent yes i was aware there was some competition i don't think it's a good thing if it's
00:56:28 i don't think it's a good thing if it's ultimately all of these regulations have to help the consumer have to help the citizen if the citizen doesn't know how to make sure the regulations are working for their benefit and if the people who are
00:56:39 their benefit and if the people who are commercially working in that environment are also not clear then there's a failure
00:56:47 and that failure would be a failure of the particular department with responsibility for the regulation would it
00:56:56 it if if the department failed to resolve something that had been brought to its attention then then the obvious answer is yes but i've just given you example where something was brought to my attention um in the proper way by a
00:57:08 attention um in the proper way by a select committee um and there was an apbg on home safety as well that was mindful of it i think members of parliament wrote in about it so um
00:57:17 um we we we got it sorted and you can google it there's a there's a there's an official launch uh with me and clive betts who was the chair of the select committee you're re introducing this common electrical
00:57:28 introducing this common electrical safety standard and you now see on the side of vans it's a plug what checks and balance
00:57:35 excuse me what checks and balances are in place
00:57:40 in place excuse me so far as you understood the position to ensure that life safety was not unacceptably compromised by these deregulatory policies
00:57:50 well
00:57:53 as i think i said to you earlier i i i don't recall encountering um
00:58:01 um any area where it was obvious that life safety was was at risk because of a deregulatory environment we were aware of employment rights and other rights and human rights
00:58:14 other rights and human rights uh
00:58:14 uh being at risk and all that's in the public
00:58:17 public public domain i i wasn't aware of of life safety measures necessarily being at risk because of the deregulatory
00:58:28 were there any were there any policies in place
00:58:32 in place either in the department specifically or government more generally to ensure that the various department's obligations to safeguard life including under article 2
00:58:43 safeguard life including under article 2 of the european convention on human rights were properly prioritized well
00:58:51 one of the advantages of the coalition government is it did reintroduce proper cabinet government and government by cabinet committee that i think commentators at the time and
00:59:02 i think commentators at the time and historians would certainly say had fallen by the wayside under blair and brown you know social government and and all that so there were lots of checks and balances in the way that that government ran that any initiative
00:59:14 government ran that any initiative brought forward by a particular part by a particular department would be subject to what was called in whitehall jargon a right round right has been written um
00:59:24 um so
00:59:25 so if dclg wanted to do something if every pills wanted to do something i wanted to do something we couldn't just do it
00:59:32 do it um we'd have to write to the home affairs cabinet committee which was chaired by nick clegg and get policy clearance and it would go around all the sort of domestic departments who could all give their view so if if dclg had
00:59:45 all give their view so if if dclg had wanted to do something bad in in in that area then there were plenty of checks and balances within the system for someone from the ministry of justice or from the home office uh or
00:59:56 justice or from the home office uh or whatever to say no
00:59:58 no and of course that was used quite quite quite a lot within um within government to stop nutty stuff from being done right
01:00:07 right um lucknow house um do you recall that that was a fire in southwark in july 2009 in which six people died three women and three children
01:00:19 three women and three children which then resulted in an inquest in early 2013. um
01:00:25 um are you asking did i know about it
01:00:29 yes it's familiar to me it's probably one of the difficulties with preparing for this session there are things that are more familiar to me now than they probably were at the time but well let's dive in should we go to page
01:00:40 well let's dive in should we go to page five of your statement please paragraph 16
01:00:44 16 you say that the latin house fire occult on the third of july 2009 and the coroner's rule 43 recommendations were made on 28th of march 2013 with the secretary of state's response following
01:00:55 secretary of state's response following thereafter i was appointed on 7th of october 2013 after these events as a minister i was involved in taking forward actions in response to the coroner's letter where related submissions were addressed to me for
01:01:06 submissions were addressed to me for approval and then you say this in paragraph 17 i was not aware of the latin house fire before joining the department and although i cannot recall precisely when i do remember being told about it at some point by officials most
01:01:18 about it at some point by officials most likely brian martin and or richard harrell
01:01:22 harrell was it upon them that you relied for information about the inquest and the actions that you were required to take in response to the recommendations yes um so in answer to your
01:01:34 yes um so in answer to your initial question i i at the time i was a minister i was not aware or didn't recall the lack of house fire until i was told about it by
01:01:45 fire until i was told about it by officials and that that was the reason why the coroner had said what he did and that's why a review of part b uh was a commitment made by the secretary of state
01:01:55 state so i was aware of it as as in terms of context as to why part b needed to be reviewed i i wasn't aware of it in any other way were you aware that brian
01:02:06 other way were you aware that brian martin gave evidence at the inquest no did anybody in the department brief you on the reasons for the external fire spread particularly downwards fire spread
01:02:16 spread at lachnal house um
01:02:19 um what i recall um is that
01:02:24 is that as a richard was the person who was best at explaining things uh to me that in preparation for the meeting that we had with david amos and ronnie king
01:02:35 we had with david amos and ronnie king which i'm sure you're going to come to um
01:02:38 um he he he drew a diagram for me which explained uh compartmentation about how the building regulations have been designed for a long time to make
01:02:49 been designed for a long time to make sure that fire should not spread from one
01:02:52 one flat major net whatever to to to another um and when you're familiar with the game of gengar but you know that's basically what the diagram looked like in interweaving sort of wooden blocks um
01:03:04 in interweaving sort of wooden blocks um to explain that the building regulations are designed as such that fire spread should be all but impossible um to happen and that's the case is why
01:03:16 um to happen and that's the case is why lachen always shocking and why grenfell was
01:03:20 was absolutely horrific because it shouldn't have happened uh
01:03:26 uh were you ever advised that the fire involved the external panels on the building no no we we never had a really detailed conversation about what happened at
01:03:38 conversation about what happened at laguna house um
01:03:41 um i mean apart from my i've been prompted to to remember because of a submission in 2013 about window installers that it was something to do with
01:03:53 was something to do with um defective windows i think i think there was a melting from one window down to the flat below you were advised of that were you that that that's my recollection but but you know that that would have been
01:04:05 know that that would have been an incredibly brief uh explanation of what what happened were you ever advised about whether the construction the refurbishment at lachen house did comply
01:04:16 did comply or didn't comply with the relevant big building regulations and associated guidance
01:04:21 guidance my
01:04:22 my recollection was was that the
01:04:27 the um
01:04:29 um contractor had perhaps not adhered to the building regulations uh as they were at the time and it was something to do with with the competent person
01:04:39 person scheme for window installers which which which i think was the urgent thing the coin i wanted dealt with and that was
01:04:47 that was dealt with i think in november 2013. were you ever told anything about national class naught what it was what it meant or how it was relevant to flame spread external
01:04:58 it was relevant to flame spread external flame spreader no that is honestly the first time i've ever heard that phrase well today just just now yeah really okay can we therefore take it that you were
01:05:09 can we therefore take it that you were not advised or briefed on the fact that back in 99 1999 a select committee had taken evidence expert evidence
01:05:20 expert evidence from industry and others and recommended in a report that external cladding systems either be of non-combustible material or else pass a full system test
01:05:33 material or else pass a full system test uh
01:05:33 uh no um
01:05:35 no um you unless someone told me about it i don't see how i could have been aware of a select committee report in 1999 and i don't recall being told about it and given that the submissions that i were given up are all part of your evidence
01:05:47 given up are all part of your evidence pack which both of us have been through um i i couldn't have been aware of it now let's look at your second statement to the inquiry please clg three zero three
01:05:58 the inquiry please clg three zero three four two nine one page three paragraph six
01:06:02 six you say i do not believe although i cannot state with absolute certainty that i ever read nor was shown h.m coroner's rule 43 recommendation letter
01:06:13 coroner's rule 43 recommendation letter why is that well i mean i obviously had to think very carefully about that answer when it was puts me in in writing and i honestly don't think i ever saw it and
01:06:26 don't think i ever saw it and and the paper evidence trail shows that it was never shown to me so if it wasn't shown to me then it's a reasonable assumption that i never read it um
01:06:35 um but
01:06:37 but then again mr miller you could say well i could say why should i have done because it had happened the coroner's letter to the department it happened six months before i became a minister the secretary
01:06:49 before i became a minister the secretary of state
01:06:50 of state um so not my predecessor don foster but the sec or the fire minister bernalillos um had responded himself to it and it was
01:07:00 was concluded business to that extent that khan had made her her findings and suggested recommendations the secretary of state had responded with what the department was going to do by the time i
01:07:13 department was going to do by the time i became a minister it was more about let's get on with what we're supposed to do
01:07:17 do rather than you know we going over why we got to that position so no i didn't read it but you know i wasn't given the opportunity to read it either well given
01:07:28 opportunity to read it either well given that you were involved in progressing the actions in response to the coroner's letter mr williams as you say how could you possibly have undertaken that task without
01:07:38 without reading the coroner's recommendations well because
01:07:44 because officials are there to advise and officials so i was aware of it in the context obviously what i'm saying is i never saw a physical copy of the actual letter so i don't know how long it was how
01:07:55 don't know how long it was how prescriptive it was i simply don't know but i was advised that the coroner recommended that something be done about window up window installers and that was addressed quickly
01:08:07 and that was addressed quickly and that there should be a review of part b
01:08:11 part b and that the secretary of state had committed to review and that's where this
01:08:15 this phrase by 2016 2017 which i i know because i've watched previous evidence sessions
01:08:20 sessions you've asked other people about uh comes from so my task as a minister with officials was try to make sure that we met that deadline
01:08:32 we met that deadline that deadline in order to carry into effect
01:08:36 effect the recommendations all not the recommendations well
01:08:44 you're a lawyer um and i think corners are lawyers aren't they well let me ask the question about that but
01:08:50 that but there's a jurisdiction issue there isn't there that a coroner determines the cause i'm going to interrupt you it's free to make recommendations i'm going to interrupt you and ask the question again because you may have misunderstood it
01:09:01 you may have misunderstood it it may be my fault um you said that your task as a minister with officials just to try to make sure we met that deadline in me in meeting the deadline what was it that you were
01:09:12 the deadline what was it that you were expecting to do i i was expecting for
01:09:17 for what i might call a new part b but a revised part b a refreshed part b and up-to-date part b or whatever adjective you wish to use to be in place by 2016
01:09:28 by 2016 2017 and whatever i was asked to do as a minister to progress that to make sure that it was indeed progressed it is important to note to say that given those dates that
01:09:39 that it was never going to be me as minister that
01:09:42 that introduced that new part b or would be involved in the detail detailed analysis of it because the coalition was for a fixed term of five years that ended in may 2015
01:09:54 years that ended in may 2015 so quite obviously the detail of what was to come was was coming after my time as a minister but you know nonetheless it was my job to
01:10:03 my job to do what we could in that period now looking at that answer you say i was expecting
01:10:07 expecting for what i might call a new part b but a revised part b a refreshed part b an update
01:10:14 an update part b did you not want to know precisely in what respect the coroner had recommended that part b be revised or updated
01:10:27 be revised or updated well i i i was told i think it was the this is in the documents that you have and i've re-read recently
01:10:35 recently that the building research establishment had been commissioned to look at various work streams that were relevant to the review of part b which included sprinklers which included um
01:10:46 sprinklers which included um compartments which wouldn't have made any sense to me before them but i think that the context in which i asked richard what does what does that mean um flat sizes and wall thicknesses i i guess and
01:11:00 and wall thicknesses i i guess and various other issues as well that the bre was was was looking at so i knew that was happening and then a little later on um i'm sure you asked about this we
01:11:11 um i'm sure you asked about this we approved um external research in order to provide the evidence space for what would work in terms of revision of part b
01:11:22 i'm generally a believer in the policy is best uh if it's evidence-led particularly particularly in this sort of area well when you took on the brief
01:11:33 when you took on the brief to see the recommendations through or rather to see the secretary of state's promise through to the deadline did you understand with any degree of precision
01:11:44 with any degree of precision what recommendations had been made by the coroner about the guidance in approved document b
01:11:52 i think all i generally understood at the time was that the again this would have come from briefings and as i say not from reading in detail what the corner had
01:12:03 reading in detail what the corner had said
01:12:03 said that there was a concern that the document wasn't clear enough that that people might misunderstand some of the requirements so there was i can't remember the exact phrase but
01:12:14 i can't remember the exact phrase but simplification of the language and i took that to mean clarity of language rather than watering down of commitments did you not want to see the letter
01:12:25 did you not want to see the letter and see the recommendations themselves given that six people had died as a result of defects or apparent defects the coroner had pointed out well if i could put it to you this way
01:12:37 well if i could put it to you this way you you
01:12:38 you you i could have spent an awful lot of time going back in time of what my previous predecessors as ministers in this area what the secretary of state had decided in 2010 2011
01:12:49 had decided in 2010 2011 2012 2013 but i'm not sure that would have made me more effective as a minister i had lots of
01:12:57 lots of immediate
01:12:59 immediate issues in terms of building control and the other five areas of my responsibility to deal with it i don't think it was my role to go back and say well
01:13:10 my role to go back and say well why are we responding in this way your decision hadn't been made and
01:13:14 and i thought about this um i'm as far as i'm aware the coroner did didn't come back and say the time scale is too long no i'm not satisfied that you're you're dealing with my recommendations in
01:13:25 recommendations in in a helpful manner i i don't believe so but and if she did i certainly didn't see it
01:13:31 see it um now we know that eric pickles responded to the minister responded to the coroner on the 20th of may yes did you read that letter um when you took on this role i
01:13:42 um when you took on this role i well not not when i took on this role but um
01:13:48 but um i can't remember now whether i read that it's possible i was shown that um
01:13:55 um a couple of times when we were meeting the appg or when we were dealing with the window installers i can't be absolutely sure i was shown that letter but obviously um the quotes from that letter i saw many times and i
01:14:07 from that letter i saw many times and i suppose the quotes from the letter were the salient points that i needed to understand that the secretary of state had not agreed to an immediate review of part b but had agreed to a review that
01:14:18 part b but had agreed to a review that would be delivered by 2016-2017 when you joined the department on the 7th of october 2013 were you briefed on the progress that the department had made in responding to the
01:14:30 department had made in responding to the coroner's recommendations not
01:14:33 not i i don't think so but but as i said you i just almost at the start of our session there was a whirlwind of briefings about all sorts of issues in my first six weeks there was one about building
01:14:44 six weeks there was one about building regulations in general um i
01:14:48 um i it would be wrong for me to say that i was specifically told uh about uh part b um
01:14:57 part b um but i don't think it would have been in any detail i mean when when those you asked me about what i was told when i first became a minister in october 2013 you know at those stage those were high level broad brush if you like uh
01:15:09 level broad brush if you like uh briefings of the areas i would be dealing with which there were there were many so i don't think officials would have gone deep diving into particular issues about particular building regulations particularly of course there
01:15:21 regulations particularly of course there are other building regulations that things needed to be done in this time that i was going to be involved with
01:15:32 what outstanding actions did you understand were left to be completed following the coroner's recommendations when you joined the department in october 2013.
01:15:43 october 2013. um
01:15:44 um i'm not sure i understood you know immediately as i just said i'm not sure i i i understood immediately in october 2013 what was outstanding or what needed to be initiated even uh at that point i
01:15:55 to be initiated even uh at that point i think most of my discussions around uh part b you know as as are revealed in the in in the documents has been disclosed to the inquiry were in the sort of the middle of 2014 to september
01:16:06 sort of the middle of 2014 to september 20 2014 so i don't think i was aware of it in october 2013 at all um so in terms of what was outstanding um
01:16:16 um it would have been initiating the process and i was told that this had happened
01:16:22 happened um
01:16:24 um as to what initiation initiation means preparatory work is underway i think is the phrase in in in the submission that you've got as well um you know it's difficult for me to say you sort of take that at face valley but
01:16:36 you sort of take that at face valley but but shortly after that you know i was told the bre has been commissioned to look at these particular areas including compartments uh time of resistance to to to fire and that's where he was
01:16:48 to to fire and that's where he was explained to me about uh walls and fire doors and thickness of front doors and so on we certainly went through all that at the time because i asked what what what what did it mean
01:16:59 what what did it mean um
01:17:00 um so in terms of what was outstanding it was getting it underway but you know as as i've said to you getting underway in making progress i guess was my role in the process but given given the the
01:17:11 the process but given given the the timetable that the secretary of state had set out it was never uh my role to to complete the process is that a convenient moment mr chairman yes i think it is thank you well you
01:17:23 yes i think it is thank you well you probably know mr williams that we have a break during each of our sessions and this is a good time to have the morning break so we'll stop there we'll resume please at 25 to 12 and i have to ask you please not to talk
01:17:34 and i have to ask you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it when you're out of the room thank you all right thank you would you go with the option please
01:17:50 thank you very much twenty-five to twelve
01:35:31 would you ask mr williams to come back in please okay
01:35:45 alright mr williams ready to carry on i hope yes thank you very much thank you yes mr miller thank you mr chairman can we please go to clg 50671
01:35:56 this is a submission to you from brian martin dated 25th november 2013 so just six weeks or so after you joined the department uh was this the first submission that you received about the coroner's rule 43
01:36:08 you received about the coroner's rule 43 letter recommendations i i i believe so yes what did you know about the latin house fire before you saw this document nothing whatsoever looking at the heading it says findings of a review of
01:36:20 heading it says findings of a review of replacement window scheme guidance following the latter house inquest and if you look next to the text at one it says following the inquest into the fire at latin house the secretary of state commissioned a short review of
01:36:31 state commissioned a short review of guidance provided by the replacement window competent person scheme operators this submission sets out the findings of that review and seeks your agreement for actions
01:36:41 actions did you read this submission yes of course it asks you to agree to four actions as you see under the recommendation if we can scroll down uh and
01:36:50 uh and for those are four actions um updating the competent person scheme yes you can see that yep and it asks you to agree to those recommendations my question were you
01:37:01 recommendations my question were you ever made aware that the coroner didn't actually make any recommendation about the competent person scheme
01:37:10 no so that that's what he said is quite surprising given that this submission tells me that this is something we needed to do obviously i i
01:37:19 i i'd been about a month in the post at that point i would have taken that face value
01:37:23 value well you wouldn't have done would you had you read the letter containing her recommendations
01:37:30 that is true that is that that that indeed is a is a fair point but as you just said this is probably the first mission i received from this particular official which i've received lots of submissions about lots of other
01:37:42 lots of submissions about lots of other things by this by this stage but it's it's telling me that the secretary of state had agreed to do something in response to the coroner's uh letter and we have done it um
01:37:58 what else should should i have thought if if if it said we are minded not to do it then obviously i would have had lots of questions and it would have been quite reasonable for me to then say well how about um are
01:38:09 for me to then say well how about um are we going about this in the right way but that's not what it says and i know um because i've reread the evidence that's been submitted to you that i said i think it's important that
01:38:20 that i said i think it's important that we show that lessons have been learned
01:38:25 even the lessons that weren't drawn from the evidence by the coroner well i didn't know that did i okay let's go to page two
01:38:35 uh paragraph five on 28th march this is under the background narrative verdicts were returned into the deaths at lachnal house in camberwell during what is widely regarded as the uk's worst tower
01:38:46 widely regarded as the uk's worst tower block fire in july 2009 much of the inquest focused on alterations that have been made to the building this included work carried out by a window contractor that was registered with the fence the competent person scheme these schemes
01:38:58 competent person scheme these schemes allow members to self-certify that work had been done has been done in accordance with the building regulations at the inquest it was concluded that the scheme did not extend to all of the work and some of
01:39:09 extend to all of the work and some of the work did not comply the coroner recommended that the department review approved document b fire safety to improve its clarity and ease of use the secretary of state did not agree to an immediate review of adb
01:39:21 not agree to an immediate review of adb but did commission a review of guidance issued by the competent person schemes for replacement window installers now let's look uh in light of that at the rule 43 letter can we go to clg
01:39:34 the rule 43 letter can we go to clg 50401
01:39:38 there it is 28th of march 2013. take a moment to
01:39:42 moment to look at that document please mr williams it's addressed to eric pickles uh and uh there's its first page uh do you remember when you first saw this document
01:39:52 document i think i've already said to you i don't think i saw it at all no but did you not even see it in writing or statements
01:40:03 writing or statements um
01:40:05 um i may have i mean the the original bundle of evidence for the inquiry was obviously now some time ago and it was quite a lot so i i don't recall it right i'm not going to pretend i do
01:40:17 right i'm not going to pretend i do recall it um i don't i am looking at it right
01:40:22 right let's go to page three we can see the heading in bold there building regulations and approved document b and i'll read it to you during these inquests we examined
01:40:33 during these inquests we examined approved document b 2000 edition incorporating 2000 and 2002 amendments adb i'm aware that adb has subsequently been amended and believe that a further amendment is due to be published soon
01:40:45 amendment is due to be published soon the introduction to adb states that it is quotes intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations close quotes however adb is a most difficult document to use
01:40:57 adb is a most difficult document to use further it is necessary to refer to additional documents in order to find an answer to relatively straightforward questions concerning the fire protection properties of materials to be incorporated into the fabric of a
01:41:08 incorporated into the fabric of a building
01:41:10 building and then we have the recommendations as follows
01:41:14 follows it is recommended that your department review adb to ensure that it and then there are three bullet points bullet point one provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4 of the building regulations with particular
01:41:26 building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to where the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection
01:41:37 protection bullet point two is expressed in words and adopts a format which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just the professionals who may already have a
01:41:49 the professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control matters bullet point three provides guidance which is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock and
01:42:01 refurbishment of older housing stock and not only those engaged in design and construction of new buildings now i've read those to you in full and i hope slowly were you ever familiar with any of these recommendations here
01:42:13 any of these recommendations here in these three bullet points during your time uh as minister not in those exact words um but i think i said to you in my first session this morning that it was my
01:42:26 session this morning that it was my understanding as explained to me by officials and in the submissions that i had that the coroner was concerned that the approved document was not sufficiently clear so to the revised
01:42:37 sufficiently clear so to the revised document would be as much about clarity as as being up-to-date so that people could follow it the people who were meant to follow it could follow it with certainty that they were doing what was required so that was my understanding
01:42:50 required so that was my understanding and you know i don't think that's in any conflict with what's now in front of me um now you can see because i can see we can see it together that there's nothing here about the fence the competent person scheme is there
01:43:03 person scheme is there uh not not not on the page of x right i've got in front of me now now did anybody explain to you that notwithstanding that the coroner had not referred to the fencer scheme in her
01:43:14 referred to the fencer scheme in her recommendations nonetheless the scheme was a response to an issue which had arisen in the course of the evidence at the inquest did anybody explain that to you we
01:43:25 did anybody explain that to you we chairman we did we didn't have a a detailed conversation about the the inquest
01:43:31 inquest um in in terms of what have been said because
01:43:34 because and i think that you know that that is reasonable because those conversations between ministers and officials would have happened six six months earlier in formulating the response from the department to the coroner my
01:43:47 department to the coroner my responsibility was on the advice of officials to implement what we could in my time as a minister based on what the coroner had recommended now
01:43:58 recommended now i i think it is reasonable for me to say if an official says we need to do x in response to what the coroner said yes i could have said well show me the
01:44:09 yes i could have said well show me the letter so i can check you're telling me the truth but i'm not sure that would have been reasonable behavior by me particularly as i said this was i think from the date of when i had that submission about the
01:44:21 of when i had that submission about the fencer scheme and the compton person scheme for window installers i think i was
01:44:25 was four or five weeks into post so it's unlikely that that first discussion i think that's probably the first time i met brian martin i'm going to say to him how do i know you're
01:44:36 to say to him how do i know you're telling me is correct that i'm not sure that would have been reasonable for me to to have done to him you say it's probably the first time i met brian martin did you have a meeting
01:44:47 met brian martin did you have a meeting with him about this um
01:44:52 this is where and i've seen and it's actually referred to in my statement where it's quite irritating that the department has not kept the the actual submission documents
01:45:03 the the actual submission documents that i saw and other ministers saw um you i i kept a red pen for all of my subs and wrote my comments on them and
01:45:14 subs and wrote my comments on them and quite
01:45:14 quite the most common thing i wrote was agreed or noted because maybe that was all that was required but if i needed to understand something you would quite often ask a question what does this mean or send the official to see me
01:45:28 or send the official to see me whether whether i did that for this is now impossible for me to remember and
01:45:33 and and
01:45:35 and can't be advised either way because the original document was not retained and that that's frustrating for me and i'm sure it's frustrating for you chairman is the thrust of what you're telling us then
01:45:44 then uh that you received the document read it
01:45:48 read it took it at face value yes yeah now let's move on uh to another document clg three four zeros two seven nine two please
01:46:01 uh this uh if we go this is an email run um in
01:46:06 in early december 2013 if we go please to page two
01:46:09 page two we can see that on the 25th of november 2013 brian martin sends an email to your private secretary
01:46:20 private secretary copied to officials including bob ledson and anthony bird and
01:46:26 and he has a summary there timing and recommendation and the recommendation mirrors what's in the sub and then if we go up please to page one we can see the response
01:46:37 page one we can see the response from kermit kendrick in the second email in the chain there on the 4th of december 2013 saying brian many thanks for this paper as discussed yesterday the minister agrees with all your recommendations he did want to
01:46:48 your recommendations he did want to reiterate that it was important this step should acknowledge the fact lessons have been learned well that's probably what i wrote on the sub and that's why it's frustrating that that the original is is not available to
01:47:00 that the original is is not available to you but i'm quite glad that this email chain uh exists with shows that i did read it and did comments upon it and this step can you help us what was that
01:47:14 what's the step can you remember that you well the the step was dealing with what i thought uh was an issue with the competent person scheme for window
01:47:26 competent person scheme for window installers that was required by the coroner but you know i'm now uh hearing from you that the coroner didn't specifically ask the department to do that but obviously i didn't know that but i
01:47:38 but obviously i didn't know that but i regarded it as an important step to showing that lessons had been learned from from that fire and the department was taking action what lessons that people who install windows should
01:47:51 that people who install windows should be competent to do so and should follow the
01:47:54 the technical guidance that they were meant to adhere to if they were a competent person at this stage this is november december 2013 this is probably the first well not probably it
01:48:06 probably the first well not probably it is the first time i would have heard the phrase competent personally it's facing it's not it's not a it's not a phrase that
01:48:12 that a layman would would use and that i was transitioning from being layman to being
01:48:17 being minister
01:48:18 minister um so i probably did ask uh what is a competent person and that's when i understood the coptic person could be the gas fitter it could be the electrical fitter window installer etc etc
01:48:30 etc i hadn't fully appreciated that that that before and let's go up to the top email in the chain then please uh where we can see that brian martin sends the email chain on to other officials in the department and he says
01:48:43 officials in the department and he says uh all further to this i've drafted the attached letter back to the cp scheme providers comments please plan is to stir them up and see if they can't work it all out for themselves
01:48:55 it all out for themselves b and b and i don't know what that means um that might be an emoji i don't know brian
01:49:01 brian now neither you nor your private secretary are on the list of recipients can i take it that you never saw this email or were made aware of it no and i i think we should make the general point here that
01:49:12 general point here that ministers don't see emails in between officials or their private offices they see the official document that the the submissions right that we're talking about so no i this is the first
01:49:23 talking about so no i this is the first time i've
01:49:25 time i've seen this when you agreed to the recommendation set out for you by brian martin in his 25th of november submission was it your understanding at the time that the aim of the
01:49:36 the time that the aim of the recommendations you were being asked to approve was to stir up the competent persons scheme providers to quote see if they could work it out for themselves was that how you understood the idea
01:49:48 was that how you understood the idea that
01:49:50 that leaving aside all the typos and so on and that's not how i would have phrased it no but but this is you know a colloquial email in between officials who probably sat
01:50:01 probably sat almost at this you know as far away from me as to you as we are at the moment um i i don't know my understanding was that the compton person scheme for window providers needed to be tightened
01:50:13 window providers needed to be tightened up and the department was going to tighten tightening up but there is i wouldn't have understood this necessarily at the time but in all of these schemes there is a certain amount of self self regulation self
01:50:25 of self self regulation self certification that that you have done the job correctly or somebody or somebody um within your organization would certify that an apprentice or an
01:50:37 would certify that an apprentice or an or
01:50:37 or or an assistant who is not officially a competent person they certify that the work has been done i didn't understand that at that point but later on because i asked about it i did
01:50:49 because i asked about it i did did you ever follow up with brian martin or any other official on the scheme to make sure that it had been a success no no no no i didn't but then i'm i'm not sure why i would have done because
01:51:00 sure why i would have done because i've been asked to agree something i did agree it as it's a reasonable assumption by me that they go away and do it so this email is slightly surprising but then i didn't know about it
01:51:12 know about it no were you ever aware that the fence the competent person's scheme was never completed no
01:51:19 i wasn't aware then and i'm not not aware now that that's the case either well we take that from brian martin's witness statement to paragraph 35 but i think your answer is you were not aware now um
01:51:31 now um going back to your first statement if we can please paragraph 16 page five that's clg3030872
01:51:40 you can see there
01:51:43 there that in the last sentence you say i was involved in taking forward actions in response to the coroner's letter where related submissions were addressed to me for approval
01:51:55 to me for approval now if we just go back then please to the coroner's rule 43 letter which is clg 50401
01:52:05 50401 page 3.
01:52:07 page 3. uh
01:52:08 uh and there it is looking at the first bullet point uh it says it's recommended that your department review adb to ensure that it provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4 of the building
01:52:20 regulation b4 of the building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether proposed work might reduce
01:52:30 reduce existing fire protection now um
01:52:33 now um you didn't see this at the time but did you have any understanding given the role that you say in your statement that you had to name you to take forward actions in response to the
01:52:45 take forward actions in response to the coroner's letter um
01:52:48 um whether that recommendation had been rejected or accepted by the secretary of state no um i mean
01:52:59 with with hindsight you know it is reasonable to say it would have been um
01:53:03 um [Music]
01:53:05 [Music] better if officials had given me a side-by-side explainer or if this is what the coroner asked for and this is what we are doing
01:53:16 asked for and this is what we are doing you know next to them i can see that now um but that wasn't given to me and at the time i i you know i i didn't realize that the
01:53:29 i i you know i i didn't realize that the department might have been doing things that the coroner didn't ask them to do um or was perhaps taking time over some other aspects right i i wouldn't have known that
01:53:40 wouldn't have known that in november 2013. right
01:53:43 right in november 2013 had you any clue even that uh the coroner had recommended that your department review adb at all yes of course i had because because that
01:53:54 yes of course i had because because that that that
01:53:55 that that that is in the that would have been explained to me in november 2013 when it was said that the the window installers scheme needed to be revised
01:54:06 to be revised so i was aware that like an award happened not not the exact circumstances uh that the coroner had made recommendations and it was down to the department and i presume possibly other
01:54:18 department and i presume possibly other people in government to
01:54:21 to address
01:54:22 address her concerns and her recommendations
01:54:27 i'm sorry that that's quite general but that
01:54:29 that general understanding is all i would have had at that point now if you had understood that the coroner had recommended that your department review adb
01:54:39 adb what
01:54:40 what aspects of adb did you think at the time the coroner had recommended be reviewed i think all i would have understood at the time and this is supported by
01:54:51 the time and this is supported by the submissions is that the main concern was was was clarity of the language in the document itself that it was not easy to follow and
01:55:02 and um and and that and that that should be addressed
01:55:06 addressed um i'm trying not to be rude about lawyers yeah i don't i don't know who drafts
01:55:10 drafts uh the the these documents but quite often i can tell you as as a minister and a
01:55:16 and a parliamentarian seeing clauses in bills whether you're a minister or whether you're a shadow minister as i as i had been in the previous parliament quite often things are not written very clearly and i'm a plain english person i
01:55:29 clearly and i'm a plain english person i i think official documents whether they be acts of parliament or statutory instruments or the guidance that follows there from really ought to be written in the clearest possible language with no ambiguity or or caveat so
01:55:42 ambiguity or or caveat so so on that basis what the coroner was saying would have chimed with me well you hadn't seen this letter i hadn't seen the letter now we've established that so
01:55:51 that so so who told you uh
01:55:55 uh that there was a problem with the clarity of the language in approved document b i think it it says so in in the submission that we looked at about 10 minutes ago
01:56:07 that we looked at about 10 minutes ago sure
01:56:08 sure well i'm not sure now because it's not in front of me so but but but certainly um certainly in subsequent discussions even if it's not in this november 2013 one
01:56:19 if it's not in this november 2013 one uh that
01:56:22 that quotation whether it was a direct quotation or it's a summary quotation of the co-owner's concern it was repeated to me several times that that there was concern that the document was not easy
01:56:34 concern that the document was not easy to follow
01:56:35 to follow in terms of you know what what it currently said and obviously an update would make sure that it it reflected building practices uh at the time so it was as up-to-date
01:56:47 uh at the time so it was as up-to-date as possible but also was as clear as possible
01:56:50 possible yes i mean what the coroner recommended um was that its clarity needed to be improved and to ease its use was there a discussion that you had with brian martin or any other
01:57:01 you had with brian martin or any other official about that no i i
01:57:07 no i i i
01:57:07 i i mean obviously a lot a lot of what happens in these circumstances german is that you might say with hindsight with with with hindsight i possibly could
01:57:18 with with hindsight i possibly could have said um please show me give me an example of something that is currently unclear in the document that's currently drafted that might might be misinterpreted by a
01:57:30 might might be misinterpreted by a building contractor or an engineer or an architect or whoever but but i didn't and we didn't did anybody tell you that as a particular element of the clear guidance required as you can see here
01:57:42 guidance required as you can see here from the first bullet point a particular regard had to be had to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building did anybody bring that to your attention
01:57:54 did anybody bring that to your attention in november 2013. no um
01:57:59 no um i don't think the phrase external envelope um would have been used i think it was just windows which which obviously are part of the external envelope for this it's again where you
01:58:10 envelope for this it's again where you might actually say the language is not clear
01:58:14 well what's not clear what external envelope means i was told it was a problem with window installers whereas external envelope could could mean all sorts of things but certainly would include windows
01:58:26 would include windows in relation to clarity then what actions did you work on in taking forward
01:58:34 later on and maybe we'll come to this submission um which would have been prompted probably by um david amis and ronnie knight asking for for a meeting
01:58:45 asking for for a meeting um i was told that the building research establishment had been commissioned to and i wasn't involved in that commission it already happened i assume uh
01:58:56 uh that the officials maybe had delegated uh power to do that or they already had budget from the from the previous year to i don't know but but they had commissioned the building research establishment to look at several uh
01:59:09 establishment to look at several uh aspects that would help them prepare for the review of adb and that did include
01:59:16 include fire resistance uh
01:59:19 uh and sprinklers that that's what i would call at the moment
01:59:25 looking at the second bullet point and i've read it before um if you look at it there expressed in words and adopts a format which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction
01:59:37 and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just the professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control matters did you understand
01:59:48 did you understand whether that recommendation had been rejected or accepted by the secretary of state
01:59:53 state no i didn't but then it was the secretary of state who who is that the head of the department political head of the department uh had
02:00:04 political head of the department uh had made the response and had decided what the had made the response to the coroner and had decided what the scope of the department's work should be and so those decisions have
02:00:15 should be and so those decisions have been made six months before i became a minister so i was following through those decisions that had already been made by by the secretary of state i don't think it was
02:00:26 secretary of state i don't think it was open to me to suspect there might be a need on my part to try and overturn that response no but um you haven't read the letters we've established what i'm seeking to understand is i haven't read
02:00:37 seeking to understand is i haven't read it because i wasn't shown it yeah what i'm seeking to understand is whether your understanding was whether that recommendation as i'm now showing you had been agreed so that you would you
02:00:48 had been agreed so that you would you were taking it forward or rejected so you weren't
02:00:54 certainly language was was referred to several times in the middle of 2014. i i honestly cannot remember what discussion we had um in november 2013 which was just about windows whether it
02:01:05 which was just about windows whether it went to the wider requests that the coroner made but certainly the midpoint of 2014 um when the research was being commissioned and we were having discussions with
02:01:17 discussions with with david and ronnie um then
02:01:21 then it was said to me that the coroner felt that the language was not was not clear enough
02:01:27 enough looking at the last recommendation number three bullet point provides guidance that's a different issue isn't it the the language in which the document is written is a different matter
02:01:36 matter to
02:01:37 to the evidence that backs up the requirements that are in that document so
02:01:42 so my involvement in this period was agreeing with officials that they would commission the relevant research to make sure that the document was up to
02:01:54 to make sure that the document was up to date with what was going on in the building industry as to how that document should then be written um
02:02:02 um is is the next stage i mean i never saw end to end this may be part of the problem chairman and you might reflect on that no minister including the secretary of state of course in this
02:02:14 the secretary of state of course in this case
02:02:15 case um saw from end to end what a revision of
02:02:19 of an approved document was we were involved in parts of the of of the critical path that would lead from we need to change to new document being issued please
02:02:31 new document being issued please everyone adhere to it i was involved i suppose in the first not at the first stage but in in the second stage that might have many subsequent stages to it including the gathering of the evidence
02:02:43 gathering of the evidence and then the cognition on that evidence by officials uh and minister then going out to consultation then writing a document and
02:02:53 and getting it adopted by not adopted by but um
02:02:57 um published so that industry could follow it yes i'm just seeking to get a feel to understand in some detail what it was you were involved in take by way of taking forward actions so my question
02:03:11 taking forward actions so my question i'll put it one more time i hate more clearly looking at the second bullet point there what actions were you involved in taking forward using your language in your statement
02:03:23 statement the the the actions that i would have taken were were actions that i was asked to take i mean that that that is the engagement between a minister and officials
02:03:33 officials officials
02:03:34 officials make a submission to a minister saying you need to know this or we need to do this we need to do it by this date or whatever do you agree or do you not agree or do you need to know more um
02:03:48 agree or do you need to know more um my understanding by the midpoint of 2014 was that
02:03:52 was that the language in the existing approved document
02:03:55 document was not sufficiently clear but it was not my job at that point to rewrite the language that would come maybe a year down the tracks looking at the third bullet point there
02:04:06 looking at the third bullet point there provides guidance which is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock and not only those engaged in design and construction of new buildings same question
02:04:16 question what actions in respect to that recommendation were you involved in taking forward
02:04:24 um i know it's i know chairman it's a separate bullet point i'm not entirely clear it's a materially different point it's it's it's again saying that
02:04:37 it's it's it's again saying that these documents are of no use if people don't understand them and they really ought to be written in intelligible language to everyone who is meant to use them in the course of their work and
02:04:48 use them in the course of their work and just as importantly i suppose everyone who is meant to check that work has been done in accordance with the document and if the language isn't clear then
02:04:57 then nobody is helped by it other than a commitment to publishing a new edition of approved document b in 2016 to 17. that would be more easily understood
02:05:09 understood as is said we've seen no no mention in the documents that your department did anything more to address the coroner's concerns as set out in these three bullet points from your knowledge or recollection do
02:05:20 from your knowledge or recollection do you accept that no because um i i've said to you a couple of times now that i was made aware that the building research establishment had been asked to work on several work streams in order to
02:05:33 work on several work streams in order to help the department address the coroner's concerns and those um we're probably going to come to it but just to help you i think those are in the
02:05:42 in the the lines to take um comments of the submission for the meeting with with david ms and ronnie king i'm sure you're going to come to would say what what the bre work streams were and then later on
02:05:54 bre work streams were and then later on there's the commissioning of work by other providers um that was due to report um in fact i know because i had to ask while preparing for this because i never
02:06:05 while preparing for this because i never saw it that that evidence reported back to the department i think at the end of february 2015 so it would have been in the intra as it were of my successor in answering my question you've referred
02:06:16 in answering my question you've referred to the bre work streams did you think that those work streams were commissioned of the bre in response to the latino coroner's recommendations
02:06:28 coroner's recommendations that was the impression i was given was it were you not told that those have been commissioned before the inquest uh
02:06:39 no i and you well you you you have obviously seen the same document as i saw
02:06:45 saw and i'm sure we'll come to it that i was told these work streams are in progress and they all seemed relevant to me to uh every
02:06:54 uh every uh a rewording redrafting of of the approved document was the wider question so
02:07:01 so i i didn't know that that work had been commissioned before the coroners uh quite but but i think we can agree they they certainly were helpful in addressing her concerns
02:07:15 well i don't think you can attribute any such agreement to me um
02:07:20 um was the wider question of the regulatory system and how it was working in practice ever discussed with you
02:07:28 can you sort of elaborate a little bit was
02:07:33 yes um was there any discussion that you had from november 2013 onwards with any of your officials about
02:07:43 about the building regulations its architecture its relationship with the approved documents and how and whether it worked whether they
02:07:54 and whether it worked whether they worked on the ground you mean in practice that
02:07:59 that there was
02:08:01 there was um not in connection with not directly in connection with approved document
02:08:07 document be but um
02:08:10 be but um i had
02:08:11 i had far more conversations about delivering the zero carbon homes legislation because that that that was something that had to be delivered whatever by march 2015. so i had lots of
02:08:23 whatever by march 2015. so i had lots of conversations with richard harrell and bob ledson uh about that and i do recall a conversation something on the lines of of course you
02:08:34 something on the lines of of course you can regulate uh to say that you should have triple glazing you shall have well insulated front doors and lofts and so on but whatever regulations government put
02:08:46 but whatever regulations government put in place
02:08:47 in place that people don't always follow them so there needs to be adequate monitoring that that industry has kept up with what you're doing and
02:08:57 and i i do recall some reference to the fact that
02:09:01 that the way we build domestic properties in in in this country hasn't changed that much in the fundamentals of bricks and mortar and foundations
02:09:12 mortar and foundations and so on and when you revise regulations there's a whole process that needs to be gone through um by the directors of house building
02:09:23 um by the directors of house building companies all the way down to a 16 year old apprentice one 18 year old apprentice brickie um as to
02:09:31 to what they meant to do and that that that should not be underestimated with the sheer scope of what you're doing and minister paul's a lever but a thousand other levers need to be
02:09:42 a thousand other levers need to be pulled um all the way down to the building site itself and it doesn't necessarily mean that
02:09:50 that everyone's going to be living in a warm home by by 2016. who had functional oversight in your department about the timetabling and the progression of the responses to the recommendations of the
02:10:02 responses to the recommendations of the coroner
02:10:04 coroner functional oversight um
02:10:10 well i guess it would either be bob ledson who was as i understood it head of the building regulations division but i mentioned already the civil service is very hierarchical and he would have had
02:10:21 very hierarchical and he would have had two or three people above him in the food chain in in the department including peter schofield i i i cannot say chairman how hands-on they were
02:10:32 they were in making sure that brian
02:10:35 brian um i watched some of some of his evidence with you last week and the week before um i do not know how many fingers were on his shoulders to make to make sure that that this work
02:10:46 to make to make sure that that this work was being progressed on the other hand that is not a matter for me that is a matter for the professional structure of the civil service
02:10:53 service how often was the progress of the coroner's recommendations reported to you
02:10:57 you was it regular or just whenever you were given submissions no it would have been whenever i was given some issues there would there was not a uh
02:11:06 uh what in business you might call a critical path analysis of of of of the progress on it
02:11:13 and before you say that's unreasonable which i guess you're going to um give given given the backstop date which i know is somewhat fluid from the questions you've
02:11:24 somewhat fluid from the questions you've asked other other people but whether it was 31st december 2016 31st march 2017 or whatever but given that backstop date was quite a long way off in the future for a minister in the summer of 2014
02:11:36 summer of 2014 um
02:11:38 um i would not at that stage of expected to win an alarm bell myself or for officials to to say to me well we're running into trouble here whereas the department did
02:11:50 department did track
02:11:51 track um
02:11:52 um progress
02:11:54 progress against quite a lot of things i i i mentioned when you asked me how often did i interact with eric pickles that we had these wednesday morning meetings called prayers and at each of those
02:12:05 called prayers and at each of those meetings there was a tracking document uh
02:12:08 uh for all sorts of things what stage is a bill at what stage is the statutory instrument at what stage is the consultation at and so on but they were all things for all things that were time critical for delivery um by
02:12:21 were time critical for delivery um by that government due in the life of that government um i don't think like students in the scope of the inquiry to ask for a copy of that document which was refreshed every week i don't think this sort of thing would
02:12:33 i don't think this sort of thing would have been on it because the critical time was not up until march 2015. it would have been due in 2016 sorry the remainder of 2015 and at some point in early 2016.
02:12:45 point in early 2016. where's the progress of the coroner's recommendations ever discussed at these prayer meetings wednesday morning meetings no i don't i i honestly don't think so but um given that there were probably
02:12:58 given that there were probably uh 80 of them in the time i was a minister i mean you know i i can't definitively say they were never discussed but they don't think they were for the reasons i've just given um
02:13:10 for the reasons i've just given um whereas
02:13:11 whereas certainly
02:13:13 certainly in the from december 2014 onwards there was increasing anxiety
02:13:19 anxiety amongst ministers and department heads that that government's time was running out
02:13:25 out and
02:13:26 and statutory instruments need to be written i'm afraid the lawyers got a lot of stick for not writing them on time and so on and
02:13:33 so on and we we were very concerned so so the department did have a tracking mechanism ministers were involved in discussing that tracking mechanism but it was for things that were time critical
02:13:45 things that were time critical within the next week the next quarter or perhaps the next six months this this revision of part b given the dates that were committed to by the secretary of state
02:13:57 by the secretary of state was not
02:14:00 considered critically at risk i guess during the time that i was a minister what did you understand by 2016 2017
02:14:11 2016 2017 yeah
02:14:12 yeah chairman i've seen i've seen the the questions
02:14:16 questions i've seen you referring mr miller to melody dawes's answer so i'll ask the question again what did you understand what did you think it meant i i understood it to mean 31st march 2017
02:14:27 i understood it to mean 31st march 2017 at the latest i i now understand from what other people have said in evidence to you that that may have been an erroneous assumption but that's what i thought it meant do you know that there was
02:14:38 do you know that there was did you think that there was a proper system of recording which of these recommendations had been accepted which had been rejected or which had been half and half by the
02:14:51 or which had been half and half by the secretary of state no i didn't uh i didn't ask i think i've already said to you that with hindsight it would have been
02:15:02 with hindsight it would have been beneficial to to me to have had decided a single page a side-by-side comparison but but that if that existed it was not shown to me
02:15:13 if that existed it was not shown to me um i i can't tell you whether it existed and the officials could tell you whether it existed i'm going to turn to a different topic international cladding fires now in the period 2013 to 15 while you
02:15:26 now in the period 2013 to 15 while you were parliamentary under secretary at the department were you aware of a spate of high-rise fires in the uae no
02:15:35 no so did can it take can we take it uh that uh you haven't heard of fires in the in charger in 2012 or in dubai in october 2012
02:15:46 october 2012 or in in sharjah again in april 2013. the short answer is is no i mean i'm i'm a news hound i you know and i'm not parochial i do take any i'm
02:15:58 and i'm not parochial i do take any i'm interested in what's going on outside this country and outside europe even but i'm afraid i was not aware of those particular incidents and i was not made aware of those particular incidents either right and what about the fire in
02:16:09 either right and what about the fire in the la crosse building in melbourne on the 25th of november 2014 no did you get to hear about that no and what about the fire at the torch skyscraper in dubai in february 2015.
02:16:20 february 2015. uh no i i i i can help you by by saying i i
02:16:26 i have no recollection of international examples of fires being brought to my attention at any point right did and did you make any inquiries yourself or ask anybody in your
02:16:38 yourself or ask anybody in your department about whether there were risks to high-rise buildings here in the uk as a result of any overseas fires presumably not uh no but but given given that i wasn't aware that those incidences you just listed had happened
02:16:51 incidences you just listed had happened then
02:16:53 then it's not a question i would have asked um so i was aware that black and all had happened or i've been made aware that black and all happened which was a spread from one flat to another but i was also told
02:17:04 one flat to another but i was also told that was
02:17:05 that was unusual extraordinarily unusual in fact in this country and
02:17:11 and the british government's responsibility or the westminster government's responsibility and evolution is for regulations in this country it's while i think evidence from abroad is is obviously useful
02:17:22 obviously useful um
02:17:23 um it's not our responsibility so i wasn't made aware of any of those and i had no reason to ask whether
02:17:30 whether other countries have worse incidents than we have which seems to be what you're describing did you expect your officials to have kept you appraised of any relevant matters of
02:17:43 appraised of any relevant matters of concern any relevant issues that were being experienced by the building industry if they related to life safety i
02:17:52 i well i would i would have had that expectation and i have no reason to believe that they weren't um
02:18:00 um yes i did i did mention earlier electrical safety and the competing compton persons verification schemes in that area we we did have a discussion
02:18:12 in that area we we did have a discussion about why fires start um and the most common cause i think was um electrical failure and this was the concern of the select committee
02:18:23 concern of the select committee that
02:18:24 that scrutinized you know the statutory select committee that scrutinizes the department's work and i was grilled about that um given what you've just asked me a couple of questions ago i suppose it's
02:18:35 of questions ago i suppose it's surprising that those international incidents were were not brought out in in in those formal evidence sessions but but but they weren't so i guess nobody was aware officially that they happened but
02:18:47 officially that they happened but nonetheless electrical the the risk from poor electrical work causing a fire was was certainly discussed and we had a general discussion about you know why the incidence of of fire
02:19:00 incidence of of fire fire breaking out has has declined over time and and regulation is a key part of that in you in terms of furniture design uh television design that you know television will switch off automatically
02:19:11 television will switch off automatically after a few hours uh if you don't engage with it and so on and all of those regulatory changes have
02:19:18 have have contributed to to the reduction in the breakout of five so certainly that discussion was had
02:19:25 so you did have discussions about the statistics showing the relative decline of fire safety death fire deaths is that right
02:19:36 right yes there there was a discussion about i think that would have been in advance of the meeting with david amos and and and ronnie king i i remember my own contribution to that because for three years prior to being a
02:19:49 because for three years prior to being a minister i was chair of the all party group on smoking and public health and
02:19:55 and as well as electrical faults decreasing uh over time because of technical requirements on on them on on lots of things in in the home that
02:20:06 on on lots of things in in the home that that
02:20:07 that cigarette smoking incidence has declined from i'm guessing the age of all of us here so um has declined from probably 60 percent of the adult population in in the 1980s to less than a fifth now in
02:20:21 the 1980s to less than a fifth now in england and very few fires are now started by people falling asleep in bed or or the armchair with with a in their fingers so so lots of things have contributed to the decline in in in fires and
02:20:35 in in in fires and as a liberal interventionist i said to you earlier i think regulation has an important and parliament has an important role in making sure that that trend continues
02:20:46 did you get the sense at any time from your discussion with officials on the question of statistics
02:20:52 that they regarded that is an a a a a good sign which meant that perhaps they were overlooking things
02:21:04 overlooking things particularly in relation to the severity of of individual events
02:21:10 well there's a value judgment in the middle of that question um
02:21:14 um yes did you make that value judgment i took at face value and i had no reason to contradict them that the incidence of fires in terms of the number of outbreaks had had declined
02:21:27 number of outbreaks had had declined over time and for reasons that i've just said
02:21:33 we did not have a discussion that amongst that reduced number the severity of the fire might be worse
02:21:44 so is that clear was there any discussion at any time you can recall about whether the six deaths at lacanal fell within the statistical expectation
02:21:56 i'm not it's an odd question i'm not sure that there is a statistical expectation of the number of deaths that are expected or reasonable from fire i'd have thought if there was a stressful
02:22:07 have thought if there was a stressful expectation it should be zero well within the norm
02:22:13 no it certainly wasn't in the norm i mean certainly in that i'd say in the brief conversation that i i had about like lachlan has um on two occasions that it was said to me that this was an
02:22:25 that it was said to me that this was an extraordinary event should not have happened and because it happened in 2009 and leaving aside the international examples you've given it had not happened in the intervening
02:22:37 it had not happened in the intervening years since 2009 to 2014 when i would have been having these discussions um and i i was aware that
02:22:46 that fires break out in tower blocks and don't usually spread um
02:22:52 my constituency bristol west um has i think at least a dozen tower blocks in it and i've been the councillor for the city centre where
02:23:03 councillor for the city centre where most of them are before i was a member of parliament you know there isn't a door i haven't knocked on a landing i haven't walked along in in in those tower blocks in the last 30 years and fires did occasionally break
02:23:14 years and fires did occasionally break out but they never spread including one actually did break out in the time i was a minister um and com difficulty saying is where compartmentation uh worked in all of
02:23:27 compartmentation uh worked in all of those examples that is why grenfell is just so horrifying i want to turn to the appg the all party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group
02:23:38 group uh
02:23:40 uh can we start please with the statement of eric pickles that clg 30 is 19471 [Music]
02:23:49 [Music] and go to page 24 in that document paragraph 82
02:23:55 and in the middle of the page he says this i've subsequently been shown correspondence received by the department from the all parliamentary the all party parliamentary fire and rescue safety group which was dealt with at the junior
02:24:06 group which was dealt with at the junior minister level i did not see this correspondence at the time or the responses the department sent i'm disappointed to see that the convention of politeness in interministerial correspondence was not always adhered to
02:24:21 now that's his view looking back on your time as parliamentary under secretary um would you agree
02:24:34 um
02:24:36 the convention of politeness on politicians communicating with each other
02:24:43 other i would say i'm at the polite end of the scale
02:24:46 scale you're going to question mr pickles shortly i believe i think he's perhaps further along the scale of impoliteness than i am
02:24:54 than i am so i think i don't know who he's referring to he doesn't say does he um and the apbg as i know had correspondence with lots of ministers before my time after my time and at the
02:25:06 before my time after my time and at the same time because because there was there were two fire ministers that um coexisted with me in the in the department so i don't know who he's referring to there
02:25:17 but i'm i'm a well brought up person i like to be polite
02:25:23 be polite but but politicians can sometimes be direct and blunt to each other in a way that other people might think is not the way you should speak to each other but then i guess we're more thick-skinned than
02:25:35 thick-skinned than than some other people or some other people reading it later on
02:25:41 now um i'm not going to go through all the correspondence with the appg just to be just to be clear about one or two things
02:25:48 things i think you'll agree the late sir david amis mp was the group's chairman yes and ronnie king obe their honorary secretary yes that's correct there's two individuals that i think you can agree
02:26:00 individuals that i think you can agree you know about now i'm not going to go through all the correspondence but it's right i think isn't it that in the first part of 2014 you received letters from both ronnie king and sir david amis on the subject
02:26:12 king and sir david amis on the subject of sprinklers the subject of research by the bre
02:26:15 the bre the lachenal inquest and the proposed review of adb yes yes now let's look at the first of the letters first of may 2014 from sir david
02:26:26 letters first of may 2014 from sir david amis
02:26:28 amis clg 3019248
02:26:34 uh and there it is uh and it's addressed to you as the minister uh and in the first paragraph it refers to previous correspondence between you and ronnie king
02:26:45 and ronnie king and if you look at the start of the second
02:26:47 second paragraph
02:26:48 paragraph it discusses research which the group believed showed the benefit of sprinklers what i want to do is look at the second part of the second paragraph halfway down and it's a sentence which starts mr king
02:26:59 and it's a sentence which starts mr king can you see that on the left mr keen also referred correct mr king also referred in his correspondence to his personal involvement with the latin house coroner's inquest last year where clarification was given from your
02:27:10 where clarification was given from your department that the current building regulations allowed the composite panels under the external wall window sets of such tower blocks not to have any fire resistance and this weakness in the
02:27:21 resistance and this weakness in the regulations remains uncorrected today despite the upward spread of fire which occurred resulting in the deaths of six people
02:27:30 people now my first question did you read this letter at the time that
02:27:36 that that's difficult for me to say definitively yes or no to chairman simply because um i think in my first session this morning
02:27:47 i think in my first session this morning i probably gave you a lot of context about how i worked and how the office worked um i'm trying not to do that again now but the volume of correspondence that i dealt with you shouldn't underestimate
02:27:58 dealt with you shouldn't underestimate how considerable it was and
02:28:01 and letters
02:28:02 letters that go out in my name either as a minister in this case or was a member of parliament of course i still was are drafted by colleagues
02:28:13 are drafted by colleagues uh
02:28:14 uh and
02:28:15 and usually what you would see would be the reply uh rather than the incoming uh as it were and you have to trust your colleagues that they have addressed the the points that come through
02:28:27 the the points that come through otherwise you would simply grind to a halt i mean when i say volume i'm talking hundreds a week um does that tell us that you although you might sign the replies to letters such as these you didn't actually
02:28:38 such as these you didn't actually necessarily always see the letters themselves that that that is true i it's not it's not to say i never saw the incoming letter or asked to see the incoming letter but you should not assume
02:28:50 letter but you should not assume either from me or any other minister or indeed an mp gen generally of course with parliamentary researchers to draft all their correspondence that you see and read everything that comes in
02:29:01 and read everything that comes in um because because you don't that's just simply not how how how the system works um right so some of the letters that
02:29:12 don't don't assume that i automatically signed every single letter and gave no thought to them i definitely don't want you to think that but i couldn't question the veracity of every single
02:29:23 question the veracity of every single letter in front of me because you couldn't do that given you're also dealing with submissions parliamentary questions oral questions delegations etc
02:29:35 etc and um
02:29:37 and um most of my letters were signed on the move
02:29:39 move um
02:29:40 um i was a minister that didn't want to sit behind the desk um i got out to the department at least twice a week and
02:29:48 and most of my correspondence was signed in the back of a car uh on the way to a visit if he was in london or or on a train if he was somewhere else then the private sector
02:29:59 somewhere else then the private sector who was accompanying me on that visit would
02:30:02 would hand me the letter i would read i would read it uh would would would sign it um hand it back to the official put it in the folder put it back in the back and that that's the process
02:30:15 that that's the process um
02:30:16 um well forgive me because i had understood and maybe this is wrong that when an mp who was chairman of an all parliamentary committee wrote to the minister uh the minister would read the letter
02:30:27 uh the minister would read the letter but is that i've got that wrong have i i wouldn't say you've got it you've got it absolutely 100 wrong i'm just i'm just saying to you i cannot give you the assurance that i read
02:30:39 give you the assurance that i read the incoming correspondence to which a reply was going out in my name because if i did that i would be misleading you and i'm just honestly telling you that routinely you did not read the incoming
02:30:51 routinely you did not read the incoming correspondence you you read the reply if if you were suspicious that the reply was
02:30:58 was defective then you could do you know it was open to me to reject it quite often i did rewrite letters because they were badly written but that's that's another issue but should we understand that um
02:31:10 issue but should we understand that um even letters from an all-party parliamentary group might not be seen by a minister even though he signed the response
02:31:27 yes um we we i don't know whether you came i did whether you've covered this with previous witnesses what the status of an apbg
02:31:36 apbg is
02:31:37 is i think we have been told but yeah that that they're not they're not um
02:31:45 um bodies to which ministers or accounts i think this is what you may be getting at correctly from wrong ministers are accountable to the select committee they're accountable to parliament where you answer all questions and written
02:31:56 you answer all questions and written questions they are not accountable to an all-party group which is the self-selected i think i understand so so the the question so the way that they are written sorry they are
02:32:07 they are the letter does come from a body of mps and therefore i assume is regarded as having been written by that group of mps
02:32:18 written by that group of mps and i had
02:32:19 and i had thought perhaps wrongly that in general uh correspondence from mps would be read by the minister but that may not be the case i don't know no because
02:32:30 case i don't know no because no it isn't the case because david would not have been the only member of parliament writing to me or indeed other ministers in the department about all sorts of things
02:32:40 things um i think the rule would have been that a letter from an mp fellow mp or indeed a member of the house of lords or default administration gets a response from the minister
02:32:52 gets a response from the minister with quite a lot of other correspond i don't know the department can tell you what the volume of incoming was but quite a lot of other correspondence may have been dealt with directly by an official but yes the expectation would
02:33:04 official but yes the expectation would be that a letter from an mp would get a response directly from the minister um
02:33:10 um but doesn't necessarily mean that you read everything that came in from them all right but then in that case how are you able to be confident that the draft reply which you bought the reply that
02:33:22 reply which you bought the reply that you were being asked to sign did actually engage with the contents of the letters that have been written to you
02:33:31 i think the best way for me to answer that is to say there's an element of trust issue there that
02:33:35 that if an official who by that stage had met got the feel of has written a response on your behalf none of these letters are written by
02:33:47 none of these letters are written by either the mp in terms of just history correspondence or the minister they're all originated by someone else you have to trust them that they have addressed the issues that you're being asked to put your name
02:33:58 that you're being asked to put your name to
02:33:59 to and
02:34:00 and that was the position i was in and as i said given that i was signing letters and umpteen other things at the time some sometimes the judgment that was in the letter i didn't like but that's that's that's
02:34:12 didn't like but that's that's that's because
02:34:13 because there was more political latitude there was if there was an issue about how you deal with race equality or chanting in football grounds which which are real examples not making
02:34:24 which which are real examples not making them up um i could take a view on but where an official was responding to a letter on a technical issue where he was the expert and i was the layman then
02:34:35 then i had to give more trust to that to that individual that the response was was adequate yes otherwise we don't get anywhere because
02:34:46 otherwise we don't get anywhere because i can't couldn't have second guessed everything that was being put in front of me i understand thank you very much thank you thank you well looking at this letter um
02:34:59 um does it fall within the perhaps minority of cases which um where you did read it but just looking at what i've shown you have you any recollection of what i'm
02:35:10 have you any recollection of what i'm showing you no i'm sorry i don't right look at the last paragraph on the page it says the group is at a loss to understand how this delay to review these life safety measures can be left unaddressed until 2016-17 despite your
02:35:22 unaddressed until 2016-17 despite your reference to government published guidance on regulatory policy via the better regulation executive's web page now um i don't remember that paragraph but i do remember discussing with
02:35:34 but i do remember discussing with officials that the primary concern of of the apg was if you like the timeliness uh of of the review that 2016 2017 however it's defined uh was
02:35:49 2017 however it's defined uh was too far off into the future and uh
02:35:52 uh a swifter
02:35:54 a swifter redrafting of the document was required but what what officials said to me to counter that was that don't underestimate the the level of work that needs to be done to revise an approved document is i
02:36:06 done to revise an approved document is i think there is a phrase in a submission that i've read and that you have as well which says these things cannot be done overnight and david's expectation was that
02:36:15 that um this thing could be done quickly he was never clear about what what his revised timetable should be you know whether it should be 31st december 2016 or
02:36:25 or or 30th first of july 2016. it's never clear on what quicker meant um but officials were clear with me that at that stage where i was involved there
02:36:37 that stage where i was involved there was no scope for speeding things up because we were in the evidence gathering stage there may have been scope for speeding things up later once you've got the evidence
02:36:45 evidence um but that's you know that's that's that's for you to ask my successes about um but at this stage there was no scope for a speeding up have you finished
02:36:57 have you finished yes because i haven't done i haven't actually asked you a question yet oh sorry i thought you had no i just put the paragraph to you and my question is this is the first of may 2014
02:37:09 this is the first of may 2014 is this
02:37:10 is this paragraph the first time that you
02:37:14 that you were alerted to the fact that this committee was concerned about the delay to review of what it calls life safety measures
02:37:27 what it calls life safety measures being left unaddressed until 2016 to 17. uh it would yes well sorry i pre i preempted your question by saying yes around about this time
02:37:39 around about this time because i think the request for a meeting comes in within a week of or sort of this that that was a concern uh that david
02:37:50 that that was a concern uh that david and david amos and ronnie king had that the government was not responding quickly enough as far as they were concerned
02:37:58 concerned and
02:38:01 and they were characterized these measures as life safety measures did you understand at this time that
02:38:10 that what
02:38:11 what they were concerned about was a deligh a delay to a review of life safety measures yes but but um
02:38:23 yes but but um i didn't get involved in all of the approved documents as we know they're quite quite quite a lot on cover in different areas but i think most of them you could say are concerned with life safety whether it's the risk
02:38:35 with life safety whether it's the risk of falls and accidents or the risk of faulty electrical work uh breaking out so i i i'm not sure it's fair to characterize them as in in a hierarchy which i think
02:38:47 them as in in a hierarchy which i think is what you're trying to do saying that part b is more important than part k or part p or whatever um i didn't see them in that light and no one told me that
02:38:58 one told me that some are more important than others so i think they all or certainly most of them are are due to the personal safety of residents or visitors or prisoners or hotel
02:39:10 or visitors or prisoners or hotel stayers or or work
02:39:13 or work people in their workplace that that's why all of them are there let's look at the response um can we go to that please it's at one clg
02:39:23 one clg two four nine please
02:39:28 um and i should i'm so sorry i i should have shown you uh we don't need to get back to it but the letter ends with an invitation to you to meet with the group on the 17th of june 2014. all right so
02:39:40 on the 17th of june 2014. all right so when i said simultaneously invited both simultaneously yeah now um let's look at this response um we can see that your name is at the bottom and there's a signature is that your signature yes so can we take it uh that
02:39:53 signature yes so can we take it uh that you read this letter at the time before you signed it up but yes i've absolutely i wha what we've established i didn't necessarily read um the background
02:40:04 necessarily read um the background material to to to reply i certainly read the replies and uh let's look at it thank you for your letter of first of may in response to my letter to mr king the honorary administrative secretary of the all
02:40:16 administrative secretary of the all parliamentary fire safety and rescue group regarding the group's calls for a revision to approved of approved document b to the building regulations so just to be clear you're thanking him
02:40:27 so just to be clear you're thanking him for a letter you hadn't read or might not have read in accordance with your practice well
02:40:35 well again this this is a letter written by by by an official almost certainly brian who you saw last week
02:40:48 right and and again it's a letter about about about the timing uh and i already knew that the timing was a concern that they had whether it was because i read the letter
02:41:00 whether it was because i read the letter or whether because i'd been told uh that was that that was one of their their concerns the other the other mainly been about um installing sprinklers uh in in buildings
02:41:12 sprinklers uh in in buildings when you signed this letter did you have in front of you at least your own letter to ronnie king mr king to which
02:41:20 to which sir david amos's letter was the first of may response no because that that
02:41:27 that again wouldn't wouldn't have been the way the office worked now i'm taking this reply on face value at face value and i'm signing it in in that way
02:41:38 and i'm signing it in in that way um
02:41:39 um right it says i'll be happy to meet him i can't i don't know now whether this is before or after the original request for a meeting was was rejected which i ended up overturning
02:41:50 overturning well we'll come to that um but looking at the second paragraph you say this in your letter you say that the group does not understand why a review is being left until 2016-17
02:42:01 being left until 2016-17 perhaps i've not made myself clear we expect a revised document to be published around that time preliminary work leading to that publication has in fact already started a review of such an important document
02:42:13 a review of such an important document is a significant activity and covers a wide range of complex issues and conflicting views as i said in my letter to mr king what i'm not willing to do is bring this program of work forward
02:42:24 bring this program of work forward then you go on to say i will of course be happy to meet with you all party group where my diary permits yeah
02:42:31 yeah uh who drafted this letter well that that that i don't know and i i don't know now and i'm not sure i would have known then um my assumption is it was brian martin
02:42:42 um my assumption is it was brian martin um
02:42:43 um and
02:42:43 and um
02:42:45 um as in any professional office i assume if he drafted a letter it would have been authorized by someone the great with silzera's works in the grade above him which either would have
02:42:56 grade above him which either would have been richard howell or bob ledson but you know i i don't know when it was handed to you did you what did you make of the tone of that middle paragraph to which you were being asked to put your name
02:43:08 to put your name i can't
02:43:10 i can't i it's not possible for me now to to know what i thought about the tone of this letter or other letters at the time but other than you know
02:43:21 you know i knew david amos and despite the fact we were here we didn't agree on much as as
02:43:27 as uh mps in the same coalition government and um
02:43:31 and um uh he he gets a friendly sign off from me rather than you as sincerely stephen williams which other people might have got so so on my part there's no animus intended
02:43:42 intended um
02:43:45 um perhaps i have not made myself clear is it's not something if i'd been writing the letter personally or if it was going to a constituent um that word would not have left the building but it wasn't i hadn't written
02:43:57 building but it wasn't i hadn't written the letter it was an official letter uh that i'm signing it's going to another member of parliament who's feelings um you know aren't necessarily something i need to worry about
02:44:12 but it does say and it reiterates and we've gone over this ground the preliminary work had has has started and
02:44:24 what i wasn't able to do was to bring forward the end date
02:44:30 date and you know that's one of the issues i've thought about you could i have challenged officials to say you know why 2017 yeah why not end 2016 mid-2016
02:44:42 why not end 2016 mid-2016 what what whatever but but i was told there's a process to be gone through it is a convoluted and long one and given that my time in office was due to end almost
02:44:54 time in office was due to end almost almost to the day a year after this this this letter my ability to influence things was getting the evidence in at that point which was done i'm sure we're going to come to that but that that was
02:45:06 going to come to that but that that was done
02:45:08 would you agree that the middle paragraph of that letter discloses barely concealed irritation with the appg
02:45:19 um well
02:45:22 well this is where we get to the issue that i'm not the person who wrote the letter i i don't
02:45:29 i i don't it is impossible for me to know where i was at the point of signing that letters as i explained to you quite it's quite possible he was in a waiting room in wolverhampton railway station or
02:45:40 wolverhampton railway station or something that i was signing lots of letters and quickly handed them back to the official um
02:45:47 that it that there clearly is an expression of irritation but it it wasn't necessarily mine well if it wasn't yours why did you put
02:45:58 well if it wasn't yours why did you put your name to the bottom of it well well because these aren't personal letters mr miller they're they're
02:46:03 they're they're not friendly notes between colleagues they are um
02:46:09 um official correspondents from their corporate correspondence if you like from a government minister to another parliamentarian whatever they're not they're not i i did say to you
02:46:20 not they're not i i did say to you earlier if this was a letter to mr david amos who who lived in bristol west that letter would have been had a big red line through it but
02:46:31 had a big red line through it but that's not what these letters are and
02:46:34 and a minister is replying in a corporate sense on behalf of an organization and the government it's not you you should not
02:46:43 not interpret personal feelings from it because that's not what they are and yeah i've said to you that david and i were
02:46:51 were totally different people uh in terms of our political values but we actually liked it well i like to think we liked each other i certainly liked him and we got on and we knew each other and that's why he i know you're going to
02:47:02 and that's why he i know you're going to come to this that's why he got his meeting because he came up to me and said i'm disappointed that your officials have told you not to meet with me can we have the meeting i said well yeah yes okay let's let's hear what you
02:47:13 yeah yes okay let's let's hear what you have to say given that you hadn't read or may not have read
02:47:19 have read uh the
02:47:20 uh the letter to which this letter you were signing was a response did you not ask yourself or the official you handed it to your signature what it was uh that the first of first of may letter had misunderstood
02:47:36 well the second the second paragraph says you may have misunderstood and this is what you should understand that preliminary work is underway i think i think
02:47:47 think possibly thinking back in it that
02:47:51 that david and ronnie king were under the impression the department was not moving with sufficient alacrity to address this issue officials felt they were moving at the required speed
02:48:02 they were moving at the required speed to
02:48:03 to deliver the document by the required date the the so the the the end date the end date was not set by me it was something that was in place and had gone through
02:48:15 through a process six months before i became a minister so i wasn't able to twiddle the end date
02:48:20 end date what i was able to do was to make sure that by the time i left office we'd made good progress on having a fighting chance of meeting that end date let me try it slightly differently um the sentence perhaps i have not made
02:48:32 the sentence perhaps i have not made myself clear we expect a revised document to be published around that time now before you signed off on that sentence and its tone did it not occur to you that you might like to equate yourself with precisely
02:48:43 like to equate yourself with precisely what it was that missed that uh mr david had said which justified that sentence
02:48:53 possibly and as it you know essentially a couple of times now it's impossible for me to know now whether there was a discussion about this letter i've been open with you by saying the chances are there wasn't a discussion
02:49:04 chances are there wasn't a discussion about it simply because of the sheer volume of correspondence across a range of issues that i would have been signing off along with lots of other things at the same time that the the
02:49:15 the thought process that you go through when your private sectors are saying agree this look at that is
02:49:22 is necessarily limited did you ever think that to publish a new version of approved document b three or even four years after the coroner had recommended it be updated
02:49:33 coroner had recommended it be updated even if only to be simplified and the best part of eight years after six people had died was frustrating yes
02:49:42 yes i did
02:49:45 i did i did understand that at the time it's not a retrospective um hindsight understanding i i mean i i did feel that david was making some reasonable points which is why i told officials i want to
02:49:58 which is why i told officials i want to hear what he has to say because i felt he did have some reasonable points about time scale and ronnie king in particular uh had a long-standing issue about
02:50:09 uh had a long-standing issue about installing sprinklers and builds and i wanted to hear it um when you asked in one of the earlier questions this morning did you ever challenge officials well actually on this issue i did i said i want to hear what they have to say yes now david amos
02:50:22 what they have to say yes now david amos as i've shown you um raised concerns over composite panels the lack of fire resistance in component parts uh and weaknesses in the building regulations and external fire spread
02:50:34 regulations and external fire spread um did you have a view when you signed this letter about those concerns about about whether they were genuine and well-founded or about whether they were illegitimate and baseless
02:50:47 were illegitimate and baseless well those those are two extremes aren't they uh or somewhere between the two extremes i would say with somewhere in between i mean ministers have lots of people trying to influence them they have
02:50:59 trying to influence them they have fellow parliamentarians trying to influence them sometimes in competing directions they have lobbyists who come to see them they have constituents who come to see them and you have to weigh up
02:51:09 up how much weight do you give to this person is against to that person this this
02:51:15 this this is an area where i was not
02:51:18 i was not the expert um
02:51:21 um on other issues um i felt i was more expert sometimes than than the officials given that they changed quite often but in this area i was not the expert
02:51:32 was not the expert i was relying on people who not only held themselves out to be the experts but had demonstrated to me by by this stage that they had been in
02:51:43 by by this stage that they had been in those positions for some time knew the issues inside out and were giving me the appropriate advice and i yeah with hindsight i'd like to say to you i should have
02:51:54 i'd like to say to you i should have second guessed them i should have repeatedly challenged them but i put it to you if that was the case i couldn't have done my job at some point ministers have to take at face
02:52:05 point ministers have to take at face value and trust the opinions being given to them by their officials and that's who you should give the most weight to yes there are challenging opinions from outside and
02:52:14 and david amis was and ronnie king were one of them and i did listen to them but ultimately i think i'd be we'd be having a more fierce exchange
02:52:26 we'd be having a more fierce exchange at this point chairman if if you were asking me why i'd ignored the advice of officials who were employed by the government to advise ministers was in fact i followed their advice
02:52:38 was in fact i followed their advice but
02:52:39 but forgive me but um this isn't advice is it uh other than it's a suggested response that you should sign in response to a letter they haven't shown you
02:52:50 so well it's it's it's a it's not advice no it's a letter it's it's it but it's but it's a it's it's it's a letter that contains facts and facts that are relevant that says
02:53:02 facts that are relevant that says would you like while you david have concerns that the review has been left until 2016 2017 which he incidentally never queried the detail over what that meant
02:53:13 queried the detail over what that meant or what he thought the alternative meaning should be that conversation certainly never took place but given that they had a concern that it wasn't being done quickly then
02:53:24 that it wasn't being done quickly then that the letter is giving factual information that work is underway and and in 2014 you know what what what else would you expect for that to be
02:53:35 else would you expect for that to be work underway certainly you could not conclude
02:53:39 conclude the work
02:53:41 the work anytime soon from from 2014 you in the next six months or whatever
02:53:55 [Music]
02:53:59 the letter i showed you is me the letter i showed you contained a number of things not least about external fire spread and
02:54:10 and approve document b
02:54:14 you don't know because you didn't read it but this letter wasn't addressing those concerns do you
02:54:21 do you well that that that is true well well i think what i said to you is it is impossible for me to say to you that i've read it because i i cannot it's a puzzle for me eight years on to
02:54:33 it's a puzzle for me eight years on to to to know whether i i read uh an incoming piece of correspondence obviously i read the replies in every single circumstance um but i cannot be sure that i i knew
02:54:46 um but i cannot be sure that i i knew what the response was addressing
02:54:50 not sure how more open i can be about that
02:54:56 does that explain why you addressed none of those matters in this letter you haven't been shown it
02:55:06 from what you're saying i don't think it doesn't address any of the letters uh the issues in in the incoming letter it does address the timetable
02:55:17 it does address the timetable and i had been told that that and the issue about sprinklers was the main concern of of david amos and
02:55:28 main concern of of david amos and and ronnie king and although sprinklers aren't mentioned in this letter the timetable is
02:55:36 mr chairman we're going to turn uh to a different topic just a little bit further on in the chronology i'm happy to start it now well i wonder if that's wise we've only got two and a half minutes quite on the clock i think
02:55:49 half minutes quite on the clock i think we'd be best to start a fresh topic and we've all had some refreshments very good yes
02:55:54 good yes and mr williams i think it's better we stopped for lunch now so we'll break we'll resume please at two o'clock and again i have to ask you please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it yeah find her
02:56:06 anything relating to it yeah find her out to the room all right my sandwich ready in the room well done thank you off you go with the usher then please
02:56:21 thank you very much mr millett two o'clock then please yes
02:56:40 you