Richard Harrell, former Head of Technical Policy at DCLG, gives evidence about delays in reviewing Approved Document B, the seven work streams research, resource constraints, and the impact of the housing standards review on the department's capacity to address fire safety guidance.
00:00:26 would you ask Mr Harold to come back in please thank you
00:00:38 all right Mr hurl ready to carry on thank you yes yes Mr Grange yes thank you yes now we know from your witness statement and from the documents um including the Department's opening
00:00:49 including the Department's opening submissions that that um there were various delays in terms of progressing the review of approved document B and responding to the lacol recommendations um and what I want to do is pick up on a few key points in the chronology in the
00:01:02 few key points in the chronology in the next section between 2014 and the gral fire in June 2017 so um starting in May 2014 so we know you took up your post as head of
00:01:13 know you took up your post as head of technical policy in January 2014 so a few months in we know that a meeting was organized on the 7th of May 2014 between ministers and dclg officials to discuss
00:01:25 ministers and dclg officials to discuss what could be done to streamline and simplify the approved documents and in advance of that me meeting we know that you sent a submission bearing Mr leedom's name dated the 30th of April
00:01:36 leedom's name dated the 30th of April 2014 to Steven Williams on the 6th of May 2014 if we could just look at that submission it's at CLG 301
00:01:51 9744 so here is uh the submission do do you remember having any involvement in this submission um no I don't think I did right well let's just quickly look
00:02:02 did right well let's just quickly look at paragraph six on page
00:02:07 two we can see it says there um we entirely agree that there's scope to significantly improve the approved documents and proposed to scope out a program of work aimed at ensuring
00:02:18 program of work aimed at ensuring guidance is as lean as possible whilst meeting industry needs for some approved documents where technical content is up to date we would concentrate on simplification and improving Clarity of
00:02:29 simplification and improving Clarity of language to make life easier for Developers for some ads we will need to undertake a fundamental review because technical guidance is now getting out of
00:02:40 technical guidance is now getting out of date particularly Part B fire do you see that I do now was it your understanding as at April May 2014 that the part B guidance was getting out of
00:02:53 guidance was getting out of date well it had last been reviewed in 2006 so um yes in terms of kind of periodicity of
00:03:04 yes in terms of kind of periodicity of review yeah um uh that's starting to stretch I understand that in terms of time periods but were you aware that there were concrete things within the approved document that were seen by the
00:03:16 approved document that were seen by the department as out ofd and in need of
00:03:21 revision Well we'd already commissioned in 2012 a series of research projects to inform uh the ADB riew and um those indicated in places I
00:03:37 riew and um those indicated in places I if I recall correctly that we did need to update um aspects of the guidance they hadn't been clearly those research reports were in in process at that time
00:03:48 reports were in in process at that time yes but they were in areas where we thought there was a need for um potential
00:03:53 potential development I see so is it fair to say that those areas where you'd commissioned research already as you say in 2012 so that's before the coroner's recommendations were areas where the
00:04:05 recommendations were areas where the department thought that ADB was getting out of date there were areas where we wanted to have a better evidence-base to understand where the changes needed to be made to ADB right yes now just
00:04:18 be made to ADB right yes now just picking up on that research that was my next subtopic some brief questions now about that research work that was commissioned which is referred to as the seven work streams research is that correct yeah yeah BD 2678 I think right
00:04:33 correct yeah yeah BD 2678 I think right um now you tell us in your witness statement that that work was important in being able to launch the part B technical review is that correct yes that's at page 20 paragraph 65 um was it
00:04:45 that's at page 20 paragraph 65 um was it the case that you couldn't launch the part B technical review until this re research was completed and published
00:05:00 the research was absolutely critical to us being able to engage properly with industry and until we had clearance to share that research it was problematic launching the part B review were there
00:05:12 launching the part B review were there any aspects of the review at part of Part B that could carry on in tandem with the research being carried out uh the simplification work was um
00:05:23 the simplification work was um ongoing
00:05:25 ongoing um
00:05:27 um uh it would have been I I don't recall in all honesty I think that
00:05:34 that um later on the scope of the review is slightly different from the research proposals um but I can't um recall the detail U immediately off the top of my
00:05:47 detail U immediately off the top of my head um but really we needed to be able to share that those research uh papers and proposals with Brack and with industry more
00:05:58 industry more widely um to actually work uh these matters through right and we know is this right um this is in Mr Martin's witness statement for the transcript that's page 15 paragraph 45 CLG 30
00:06:12 that's page 15 paragraph 45 CLG 30 19469 he tells us and is this your understanding that the seven work streams which had been commissioned in 2012 reported in February 2015 but due to the perder before the general election and the subsequent reading in
00:06:24 election and the subsequent reading in time afforded to new ministers uh approval was not sought until December 2015 de for their publication is that correct I mean certainly the dates are true yes yeah and is it right that these
00:06:37 true yes yeah and is it right that these work streams were in summary workstream one period of periods of fire resistance workstream two maximum fire compartment sizes workstream three construction
00:06:49 sizes workstream three construction details roof voids cavity barriers and fire smoke dampers workstream four fire protection of basements and basement car Parks workstream five sprinkler Provisions workstream six space
00:07:01 Provisions workstream six space separation and workstream seven means of Escape for disabled people as far as I can remember those those are correct yes now can we agree that none of those seven work streams address external fars
00:07:13 seven work streams address external fars spread and the dangers posed by the use of combustible materials on buildings over 18 MERS no I I I don't accept that um workstream 7 I think dealt with um
00:07:25 um workstream 7 I think dealt with um space separation uh and looked at the impact of increased levels of combustible insulation um on uh the likely spread of fire um across and between buildings so
00:07:36 fire um across and between buildings so it was looking very precisely at um the effects of um increased levels of uh combustible insulation um but that was building to building not within a building itself
00:07:47 building not within a building itself it's across the face of the so the requirement is relates to spread of flame across um uh the face of the building but no you're you're correct it's not um
00:08:00 it's not um uh specifically focused on vertical fire spread or um but it it is um relevant in that it is trying to
00:08:12 um relevant in that it is trying to assess the impact of the use of increased levels of combustible insulation on um fire safety measures within the walls of buildings right but if you were going to comprehensively look at that question you'd need to not
00:08:23 look at that question you'd need to not only look at questions of space separation but also questions of uh reaction to fire across the building itself
00:08:31 itself yes uh yes in terms of the com combustibility of the external wall in at all building itself yes
00:08:41 yes now we don't need to turn to the documents but we understand from the documents that your department chased special advisors to ministers for the publication of This research in May July
00:08:54 publication of This research in May July August October November December 2016 and January and March 2017 do you recall that yes did any of that chasing spell out in very clear terms that
00:09:06 spell out in very clear terms that without the publication of these reports work on any review of ADB could not be started uh I don't I I would have to see the um correspondence I I don't know
00:09:18 the um correspondence I I don't know right I mean we haven't seen that clearly spelled out um based on our review of those submissions do you remember a time when there was any verbal conversations with ministers where it was clear clearly spell out
00:09:30 where it was clear clearly spell out that without the publication of these reports work on the review of ADB could not be
00:09:36 not be started
00:09:40 um
00:09:43 uh I don't know is the simple answer um I would need to see the correspondence that was sent but these reports were sat with um for clearance by special
00:09:54 with um for clearance by special advisers um not in ministers offices
00:10:03 it was special advisor's job to read and clear the reports before they were published so the hold up was with with ministerial special advisers not with the ministers themselves I I think that is uh well I cannot say because I do not
00:10:16 is uh well I cannot say because I do not know what the holdup was but it was the job of the special advisers to clear these reports right and can you help us we know the reports have been in the Department's hands since February 2015
00:10:29 Department's hands since February 2015 why couldn't work on the review of ADB start in the absence of their publication I appreciate you can't engage with industry fully if you haven't published those reports but surely if you've got them in your
00:10:41 surely if you've got them in your possession and you can see what they're telling you doesn't that mean that reviewing ADB can start in Earnest at that
00:10:51 point if you're going to work in cooperation with industry then um the process was that you needed to have got the res clear to be able to share it so we would have been in a very difficult
00:11:04 we would have been in a very difficult position wanting to talk about issues but without being able to share um the results of the research right so does that mean no work could have gone on in reviewing ADB in
00:11:15 could have gone on in reviewing ADB in the absence of that
00:11:18 engagement as I said in my witness statement you know we needed industry engagement and involvement of Industry um experts and people who were
00:11:30 Industry um experts and people who were working at the coace um to ensure that what we developed was uh appropriate so it was very very difficult um you know the alternative was that we
00:11:46 start developing proposals without that industry insight and so you know the industry Insight was absolutely critical I and as I said you know we were an intelligence client function to some
00:11:58 intelligence client function to some degrees whereby we needed to bring that knowledge
00:12:01 knowledge in right so you couldn't start with your technical policy lead starting to look at what that work might involve given what those research reports were telling
00:12:12 what those research reports were telling you well I'm sure I'm sure Mr Martin was doing that um to a degree but the uh what we found when we engaged with industry was that there were a large
00:12:24 industry was that there were a large number of factors to take into account so whenever you actually bring that industry working group in there are large number of factors that you haven't taken into account or considered which can have a fundamental
00:12:35 considered which can have a fundamental effect on the decisions you make so um it was very difficult to do without that level of Engagement and insight so and again I'd say you know we had no Market surveillance capability we had no powers
00:12:49 surveillance capability we had no powers or ability to directly look into what the market was doing so um in many respects you know virtually everyone else in the supply chain and Industry was I I had the capacity to see what was
00:13:01 was I I had the capacity to see what was happening and understand what was happening but we were reliant on disclosure and um people uh telling us what was going on because we didn't have uh the capacity to actually go out and
00:13:13 uh the capacity to actually go out and inspect or um look at designs and specifications uh in in um in detail but it's right isn't it that the discussion document could have been Advanced
00:13:24 document could have been Advanced without that research having been published
00:13:27 published yes yes I I believe that's true and in fact a discuss no no I'm sorry I'm not sure whether that is true well we know that a discussion document was submitted in March
00:13:37 in March 2017 without the seven work streams having been published and without industry engagement so clearly it was possible to publish a discussion document
00:13:47 document yes uh well that sorry I was just questioning myself really I wasn't certain about whether you could or couldn't do that in uh but um uh so yeah my initial answer I think
00:13:59 um uh so yeah my initial answer I think was yes and then I've confused myself so I apologize but um I I need to take a bit more time to think about um well let's just take this in stated the research on the seven work streams was not published before the greni tower
00:14:10 not published before the greni tower fire was it no it was eventually published in February 2019 are you aware of that now yes but the discussion document was submitted in March 2017
00:14:22 document was submitted in March 2017 without that seven work streams having been published so the answer is that yes we could have had taken the discussion document forward yes thank you now if we turn to um
00:14:34 you now if we turn to um CLG 30
00:14:41 6472 this is an email from you to Brian Martin and um Shane Coulson yes just just briefly who was Mr Coulson Shane Coulson was I think at
00:14:53 Coulson Shane Coulson was I think at this time in um SEO senior executive officer working in the building regulations division yes and we you can see it's the 29th of September 2014 and you say Brian Shane I've been thinking
00:15:04 you say Brian Shane I've been thinking it seems to me that ramping up work on the review of Parts B and E is becoming pressing can we look at the timetable for Part B and draft a submission setting out the need to amend part e to go tow on his return from conference
00:15:17 go tow on his return from conference setting out why this needs to be taken forward at PACE do you see that I do andw is that Steven Williams it would be the junior minister at the time is that right yes that's correct
00:15:29 right yes that's correct yes and then you say I fear that Shane will need to fully turn his attention to these urgent matters in the near future yes yes now in your view uh why was the
00:15:41 yes yes now in your view uh why was the work on uh the review of Part B becoming pressing at this point I mean simply looking forward to the
00:15:49 the 201617 deadline deadline right so this is September so we're you know starting to expect the research reports to arrive within a relatively short period
00:16:02 arrive within a relatively short period of time and it would appear that in fact no submission was actually made until September 2015 yes
00:16:12 um and that would be to a different Administration yes yes did you ever ensure that Steven Williams was informed as to why this needed to be taken forward at
00:16:24 forward at PACE um I don't recall in all honesty but I don't believe I I don't believe so do you remember discussing your concerns about the urgency of the part B review
00:16:35 about the urgency of the part B review with Mr
00:16:43 Martin I I I'm sure we would have had discussed these things but I don't recall what about with Mr lsim did you discuss it with him at this stage again uh I'm sure that discussions
00:16:57 stage again uh I'm sure that discussions would have happened but I really don't I'm afraid I don't recall and do you remember drawing up a realistic timetable at this point as to um when the review would realistically take
00:17:08 the review would realistically take place that would have not been for me to do it would have been for Mr Martin or Shane Coulson to have done right and did you ask them to do it at this time to draw up a realistic timetable well I've
00:17:20 draw up a realistic timetable well I've asked for it in this email but I don't recall what then happened yes what what I could I just add something I think what may have happened here so I said
00:17:31 what may have happened here so I said earlier that the housing standards review was initially intended to report in October 2014 uh but for various reasons it didn't complete until March 2015 and I
00:17:43 didn't complete until March 2015 and I suspect that what happens in this period until the new Administration arrives is that that work uh displaced um activity in planning for for for Part B uh
00:17:55 in planning for for for Part B uh certainly that period is u a a um was a period that was not envisaged in terms of um the commit need to commit Mr
00:18:06 of um the commit need to commit Mr Martin and others to at the housing standards review so um there is a a very clear delay um in my mind uh where this Pro the housing standard review process
00:18:18 Pro the housing standard review process um takes longer than anticipated uh the impacts on the part B review right I see now yes let's jump forward to March 2015
00:18:29 now yes let's jump forward to March 2015 if we could turn to a document and I'll need the native format CLG 130 6856 there's something it's something called a forward plan Excel spreadsheet
00:18:41 called a forward plan Excel spreadsheet which you send to Mr leadsom on the 30th of March
00:18:45 of March 2015 yes do you remember preparing this spreadsheet um I recognize it but I yes I'm I don't recall preparing it but I I recognized that it's something I did
00:18:56 recognized that it's something I did yeah and we can see for Part B we've got two um shaded areas which deal with Part B if we look at the research at the bottom first part B research we can see that's due to complete by the end of the
00:19:08 that's due to complete by the end of the first quarter of 2017 yes yes and then the review of Part B is due to finish in the middle of 2018 at the end of Q it's due to second
00:19:19 2018 at the end of Q it's due to second quarter
00:19:23 2018 due to come to force at that point I think yes so that completes all the stages in the process yes uh so my um I realized
00:19:35 uh so my um I realized that
00:19:38 that um there is a consensus around the meaning of 201617 but it's not in terms of it being March 2017 that was never my understanding and the target date in my mind for Part B or
00:19:50 the target date in my mind for Part B or the back stop date was always October 2017 right I see this is also a resource diagram as much as a program so it's about where people are
00:20:02 program so it's about where people are allocated as much as the time as much as the actual process and for Part B there would have been um a period of um kind
00:20:13 would have been um a period of um kind of roll out and dissemination that would have needed to be resourced yes I understand when you say it was always clear in my mind that the 2016 2017 commitment and I think you're referring to the lacol commitment
00:20:24 to the lacol commitment yes yes yes when you say it was always clear in your mind that that was going to be the back stop date was October 2017 why was that always clear in your mind where had you got that date from it
00:20:35 mind where had you got that date from it it's just a I uh had read
00:20:40 had read 201617
00:20:42 201617 as um either in 2016 or 2017 I was not aware of the convention that that applied to a financial year and so all of my planning or you
00:20:57 know in in terms of meeting meeting the commitment I had always looked at October as as the because it's a common commencement date and La you to make regulatory changes as well as publish
00:21:08 regulatory changes as well as publish other documents I had always looked at that as the date right yes I see um but it would have been very clear to you at this point that Mr pickles's Commitment was not going to be met well which I'm
00:21:20 was not going to be met well which I'm sorry but could you tell me when this was produced so you sent this to Bob lsum on the 30th of March 2015
00:21:41 so no I I think that that's still viable at that stage why do you say it's still viable when you've got the review of Part B extending into the middle of
00:21:52 Part B extending into the middle of 2018 I'm sorry uh my target date was to publish an updated approved document B and in my mind that Target date was
00:22:03 and in my mind that Target date was October
00:22:07 2017 yes but I I don't understand where it the publication date is in the middle of 2018 on this isn't it no where it says implementation that means coming
00:22:18 says implementation that means coming into Force so when you publish there's normally at least a six-month transitional period before the document comes into Force well that takes you then to the beginning of 2018 yes
00:22:29 then to the beginning of 2018 yes uh in theory yeah well no sorry um if you take six months off that program yes right so I mean it was getting it was getting pretty tight wasn't it well I don't I don't remember the actual
00:22:40 don't I don't remember the actual assumptions that I used underneath this um but yes it was tight do you remember appreciating the need to flag to ministers that they were aware of the possibility that there was going to be
00:22:51 possibility that there was going to be slippage in that
00:22:54 commitment uh in my mind again um there were two aspects to the review there was a simplification process and a clarification process if you like that
00:23:05 clarification process if you like that addressed the laal house commitment and then there was the technical review commitment and I had always um in my mind seen those as you know preferably
00:23:16 mind seen those as you know preferably mutually delivered but actually not um 100% mutually dependent so I was confident at that point that we would still be able to deliver on the um uh
00:23:28 still be able to deliver on the um uh Coroner's
00:23:29 Coroner's commitment um because the simplification work should have taken a um a shorter period uh than the technical review process if that was what was actually pushing things out right but what actual
00:23:42 pushing things out right but what actual work had been completed by the 30th of March
00:23:46 March 2015 30th March we' have uh received the research reports I imagine and um I I can't recall what um work had been done because of the housing
00:23:58 been done because of the housing standard of view to be honest um it's probable that the uh simplification work and so on would not have started until around this time or maybe slightly
00:24:12 around this time or maybe slightly later right basically the housing standard view distorted the division's work hugely it diverted pretty much all of the people who weren't
00:24:23 much all of the people who weren't working on zeroc carbon homes policy were pretty much trans uh diverted if you like to Resource the housing standards
00:24:33 standards review and was it clearly spelled out to ministers that that housing standards review was result resulting in that diversion of resources which was jeopardizing the timetable and the
00:24:44 jeopardizing the timetable and the promise to the coroner well at this point I didn't believe it was jeopardizing the timetable we hadn't got to that point yet I still thought it was deliverable so at this point no but we
00:24:57 deliverable so at this point no but we uh yeah and then because the housing standard view complete at that point we're into a different set of difficulties in or or hurdles in progressing the work right now on the
00:25:09 progressing the work right now on the 29th of April 2015 Mr Martin sent to Mr ledum an email if we can go to that it's at CLG 301
00:25:21 9270 uh now you're not copied in or you're not a recipient of this email but we can see that you'd obviously had some involvement because the email reads Bob Richard asked me to produce a list of
00:25:33 Richard asked me to produce a list of ongoing technical policy issues now becoming known as the Worry List attached as the beginnings of the list which has been partially populated as always I'm trying to balance usefulness
00:25:45 always I'm trying to balance usefulness with red tape any thoughts before I get the rest of the technical team to populate it now is is it right that it that you were the Richard that had asked Mr Martin to produce this Worry List
00:25:57 Mr Martin to produce this Worry List yeah I had um the housing standard riew had caused a lot of disruption and um it
00:26:08 a lot of disruption and um it had put
00:26:11 had put workload um levels onto myself and to a degree Bob and others that meant we needed to um properly capture the issues
00:26:23 needed to um properly capture the issues that we wanted to look at and so uh this is a process of um actually um I it seems It's it would seem strange not to have done this before but
00:26:35 not to have done this before but um this is a process of actually starting to kind of formulate a a record of the issues that the different members of the team and division have that need to be addressed and that kind of
00:26:46 to be addressed and that kind of cohesive list uh had not existed before right let's look at the Worry List it's a CLG 3 1 9271
00:26:59 do you remember seeing this Worry List at the time I would have done yes and did it go through various iterations or did it only ever stay in this format this first draft I think it would maybe have gone
00:27:12 draft I think it would maybe have gone through F further iterations um I think it was updated in 2016 again but I I I can't recall clearly right if we look at
00:27:23 can't recall clearly right if we look at row seven we can see there's a heading Part B and underneath that we've got headings at 8 9 10 11 for sprinklers domestic and Commercial fir spread in
00:27:34 domestic and Commercial fir spread in Timber Frame MMC is that modern methods of construction yeah Extra Care housing fire safety and then ADB infraction risk do you see that yes and and looking at
00:27:46 do you see that yes and and looking at that row nine the fire spread in Timber Frame
00:27:51 Frame MMC um column B we can see asks what what's the issue and the issue is said to be changes in technology relating to Thermal performance driving wider use of combustible materials do you see that y
00:28:04 combustible materials do you see that y column C then says where's the pressure coming from and it says insurers fire brigades Etc also manufacturers of non-combustible products yes yes um then
00:28:15 non-combustible products yes yes um then column D what is could be done um and the suggestion here is introduce a Gateway for new tech viable question mark or just keep an eye on things amending ADB as we go do you see that
00:28:28 amending ADB as we go do you see that that uh yes I do and then column e um which is what happens if we don't act bigger building fires exclamation mark mostly economic loss but there are some
00:28:40 mostly economic loss but there are some safety concerns too now did you ask about what those safety concerns were that were flagged in this
00:28:53 spreadsheet I I I don't recall to be honest um I'm sure that we talk through the issues that we're in here but I don't
00:29:04 don't recollect can you help us as to what those particular safety concerns were it says mostly economic loss but there are some safety concerns too can you remember so the the problem with fires spread and timber frame buildings was
00:29:16 spread and timber frame buildings was that there was a growing number of um uh fires in usually um blocks of flat not high rise necessarily because timber frame is not so much you ized but quite
00:29:29 frame is not so much you ized but quite large scale timber frame blocks of flats where the fire managed to get into cavities and um spread throughout the entire building uh in a way that meant
00:29:40 entire building uh in a way that meant there was huge consequential loss of property from a single property fire um uh and that's um where um the economic loss reference is made does
00:29:53 economic loss reference is made does that mean that we read this row where it says in the First Column fir spread in Timber Frame m MC that we read this row as solely about um far spreading Timber frames
00:30:05 frames um that would be my recollection of this specific issue right were were sorry it was a very it was a specific phenomena
00:30:16 was a very it was a specific phenomena that was clearly being identified by and flagged by fire brigades and Industry and others that timber frame buildings were suffering at the problem was not necessarily that the fire was big it was
00:30:27 necessarily that the fire was big it was just impossible put out because of the number of PA Pathways within the building yes were you ever made aware that there were concerns which had been raised by industry including the cwct the center for Walling and cladding
00:30:39 cwct the center for Walling and cladding technology about ADB and external fir spread which were not on this list uh I don't recall being made now were you made aware of the use of combustible
00:30:51 made aware of the use of combustible insulation materials on buildings over 18 meters and concerns about that uh I was aware um we were made aware of the use of combustible um insulation on some
00:31:03 use of combustible um insulation on some buildings above 18 meters yeah was that when you got the K15 correspond that's correct yeah but otherwise I don't recall otherwise being having that raise with me what about the use of combustible cladding materials on
00:31:15 combustible cladding materials on buildings over 180 MERS including ACM aluminium composite material panels with a PE core do you remember that being drawn to your attention uh I was aware of a number of
00:31:26 attention uh I was aware of a number of um ACM fires uh in other countries but I was not um I do not believe I certainly can't
00:31:36 can't recall um having that brought to my attention in the in England right so no one came to you and said the that people are using ACM PE products in the UK no
00:31:49 are using ACM PE products in the UK no one ever said that to you I have no recollection of that happening so I would say no right now on the 7th of May 2015 the conservative government came to power and Greg Clark succeeded Eric
00:32:00 power and Greg Clark succeeded Eric pickles as Secretary of State for mhclg and James Warton was appointed parliamentary under Secretary of State respons responsible for the building regulations
00:32:11 regulations yes yes now if we can turn to CLG 301 [Music]
00:32:18 [Music] 9294 these are going to be minutes of a Brack meeting held on the 17th of June um 2015 which min Mr James Warton
00:32:29 June um 2015 which min Mr James Warton attended now as we understand it the the um is it right that um when officials attend this they're not always recorded in the attendee list that's right yes do
00:32:41 in the attendee list that's right yes do you remember attending this meeting in June 2015 which minister James Warton attended uh I I don't remember it um I would need to have um a look at the
00:32:54 would need to have um a look at the matters discussed but I think think I did not attend I certainly didn't attend the part of the meeting where James Warton attended right if we look at Point 10.4 on page
00:33:11 eight we can see uh in the first line it says it was confirmed that a review of Part B was still planned though this had yet to be signed off by the new ministers do you see that I do who would
00:33:23 ministers do you see that I do who would have been responsible for ensuring that new ministers were made aware of the ongoing work and the time scales uh including time scales in relation to the lacol commitment who whose responsibility was that that would be
00:33:35 responsibility was that that would be Brian Martin's responsibility as the policy lead right and can you help us at this point can you remember how long you expected that review of Part B to take
00:33:46 expected that review of Part B to take and to be uh completed as I as I said earlier I I thought that it was going to be probably October 2017 at this point could you remind me please of of the date of this
00:33:58 remind me please of of the date of this meeting yes sorry so this uh is um the 17th of June 2015 so middle of 2015 now yeah so I would still have expected it to be delivered in the kind of third
00:34:10 to be delivered in the kind of third quarter of 2017 right now we've discussed that as an important step in the review process Brack the building regulations advisory committee would have to establish a working group to
00:34:21 have to establish a working group to scrutinize and advise on any proposals for review is that right that's correct now the proposal to establish a working group was not made until this Brack meeting in June 2015 so that's 2 years
00:34:34 meeting in June 2015 so that's 2 years after Lord pickles's commitment was made to the
00:34:38 to the coroner um we can see that also in that same minute if you look on in that minute it says on the assumption that a review of Part B will go ahead Brack members were asked to express an
00:34:49 members were asked to express an interest in taking part in the part B working group yes yes can you help us had any progress been made with the Brack working group by the time of the GRL Tower fire in
00:35:01 by the time of the GRL Tower fire in June
00:35:02 June 2017 we still hadn't
00:35:07 hadn't um managed to get the right clearances to set the group up we were still trying to get the discussion document out which was the uh key
00:35:20 was the uh key dependency right so just help help us with this why was getting the discussion document out so critical in terms of setting up the part B working
00:35:31 setting up the part B working group
00:35:34 group uh
00:35:36 uh we
00:35:40 um I think it had just become a dependency there were a whole series of delays it's you we will I'm sure we will work through these but there were a whole series of delays that happened
00:35:51 whole series of delays that happened between these two dates
00:35:55 dates um uh not least um um the decision to leave the European union vote in the following uh year um uh we uh had always
00:36:09 following uh year um uh we uh had always predicated um setting up the working group on getting the discussion document into the public realm because that was the key approval from ministers to start
00:36:20 the key approval from ministers to start talking about that scope so I think in my witness statement I say that there were very clear instructions that that officials were not allowed to discuss scope of um policy proposals until
00:36:33 scope of um policy proposals until ministers had instructed us to do so so um
00:36:39 um uh that is why it was so important to get the discussion document cleared because that effectively gave ministerial approval for the scope that we were going to then work through
00:36:53 we were going to then work through right I I I can see the link between the discussion document and the working party but um wouldn't it be helpful to get the working party set up so that you could start getting feedback from the
00:37:05 could start getting feedback from the working party about what issues they thought needed to be dealt with in depart B so the working party constitutes Brack members and members from industry and therefore it
00:37:17 from industry and therefore it is it was it was the required process that you got the right clearances um it's the industry group coming in that's that's the more difficult part of this conversation
00:37:28 difficult part of this conversation until you've got ministers agreement you can't start creating expectations around what is going to happen does that mean you can't listen to what they've got to tell you about what they think might need to
00:37:40 change that was the purpose of publishing the discussion document that was the vehicle we were still going to need to get um government right around on the discussion document and agreement
00:37:51 on the discussion document and agreement from other part you know so treasury number 10 all of these other departments had to sign off on that document before it was
00:37:58 it was published um uh
00:38:03 bringing bringing an industry group into a room and setting those expectations before that had been properly signed off was something that um uh we didn't feel
00:38:14 was something that um uh we didn't feel we could
00:38:16 we could do that being the case why had the discussion document not been progressed earlier while the research was
00:38:25 awaited so um I think I said earlier um the housing standards review effectively displaced um pretty much the entire you
00:38:36 displaced um pretty much the entire you know there were two major work streams at that time zero carbon policy and the housing standards review C can I talk a little bit about resource um sure um because I think it's really important
00:38:47 because I think it's really important through this to understand and I think it's best done by comparison the level of resource that we had um because I think if I just give you Ben numbers it or of numbers of
00:38:59 you Ben numbers it or of numbers of people it's it's not it's not terribly useful um so I I I I'm going to compare the number of the resource base in 2006
00:39:11 the number of the resource base in 2006 and to and today with the number of Staff we had at that time so in 2006 there were 14 construction Professionals in um a division that had a much smaller
00:39:23 in um a division that had a much smaller scope there were three grade sixes supporting the deputy director um at this point in time in 2015 I need to think um carefully about
00:39:36 2015 I need to think um carefully about this we
00:39:37 this we have
00:39:41 um five technical Specialists and one grade
00:39:46 grade six and uh today I understand there are again 15 grade SS not all of them technical but in a policy division that is purely dedicated to technical policy
00:39:57 is purely dedicated to technical policy and with four grade sixes so I I think it's important for to look at what's going on in terms of these resource constraints through that lens because it what it suggests is that there is
00:40:10 what it suggests is that there is somewhere between a third and a quarter of the number of grade sixes that were expected um either side of this period and again somewhere around a third or a quarter of the number of policy leads
00:40:22 quarter of the number of policy leads who um were employed either side of um this period uh so so um that was further exacerbated by um a ban on consultancy
00:40:33 exacerbated by um a ban on consultancy in 2010 Parliament we're slightly beyond that now but that impacted um and actually meant the resource I need to explain this I'm sorry um prior to 2010 the division uh
00:40:47 um prior to 2010 the division uh seconded in um Consultants to boost its capacity it also uh had a research program management contractor that dealt with the bulk of our research program
00:40:59 with the bulk of our research program management specification development so they would work directed by the policy leads um the inability to um bring in that type of framework that type of
00:41:11 that type of framework that type of resource means that really the actual capacity of the division is somewhere below 25% of what it was I I'm I'm using rough figures but really they are I I'm
00:41:22 rough figures but really they are I I'm I think that they're reasonable okay and did you raise these concerns about Resort with your seniors at any stage the resource pressures in the department were tectonic so um 2011 the department
00:41:37 were tectonic so um 2011 the department went through a restructure and my statement is incorrect by the way I've attributed the restructure to 2013 in one of my statements I apologize for that um the department went through a restructure in 2011 where it reduced um
00:41:51 restructure in 2011 where it reduced um headcount by 40% and
00:41:56 40% and um in 2015 the department was committed to a 5% year- on-year reduction in headcount from that point forward so um
00:42:07 headcount from that point forward so um we were being squeezed proportionately to other parts of the department um until we got a work plan in place I'd always imagined that there
00:42:18 in place I'd always imagined that there was a clear sequence of how to rebuild capacity in the division yeah um get the discussion document into the public realm do the business planning whilst that was being discussed bid for a
00:42:30 that was being discussed bid for a resource we need to do the work plan that's then subsequently agreed with ministers so in my mind um uh that sequence was necessary because you could not successfully bid for um additional
00:42:43 not successfully bid for um additional resource unless you had that ministerial sign off uh so um yeah so we talked about resource problems they were really
00:42:54 about resource problems they were really apparent um and this stage there's there are vacancies in the team as well so we're actually probably further constrained so we are really working on
00:43:05 constrained so we are really working on a less than Bare Bones capacity in many respects okay I'm going to stop you there um
00:43:11 there um do do you recall ever setting out your concerns about resourcing clearly in writing to your seniors
00:43:20 seniors uh
00:43:22 uh no and and why not uh because um until the the department I think around this time implemented a two
00:43:35 this time implemented a two policies one was a policy of
00:43:41 um focusing on ministerial priorities so they um fundamentally focused uh so high priority items were Manifesto commitments and legal requirements those
00:43:53 commitments and legal requirements those were the two areas that would be given priority
00:43:57 priority um and later on there was a introduction of a flexible deployment policy which meant that people were taken away from policies that weren't in that envelope of high priority and allocated to the
00:44:09 of high priority and allocated to the high priority work um I did not believe we had any chance of successfully bidding for resource until we had Minister's commitment to a plan of work
00:44:20 Minister's commitment to a plan of work right I see now picking it up again with the chronology we know that in the summer of
00:44:26 summer of 2015 your department planned to publish the discussion document focusing on Part B to take account of the research which had reported in the first half of 2015 and provide a platform for inviting
00:44:38 and provide a platform for inviting views um to input into a wider review is that correct that is correct yes now you've explained in your statement that you didn't publish the discussion document before the 2015 summer recess
00:44:51 document before the 2015 summer recess you've also explained that there were delays as your plans evolved over the summer and the plans evolved so as to locate the review of approved document B within a wider review of building
00:45:02 within a wider review of building control is that correct um and bu building regulations policy rather than building
00:45:09 building control I see yes now where did this idea come from to subsume the review of ADB within a wider review of um building regulations policy
00:45:21 regulations policy um I
00:45:24 um I was um very uh supportive of at least initially packaging uh these things together so that we could marry up regulation and
00:45:35 that we could marry up regulation and deregulation so I certainly advised Bob that I thought that in um in terms of being able to comply with policy on regulation uh this was the right
00:45:47 regulation uh this was the right approach so is the answer to my question it was your idea to package this up into a wider program including building regulations policy review um I'm sure I
00:46:00 regulations policy review um I'm sure I discussed it with others and we we came to riew but um I would certainly have advised Bob that that was the case it's it's the way the it's the only way that we managed to deliver the housing standards review in the form that it had
00:46:12 standards review in the form that it had was to package measures right but why did you think that packaging this review of ADB needs to be in that way in order to get it through had had you actually been given that steer by by
00:46:24 been given that steer by by ministers uh no um regulatory policies applied to the part B review um there were at least two areas where there might be significant
00:46:35 where there might be significant regulatory cost involved in addressing problems um the first is the timber frame issue that we discussed um which could have quite significant costs the
00:46:47 could have quite significant costs the second was um addressing problems with basement smoke ventilation for firefighters which again would have been going from a simple passive system of ventilation to quite possibly a quite
00:46:59 ventilation to quite possibly a quite complex system of ventilation to remove smoke from basement safely um we were going to need at least whatever that cost we would need at least twice that amount of deregulation to fund uh and uh
00:47:11 amount of deregulation to fund uh and uh so it
00:47:14 so it was uh necessary to be able to um develop that deregulatory um process in parallel and I did not want to have to try and find all of the savings from
00:47:26 try and find all of the savings from within Part B to um make that work so packaging it with a range of other measures where we thought that deregulation was achievable was um the
00:47:38 deregulation was achievable was um the right way to go although I would note that um it was most likely that um Part B would have been partnered up with appropriate um projects or areas of
00:47:51 appropriate um projects or areas of deregulation that would fit to the same time scale you'd end up with a number of packages that balance these things out potentially right but you had to we had to actually get further information and
00:48:02 to actually get further information and understanding before we could um start to marry those uh elements up right but do you accept that locating the review of ADB within this wider review of building regulation policy would slow
00:48:14 building regulation policy would slow the process down perhaps by some years and
00:48:18 and thereby um falsify the promise that had been made to the coroner no at the time um I didn't anticipate the impact of the
00:48:29 um I didn't anticipate the impact of the prioritization policies in the department on our progress um I actually thought that this was the right way to go because you could not um you could not Implement policies until you did
00:48:42 not Implement policies until you did actually got the deregulation issue resolved um uh so in some ways uh it was I mean I I I regret that we did it
00:48:54 I mean I I I regret that we did it now um but at the time um it
00:48:58 um it was uh
00:49:00 was uh the most sensible way to actually ensure that the part B riew could be delivered in terms of compliance with those regulatory
00:49:11 regulatory requirements right so at the time was presenting the review of Part B as part of a package of measures which would show some balance in terms of deregulation was that the
00:49:23 in terms of deregulation was that the only way that you could approve changes to ADB at this time
00:49:32 time we would need to find the deregulation somewhere was my view um and uh the government I can't remember where quite by this stage they were in
00:49:45 where quite by this stage they were in place but we're talking I believe about regulatory budgets for departments that had to be balanced on top of the other requirements um it became very clear later on that the department was
00:49:58 later on that the department was absolutely struggling with um meeting its deregulatory budgets I I'll should I explain deregulatory budgets not at the moment no um I'm just interested as to whether this package of measures was the
00:50:10 whether this package of measures was the only way that you could approve changes to ADB at the time for example what about matters of Life
00:50:19 Safety if these processes were absolutely rigid um in terms of amending the approved
00:50:30 um in terms of amending the approved document uh you had to go through these processes um we had no other way
00:50:41 through it you know the regulatory requirements applied to Life Safety me measures as much as they did to other measures right so you would you would just stuck between a rock and a hard place um yeah yeah I mean it's it was a
00:50:55 place um yeah yeah I mean it's it was a this is what the policy was intended to do it was intended to make it difficult to introduce new regulation and to achieve uh more than the cost of that
00:51:07 achieve uh more than the cost of that new regulation and deregulation right and that sorry that also means that you have to do to actually regulate you have to do a whole chunk of additional work
00:51:18 to do a whole chunk of additional work at least in in my experience that was the way it worked right was any consideration given to other ways to proceed with the review of approved document
00:51:27 document for example impressing on ministers the importance of the review and pressing for a change into the scope of the regulatory Target or asking that deregulatory costs not be scored against the department on the base that it
00:51:39 the department on the base that it related to fire safety were any of those Alternatives considered at this point um no it was at very clear the level of
00:51:50 no it was at very clear the level of commitment within government to these proposals and um it was Way Beyond my pay grade to start suggesting these things were uh set
00:52:03 things were uh set aside I see um and what if um the changes that were anticipated some of them were not new but simply clarificatory where they're not other ways that you could proceed with the
00:52:14 ways that you could proceed with the review of approved document B without having to find this balance of deregulatory measures um as I said earlier um the I think the answer is no even if you well
00:52:27 think the answer is no even if you well if the benefits of clarification or simplification outweighed the costs of Industry you know I said this earlier having to ref familiarize them themselves with the document then yeah yes
00:52:39 yeah yes perhaps let's look at an email now um actually this is a scoping note CLG 301 9290 this is going to be a scoping note
00:52:50 9290 this is going to be a scoping note that you sent to Sally Randall um Bob ledom and others on the 31st of July 2015 now Sally Randall was the director of the department yes she was the direct
00:53:04 of the department yes she was the direct yes director of the directorate yes um and it's what we believe it is is a note of a meeting that you'd had with Sally Randall and Peter scoffield the
00:53:15 Sally Randall and Peter scoffield the director General the week before is that right um I have to say I don't recall writing this note but I'm I assume that that is correct if that's the context in
00:53:27 that is correct if that's the context in which this is was was is yes for the transcript there's an email in which you attach this note CLG 301 9289 now in the consideration section in
00:53:38 9289 now in the consideration section in the middle of page one um we can see it says in the first paragraph from the discussions that have taken place we should assume that ministers do not have an appetite to pursue the adoption of an alternative
00:53:49 pursue the adoption of an alternative system of building control and that they also recognize the need for a role of the approved documents and then below that it says by end September early October need to have proposals with our
00:54:02 October need to have proposals with our ministers available for wider discussion do you see that yes and then there's a um a series of bullet points and then the fourth bullet point down says first
00:54:13 the fourth bullet point down says first tranch of deregulation due to be delivered by end of 2017 so we may need to aim to deliver changes by October 17 do you see that I
00:54:24 changes by October 17 do you see that I do and then below that there's a heading right at the bottom of that page approved
00:54:31 approved documents and it says this there is significant potential for improving Clarity and streamlining guidance in the approved documents there are two elements to this first editing the
00:54:42 elements to this first editing the existing documents to get rid of unnecessary text and improve presentation this will realize Savings of time and therefore cost we think that we could do this for the whole Suite of
00:54:53 we could do this for the whole Suite of approved documents over the next two and a half years and there for the outcomes could count to the first trch of savings needed for the dgd regulation program that's the first point and then it says
00:55:04 that's the first point and then it says second fullscale approved document reviews where we look in depth at the technical standards and opportunities to deregulate the biggest savings
00:55:15 deregulate the biggest savings potentially would be from these full reviews these will be intensive exercises and we will need to be properly scheduled over the length of the parliament we could start some of these Eda ADB fire safety in parallel
00:55:28 these Eda ADB fire safety in parallel with the first strand of work do you see that I
00:55:33 that I do so is it right to say that by Late July 2015 a decision had been taken to prioritize the editing of the approved documents to get rid of unnecessary text
00:55:44 documents to get rid of unnecessary text and improved presentation rather than carrying out an in-depth technical review of approved document B uh I don't think that is correct this is
00:55:58 uh I don't think that is correct this is a record of a discussion uh rather than a kind of formulated policy I think um I don't
00:56:08 don't recall um sorry the date of this was July 2015 was it yes so you appeared to send this on the 31st of July 2015 uh so I I don't recall at that
00:56:22 2015 uh so I I don't recall at that stage um stepping away from the technical review of ADB alongside the simplification exercise that was still the
00:56:29 the ambition so I see so you still had it in mind did you that you would be doing the technical review of ADB at the same time as the simplification exercise at that point I imagine that's what we were
00:56:40 point I imagine that's what we were thinking yes when you say at that point I imagine that's what we're thinking why you say I I can't clearly Rec recollect I'm afraid sorry I didn't mean to cut over you yeah I mean you can see why looking at this document it looks like
00:56:52 looking at this document it looks like at this point maybe a decision is being taken to split the two out no I I sorry I don't believe that that was the case but as I say I can't re recollect right but that work in the
00:57:04 recollect right but that work in the first strand to get rid of unnecessary text and improved presentation as described there did that become the same as the plain English edit um it's a slightly uh broader
00:57:16 edit um it's a slightly uh broader process than that in that you would also um the plain English edit is about Clarity of text um there would also be a process of um
00:57:28 um identifying um text that was uh deemed uh unnecessary so perhaps informative text that didn't actually contribute to
00:57:39 text that didn't actually contribute to setting out clear uh requirements right so is this fair that we shouldn't read this as suggesting that the the full review of ADB had been put back by further two years at this
00:57:51 further two years at this point
00:57:53 point um I
00:57:57 no I I I I can't I I I can't recollect but I don't believe so can you help us where did the work arising from the lacan or house commitments sit Within
00:58:08 lacan or house commitments sit Within These two work streams as described here it would be um the first um process of uh improving presentation as such so it's the first trunch it's the
00:58:19 such so it's the first trunch it's the simplification which is the plain English edit the work to improve Clarity deliver a more usable document right did you genuinely understand that work to address the coroner's concerns could
00:58:32 address the coroner's concerns could simply consist of getting rid of unnecessary text and improving presentation no this is a record of a conversation um it is [Music]
00:58:42 [Music] um uh it was a it was a much
00:58:46 much [Music]
00:58:48 [Music] um well it was a different context um the aim was always to improve the usability of the
00:58:59 to improve the usability of the documents um there are correlations between undertaking some deregulatory activities and improving things and that's what I was trying to um aim for in this context so using that exercise
00:59:12 in this context so using that exercise to improve Clarity and then that reads on into
00:59:16 on into compliance um so uh they were synonymous to me right can you help us as to why in this conversation you had with Sally Randall and Peter scoffield we don't see
00:59:29 Randall and Peter scoffield we don't see the lacol house work clearly identified within this uh this document because it's wrapped in the
00:59:41 document because it's wrapped in the ADB well which bit I mean that that's the problem looking at this document now it's very hard to see where that work to address the coroner's concerns sat from the language we've got on this document
00:59:53 the language we've got on this document uh that may well be the case I um it was not drafted to that level of fidelity do you remember discussing with Sally Randall and Peter scoffield the
01:00:04 Sally Randall and Peter scoffield the commitments that had been made I don't I'm afraid I don't recall this meeting at
01:00:09 at all
01:00:12 right now in September 2015 you sent a submission to ministers proposing a simpli simplification of the approved documents
01:00:23 simplification of the approved documents by October 2017 and a publication of the discussion document on fire safety later this year um if we could go to the submission it's at
01:00:33 at cg3 1
01:00:41 9302 we can see your name it's from you do you see that I do and it's to GRE James Warton and Greg Clark on the 15th of September uh 2015
01:00:53 Clark on the 15th of September uh 2015 do you remember drafting this submission I I don't remember drafting it but it's clearly something I did right yeah now um if we look at paragraph 11 on page
01:01:10 three we can see it it says this it says given the scale of work to undertake a review of all of the approved documents and the constrained resource available to do so we have set out a program to
01:01:22 to do so we have set out a program to review some of the more major parts parts B fire safety Water waste accessibility during this Parliament with the remaining approved documents to
01:01:33 with the remaining approved documents to be reviewed in the next Parliament do you see that I do the program also includes work to part L conservation and power requested by the Secretary of State and then it goes on do you agree that we should work up the
01:01:46 do you agree that we should work up the proposals for phase one and phase two as part of a discussion paper for publication later this year and for formal consultation next year so that's the question that's proposed to ministers yes yes now a timeline was included if we go
01:02:00 yes now a timeline was included if we go there was an Annex B to the submission if we could get that up at CLG 30's 1
01:02:10 9304 this was Annex B to the submission headed simplifying statutary guidance in the approved documents and reviewing technical
01:02:19 technical requirements and we can see at page seven of this document
01:02:26 we can see there towards the top there's a bold heading phase one simplification October 2015 to October 2017 and then phase two is underneath
01:02:37 2017 and then phase two is underneath that larger scale deregulation October 2015 to October 2019 do you see that Y and we can see that for the phase one
01:02:48 and we can see that for the phase one simplification exercise there's a list of parts and it's got part e g h and r not Part B and then under the phase 2 larger scale
01:02:59 larger scale deregulation October 15 to October 19 we see the part B technical review do you see that I do now do you remember proposing these two different strands of
01:03:11 proposing these two different strands of work to ministers at this point well we did
01:03:16 did clearly I I don't I don't have clear Recollections of this
01:03:23 of this right can you help us where did the work from the lacol house um coroner recommendations sit in relation to these two work
01:03:35 strands well it would be within the part B technical review I
01:03:44 imagine yes so not not any part of the simplification exercise between October 15 and October
01:03:53 17 um well it's not there it's not shown there so um whatever thinking was going on I I don't know whether the October 2015 to 2019 was a a kind of broader
01:04:05 2015 to 2019 was a a kind of broader time scale but um I generally don't um I can't recall my thinking yeah again why does this submission um not make clear or this
01:04:16 submission um not make clear or this part of the submission not make clear where the work from the lacan or house recommendations sat
01:04:26 uh that was um one part of um the review process and we are trying to get a agreement to a kind of broad map of
01:04:39 agreement to a kind of broad map of activity in different areas rather than the Fidelity of the specific issues being looked at I imagine at this point this is September 2015 did you feel that you had a clear
01:04:50 2015 did you feel that you had a clear handle on where the work was going to sit in terms of responding to the coron recommendations from Lael
01:04:59 house I I can't recall this period
01:05:05 um but I do know
01:05:10 that the commitment remained um in my mind um throughout that period yes you see if the part B work sat within that
01:05:21 see if the part B work sat within that part B technical review spanning from October 15 to October 19 can you help as to why the submission or the annexes to it don't make clear the slippage in the lacol commitment from the 2016 2017
01:05:35 lacol commitment from the 2016 2017 promise I I I can't answer that question because you just can't recall I just can't recall the thought processes of what was going on at that stage
01:05:46 of what was going on at that stage right if we look at page six of annex B just go back a page under proposed program of work we've got a heading Part B fire safety it says the previous Secretary of State
01:05:58 it says the previous Secretary of State committed to undertaking a review and simplification of Part B following the lachel house disaster which was critical of the clarity and format of existing guidance which it was suggested contributed to a number of deaths there
01:06:09 contributed to a number of deaths there are also a number of technical issues which Recent research identifies as requiring attention in order to protect Life
01:06:17 Life Safety now focusing on that last sentence can you help us what were the technical issues which Recent research had identified as requiring attention in order to protect Life Safety um well for
01:06:30 order to protect Life Safety um well for certain um the um smoke ventilation in basement protection for firefighters was um on the agenda I think you showed us um a document earlier where life safety
01:06:43 um a document earlier where life safety issues were identified in large uh Timber and MMC buildings um there had been a number but I can't remember specifically what I was referring to at that point right what didn't that make
01:06:54 that point right what didn't that make the review of of Part B an urgent piece of work if that's the
01:07:05 case I think U this is an inherent problem with the process that we have to go through um it takes the time it does because
01:07:16 takes the time it does because that's the structure of the work that we need to do to actually amend regulatory guidance and um you know there is a genuine desire to take these things
01:07:28 genuine desire to take these things forward as quickly as possible which then becomes extremely frustrated um but we um it I think you know it's one of the issues with the
01:07:39 know it's one of the issues with the system as a whole that there are not better mechanisms to enable um critical advice or corrective guidance to be issued in a an approved way it's a it's
01:07:51 issued in a an approved way it's a it's a serious flaw yeah um and um there is no shortcut for these uh processes so many of these issues need a
01:08:03 processes so many of these issues need a lot of Industry input to identify suitable solutions they take time to develop it's a slow process so
01:08:15 um it is urgent but we're still talking about doing it as quickly as we are able to do it if you like I think that's what I'm trying to say yes can you help us to
01:08:26 I'm trying to say yes can you help us to why the agency wasn't clearly spelled out for the minister um you can take it from me that there's no reference to Life Safety or technical issues requiring attention to protect Life Safety in the body of the submission
01:08:39 itself um no I can't explain um I think the um underlying assumption was that
01:08:52 the um underlying assumption was that this was simply clear from the nature of the topic right let's look at the submission again so CLG 30's 1
01:09:04 9302 if we go to paragraph nine on page
01:09:11 two you see that in fact the opposite impression is given because it says this the building regulations and their supporting guidance in the form of approv documents have similarly proven to be largely effective in achieving the
01:09:23 to be largely effective in achieving the primary aims of the building act in securing health safety welfare accessibility and conservation of fuel and power will building Works takes place do you see that I do so the
01:09:34 place do you see that I do so the impression that's being given is that um all is well and the building regulations and the supporting guidance are proving to be largely effective why isn't it made clear in that paragraph that there
01:09:45 made clear in that paragraph that there are uh life safety issues which are relevant to the review and which make this review urgent
01:09:57 the majority of the building regulations have health safety or welfare implications um there was no uh I
01:10:11 um there was no uh I can't
01:10:13 can't remember um specifically highlighting the
01:10:19 the safety concerns because it was taken um as being read on the face of of the material that was being presented right thank you Mr chairman I'm moving
01:10:30 right thank you Mr chairman I'm moving to another subtopic next so could we have that as the the the the the we certainly could yes thank you uh Mr Harold we'll have a short break at this point we'll come back please at half past 3 and as before please don't talk
01:10:43 past 3 and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while they're out of the room all right thank you thank you very much
01:10:56 thank you half P three then please
01:11:24 okay
01:11:54 e
01:12:24 e
01:12:54 e
01:13:24 e
01:13:54 e
01:14:24 e
01:14:54 e
01:15:23 e
01:15:53 e
01:16:23 e
01:16:53 e
01:17:23 e
01:17:53 e
01:18:23 e
01:18:53 e
01:19:23 e
01:19:53 e
01:20:23 e
01:20:53 e
01:21:23 e
01:21:53 e
01:22:23 e
01:22:53 e
01:23:23 e
01:23:53 e
01:24:23 e
01:24:53 e
01:25:23 e
01:25:53 e
01:26:23 e
01:26:53 e e
01:27:31 would you ask Mr Harold to come back in please
01:27:44 you all right Mr harl yes thank you sir good thank you yes Mr great yes thank you now we were just discussing the September 2015 submission to ministers and we know from the documents that a
01:27:55 and we know from the documents that a meeting to discuss that submission was held on the 19th of October 2015 attended by James Warton and uh Bob ledson if we go to CLG
01:28:07 ledson if we go to CLG 13075
01:28:12 one1 this is an email that you sent to Mr Leedom and Mr Martin on the 25th of September 2015 before the meeting um and we can see that you
01:28:24 meeting um and we can see that you attach uh something called copy of building regs reform key decisions do you see that in the subject I do and you can say Bob Brian have made a few changes to expand on risks and
01:28:35 changes to expand on risks and opportunities happy for this to go up to Sarah under a covering note linking it to the submission Richard so um that was the email um and then if we go to the attachment which is
01:28:46 then if we go to the attachment which is at cg1 37512
01:28:55 so here we can see um an Excel spreadsheet it's headed the reform of building regulations key
01:29:04 decisions and um we can see that in line nine it says agreed to the simplification program proposed for statutary guidance approved documents do
01:29:17 statutary guidance approved documents do you see
01:29:18 you see that yes and you've got underneath that line 11 simplification of approved documents restructure schedule one adopt digital only format adopt a new periodic
01:29:29 digital only format adopt a new periodic review policy edit and reformat existing guidance and then underneath that at line 17 you've got reviewing the technical requirements commence work on
01:29:43 technical requirements commence work on and then underneath that you've got Part B fire safety do you see that y um now just in terms of um where the
01:29:54 y um now just in terms of um where the lacol work sat um it looks from this that it sat under the technical review in line 19 because we can see under the column D
01:30:07 because we can see under the column D why do this Eric Pickle's commitment following Lac House's inquest do you have that
01:30:12 have that yeah now was that the intention of this spreadsheet to convey that the part B fire safety work would be part of the review of the technical requirements or
01:30:23 review of the technical requirements or was your understanding that that work would be included as part of the simplification program uh I can't recall my thinking behind this at the time um what I know
01:30:36 behind this at the time um what I know is that um it was um in the earlier kind of first quarter of 2016 that in my mind I started thinking
01:30:48 2016 that in my mind I started thinking about the need to separate the technical
01:30:52 technical and um
01:30:55 and um simplification work out so I think this is um just a matter of uh having one line for Part B that includes both and I
01:31:06 line for Part B that includes both and I think that's happening in various places without disaggregating the simplification and the technical work right I'm not sure I entirely follow that so we're not in 2016 here we're in October
01:31:17 we're in October 2015 yeah are you saying at this point that the line that deals with fire safety Part B fire safety what was both the simplification Strand and a reviewing technical requirements
01:31:30 and a reviewing technical requirements strand uh yes I think that's probably the case right why do you say that because that's not clear on the face of this document is it
01:31:48 um I I say it because uh I probably thought about the two as homogeneous at that
01:31:58 stage where where there is a technical review going to be done uh the the simplification work would be part of that you wouldn't necessarily do a
01:32:09 that you wouldn't necessarily do a simplification process and then go into a technical review although that's where we were going to end up by 2017 yes yes I follow that if the simplification work was going to be done as part and parcel
01:32:21 was going to be done as part and parcel of the reviewing the technical requirements work that would mean that the commitment the the lacol commitment would not be being met for another two years until
01:32:34 met for another two years until 2019 because that what we saw in the in the submission for this part of the work larger scale deregulation October 2015 to October
01:32:46 2019 um I think that I think I said earlier but perhaps not um I think the 2015 to 2019 is a a range rather than an absolute but I I I
01:32:58 range rather than an absolute but I I I simply I don't recall the assumptions that I was making at this point in time right do you know whether it was made clear to Mr Warton that the commitment to review approved document Beed why
01:33:09 to review approved document Beed why 2016 2017 would not be met at this time I would have to see all of the information that was sent to Mr Warton right to know whether that was the case
01:33:21 right to know whether that was the case or not but I yeah but you can't recall there having been that discussion with ministers at this point so in the Autumn of 2015
01:33:33 this point so in the Autumn of 2015 no um looking at line 19 in a little bit more detail it says Part B fire safety we've got Eric pickles's commitment in the next column on then the column after
01:33:44 the next column on then the column after after that e it says what happens if we don't and it says growing pressure from Lobby groups and then key risks Etc it says significant reputational damage if further fire deaths occur in dclg has
01:33:56 if further fire deaths occur in dclg has not acted now whose words were those do you know I do not know they would probably be mine I suspect if I prepared this spreadsheet they would probably be
01:34:07 this spreadsheet they would probably be mine why is this only flagging reputational damage to the department if further fire deaths occur uh that is uh I apologize for that it is um not right
01:34:19 I apologize for that it is um not right and um
01:34:25 yeah I I can only apologize did you attend the meeting with the minister or was it just Mr ledom who attended again I'm afraid I actually simply don't have a clear recollection
01:34:36 simply don't have a clear recollection of this
01:34:37 of this period right in his first witness statement to the inquiry at paragraph 15 for the transcript this is CLG 30 30834 page five James Warton has said
01:34:49 30834 page five James Warton has said that at some stage he raised the issue of the speed of the review and he says in his second statement that he thinks that would have been between September and October 2015 that's cg3
01:35:02 September and October 2015 that's cg3 34289 page 7 parah 15 do you remember James Warton raising the speed of the review with you or any other officials between September and October
01:35:14 between September and October 2015 I I I I'm sorry but I just don't recall the meeting I had been throughout this period and until February March
01:35:25 this period and until February March 2016 I'd been carrying uh a large proportion of my previous job as we tried to recruit uh to backfill my post and um I think I'm
01:35:37 to backfill my post and um I think I'm extraordinarily fatigued during this period I'd been working seven days a week um six or seven days a week for that entire period And I think that I've I have struggle with my memory in this
01:35:48 I have struggle with my memory in this period because I think it's it's just exhaustion frankly yes okay let's move on to November 2015 if we can turn to CLG
01:36:09 13784 this is a submission from Alex Murphy in the building regulations and energy performance division it was cleared by Bob lebum and it's to James Warton and Greg Clark 10th of November
01:36:22 Warton and Greg Clark 10th of November 2015 and um if we turn to page three paragraph
01:36:30 14 here it's saying that we propose publication of a discussion document in early 2016 to set out direction of travel this is an important
01:36:42 direction of travel this is an important first step to engage with industry and gather
01:36:45 gather ideas do you see that I do so the proposed publication date for the discussion document has slipped again from it was said to be um
01:36:57 slipped again from it was said to be um later in 2015 that was in the September 2015 submission that we looked at now it's being said it's early 2016 in this November
01:37:06 November submission um can you help us as to what was for the re what was the reason for the delay in the publication of the discussion document at this point can you remind me of the date of this please
01:37:17 you remind me of the date of this please yes it's the 10th of November
01:37:22 2015
01:37:32 H again I'm afraid I I don't recall no and again we see the slippage from the Lael promise is not
01:37:43 slippage from the Lael promise is not highlighted in this uh ministerial submission can you help us as to why uh I well I did not draft this submission so
01:37:54 submission so it's I can't assist you with that I'm afraid so um I see so you wouldn't have inputed into it even though it was approved by Bob ledson I I don't recall now we know from the documents
01:38:07 recall now we know from the documents that on the 18th of December 2015 James Warton confirmed he was content with the proposed program of work which included the simplification of the approved documents um and I want to turn now to early
01:38:18 early 2016 if we turn to CLG 13795
01:38:29 four we can see this is an email from you to Bob ledson headed building regulations review sub on the 29th of January
01:38:40 review sub on the 29th of January 2016 and you say um Bob please see attached the package of documents for clearance to go to James Warton we urgently need to get this cleared the discussion document itself
01:38:52 cleared the discussion document itself is already well progressed and we should aim to have a further submission the final draft and write round letter ready to go up to ministers as soon as we get a reply to this sub the date for local elections has not yet been disclosed but
01:39:04 elections has not yet been disclosed but on the basis that it's likely to be around 8th of May and perder is 6 weeks we must get this out before Friday the 25th of March if we fail to do that then there's a significant risk that we will
01:39:15 there's a significant risk that we will be caught by an overlapping perder on the EU referendum in case of both perers we are captured by policies relating to local authorities and Europe so would be unable to argue the case or publication
01:39:27 unable to argue the case or publication in those periods happy to discuss um so you're clearly saying there's some urgency uh to get this published in these periods and the
01:39:39 published in these periods and the documents are attached to go to James Warton um in fact we can see that a submission went up on the 1st of April 2016 if we can go to that this is at CLG
01:39:50 2016 if we can go to that this is at CLG 301 9344
01:40:01 here we've got uh the submission to James Warton it's from you do you see that in the top right hand side yes I do so this is uh and it's been cleared by Bob ledson 1st of April 2016 and the
01:40:12 Bob ledson 1st of April 2016 and the heading is titled simplification of building regulations and building control system next steps um so it would appear that you you didn't achieve the deadline of the 25th
01:40:24 didn't achieve the deadline of the 25th of March to avoid perder do you remember that uh
01:40:29 that uh uh well clear clearly we didn't but I don't recall I have I have very poor memory of this period can you so can you help us as to why that deadline was missed um
01:40:42 missed um yes
01:40:45 uh it was due to difficulties in getting text on the building control system resolved as far as I can manage remember
01:40:56 resolved as far as I can manage remember within
01:40:58 within um so I'm I'm pretty sure that all of the technical content had been finished before
01:41:05 before Christmas um there were issues with getting the policy uh discussion right on the
01:41:12 on the system um and uh part of that problem was that Bob Ladon was um dealing with a very significant policy issue on a nonbuilding regul ations matter at the
01:41:24 nonbuilding regul ations matter at the time which Bob managed the system team um uh so I think that it was um and I may be wrong um but there was some
01:41:37 I may be wrong um but there was some form of issue that Bob was um uh told to prioritize and resolve I think it was a very serious issue I seem to remember it was um highly problematic
01:41:49 to remember it was um highly problematic and that I think um created some delay right right if we just look down this submission we can see the recommendation was uh paragraph three that officials work with the building regulations
01:42:01 work with the building regulations advisory committee with bra to develop a discussion paper for publication in May yes yeah this would set out the government's Ambitions to simplify the statutory guidance and options to reform
01:42:12 statutory guidance and options to reform the building control system including possible expansion of the role of improved inspectors if we go down and look at the second half of that page we you can see there's some
01:42:24 page we you can see there's some background Alex Murphy's submission of 10th of November set out proposals to simplify the building regulations that's at paragraph four paragraph five you confirmed you were broadly content with the proposed
01:42:35 the proposed program um paragraph six we have started work on simplifying the approved documents and developing options to simplify regulations and legislation to support improved productivity and reduce
01:42:46 support improved productivity and reduce cost for
01:42:47 cost for industry and then if we go over to page two
01:42:53 there's more uh detail about the the um what was proposed in terms of building control reform in those paragraphs next steps at paragraph 10
01:43:05 paragraphs next steps at paragraph 10 you can see recommend the next step is publication of a discussion document to set out direction of travel and invite comment paragraph 11 we're working up a draft of the document with Brack this
01:43:16 draft of the document with Brack this will need Collective Agreement before it will be
01:43:20 will be published um and you could can see there at 12 a draft project timetable is a Annex C do you see that I do now if we could go to Annex C that's at CLG 130
01:43:37 8122 now in fact it this is headed Annex B but this was the timetable that was sent with the submission so that seems to have been erroneously headed Annex B when it was in fact Annex c um and then
01:43:51 when it was in fact Annex c um and then in this uh chart we can see proposed time scales do you see that uh yes now was this a document that you would have worked upon to put these
01:44:02 you would have worked upon to put these proposed time scales together I don't believe that I did this time scale diagram but clearly it's in a submission attached to sorry it's attached to a submission that I
01:44:14 submission that I drafted yes and and what we can see is under the policy development the blue boxes at the beginning we've got various steps right at the top developed discussion paper in early 2016
01:44:27 discussion paper in early 2016 consultation in late 2017 and Analysis below that we've got finalize approved documents appears to be taking us through halfway through 2018
01:44:40 us through halfway through 2018 yes um yes with the regulations made at the end of the third quarter of 2018 and the regulations coming into force in the third quarter of 2019 do you see that I
01:44:52 third quarter of 2019 do you see that I do
01:44:54 do now the extension to the time frame uh given in the lacol commitment was not highlighted in the submission was it we just looked in full at the submission it's not
01:45:06 there I'm not clear in my
01:45:12 mind um how all this uh fits together um I I think this is the longer term time scale but I again I I I don't have a clear
01:45:26 but I again I I I don't have a clear recollection of these um kind of planning processes yeah well we don't see the lack andol commitment being addressed anywhere do we either to say we're on track or there's some slippage
01:45:37 we're on track or there's some slippage or we're very behind that's just not said is it uh it's not um it would have been a part of the part
01:45:48 um it would have been a part of the part B review but as you can see from this Pro diam it is um a very high level diagram um with very little
01:46:02 diagram um with very little detail uh I think that one of the problems we faced at this time was we had such a backlog of issues and different program elements that it was very difficult to actually describe and
01:46:15 very difficult to actually describe and make them logical until we got some more fixed dates but um so yeah I accept that it is not
01:46:26 yeah I accept that it is not visible but but looking at this now can we agree that the um the lacol commitment ought to have been addressed somewhere in this submission so ministers were aware of the commitment 2016 2017 and given some update as to
01:46:41 2016 2017 and given some update as to where progress had got to and if necessary told that you were behind because it looks from this document that you were significantly behind
01:47:05 as I say you know the LA andol recommendation is been subsumed into our assumptions about Part B I think and um yeah we should have been tracking that
01:47:19 yeah we should have been tracking that far better and making it more apparent I accept that now yeah and more app apparent to the ministers so they understood that and understood the slippage uh yes the only thing I would
01:47:31 slippage uh yes the only thing I would say is that within that program there will and I realize that they won't be so important but there will be a whole range of commitments and um issues that
01:47:42 range of commitments and um issues that underly um the full range of um activities and um actually surfacing all of those
01:47:50 of those issues in every submission would be absolutely impossible we would simply not be allowed to
01:48:01 um produ it would it would be a very um large addendum or Annex to every submission and um that was um not the
01:48:12 submission and um that was um not the way that um we the the department kind of worked in terms of submissions going to mins there was I should say that there
01:48:19 there was um I think most of these submissions will two pages because there was a two-page
01:48:25 two-page limit on the submissions that you could uh submit now that that changed and modified over time but there was a there
01:48:36 modified over time but there was a there were stipulations about how much information you could put into the body sub uh you could have annexes but they were limits because um private offices have been under instructions to reduce the length of submissions for ministers
01:48:48 the length of submissions for ministers as I Rec recall uh and that obviously at time s meant that some things were um squeezed out from and I know it sounds
01:48:59 squeezed out from and I know it sounds ridiculous but that is the case um but but this could have been highlighted in a sentence couldn't it I'm not saying that that has happened in this case but what what I am saying
01:49:10 in this case but what what I am saying is that there was a um pretty well policed limitation on how much text you could get in yeah and and quite often yeah things were taken out I don't think
01:49:21 yeah things were taken out I don't think that's what's happened here because I don't think we were habitually or or we were not systematically flagging the the lack and all issues yeah now we know that James
01:49:32 all issues yeah now we know that James Warton didn't agree to this proposal till the 19th of April 2016 and as a result the local government election and EU exit referendum per periods had come into effect as you had forewarned in
01:49:43 into effect as you had forewarned in your email now I want to ask you some questions now about frustration within your team and it's a topic you've already alluded to um if we go to to your witness statement on page 27 I want
01:49:55 your witness statement on page 27 I want to look at paragraph
01:49:58 104 you say at 104 I was aware from Team meetings that there was a real sense of frustration which I shared at the lack of progress in commencing formal review work I was also becoming concerned at
01:50:10 work I was also becoming concerned at the passage of time given the specific 201617 commitment on Part B in the normal course of business Brian Martin would have had access to an industry expert working group to assist in the
01:50:21 expert working group to assist in the simplification of approved doent B and was quite
01:50:24 was quite reasonably unhappy working without reference to such a group however we could not formally establish a working group until we had clearance from ministers on the scope of work to be undertaken the late May email chain
01:50:35 undertaken the late May email chain referred to above reflects consideration of some ways this might be resolved now um did you ever raise those frustrations with senior members of the department including Bob
01:50:47 department including Bob ledson yeah I talked to Bob about this I was getting you know I had a really frustrated at verging on um Angry team who from uh the point that the election
01:51:00 who from uh the point that the election was called in 2015 had been wanting to get back on with what they considered to be their primary role which was updating and reviewing the approved documents um
01:51:13 and reviewing the approved documents um we had for pretty much the entire period between 2010 and 2015 um I mean that's not exclusively true we were still working on zero car policy but we'd gone through uh two
01:51:25 policy but we'd gone through uh two cycles of deregulatory activity that took us away from that process and I think the backlog of work that needs to be needed to be done is part of the reason that the program management and
01:51:36 reason that the program management and the communication with ministers is actually problematic looking at it in hindsight it is it is a very difficult program to communicate because it is
01:51:47 program to communicate because it is overloaded with things that need to be addressed um I think that looking back uh the government's decision to step away from the periodic
01:51:58 decision to step away from the periodic review of approved documents in 2010 is effectively coming home to roost at this stage we are struggling to deal with the complexity and scope of the program given um the resources that we
01:52:12 program given um the resources that we have right yes do you know whether the team ever made clear the sense of frustration to ministers you would absolutely not be allowed to do that
01:52:23 allowed to do that right not even someone very senior within the team they couldn't make it clear to ministers the sense of frustration um sorry
01:52:41 so a senior civil servant might be able to raise concerns but they would probably go through the line they would go deputy director director director General and if the director General
01:52:52 General and if the director General agreed they would go and talk to the minister um so it's it's not I was not a member of the senior Civil Service I don't have insight into quite how that process works right okay do you know you
01:53:05 process works right okay do you know you talk about the fact that in the normal course of business Brian Martin would have had access to an industry expert working group did Brian Martin actually ever request the assistance of an industry expert working group he did um
01:53:18 industry expert working group he did um form a Brack group to look at the scope of ad I think um kind of earlyish in 2016 um but as I said earlier um for the review process to work we needed to be
01:53:31 review process to work we needed to be bringing in a broader group of um experts from across industry um and uh to do that uh we needed um the the discussion document and and some other
01:53:42 discussion document and and some other things potentially to be in the public realm right but is it right that there was a Steering group involved in this the br7 work streams I believe there was yes
01:53:53 streams I believe there was yes yeah was that different to the industry working group um that you're just discussing yeah because the the job of that group is to um ensure that that research is carried out properly and
01:54:05 research is carried out properly and provides robust evidence for the Department to consider um the brat working group would be constituted uh differently perhaps to look at um the range of issues that were
01:54:18 look at um the range of issues that were decided um to go into the approved document and you may have for instance more people from building control um uh or some of the other construction professions involved in that process
01:54:29 professions involved in that process than you would necessarily for the fire research where you would almost certainly have people who are specialized in fire research yes I see let's look at an email chain now CLG 301
01:54:42 18930 now this is an email chain that we looked at earlier in relation to Lael house and I said I would come back to um if we look at the very bottom of of page one we can see there's an email
01:54:53 of page one we can see there's an email from you on the 25th of May 2016 to Mr Martin and if we go over the page to the top of page two we can see from the first few lines of the email that you're
01:55:04 first few lines of the email that you're suggesting to Mr Martin that he might like to take on some infractions and epbd work that's energy performance of buildings directive work do you see that
01:55:17 buildings directive work do you see that I do you say Brian were you serious about taking on an objective to support to support Steve on infractions epbd work EG going to Brussels Etc I would support you on this as I can
01:55:29 would support you on this as I can understand why the editorial work on Part B turns you off how long have you been looking at ADB question mark 11 years question mark we could export the bulk of editorial work to a technical
01:55:41 bulk of editorial work to a technical editor through riba e and we should have some money in the piggy bank from part R if you wanted to keep to free up some time to do this it's good to do new
01:55:52 time to do this it's good to do new things to avoid getting stale and the carbon budget epbd stuff can be quite interesting let me know now um you say there in the second
01:56:03 know now um you say there in the second line I can understand why the editorial work on Part B turns you off do you see that there yeah but wasn't that a core part of his job to do the editorial work on Part
01:56:14 on Part B
01:56:17 B uh it was
01:56:19 uh it was um uh but you can go snow BL uh you can find it very difficult when you've worked on a document for so long to see it
01:56:28 to see it aresh um I recall at this time I'm trying to give Brian an option to do something different for a while and I remember um exploring whether um we had
01:56:43 remember um exploring whether um we had headcount to bring in a seconded person to actually undertake the edit the editorial work is the simplification work for the document which is ongoing whilst we're trying to
01:56:54 which is ongoing whilst we're trying to get clearance for the discussion document
01:56:57 document um
01:56:59 um uh sometimes people need um a little bit of a break so I was trying to give an option I was also at that time I I seem to recall you know evaluating whether I
01:57:10 to recall you know evaluating whether I needed to step in perhaps and um actually take over that piece of work and I didn't have the capacity to do that um there was no headcount available
01:57:21 that um there was no headcount available for a sandman and I recall that I had a conversation with Mr Martin subsequent to this exchange as a whole and he um kind of re-engaged with that process we
01:57:32 kind of re-engaged with that process we agreed that he would kind of continue to do that but it was it was about trying to um make sensible decisions about um the best way to progress that piece of work in a man management sense yes I
01:57:45 work in a man management sense yes I mean you refer at the end of this paragraph you say it's good to do new things to avoid getting stale did you think in fact at this time that he was getting stale in terms of his work on
01:57:57 getting stale in terms of his work on editing approved document
01:58:03 B it's just a human condition isn't it I think um does that mean the answer is
01:58:12 yes Mr Martin was very passionate and committed to ADB I think he was just going through um a period where the lack of progress was getting him down frankly
01:58:24 of progress was getting him down frankly um in terms of getting the discussion document and an industry working group in place and this is an exchange about you
01:58:31 you know whether he does actually want to um take a break whil because it's the editorial work that can be done by a technical editor or by someone else but
01:58:42 technical editor or by someone else but we would need him to actually head the technical review and then sense check all of those changes yes I mean how long had you been concerned enough about the situation to be thinking about you said
01:58:53 situation to be thinking about you said you were thinking about taking even offering to take over the piece of work how how long had you had these concerns for well it was no um you know I never I can't I can't recall I think
01:59:06 never I can't I can't recall I think it's um come out of conversations about um
01:59:12 um uh uh the state uh progress of the work or I mean I I I don't recall the full chain where this started or what prompted me to send it off to me it'll
01:59:23 prompted me to send it off to me it'll have been a discussion or a series of discussions
01:59:28 um uh yeah so I I don't recall but um it is very much about trying to find the right way through this yes if we go to Mr Martin's response um which is the
01:59:40 Mr Martin's response um which is the second email down on page one we can see on the 26th of May 2016 um he says this he says hi Richard it's more like 16 years but I'm not
01:59:52 it's more like 16 years but I'm not counting I'm procrastinating because I'm not able to do the job the way I want to I suspect I need to lock myself away for a week and jfdi exclamation
02:00:03 jfdi exclamation mark um did you understand him to to mean just beep do it uh yes I think that is what it means yes I am getting a bit
02:00:14 is what it means yes I am getting a bit stale I think it might be a form of midlife
02:00:17 midlife crisis I'm blank is this it but ADB is almost like my third child I would have gladly handed the job to Steve Kay but that wasn't to be there's a limit to
02:00:29 that wasn't to be there's a limit to what Reber e can do but I think they could help a lot if there's a viable task I can pick up on epbd then that's have a look at it so that was his um
02:00:41 have a look at it so that was his um response what did you understand him to mean by I'm procrastinating because I I'm not able to do the job the way I want
02:00:49 want to um he wanted to have a working group a reference group um so that he could um progress the work in the way that he was
02:01:00 progress the work in the way that he was um used to doing on previous review projects I think and the delay in issuing the discussion document was holding that up is that yeah what you're saying
02:01:11 saying yeah and and what did you think when you saw the comment by him I'm getting a bit stale and ADB is almost like my third child did you think that that he might
02:01:22 child did you think that that he might have been in this job simply too long and was no longer capable of thinking positively and proactively about it no I didn't think that I thought this
02:01:33 it no I didn't think that I thought this was um you know a frustrating period for Mr
02:01:37 Mr Martin
02:01:39 Martin um it this is this is the result of having no uh depth or um
02:01:52 uh succession planning if you like um capacity within the division we are we are um
02:02:00 are um very you I think at this stage sorry May 2016 we've got five grade sevens we've recruited in February and March recruited two grade sevens in in February March we have no spto we've got
02:02:11 February March we have no spto we've got five
02:02:13 five professionals um there is absolutely no way to move people around really because there's no one else with that skill set um I think it would have
02:02:25 um I think it would have been very difficult to um find someone uh with Mr Martin's uh expertise who would have um been interested in the
02:02:38 who would have um been interested in the job at the salary rate that was available um so um yeah it's a it's a Personnel issue I think most people go
02:02:49 Personnel issue I think most people go through these kind of Peri periods but they come out the other end yeah but did you think he might have become just too close to ADB and therefore uh incapable
02:03:00 close to ADB and therefore uh incapable of thinking objectively about it no I mean I I don't know whether that went through my mind at the time or not I don't recall right and was the Steve
02:03:12 I don't recall right and was the Steve Kay that he seemed to want to hand the job to was that Steve Kelly yes it was and he by this stage resigned is that correct he had left in 2013
02:03:22 2013 we had then re-recruited him to take my uh grade seven Post in um
02:03:31 in um 2015 uh but uh because when we moved into marsham Street uh from El house um we had become subject
02:03:42 house um we had become subject to counterterrorism Security checks uh which added U somewhere between 12 and 20 weeks onto the process of recruiting someone he had dropped out I seem to
02:03:53 someone he had dropped out I seem to recall in January or February 2015 a short period before he was due to take up post so um yeah we we nearly recruited him but that was frustrated by
02:04:05 recruited him but that was frustrated by the kind of time scales to actually on board him right what did you actually do to address the feedback that you were clearly getting from Mr Martin in this
02:04:17 email I'm sure we had subsequent discussions as I said I I I think we had subsequent discussion and um uh he agreed that he could um reinvigorate and
02:04:29 agreed that he could um reinvigorate and and kind of recommit to doing the work right do you actually recall having those discussions with
02:04:37 him uh I don't have a clear recollection yeah did you ever discuss with him the option that he posits here of actually carving out some specific time in his diary to get on with this work he said
02:04:49 diary to get on with this work he said you know I suspect I need to lock myself for away for a week and and and just get on with it um did you ever actually discuss the option of allowing him some time in the diary to do that well I
02:05:00 time in the diary to do that well I didn't control Mr Martin's diary um I I took on I know that what one thing I did do in this period was take on the redrafting of approved document E I was
02:05:11 redrafting of approved document E I was working through the main body text of that document that was a responsibility that Mr Martin had and I did that to try and create some more space for him to do the work um so it's not that I don't
02:05:22 the work um so it's not that I don't think he had control of his diary or his time it was this was a um just um a period where he was frustrated and and a bit low right I'm interested in the comment you say well I didn't control Mr
02:05:34 comment you say well I didn't control Mr Martin's diary you were his line manager did you not have the ability to influence his diary in terms of making sure time was being carved out for this job which was now becoming long
02:05:48 overdue um the whole way that the division worked um that was just not at normal you
02:06:00 um that was just not at normal you um I I would
02:06:09 simp this is we we yeah um I don't know how to answer that because the division the grade Sev within division had um a huge amount of policy uh autonomy to
02:06:22 huge amount of policy uh autonomy to plan their time um I'm trying to get Mr Martin back on track I I I see here and uh I can't remember what specific actions
02:06:33 actions we uh agreed but
02:06:38 um I don't think it was lack what I'm saying is I don't think it was lack of time I think it was just a slump okay let's look at your response at the top of the page on the next day 27th of May
02:06:51 of the page on the next day 27th of May um you say in the first paragraph Brian I can sense the frustration and I worry that I sometimes make it worse um and then in parenthesis you say surely not question mark although I can promise you it's not intentional I'm not very happy
02:07:03 it's not intentional I'm not very happy about constraints on the way we work either to be frank and the sooner we can agree objectives and let people get on with it the way that they want to the better including getting industry in the room to co-design proposals but it's
02:07:15 room to co-design proposals but it's tortuous and we need to navigate this stage of work together um now what were the constraints that you you're saying uh you weren't happy
02:07:26 you you're saying uh you weren't happy with in terms of the way you work well it's it's the inability to get the discussion document published so that we can get the industry groups into the room and start actually having those conversations I think right and can you
02:07:39 conversations I think right and can you remember any positive steps that you actually took to move things forward after this email exchange uh move what forward the discussion document or this discussion
02:07:52 discussion document or this discussion well this discussion and in terms of him he clearly wants to find time to to look at the simplification work he's not just saying I'm I'm delayed because of the discussion
02:08:04 discussion document um what positive steps did you take to move things forward with his work um I don't recall in the next paragraph you say let's also work out what Reber e can do
02:08:15 let's also work out what Reber e can do and the manual of building control may help if post lacken or questions were about which requirements apply we looked at that earlier um and then you um say we if we want you could ask Nick to look at the ads for
02:08:27 could ask Nick to look at the ads for brevity never known a man more concise who who was that that was Nick price who I think by this stage was a grade seven he was a civil engineer and a public health engineer responsible for um
02:08:39 health engineer responsible for um approved documents um CD um G and H right and a sorry and and did you did the two of you you and Mr Martin discuss this topic again do you
02:08:51 Martin discuss this topic again do you do you remember having another discussion about this I don't recall but I'm sure that it didn't end at this point right but you can't help us as to what you discussed on further occasions
02:09:03 what you discussed on further occasions no right now moving forward with the chronology after the EU exit referendum there was a change of prime minister and a ministerial reshuffle and on the 17th of July Gavin barwell was appointed as
02:09:14 of July Gavin barwell was appointed as Minister for state for housing and planning and sagid Javid was appointed Secretary of State for housing communities and local government and in preparation for the reshuffle we can see from the documents that on the
02:09:25 can see from the documents that on the 13th of July 2016 you sent a bundle of submissions to Steve quartermain who was then the director responsible for the building regulations and energy performance team uh and also to planning director
02:09:38 team uh and also to planning director Simon Gallaher flagging the need to decide how and when to put them to ministers the package included the proposed discussion document and a submission seeking agreement to start
02:09:50 submission seeking agreement to start procuring research to support simplification deregulation and maintenance of the building regulations um and um we can see this bundle of submissions at um CLG
02:10:04 see this bundle of submissions at um CLG 301
02:10:16 9359 there's your email at the bottom of the page to Simon gall and Steve quain and
02:10:23 and others um Simon Steve pleasy attached a package of submissions that we've been working on which we need to put up to ministers at some stage we will need to discuss how and when and then the
02:10:35 discuss how and when and then the package includes and you can see it bullet point two it includes the draft building regulation review discussion document do you see that I do and then we can see just going
02:10:49 do and then we can see just going up um Simon galaher replies to you on the 14th of July 2016 and he says Richard I intend to leave these to Steve to look at next week we certainly
02:11:01 to look at next week we certainly shouldn't be rushing to put things to new ministers do you remember that um
02:11:09 that um I I can see it in front of me but you can't remember that were you concerned I'm not I'm not sure whether I remember it or not FR to me I'm just not absolutely clear about my level of Rec C
02:11:21 absolutely clear about my level of Rec C okay do you remember being concerned that you were being told not to rush things with the new ministers um this point I imagine that I was furious at
02:11:32 point I imagine that I was furious at the time
02:11:35 the time um but the department was in post referendum shock there was a lot of um Readjustment going on to the new
02:11:47 Readjustment going on to the new government um it was really difficult to cut through that at that point in time um
02:11:58 that at that point in time um and
02:11:59 and uh yeah I
02:12:02 uh yeah I know I was probably starting to feel pretty despondent by this point quite frankly
02:12:09 frankly right um now after this email exchange you tell us in your statement that you and Brian Martin met Simon Gallaher and Steve quartermain to ensure that they clearly understood the program of work
02:12:20 clearly understood the program of work and would be supportive in seeking clearance at more senior levels within the
02:12:25 the department um now after that meeting did you feel that the directors understood the program of work and and your priorities for it um yes I
02:12:40 um yes I we we went across the full as far as I can recall we we discussed the full nature of the importance of the division's work and uh the package that
02:12:51 division's work and uh the package that was being produced and its linkage to um potential risks um uh and I felt that they were fully
02:13:02 um uh and I felt that they were fully cited yes now we know that the submission seeking clearance to publish the discussion document was finally sent on the 15th of September 2016 and we'll come back to that in a moment but just
02:13:14 come back to that in a moment but just before that can you help us did you attend the introductory briefing for Minister Gavin in barwell on the 8th of August
02:13:23 August 2016 I'm pretty sure I didn't right okay um we know that um he had a presentation by Bob bledom on the work of the building regulation team and Bob bledom
02:13:36 building regulation team and Bob bledom created some slides during that meeting yeah do you remember being involved in that no I don't think I was involved in
02:13:45 that let's pick it up again CLG 130 835
02:13:56 six this is an email from you to all mhg special advisers this is the 27th of July 2016 copying uh Bob ledom and
02:14:07 July 2016 copying uh Bob ledom and others
02:14:08 others in and you you say um I recognize that there will there will a great deal going on in sp's office at the moment but I wanted to ask whether there's any possibility of confirming clearance to
02:14:20 possibility of confirming clearance to publish building regulation research reports that we have previously discussed see email trial below some of these reports are attracting political interest electrical safety in particular others raise important technical
02:14:32 others raise important technical questions where we need to be discussing Solutions with industry part e sound insulation and others have life safety implications Part B fire safety some of these reports have been awaiting
02:14:43 these reports have been awaiting publication for 18 months Jacob cleared them for publication shortly before the referendum Etc we do not believe that the publication of any of these reports is likely to be of importance interest
02:14:54 is likely to be of importance interest outside specific trade sectors and are overall and overall are low risk they are very important to our work however exclamation mark is there any way we can
02:15:07 exclamation mark is there any way we can agree an August publication date preferably in one group happy to come and speak discuss with news spads if that would be of benefit now just help us there you you flagged that some of these
02:15:18 flagged that some of these reports um these search reports have life safety implications including Part B fire safety what were you thinking of particularly when you were highlighting that I'm trying to put pressure on the
02:15:30 that I'm trying to put pressure on the spads to actually release the reports by flagging Life Safety I couldn't tell you specifically but um you know uh I didn't have a close relationship or much
02:15:42 have a close relationship or much contact with special advisers I think these would be new special advisers anyway so um you trade carefully but I'm trying to apply pressure as far as I can to get this thing moving do you know
02:15:55 to get this thing moving do you know whether any of these life safety issues included addressing the use of combustable cladding on high-rise
02:16:03 buildings as I said I think it's it's a generic uh reference to highlight the importance of Part B can you just help me as a matter of curiosity as much as
02:16:15 me as a matter of curiosity as much as anything why do speds have any role in proving the publication of material it was a uh so it was to identify any political
02:16:27 so it was to identify any political sensitivities in uh research sorry there was research you were referring to well the documents you wanted to publish yeah so these are all research reports I think um it's to identify anything
02:16:38 think um it's to identify anything that's politically uh misaligned in the reports before they're released so they are in effect view reviewing them on behalf of the minister is that right
02:16:49 behalf of the minister is that right that's correct so I mean I I must caution at myself actually um that's what I believe the reason for it was I've never had a discussion about why it was uh but it was definitely about um
02:17:00 was uh but it was definitely about um Minister's offices being in control of information that had been commissioned and released on behalf of the department okay um I I asked the question because we know that you spent a long time trying to get approval from one or other
02:17:13 trying to get approval from one or other Minister's SPS is is it possible is there a mechanism for someone in your position to get on the minister saying can you get your Spar to do something
02:17:24 can you get your Spar to do something now as I said I would go you would go through the senior Civil Service well maybe is but is that the way you'd go to Mr ledom and then he' go to well Steve quain's been trying to shift this Simon
02:17:36 quain's been trying to shift this Simon Gallagher has uh been trying to shift this at director level I have no idea what was happening above that level um I suggested to both uh to Bob Steve and
02:17:47 suggested to both uh to Bob Steve and Simon that we should try and have a convers ation about delegating um clearance of these uh reports to a director general or a director somewhere in the department so
02:17:59 director somewhere in the department so uh not just these reports but in general uh that that did was not going to find favor so um yeah I just wondered whether someone couldn't actually get get on to
02:18:10 someone couldn't actually get get on to the minister directly and point out that his people were holding everything up well that's why you go up the senior service ladder it gets escalated we say to Bob Bob says to Steve or Simon they
02:18:21 to Bob Bob says to Steve or Simon they say to their director General and the director general or the Perman SEC goes and have the work really it's the Perman permanent secretary's job to yeah um have those discussions um ultimately and
02:18:32 have those discussions um ultimately and did it happen well I I don't know because I know we escalated it up to director level but I don't know what actually happened beyond that and there
02:18:45 actually happened beyond that and there was um and is um a degree of confidentiality for the seniori Civil Service in reporting back why or what or how things have been done or how they happened so you don't um you don't know
02:18:59 happened so you don't um you don't know why things are or are not you don't necessarily know the reason why things are or are not happening yeah right thank thank you very much sorry topped you miss no no it's helpful thank you
02:19:10 you miss no no it's helpful thank you now in terms of Steve quartermain we know he became the director responsible for the building regulations and energy performance team in June 2016 um he's told in in told us in his
02:19:21 2016 um he's told in in told us in his witness statement that he was unaware of the coroner's rule 43 letter until the Autumn of 2016 when Mr ledson raised it with him as part of a one-to-one
02:19:32 with him as part of a one-to-one discussion um whose responsibility was it to brief somebody like Mr quartermain on for example the the lacol house
02:19:43 recommendations um there is there's no protocol as far as I'm aware within the department for how coroners um recommendations uh were
02:19:55 coroners um recommendations uh were handled or dealt with it's dealt with on a case-by Case basis
02:20:01 basis um what that means is that they are not
02:20:09 necessarily [Music]
02:20:13 [Music] um visible if you were starting to on board a senior official right um until I mean Bob obviously flagged that because of concerns about progress again
02:20:27 of concerns about progress again um uh but yeah you know it's it's a kind of systemic uh weakness within uh the department perhaps right
02:20:39 within uh the department perhaps right yes um now Mr quartermain has told us at paragraph 18 page five of his statement that he immediately recognized the need to press on with the actions announced
02:20:50 to press on with the actions announced in response to the laal house uh report and he therefore tried to expedite the work that was underway do you remember um Mr
02:21:00 um Mr quain um providing some impetus in this area at this
02:21:07 time um sorry could you repeat what he said yes so let's look at his statement CLG
02:21:16 CLG 30308
02:21:17 30308 66 and it's page five
02:21:25 paragraph 18 He says in the first line I immediately recognized the need to press on with the actions announced in response to the lacol house Coroner's report a program of a work was underway
02:21:38 report a program of a work was underway in line with the Secretary of State's response and this had been approved by ministers I therefore tried to expedite the work that was underway I did this by requiring Bob to progress the submissions to ministers as soon as
02:21:50 submissions to ministers as soon as possible
02:21:51 possible and then he goes on and says submissions were sent uh in September to to Gavin barwell do you see that I do now do you agree uh that uh it was him requiring
02:22:04 agree uh that uh it was him requiring the progress to be made with these submissions to ministers at this
02:22:13 time I I simply don't know you don't know you can't help as to whether Mr quartermain provided some impetus at this
02:22:21 this point I think he's clearing blockages rather than providing impetus my recollection um of this period was that
02:22:33 recollection um of this period was that following the referendum um there was a period where we
02:22:40 we were um not able to get the priority to put the discussion document and submission up we produced numerous different types of drug draft of the
02:22:51 different types of drug draft of the document in that period but not because we um needed to redraft it but because we were looking at options that we thought would expedite or make it easier
02:23:02 thought would expedite or make it easier to get
02:23:03 to get clearance um so there were shorter versions um there were kind of various different options because we felt that was a factor in in people having um the we felt that the length of
02:23:17 having um the we felt that the length of the document potentially was an issue um but we my my recollection is that that as I said we were doing those activities because we had the time
02:23:28 activities because we had the time because we couldn't get the um agreement to put the discussion document um back up to ministers right now let's just look Mr chairman this will be the last
02:23:39 look Mr chairman this will be the last document and I'd like to go to this and just finish this topic uh let's look at your submission seeking clearance to publish the discussion document it's at CLG 301 9368
02:23:56 so we can see it's from you to Gavin barwell and Sagi Javid cleared by Bob ledson policy area simplification of building regulations and building control system issue clearance to
02:24:09 control system issue clearance to publish discussion document and we can see under purpose paragraph one this submission seeks agreement to progress publication of a discussion document setting out the potential scope of future work to simplify building regulations and
02:24:21 simplify building regulations and strengthen the building control system and we can see the recommendation at paragraph three if we go down the page is that that you agree officials should continue to develop the building
02:24:33 should continue to develop the building regulations discussion document Annex a with a view to publication in the Autumn and then um so so we can see now this is an extension we had originally
02:24:45 this is an extension we had originally from the end of 2015 then it was going to be in early 2016 now it's going to be in the Autumn of 2016 yes uh yes now again the submission does
02:24:57 yes uh yes now again the submission does not mention the lacol house inquest or the commitment made by um Eric pickles is the reason for that effectively the same you gave in relation to the earlier submission we looked at this is this is
02:25:08 submission we looked at this is this is effectively the second time this submission has been submitted to ministers so um
02:25:17 yes and we see at paragraph seven on page
02:25:24 two that um the submission focuses on deregulation and simplification uh here it says why reform it says the building regulations are broadly supported by industry they
02:25:36 are broadly supported by industry they have provided a proportionate system of Regulation which is as well as delivering safe buildings has supported the drive to reduce energy bills and carbon however there's room for improvement significant deregulation was
02:25:49 improvement significant deregulation was achieved in the last Parliament but there's scope to do more particularly to simplify the statutary guidance which supports
02:25:55 supports regulations and then in the second bullet building control can be provided by either local authorities or private sector approved inspectors competition has driven efficiency but there are concerns about whether the sufficient
02:26:06 concerns about whether the sufficient compliance checking of building work and the capacity of local Authority building control bodies in particular and then at paragraph eight a program of further review and simplification will support other work
02:26:17 simplification will support other work to reform the planning system to enable delivery of more housing reduce cost to Industry in line with recent discussions at the social reform committee now um can you explain why the
02:26:29 committee now um can you explain why the submission doesn't explicitly refer to fire safety or Life Safety as one of the reasons which required reform of the building regulations at this
02:26:45 time yeah sorry can you remind me the date of this submission again please yes it's um dated the 15th of September [Music]
02:26:55 [Music] 2016 could I see the remainder of the submission please yes of course so we can see underneath that simplification and review of technical requirements if you scroll down please
02:27:08 you scroll down please yeah you've got extending and balancing competition for building control finance and
02:27:15 and resource public sector equality Duty
02:27:23 recommendations I think it's the same issue um as earlier which is that it's um a broad sighting sub rather than a detailed submission okay Mr chairman
02:27:35 detailed submission okay Mr chairman thank you for that um that's a convenient Point that's a that's a good moment to stop thank you good all right thank you very much well Mr Harold we'll call a Hal at that point for today thank
02:27:46 call a Hal at that point for today thank you I'm afraid we've got to ask you to come back tomorrow for some more questions but I think you were expecting that anyway weren't you yes I was yes all right thank you well we resume please at 10:00 tomorrow and in the
02:27:57 please at 10:00 tomorrow and in the meantime as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it take the break right and if you go with the Usher we'll see you tomorrow morning thank you very much
02:28:08 tomorrow morning thank you very much thank you very much 10:00 them
02:28:20 much thank you very much 10:00 them please