Richard Harrell, former Head of Technical Policy at DCLG, gives evidence on his role overseeing building regulations, deregulation pressures, and response to the Lakanal House coroner's recommendations.
00:00:23 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:26 hearing today we're going to hear evidence from another
00:00:29 another official in what was the department for communities and local government now the department for leveling up housing and communities yes mr screen yes thank you could we have mr richard harrell please
00:00:49 good morning mr harold good morning i understand you're going to make the affirmation yes i am the words should be on the screen in front of you would you read them out please thank you i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and
00:01:00 solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much now please sit down make yourself comfortable
00:01:14 yes that's great when you're ready yes thank you yes thank you very much for attending to give your evidence today it is very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions that i'm going to put to you
00:01:25 questions that i'm going to put to you please just ask me to repeat the question
00:01:28 question or i'll put the point in a different way if you feel you need a break at any point just please let us know and try and keep your voice up so that the lady who's transcribing your evidence sitting
00:01:39 who's transcribing your evidence sitting to your right can take a clear note of your evidence now you've made one witness statement to the inquiry if we could turn that up at clg three zeros one nine four eight seven
00:01:52 there's your witness statement and if we look up page 43
00:02:00 we can see it's dated the 16th of november 2018 and is that your signature it is and have you read that statement recently i have and are the contents of it true
00:02:12 have and are the contents of it true uh they are um
00:02:15 um and have you discussed the evidence that you're going to give today with anyone before coming here uh only my legal counsel okay now i'm going to start with some questions in relation to your experience and background
00:02:28 experience and background if we look at um the first page of your witness statement again
00:02:34 and we look there at paragraph two you tell us you say i am a registered architect who worked in private and local authority practice for 10 years prior to joining the building regulations division in the
00:02:46 building regulations division in the department for communities and local government dclg in october 2007 and you go on to tell us that at that time i when you joined you say i held policy responsibility for part k
00:02:59 policy responsibility for part k protection from falling collision and impact part m access to and use of buildings and part n glazing safety of the building regulations is that correct that's correct
00:03:10 that's correct now just just help us thinking back to your time you tell us you worked in private and local authority practice as an architect for
00:03:18 10 years prior to joining dclg what qualifications did you hold prior to working for dclg i had a degree in architectural studies
00:03:29 i had a degree in architectural studies a diploma in architecture and
00:03:34 and i was a registered and chartered architect at that time yeah and just tell us a little bit more about your private and local authority practice what did that entail so i started out in local authorities in the northwest of
00:03:46 local authorities in the northwest of england mainly working on maintenance and extension works to schools and local authority buildings at a relatively small scale
00:03:57 at a relatively small scale i then
00:03:58 i then um moved to london and worked in i think two different private practices primarily
00:04:08 primarily on relatively small scale buildings but in the range of two to three million pound budgets a mixture of something mixed use residential [Music]
00:04:19 [Music] some office quite a lot of domestic residential work i then
00:04:24 i then run my own practice for three years before deciding to join the department right yes and in your practice as an architect were you ever involved in the design or refurbishment of high-rise
00:04:35 design or refurbishment of high-rise buildings no i was not in these roles did you ever gain any experience in relating to fire safety issues
00:04:43 issues um or wherever we did building work that needed to comply we would be looking at the relevant fire safety building regulations yeah so you were applying them and applying part b in the work you were doing yeah
00:04:55 part b in the work you were doing yeah did you ever do any other specialist work in relation to fire no i didn't know
00:05:00 know now you go on to tell us in the next paragraph
00:05:03 paragraph uh paragraph three you tell us that i took over as head of technical policy in the building regulations and standards division in january 2014 overseeing a team of technical specialists and generalist civil
00:05:15 specialists and generalist civil servants with responsibility for managing building regulations technical policy alongside various other policy responsibilities set out later in this statement
00:05:27 now
00:05:31 it's right isn't it that prior to taking up that role as head of technical policy you had you'd only had responsibility for parts k m and n of the building regulations and you hadn't had any
00:05:43 regulations and you hadn't had any involvement in relation to part b is that correct that's correct
00:05:49 and can you just explain your role as a grade seven principal architect what had that involved in the department so i should clarify that principle was a grade
00:05:59 grade um
00:05:59 um [Music]
00:06:01 [Music] so the job title was a great name rather than being equivalent to chief planner or anything of that nature yeah the role involved overseeing
00:06:12 overseeing the maintenance and development of parts k
00:06:15 parts k m and n
00:06:17 m and n that included stakeholder engagement attending british standards and other committees relevant to those standards when they were working on the
00:06:28 standards when they were working on the standards that were included in those parts of the regulations and uh providing advice briefing etc to ministers responding to parliamentary questions and parliamentary business
00:06:40 questions and parliamentary business yeah
00:06:41 yeah right thank you and um so then from january 2014 and this is right until you left the civil service in 2017 you were head of technical policy yes that's correct yes
00:06:52 technical policy yes that's correct yes and in short why did you leave the civil servant service in 2017 um i
00:06:59 um i decided to leave the civil service because
00:07:03 because it was making me ill the role was making me ill
00:07:08 i was ill twice in 2016 largely
00:07:15 largely stress related and exhaustion related problems
00:07:20 problems [Music]
00:07:22 [Music] i
00:07:23 i had got to a point where i had to recognize that i couldn't achieve what i wanted to achieve and that the anxiety and frustration of not
00:07:34 that the anxiety and frustration of not being able to actually move things forward um was
00:07:39 um was essentially i i remember very clearly realizing it was going to kill me if i stayed yeah okay thank you now it's right isn't it that you took over from anthony bird who had had the role of head of technical policy before
00:07:51 role of head of technical policy before you is that correct that's correct
00:07:54 um and
00:07:57 and you explain we don't need to go to it at paragraph 38 of your statement on page 12 that
00:08:02 12 that um
00:08:03 um you were progressively copied in to information as part of a handover process is that right that's correct did that handover start before january 2014 when you formally assumed the role yeah
00:08:15 when you formally assumed the role yeah it would have been in probably the six weeks prior to the end of 2013 yes and did you spend spend time with anthony bird
00:08:26 anthony bird catching up on what the role was going to entail and being taught by him what it was going to entail the handover was briefer than that to be honest
00:08:35 honest it was very much about working through the various portfolio elements and passing on briefing and tasks um
00:08:45 um i think i understood from i'd worked for six and a bit years under a grade six i had a relatively good idea of what the job involved by that point in time yeah so
00:08:56 involved by that point in time yeah so when you say the handover is briefer than that give us an idea of how long the handover lasted i think we had two or three meetings um that would be an hour hour and a half maybe two hours yeah
00:09:06 yeah were you given any training as part of the handover process are you to bring you up to speed with for example parts of the building regulations which you hadn't previously been familiar with no
00:09:17 hadn't previously been familiar with no um
00:09:18 um were you given any briefing in relation to areas of policy for which you'd not previously been responsible yes i mean these handover meetings were primarily about talking through
00:09:29 through um
00:09:32 the work package that mr bird had on his desk that he was passing over to me yeah did you feel that the handover process was adequate for you to effectively assume the new role
00:09:44 assume the new role at the time yes yes i did right now if we look at paragraph nine of your statement on page three
00:09:53 you say this you say as the g6 grade six head of technical policy my role was to line manage a team of between four and five technical specialists within the division
00:10:04 specialists within the division undertake recruitment and put in place succession planning and retention plans support development of specifications for and procurement of research contracts and ensure that suitable procedures were followed to develop and
00:10:17 procedures were followed to develop and implement building regulation policy do you see that yes now just helpers you say that you're managing line managing a team of technical specialists what was their role the role of the technical
00:10:28 role the role of the technical specialists um
00:10:30 um the technical specialists were a mixture of grade sevens which was the grade below me
00:10:35 below me and sptos or senior professional technical officers who um supported and usually reported to one of the grade sevens the grade sevens were policy leads so
00:10:46 the grade sevens were policy leads so they um had effectively the same role that i had had uh previously in taking uh responsibility for um the policy on specific areas of the
00:10:57 um the policy on specific areas of the building regulations yes i see
00:11:01 yes i see um you say in the last three lines of paragraph nine there we can see on the page you say the technical specialists were expected to provide an intelligent client function in an interacting with
00:11:13 client function in an interacting with expert research and industry experts and translating their expertise into policy do you see that i do
00:11:23 now what does providing an intelligent client function mean in practical day-to-day terms uh so
00:11:31 uh so um
00:11:31 um [Music]
00:11:33 [Music] when i joined the division in 2006 it was being 2007 sorry it was being restructured and the technical team was being
00:11:44 and the technical team was being downsized
00:11:46 downsized so that there were fewer specialists covering the same scope of area with the intention that more specialist knowledge would be contracted in as and when there were active areas
00:11:57 in as and when there were active areas of policy that required attention sorry could you repeat the question i realize i've diverged slightly yes no i'm interested in just understanding you've explained that the technical specialist provided this intelligent
00:12:08 specialist provided this intelligent client function i interaction interacting with expert research and industry experts and translating the the expertise i think of the experts yes into policy is that right yeah so um the
00:12:21 into policy is that right yeah so um the point is that the department had decided at that point in time not to hold experts in every single area of policy we did have people who were quite expert in some areas but we didn't cover off
00:12:33 in some areas but we didn't cover off every area with a standing expert within the department so a lot of my role as um grade 7 or grade 6 would involve actually helping to translate industry
00:12:45 actually helping to translate industry knowledge
00:12:46 knowledge into policy or communicating policy into industry and that's what those policy leads did yes so were those technical specialists is it fair to say that they were your eyes and ears
00:12:58 were your eyes and ears in relation to industry and developments in industry that you needed to be aware of yeah the policy leads would
00:13:06 would take
00:13:07 take well they would do the vast majority of work in terms of remaining in contact with what was happening in industry and engaging with industry and feeding back to you
00:13:19 and feeding back to you important issues that were arising in industry which you then needed to take cognizance of when you were doing your work uh yes yes um in his oral evidence uh mr ledsim
00:13:30 um in his oral evidence uh mr ledsim explained he he used the term horizon scanning and he said that was an important part of the technical team's role is that effectively the same thing as this intelligent client function you're describing here
00:13:42 you're describing here horizon scanning is more about trying to look beyond the existing so horizon scanning is trying to spot um
00:13:52 um issues that will need attention in the future rather than necessarily just dealing with the policy as it stands yes i see anticipating issues that might be around
00:14:03 anticipating issues that might be around the corner yes and again was it the part of the technical specialists to be doing that horizon scanning that anticipatory role i think um
00:14:15 i think um yes i mean the policy leads were were there to inform the way that policy was developed
00:14:20 developed but what i would say is that capacity verizon scanning as such became increasingly limited over time
00:14:29 time yes
00:14:30 yes and and i asked you a little while ago and i'm not sure i've got an answer yet but that's not your fault it's mine i think um i asked you what in practice day-to-day the specialist would be doing
00:14:41 day-to-day the specialist would be doing in order to interact with expert research and industry experts what would that involve can you just give us some examples
00:14:49 examples they may well sit on british standard committees they will attend industry conferences they will attend meetings convened by industry groups and interest bodies
00:15:01 interest bodies they would communicate with people often the policy leads developed quite long-standing relationships with key figures in their industry they so they would have relatively open lines of
00:15:13 they would have relatively open lines of communication um by email by phone um uh yeah so those are the kind of primary i think engagement activities unless you were within an active policy development
00:15:25 were within an active policy development cycle in which case you would have formalized working groups and structures to engage with industry through consultation as well yes i see yes that's very helpful thank you
00:15:38 yes that's very helpful thank you now you say at paragraph 10 below that we see at the bottom of the page you say the division was not expected to hold comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of the technical standards covered by the building regulations but be able to
00:15:50 the building regulations but be able to access or procure that expertise as required my role included identifying how best the division could develop and maintain this necessary knowledge so i think that follows on from the
00:16:01 think that follows on from the description you were just giving in relation to fire safety and who would you as the department look to to access and procure expertise
00:16:16 pretty much anything to do with fire safety would go to the fire safety policy lead who was brian martin during this period yes and who would he in turn be looking to to provide expertise if he
00:16:27 be looking to to provide expertise if he didn't have it he may well we had formal contracts out with organizations to bring expertise in [Music]
00:16:37 [Music] he's you know the informal networks that are built provide an access route to gaining
00:16:44 gaining garnering information within the policy review process when a part of the building regulations being reviewed it'd be normal to have not just members of the building
00:16:55 not just members of the building regulations advisory committee sitting within groups but also to second in other people from industry recommended often by brac members but also sometimes by
00:17:05 by the policy leads to bolster the kind of breadth and depth of expertise helping to develop policy yeah and was the bre an example of an organization where you had as we know
00:17:16 organization where you had as we know standing contracts out to give you um expert advice yes it was yes
00:17:24 and in order to assess the information that the technical lead was being provided with and translate it into policy proposals was it necessary for the technical specialists to have at
00:17:36 for the technical specialists to have at least some degree of technical knowledge themselves yes all of the technical specialists had a reasonable amount of experience from within industry and in
00:17:49 within industry and in in most cases they had at least one area of genuine specialism although in my case when i was at grade seven as an architect i was a generalist in in many ways yeah and now you set out the
00:18:01 ways yeah and now you set out the responsibilities of the technical team in more detail at paragraphs 14 and 15 if we go over to page five sorry bottom of page four actually it starts you say this in paragraph 14 the
00:18:13 starts you say this in paragraph 14 the technical team typically found itself acting in one of two ways firstly in a day-to-day business manner answering queries or providing briefings on existing building control
00:18:24 on existing building control requirements and policies whilst gathering evidence and intelligence relevant to policies through informal engagement with external stakeholders and then you go on the department did not have a
00:18:36 not have a formal role or powers to undertake market surveillance activities which were effectively devolved to building control bodies or in addition to this actively developing new policies which could
00:18:47 developing new policies which could result in changes to the building regulations and approved documents within a defined part review process and you go on at paragraph 15 you say when working on day-to-day business
00:18:58 when working on day-to-day business technical policy leads are expected to deal with the full range of such business including briefing ministers attending ministerial engagement supporting ministers in the house and meeting external stakeholders matters of
00:19:10 meeting external stakeholders matters of particular importance or urgency would be flagged where my assistance or attention was required i'm going to come back to that last sentence a little later in your evidence
00:19:22 but um can you just help us in relation to what you say at the end of paragraph 14 as we can see on the screen there just help us what is a part review process
00:19:33 process uh so
00:19:34 uh so um
00:19:35 um [Music]
00:19:37 [Music] there wasn't an ongoing process for each part of the building regulation so that's part a structure part b fire and the associated approved documents to be under review
00:19:50 approved documents to be under review so
00:19:51 so when it was decided that there was a need to make changes to that appro proof document a formal review would be um scoped out agreed with ministers and uh
00:20:02 scoped out agreed with ministers and uh cleared um quite often by right around government because there were significant other departmental interests in building regulation policies so the part a part review is a
00:20:14 policies so the part a part review is a is a formalized process by which changes to the approved documents or the building regulations would be developed
00:20:22 developed yeah
00:20:25 now we know that brian martin held the grade 7
00:20:29 grade 7 role of fire safety policy lead during the period from june 2011 to november 2017 when he was promoted into a g6 role is that right that's correct
00:20:41 a g6 role is that right that's correct and he so he was promoted into your job when you left in november 2017 is that right that's correct and is it right that
00:20:52 and is it right that brian martin would be in turn supported by a number of other officials known as senior technical officers or senior technical policy officers
00:21:03 technical policy officers um
00:21:04 um in which role his role is grade seven yes
00:21:07 yes um so they were known so senior executive officers were career civil servants without a technical background typically
00:21:15 typically sptos were senior professional technical officers which was the same grade as an seo but with a technical background yes
00:21:25 and was he supported by such people in his role at times so
00:21:31 so certainly
00:21:32 certainly i think
00:21:33 i think for most of that time there was support from an seo but we
00:21:40 but we [Music]
00:21:42 [Music] lost
00:21:43 lost the spto who had been supporting actually at that time when i was at grade seven just before i became a grade six um supporting both myself and mr martin
00:21:55 supporting both myself and mr martin across our portfolios he left to go into private practice and we found it exceedingly difficult to then recruit sptos back into the department we'd managed to recruit in
00:22:06 department we'd managed to recruit in 2008
00:22:08 2008 9 i think effectively because the market was uh flat we found it impossible to recruit at spto
00:22:17 spto level
00:22:18 level um over time so those roles um became phased out in effect so that by 20 early probably march 2016 there was five grade sevens instead of
00:22:31 five grade sevens instead of um well
00:22:32 um well we started with four grade sevens and four sptos in 2010.
00:22:38 2010. yes you go from eight down to five i think is that right that's right yeah but it's the the sp to your spto roles were
00:22:45 were uh impossible to recruit into you couldn't find or attract candidates who had the right skills to come into government um so um yeah so effectively yes for a period
00:22:58 um yeah so effectively yes for a period there would have been sptos but they were effectively becoming phased out yeah and and can you just elaborate on why it was so difficult to recruit those technical specialists into government at the time uh because the
00:23:10 the time uh because the simply be well two things i think um salaries were not particularly competitive as time went on um the market was desperate for technical people and they were at a premium
00:23:22 they were at a premium we couldn't attract people with the right skill sets and and depth or breadth of knowledge um at the salary levels that being offered
00:23:33 offered the other
00:23:34 the other issue is that it is a big jump to go from working in the construction industry to working in a policy department in central government and uh people need really quite serious
00:23:45 and uh people need really quite serious incentives they need either a real interest or strong incentives to make that career jump and i don't think people saw what was going on in government as really an opportunity to further their
00:23:57 really an opportunity to further their careers right thank you now if we look at page 40 of your statement and look at paragraph 157
00:24:11 the role that you're describing there that's mr martin's role is that right that's correct yeah thank you
00:24:18 now you tell us in your statement no need to go to it that um you met as a team on a regular basis but you also sat together as a group most days of the week and therefore internal
00:24:30 week and therefore internal communication within the team was good is that right that's correct so um the arrangement of our seating changed over time we moved buildings during this period
00:24:41 period that normally there would be a group of desks and
00:24:44 desks and members of the technical team would be mixed with other policy officials in the division in sitting within a within a kind of nested group of of desks that were
00:24:53 were in an open plan office yeah and just help us who was in that nested group so mr martin presumably yeah it would have been um the policy officials from the rest of the division and all of the technical
00:25:04 technical officials would have been sat um you know
00:25:09 you know adjacent to each other yeah things things did change a bit over time in terms of
00:25:14 terms of flexi desking which when we were in martian street i think probably from 2016 onwards the department decided to maximize
00:25:25 department decided to maximize desk usage and there was a requirement to have complete flexi desking which probably disrupted the kind of uniformity of where people sat a bit
00:25:35 sat a bit and then there was a move to require homeworking i remember i think one day a week we were expected to work from home so that it created more office capacity as well
00:25:46 it created more office capacity as well and of course within a team that means that people are actually less spending less time in the same space together yeah and was mr led some co-located with you yes yeah and um just describe for us how closely
00:25:59 and um just describe for us how closely on a day-to-day basis would you work with with brian martin it would vary but um it would vary entirely on
00:26:10 it would vary entirely on whether there was an issue that we needed to work together on so i had a very um
00:26:18 um quite a lot of stretch as a grade six in terms of the range of areas that i was asked to contribute to um [Music]
00:26:27 so it would be entirely case you know case specific dependent the amount of time that we spent working together yeah now it's right isn't it that you were his immediate superior and you in effect
00:26:38 his immediate superior and you in effect acted as his line manager from 2014 to 2017. that's correct yes now in practice what degree of oversight did you actually exercise over his work i mean you've said you had a heavy
00:26:49 i mean you've said you had a heavy portfolio yourself um how to what extent were you able to oversee the day-to-day work he was doing um
00:26:58 um day-to-day work so grade sevens the technical policy leads had um [Music]
00:27:03 [Music] always had a very large degree of autonomy in terms of the day-to-day work in many respects it was the only way to actually cover the ground that they were
00:27:14 actually cover the ground that they were asked to cover so
00:27:16 so on day-to-day work it would be a matter of engaging um
00:27:22 um where there was a need for me to get involved provide support make decisions rather than any
00:27:31 any direct
00:27:32 direct oversight right yeah and um i think i might know the answer to this question but i'm going to ask it did he require approval from you for everything or was he in practice able to
00:27:43 everything or was he in practice able to operate independently
00:27:46 um from 2014 to
00:27:53 march 2016 uh where um there was particular overstretch um i had agreed with mr martin that he could approach bob lebson directly and for
00:28:06 approach bob lebson directly and for day-to-day business um [Music]
00:28:11 put up submissions without my clearance necessarily but that was for very low priority issues for any major issue i would expect mr
00:28:22 for any major issue i would expect mr martin to at least discuss that with me formal clearance was really actually only instigated at senior civil service level so
00:28:31 level so for submissions and other matters they would
00:28:35 would be referred up to bob ludson yes i see and just to be clear you in turn reported to bob leadsom as the deputy director yes i did yes yeah and is it right that throughout your
00:28:46 and is it right that throughout your time in post has had a technical the official with the most detailed technical knowledge in relation to technical fire safety aspects of the building regulations and guidance was brian martin yes
00:29:01 and he had a particular focus on the building regulations relating to fire safety and the guidance in approved document b yes he had
00:29:11 he had yes that was his i guess that was the main part of his work but um he was also deployed because we had a very limited resource base to
00:29:23 had a very limited resource base to undertake other part reviews other reviews of approved documents and to
00:29:30 and to he had
00:29:32 he had responsibility for party which is to do with noise and prevention the passage of sound in buildings and then ultimately as well part q and this was a process that was ongoing with
00:29:43 this was a process that was ongoing with all of the the grade seven leads they were going from being single subject specialists to having multiple responsibilities for different parts of the regulation
00:29:54 the regulation yeah
00:29:55 yeah and part q was security and dwellings is that that's correct yeah now was there at any time any member of your technical team who had the same or a greater breadth and depth of knowledge
00:30:07 a greater breadth and depth of knowledge on
00:30:08 on matters of fire safety as brian martin no i don't believe so do you recall any occasion on which any member of the technical team or indeed you challenged or disagreed with any
00:30:21 you challenged or disagreed with any information interpretation or advice provided by mr martin on any technical aspect of fire safety
00:30:30 i i don't recall i'm sure that happened there was active debate there was um a fair degree of cross fertilization in terms of
00:30:41 in terms of how the different parts of the regulations interacted with each other so part b
00:30:45 so part b which is fire safety interacts with part m which is accessibility and interact with part l which is um
00:30:55 conservation of energy and power um
00:30:58 um there are interactions throughout and there would be active debate and um but i can't remember um specific instances i do know that mr martin and i disagreed on some things
00:31:11 martin and i disagreed on some things but i can't remember the specifics of what they were right i
00:31:16 i understand overlap potentially and and cross
00:31:19 cross fertilization between different of parts of the approved documents but on pure matters of fire safety within approved document b do you ever remember anybody challenging
00:31:30 do you ever remember anybody challenging mr martin in terms of his interpretation of that guidance
00:31:38 i can't i don't recall a specific instance no given your limited involvement in fire safety matters prior to becoming head of technical policy to what extent were you
00:31:49 technical policy to what extent were you in reality reliant upon his advice and expertise
00:31:53 expertise sorry could you repeat that yeah given your limited involvement in fire safety matters prior to becoming head of technical policy to what extent were you reliant on his advice and expertise on those matters
00:32:08 um i was reliant on all of the policy the specialist policy leads if you like to
00:32:14 to a large degree when it came to the in-depth knowledge that sat behind the regulations i had a general knowledge and understanding of the
00:32:26 knowledge and understanding of the actual
00:32:27 actual regulations themselves but there is always a great deal of depth behind the requirements in the approved documents right i think it follows from that answer that you would have been heavily reliant upon him in terms of his
00:32:38 heavily reliant upon him in terms of his advice and expertise in matters of fire safety yes yes
00:32:45 and did you yourself feel able to depart from or challenge his advice on matters of fire safety
00:32:58 yeah i we did disagree on matters at times and i overruled him at times as well um
00:33:04 um [Music]
00:33:06 [Music] so yes i did feel able to do that but i would only do so if i had absolutely clear grounds for overruling his expert advice and it i can't remember
00:33:17 expert advice and it i can't remember specific instances i know that we did disagree about matters from time to time yeah
00:33:22 yeah can you just describe your professional relationship with him how was it line managing him um
00:33:29 we got on pretty well i think um [Music]
00:33:33 [Music] uh
00:33:34 uh we were able to have very honest discussions about issues there was no problem in terms of [Music]
00:33:46 [Music] being able to
00:33:51 explore issues um
00:33:55 i think it was uh it was
00:33:59 uh it was sorry i repeat the question i'm sorry well i'm asking about what your professional relationship was like with him just in general terms yeah i think i think in general it was um
00:34:10 think in general it was um i think it was good yeah um yeah you said before that there had been occasions where you disagreed on matters can you remember what type of issues those were well one instance would be that
00:34:21 would be that [Music]
00:34:22 [Music] i
00:34:25 overall mr martin in terms of restructuring approved document b so mr martin's view was that so in 2015-16 i can't remember specifically when
00:34:36 when we
00:34:38 we were looking at the simplification process for the approved documents and part b
00:34:42 part b following up on the lacanal coroner's recommendations i
00:34:47 i was trying to create a uniformity across the approved documents and i'm going to expand on this slightly so historically um
00:34:55 um [Music]
00:34:57 [Music] the different policy leads and um had worked with a lot in a much more siloed way and so what you had across the approved documents were splits of approved documents or arrangements for approved
00:35:08 documents or arrangements for approved documents that were inconsistent and as part of the simplification process that i was trying to drive forward i was trying to create uniformity that would allow
00:35:19 uniformity that would allow us to reduce the number of decisions and the amount of thinking people needed to do to use the guidance effectively part b had been restructured in 2006 into dwelling houses and
00:35:31 into dwelling houses and buildings other than dwelling houses which
00:35:33 which um a dwelling house is a is a house whereas um buildings other than dwelling houses are all other types of buildings so if simple houses or
00:35:44 so if simple houses or complex more complex buildings
00:35:49 i think partly based on the roba e
00:35:53 roba e user research i instructed mr martin to restructure those documents into dwellings and buildings other than dwellings
00:36:00 dwellings simply to ensure that people were much clearer about which guidance appeared where so
00:36:06 where so that's one example of where i overruled him and he didn't want to do that why he didn't want to do that because there had been a very conscious decision about the split
00:36:17 the split in 2006
00:36:20 in 2006 which
00:36:24 was to do with the complexity of the fire safety matters rather than the type of building if that makes sense so this the split had been done on basis of complexity rather than typology and i
00:36:37 of complexity rather than typology and i was
00:36:38 was requiring him to reorganize it by typology right i see um
00:36:46 um i want to ask you now just some more questions about your own knowledge of the building regulations and approved document be can you give us just some idea of what your level of knowledge was
00:36:57 your level of knowledge was um in in the period from when you took over in 2014 onwards when you took over as head of technical policy
00:37:05 policy so i um
00:37:07 so i um i felt that i was
00:37:11 able to interpret approved document b i understood its general structure i understood the general principles i would
00:37:18 i would not memorize approved document b it's a large document um it's something that you do need to refer to um
00:37:26 um [Music]
00:37:28 [Music] but i've got you know i have a generalist skill set so my level of understanding of approved document b would be um kind of comparative to a general user of the document i would
00:37:39 general user of the document i would suggest right thank you were you familiar for example with the broad division of the functional requirements in part b so b1 b2 b3 did you know what each of those covered yes
00:37:51 each of those covered yes and were you familiar at any time between 2014 and 2017 with the specific functional requirements in b4 relating to external fire spread
00:38:02 to external fire spread yes when did you become familiar with those requirements was there a particular time when you had to become more familiar with them yes if i remember correctly there was a
00:38:16 fire in dubai in february 2015 which was brought to our attention and um at that time i remember
00:38:26 remember sent
00:38:27 sent speaking to smart mr martin and since checking
00:38:30 checking the requirements of um uh b4 in relation to external fire spread yes i'm going to come back to those emails later in your evidence um if we could just turn to your statement
00:38:41 if we could just turn to your statement for a moment look at page 25 paragraph 92.
00:38:49 you say work streams this is where you're dealing with the seven work streams which again will come to you say work stream six of this project included research into space separation
00:39:00 space separation and then you go on and describe requirement b3 of the building regulations relates to the need to prevent fire spreading between buildings and guidance in the approved document sets out one way in which this can be
00:39:12 sets out one way in which this can be achieved do you see that that's an error yes
00:39:16 yes i'm sorry that's okay that should read not b3 but b4 thank you yes but that's simply a typo in your statement yes yes you would have known that space separation fell with under
00:39:27 that space separation fell with under requirement b4 at the time
00:39:36 now what
00:39:40 were there parts of the approved document
00:39:43 document that you were um more familiar with when you started your role um based on the past expertise you'd had as an architect um
00:39:59 it's it would be for less complex buildings because that was the general type of work that i had undertaken yeah so you wouldn't have you wouldn't have ever looked at approved document b with
00:40:10 looked at approved document b with reference to say a high-rise building no i i didn't work i did in my prior to joining the department i don't recall ever working on a high-rise bill yeah
00:40:19 yeah let's look briefly at the approved document if we go to clg 1607 this is going to be the 2006 edition of the approved document which was in force
00:40:30 the approved document which was in force from the 6th of april 2007. if we go over to page 93 we can see functional requirement b4 set out there and we can see that it reads the external walls of the building shall
00:40:41 the external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another having regard to the height use and position of the building now did you have any clear understanding
00:40:52 now did you have any clear understanding of the meaning of the phrase adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls of the building during the time that you were head of technical policy i don't require querying it but i would
00:41:04 i don't require querying it but i would understand why the word adequately is there
00:41:08 there can you help us as to what your understanding was as to why the word adequately was there well the objective of part b is life safety um and
00:41:17 um and therefore the resistance to the spread of flame over walls would be based on the level of protection needed to achieve that aim not
00:41:28 achieve that aim not absolutely to resist the spread of fire so it's not an absolute condition sorry
00:41:36 sorry if it said the building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls that would be an absolute condition that would be very hard to achieve in practical terms right
00:41:44 right i see so adequately is this right would need to take into account
00:41:50 account the life safety risks of any external fire spread and adequately what would vary depending on the risks in any particular building is that how you understood it yeah it's it's um about achieving the life safety
00:42:03 it's um about achieving the life safety protection aim at the end of that process right so does that mean that adequately resist in one tall building might mean something different from adequately resist in another tall
00:42:14 adequately resist in another tall building depending on what other fire safety measures were present in those two buildings um
00:42:23 i think that's probably the case it's a functional system of regulation it's attended intended to accommodate the variety of solutions and different circumstances that occur in the built
00:42:34 circumstances that occur in the built environment which are very varied so whilst the guidance might be uniform across a range of buildings there's no presumption that that
00:42:45 there's no presumption that that is the only solution that could achieve that that objective yes i see can you remember there ever being any discussion within the department about the meaning of adequately resist
00:42:56 the meaning of adequately resist in
00:42:58 in no i don't recall that now if we look at page 95 to the very last paragraph in the right hand column the bottom of 95 we can see the heading external surfaces
00:43:10 the heading external surfaces and then paragraph 12.6 which reads the external surfaces of wool should meet and it goes over the page the provisions are in diagram 40. now
00:43:22 now this is a section of the guidance to which the inquiry is now very familiar were you familiar with that paragraph at any time before the fire at grenfell tower
00:43:32 tower yes
00:43:33 yes i looked at it following the february 2015 fire in dubai right
00:43:41 right and was that the only time you looked in detail at the approved document before 2017 in relation to that february 2015 dubai fire i can't say for certain but i don't
00:43:53 i can't say for certain but i don't recall as oh i really don't know right and we will come back to it and we'll look at the specific there are some emails around this um but did you look together with
00:44:04 this um but did you look together with mr martin at these provisions at that time or did you take an independent look yourself at the provisions uh
00:44:14 uh i took an independent look myself i think at that time right in that period 2014 to 2017 did you have any understanding of the term national class naught
00:44:25 class naught uh yes
00:44:26 uh yes what did you know about that classification that it was a surface of spread so sorry surface spread of flame rating that was defined within the regulations
00:44:38 regulations sorry all within the approved document right
00:44:41 right and were you aware or did you become aware at a later stage that the national classification and the european classifications were running in parallel certainly in this bit of the approved
00:44:52 certainly in this bit of the approved document so manufacturers could select between them uh
00:44:58 uh yes i was aware of that because i had discussions with mr martin i can't recall when i think it would be during the
00:45:07 the part b review process by which i mean probably 2015 to 17 probably early on where we had a discussion about
00:45:20 where we had a discussion about removing
00:45:21 removing national classifications to simplify terminology and use of the documents right
00:45:30 and what did you conclude when you had that discussion about removing the national classifications i seem to recall that we thought it was a good idea but we didn't get into
00:45:44 a good idea but we didn't get into uh detail of the um
00:45:47 um kind of equivalence of those standards it was
00:45:51 it was uh more a matter of um [Music]
00:45:56 [Music] i think time having passed since um the introduction of european standards i do i do recall we worried slightly about
00:46:05 about that move given that i think it might have been around the time of the brexit referendum and we wondered whether moving to european standards would be um
00:46:15 um [Music]
00:46:17 [Music] appropriate right i see um
00:46:25 now you say you you thought it was a good idea but we didn't get into detail at that stage is that right yeah it was just in principle that we should consider withdrawing the national
00:46:37 should consider withdrawing the national standards and i think moving to the european standards right and and was there a piece of work that you thought would consider that question in more detail yeah it would have been the part b review and when you
00:46:49 have been the part b review and when you say the part b review do you mean the part b technical review yes right so it was your understanding that the part b technical review would include asking the question should we
00:47:01 include asking the question should we get rid of the national classifications in approved document b that certainly yeah
00:47:08 yeah as far as i can recall um i think that was a consideration that was we'd had discussed yeah and was that work ever done we didn't get to the point where we had a part b working group sitting so it
00:47:21 a part b working group sitting so it wouldn't have actually got to that point now no right and did you have a clear understanding about the difference between what was tested in the national classifications
00:47:32 tested in the national classifications and what was tested in the euro classification system no i wouldn't have understood in any detail the difference between those systems did mr martin ever explain to you the difference with reference to diagram 40
00:47:45 difference with reference to diagram 40 between
00:47:46 between national class naught and european class b for example uh i don't recall discussing that did you know that it was effectively like comparing apples and pears they
00:47:57 like comparing apples and pears they were testing very different things uh no
00:48:04 were you ever informed that there had been an uh an original transition period which had been envisaged uh for the two systems to work in parallel and then for the national
00:48:15 parallel and then for the national classification to be phased out were you ever made aware of that transition period um i can't remember a specific period being discussed but that was the basis of the discussions i had with mr martin about
00:48:27 martin about phasing out the national standard i think right did brian martin tell you that it had always been intended that there would be a transition period i don't recall
00:48:39 i don't recall okay
00:48:40 okay now if we go to page 96 we've got it here sorry page 96 we then see underneath uh 12.6 we've got 12.7 headed insulation materials slash products
00:48:52 materials slash products and we can see that that says in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be
00:49:03 the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility but then it goes on to say that that restriction doesn't apply to a masonry cavity wall construction now can we take it you're now familiar with the content of that paragraph i am
00:49:15 with the content of that paragraph i am what about before the grenfell tower fire had you been familiar with that particular paragraph of the approved document when you were head of technical policy
00:49:23 policy uh we looked at it in uh 20 so i looked at it specifically in 2015 right so again the same in relation to the dubai cladding fires yeah
00:49:35 now at that time what was your understanding of the phrase limited combustibility did you have a clear understanding of what that meant
00:49:42 meant yes it was i think an a2 classification
00:49:48 now to what elements of the external wall construction did you understand that this limited combustibility requirement applied to i understood that it applied generally
00:49:59 i understood that it applied generally to the principal elements of the construction and what do you mean by that can you be clearer well the the specified elements in 12.7 of um i
00:50:12 in 12.7 of um i i took the heading in 12.7 to
00:50:17 to mean insulation and materials and products and
00:50:22 the
00:50:24 application of that um i think was uh
00:50:31 uh therefore relevant to the products and filler materials that are specified
00:50:37 sorry let's just unpack that a little bit you say i took the heading to mean insulation materials and products application of that i think was therefore relevant to the products and filler materials let's just break this
00:50:49 filler materials let's just break this down did it apply to insulation an external wall did it apply to the external panels that might be used in an external wall such as a rain screen panel
00:51:01 as a rain screen panel my understanding was that the reference to
00:51:05 to filler material reference to combustible parts of those panels i think and when you say that was your understanding did you reach that understanding simply by reading the approved document
00:51:17 by reading the approved document yourself or because somebody told you that i had had a discussion with mr martin about the 2006 adb review right
00:51:25 right i see and he told you uh what the meaning of the word filler was did he
00:51:33 i i don't recall right do you remember noticing that uh filler was not defined anywhere within the approved document i didn't no i didn't
00:51:46 it would be normal though wouldn't it for
00:51:48 for for terms
00:51:50 for terms um
00:51:51 um to be defined clearly in the approved document there's normally a a list of definitions within any any approved document yes yes there are um
00:52:03 um whether it is def yeah no if it's a key term then it should be defined yeah and when you said filler reference to the combustible parts can you just help what did you mean by
00:52:14 can you just help what did you mean by that
00:52:15 that um i understood that um it was that they were in the 2006 review there were um composite metal cladding panels that had been identified with combustible filler
00:52:27 been identified with combustible filler materials um of various types and that that was widely intro the um reference was introduced right i see what about the external panels themselves imagine if you've got like a
00:52:38 themselves imagine if you've got like a high pressure laminate panel as your outside skin did that get caught by the limited combustibility requirement so far as you understood it in 2015
00:53:01 i think it was captured more by the functional approach of the regulations right so if someone had come to you and said does the exterior skin of my panel does it need to be of limited
00:53:12 does it need to be of limited combustibility what would you have said in 2015 after you looked at this i would have looked at the guidance as a whole i had looked at the section as a whole performance requirement
00:53:23 whole performance requirement 12.5
00:53:25 12.5 and
00:53:26 and looking at the other you know the ins
00:53:30 the insulation materials and products provides a reference value for elements in in the outside to make decisions about how you meet the functional requirement i think that's the way i looked at it at the time right and did you come away when you looked at
00:53:42 and did you come away when you looked at it with the impression that this guidance was clear
00:53:50 i thought it was adequate what does that mean i i thought it was um the question that we were asking at the time
00:53:59 time was whether combustible filler materials were controlled and therefore i i looked at the guidance at the time because this is in relation to the dubai fire i looked at the guidance and um i
00:54:11 fire i looked at the guidance and um i thought it was adequate i thought it did control the right elements
00:54:17 okay well we'll as i say we will come back to this with specific reference to the emails that were exchanged on this topic
00:54:24 topic um just finally on a pre-document b what about the bs 8414 test series and the criterium br135 did you have any knowledge about that kind of large-scale file testing
00:54:36 file testing uh not in detail now right now i want to move on now to ask you some questions about deregulatory policies
00:54:44 policies and you've covered these in quite a lot of detail in your witness statement um and you particularly describe the effect of deregulation and its effect on the department's work
00:54:55 department's work in your statement if we look at paragraph 25 of your statement on page
00:55:06 you say this you say government policy prior to 2010 had focused on better regulation typically consisting of setting a higher bar for the introduction of new regulations
00:55:17 regulations in order to discourage their use my understanding being that the overuse of regulations in this period was seen as a drag on economic performance do you see that
00:55:27 that yeah and then you go on in the next paragraph to say paragraph 26 you say the coalition government and the subsequent government from may 2015 onward so that was the conservative
00:55:39 onward so that was the conservative government adopted a far more vigorous approach to deregulation with increased secu scrutiny of regulatory proposals through a range of policies including at various
00:55:50 a range of policies including at various times and then you've given us um a list of those different policies now um you talk about a far more vigorous approach to deregulation was that very evident at the time to all of
00:56:02 that very evident at the time to all of you working within the department that there was suddenly a much more aggressive approach to deregulation in that period
00:56:13 it was very tangible yes [Music]
00:56:19 [Music] the general appetite for
00:56:24 for deregulation was manifested in a range of ways in terms of the red tape challenge
00:56:31 challenge in terms of the establishment of the regulatory policy committee um a series of policies and one in one out so on and so forth
00:56:40 so forth so that impact was absolutely evident um and um
00:56:46 and um discussions with ministers um
00:56:49 um reinforced that right and give us a flavor of what those discussions uh were that reinforced it well there was just the general you know there was a
00:57:00 there was a um
00:57:03 there was a general sense the regulation was bad and um
00:57:08 and um [Music]
00:57:09 [Music] even where there were proposals to do something that was regulatory [Music]
00:57:16 [Music] in terms of introducing something that was attractive to ministers or something they might want to do when they recognized that it was regulation they would do a pull back from that
00:57:27 they would do a pull back from that generally because that was um not the way that they preferred to drive drive change right can you recall any specific experiences where you uh
00:57:39 any specific experiences where you uh you had that pushback can you give us any specific examples of that
00:57:43 that um
00:57:45 um not from
00:57:46 not from well
00:57:47 well i remember one discussion with nick bowles as a planning minister on space standards where precisely that discussion happened he was quite enthusiastic about space standards but then i recall he said
00:57:58 then i recall he said but that's regulation we shouldn't be doing that [Music]
00:58:03 [Music] there were regular challenges from
00:58:11 the better regulation unit within the department in particular i remember clearly at the end of 2016 being
00:58:22 told by an official from the better regulation unit not to consider proposing regulation um in terms of because the department was struggling
00:58:34 because the department was struggling with its regulatory budgets so effectively told don't propose any new regulation
00:58:40 [Music]
00:58:45 those challenges were fairly consistent and the actual process was uh fundamentally challenging in terms of uh the justifications that were needed for new regulation right yes
00:58:58 regulation right yes now we can see then that you've listed out a number of different policies uh in the remainder of paragraph 26 including a there the introduction of the one in two out policies requiring that twice
00:59:10 two out policies requiring that twice the cost of any new regulatory burden be removed from the stock of regulation prior to any new regulation being introduced and this increased to one in three out in early 2016 is that right
00:59:23 three out in early 2016 is that right yes that's correct and one in two act came in in 2013 is that right
00:59:29 yes i believe so
00:59:32 so and
00:59:33 and is it right that that built on the earlier policy of one in one out introduced in january 2011 yes
00:59:41 yes now just help us with this at the time was it your understanding that one in one out or one in two out or one in three out applied to guidance given
00:59:55 applied to guidance given in relation to the building regulations such as guidance in the approved documents
00:59:59 documents yes absolutely
01:00:03 did you ever take advice as to whether the policy did in fact extend to approved documents where they were simply giving a possible route to compliance but you
01:00:14 a possible route to compliance but you could adopt an alternative route if you wanted to
01:00:18 wanted to we had the better regulation unit within the department were there to advise and police regulatory policy and we had regular discussions with them
01:00:29 we had regular discussions with them and it was very clear that the statutory guidance was captured by requirements to undertake impact assessment work and when you say it was very clear is
01:00:40 and when you say it was very clear is that because that's what they told you
01:00:52 in part but we simply couldn't progress work without going through that process right do you ever recall a conversation with anyone where and someone said well
01:01:03 and someone said well this is just a one alternative route to compliance it's just suggestions about how you could comply
01:01:10 comply in the approved document and failure to comply with it doesn't necessarily mean you're in breach of the building regulations so
01:01:18 so does it buy on the policy or not do you ever remember having that discussion
01:01:27 i think we we talked about um
01:01:31 um we were frustrated by the the depth and challenge of regulatory policy and it the bar and the examination of policy got greater and greater over time um
01:01:41 um [Music]
01:01:43 [Music] and so
01:01:44 and so we often talked about uh whether it was rational for statutory guidance to be controlled in that way but essentially it set a benchmark minimum and that's what was being
01:01:56 minimum and that's what was being measured um but no i don't i don't remember um us challenging that right yes or seeking legal advice on it
01:02:07 yes or seeking legal advice on it no i it's impact assessment work and the requirement for the statutory guidance to be
01:02:12 to be impact assessed had been in place for decades yes yes let's just look at a couple of um pieces of guidance relevant to one in one out and one in two out i want to
01:02:23 one out and one in two out i want to start with the one in one hour i know that was before you became head of technical policy but um you'll see why i want to go to this if you go to inq three zeros one five one three one
01:02:37 this is the one in one out methodology and it's dated july 2011 and if we turn on to page four
01:02:48 just want to look at um the part which it says what is in scope of one in one out do you see that there at paragraph 13 and it says for the purposes of one in one out regulation is defined as
01:03:01 one out regulation is defined as a rule or guidance with which failure to comply would result in the regulated entity or person coming into conflict with the law or being ineligible for continued
01:03:12 or being ineligible for continued funding grants and other applied for schemes this can be summarized as all measures with legal force imposed by central government and other schemes operated by central government now do
01:03:23 operated by central government now do you remember ever looking at this guidance
01:03:26 guidance no
01:03:27 no no
01:03:28 no but if just focusing on that first a part of it a rule or guidance with which failure to comply would result in the regulated entity or person coming into conflict with the law
01:03:40 conflict with the law now just looking at that now was it your understanding that failure to comply with approved document b would result in a person coming into conflict with the law
01:04:00 uh yes i believe so um why do you say that um
01:04:08 um part b is a uh legal
01:04:11 uh legal regulatory requirement which can result in criminal prosecution if you don't comply i understand that about the functional requirement part b and that if you fail to meet the functional
01:04:22 if you fail to meet the functional requirement you're coming into conflict with the law but if you're just failing to follow a paragraph of guidance within the approved document how does that bring you into conflict with the law i'm just interested as to
01:04:33 with the law i'm just interested as to whether that was ever thought about uh no no um essentially the application of this was um [Music]
01:04:43 [Music] uh no basically well i don't recall looking at that no if we go to one in two out and there's a piece of 2015 guidance that helpfully summarizes that it says inq3015132
01:05:02 this is called the better regulation framework manual practical guidance for uk government officials march 2015 and if we go to page eight within it
01:05:18 there's guidance there 1.1 reducing regulation subcommittee there's something called the reducing regulation cabinet subcommittee the rrc yes yeah and later in this document you can take
01:05:29 and later in this document you can take it from me that it says one in two hours applies to any changes which require clearance from the reducing regulation committee the rrc
01:05:40 reducing regulation committee the rrc and if you look at paragraph paragraphs below that we've got scope do you see that yes
01:05:47 yes and it says at 1.1.3 if your measure requires collective agreement and if it regulates or deregulates business then you must seek clearance from the rrc and then below that 1.1.4 it says
01:06:00 and then below that 1.1.4 it says measures in scope can take different legal forms including and then you've got third bullet point guidance issued under statutory powers do you see that there yes so this
01:06:11 do you see that there yes so this seems to be potentially a different test being posed in this piece of guidance about one in two out do you ever being aware that there were different tests
01:06:22 different tests under the different um
01:06:25 um pieces of guidance one in one out one in two out
01:06:30 no and then if we look at um paragraph 1.1.8 on page nine
01:06:41 we can see that it says um they're 1.1.9 measures that qualify for the fast track also require rrc clearance however they may be eligible
01:06:52 clearance however they may be eligible for a streamlined clearance process that removes the need for final stage clearance under certain conditions sorry actually i meant to release sorry i meant to read the paragraph above go
01:07:04 i meant to read the paragraph above go to 1.1.8 the paragraph above it says if a measure is considered trivial or mechanical for example where errors in a previous measure are being corrected in line with the original policy intent
01:07:17 in line with the original policy intent it may not require collective agreement do you see that yes
01:07:22 yes now
01:07:23 now was it your understanding that if you were merely clarifying or correcting something for example in guidance like approved document b that these deregulatory policies would bite on that
01:07:36 deregulatory policies would bite on that clarification
01:07:40 if it involved amending
01:07:43 amending our
01:07:45 our guidance in the stat if it involved amending the statutory guidance so that the
01:07:53 minimum recommended standard was changed then then it would definitely bind but whether it
01:08:04 it was
01:08:06 was uh applicable to other mechanisms such as faqs or other ways to provide great clarity um
01:08:15 um i
01:08:15 i i wouldn't i
01:08:18 i i mean i wasn't aware of this paragraph at the time um
01:08:24 um yeah i i think that sorry could you repeat the question again please well let me put it this way and we know that at various times between 2014 and 2017 you were looking
01:08:35 between 2014 and 2017 you were looking to clarify the guidance in approved document b yes yes or simplify the guidance in approved document b yes and and the difference may be important we'll come back to that
01:08:46 may be important we'll come back to that if you were just clarifying or simplifying was it your understanding that these policies would bite on that yes because when you issued an updated approved document there was a cost to
01:08:58 approved document there was a cost to industry and familiarizing itself with the revised document and that was captured by the impact assessment process gosh so simply that simply the cost associated with
01:09:09 the cost associated with looking at a revised simplified approved document yeah that was deemed to be a cost to industry yes even though the substantive requirements had not changed
01:09:20 had not changed um sorry i should correct myself uh it might be regarded as a benefit to industry
01:09:25 industry if the savings from the clarification were greater than um the cost of the time taken to familiarize yourself but it would be subject to impact assessment work on
01:09:36 subject to impact assessment work on that basis part k
01:09:38 part k of the building regulations was subject to a simplification exercise in 2010 to 12
01:09:45 12 which is very much along these lines the guidance was not in itself changed but it was still subject to impact assessment requirements right let's take another example take the word filler and suppose you had decided to clarify
01:09:58 and suppose you had decided to clarify what the word filler meant you weren't changing the original intent of that word but you were just clarifying it with a definition of what it meant
01:10:09 it meant would that on your understanding of these policies have engaged them
01:10:17 it would um
01:10:20 um if it was just a clarification then i would imagine no
01:10:27 no but if it was seen as a change then yes
01:10:32 then yes right
01:10:34 right i think i think i understand
01:10:39 did you ever give active consideration in the period 2014 to 2017 to whether some of the work that you wanted to do on a pre-document b was
01:10:50 wanted to do on a pre-document b was clarificatory work which didn't engage these deregulatory policies um no i can't say that i did
01:11:01 no i can't say that i did so is it fair to say that during that period you all simply assumed that these deregulatory policies were biting on any work you were doing whether it was simplification
01:11:12 whether it was simplification clarification or changing substantive requirements
01:11:18 anything that involved an amendment or change to the approved document essentially triggered impact assessment work as far as i understood right
01:11:30 right now thinking about um one in two out and then one and three out was it your understanding that it was possible to obtain an exemption from the policy for certain regulations or types of
01:11:41 certain regulations or types of regulations
01:11:48 i didn't understand that that option was available to us at any stage um
01:11:56 um i'm trying to i think that there may have been an exemption for um the regulation of scrap metal dealing on national security grounds but uh
01:12:08 but uh our functions and the work that we oversaw i did not understand that there was an option for any um
01:12:15 um exemption
01:12:16 exemption right
01:12:17 right at any time between 2014 and 2017 did you or anyone else within the department ever consider applying for an exemption for parts of the building regulations from the policy for example those that
01:12:29 from the policy for example those that were concerned with life safety no
01:12:33 no and why not why no consideration ever to whether there could be an exemption for life safety parts of the building regulations i think probably 70 percent of the
01:12:44 i think probably 70 percent of the building regulations relate to life safety
01:12:47 safety um
01:12:48 um but and that's true across regulation across a large swathe of the government's stock of regulation as well they relate to safety or health and safety
01:12:59 safety um and i think there was an a kind of understanding that part of the reason for introducing these measures was to curtail the growth of um
01:13:09 um kind of
01:13:14 curtail or or ensure that there was a robust case for expanding these types of regulations
01:13:23 so is it fair is what you're saying that actually it was fully envisaged that these deregulatory policies would be impacting on parts of the building regulations which were concerned with life safety
01:13:39 sorry sorry can you repeat the question yes um
01:13:43 yes um is it fair to say that what was envisaged was that these deregulatory policies would be impacting on parts of the building regulations which were concerned with life safety yes
01:13:54 concerned with life safety yes yes
01:13:55 yes and can you just help us um what counted as one regulation for this purpose i know it's got a very technical definition in the documents but in terms of your working rule of thumb what would you count as uh one regulation for the
01:14:08 you count as uh one regulation for the purposes of one in two out it was a financial consideration so you would evaluate the cost difference between the existing requirements and you have a counter factual case
01:14:19 counter factual case quite a complex piece of economic analysis
01:14:22 analysis that would look at the difference between sorry the counter factor would state the current cost and then you would measure the new cost against that or saving if you were in the regulatory assessments yes i see
01:14:35 assessments yes i see now paragraph 30 of your statement if we go to page 10 of it
01:14:42 you say that the government was also proactive in forcing departments to focus on deregulation through initiatives such as the 2011 red tape challenge that included a red tape challenge on construction in 2012.
01:14:55 challenge on construction in 2012. the basis of the red tape challenge was that regulations should only be retained if they could be justified as being absolutely necessary the division was closely engaged in the construction red tape challenge in the 2012-13 period and
01:15:07 tape challenge in the 2012-13 period and the subsequent work on the housing standards review was also carried out under the aegis of this policy essential safety measures were exempted from this process
01:15:18 from this process now just to be clear where you say in that last line essential safety measures were exempted from this process do you mean exempted from the housing standards review that you deal with in the penultimate line there or do you
01:15:31 the penultimate line there or do you mean exempted from the red tape challenge more generally
01:15:38 the it was their specific exemption i think from the housing standards review right yes
01:15:48 and which essential safety measures were exempted from that housing standard view what was your understanding about that
01:15:56 um i don't recall the specific wording that was used to describe that
01:16:04 but the housing standards review related to a series of um
01:16:10 um standards that were primarily imposed through planning processes
01:16:17 and it focused on i don't recall any of those touching on [Music]
01:16:23 [Music] life safety issues particularly right
01:16:28 right were you aware that the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 was explicitly excluded from this red tape challenge process by ministers in 2012. um
01:16:39 um i don't recall you don't remember being aware of that in 2012 i would have not been
01:16:48 not been engaged across policy areas to the extent that i was later on right i see yeah so you can't help us as to why it was that the regulatory reform fire safety
01:16:59 that the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 was determined to be exempt from this red tape challenge
01:17:07 um i mean i i've seen documents since i think um relating to it but i wasn't involved and i had no part in that decision or at the time i think were you aware when
01:17:20 at the time i think were you aware when you became head of technical policy that it was possible to obtain an exemption for certain regulations from the red tape challenge process
01:17:34 i don't recall
01:17:37 and did you or anyone else within the department ever consider applying for an exemption
01:17:42 exemption for the building regulations from the red tape challenge process um i no i don't um so the red tape challenge on building regulations took place to kind of 2012 onwards i think
01:17:55 place to kind of 2012 onwards i think yes we think it ran till 2014 which is why i'm asking you about it um
01:17:59 um [Music]
01:18:01 [Music] i don't recall any discussions about seeking an exemption for the building regulations as a whole right okay thank you
01:18:07 you mr chairman i think i'm about to move to another place yeah would be a good match for the brain well mr harold we'll have a we have a break during the morning in the afternoon and this is a good time to take the morning break so we'll
01:18:19 take the morning break so we'll stop at that point and we'll resume please at 25 to 12 and now you've started to give your evidence i have to ask you please not to talk about your evidence or anything relating to it when you're out of the
01:18:31 relating to it when you're out of the room thank you all right thank you very much would you go with the usher please
01:18:43 thank you very much 25 to 12 please
01:35:51 would you ask mr harold to come back in please okay
01:36:05 all right mr terrell ready to carry on i am thank you very much yes yes thank you yeah i want to ask you some questions now about the review process for reviewing for example documents like approved document b
01:36:16 approved document b you explain the review process for regulatory requirements or approved documents at paragraph 17 of your statement on page five if we could go to that
01:36:28 you say this at 17 decisions on changes to regulate your requirements in the building regulations or to the supporting statutory guidance in the approved documents could only be made
01:36:39 approved documents could only be made through a formal review process a formal review process involved developing the initial case and advice for ministers which set out the scope and need for the review policy development in collaboration with
01:36:51 policy development in collaboration with an industry working group commissioning research as necessary to develop or assess technical proposals development of impact assessments full public consultation
01:37:03 full public consultation preparing draft of the approved documents working with lawyers on any necessary changes to primary or secondary legislation finalizing impact assessments and implementing change
01:37:15 assessments and implementing change depending on the scope and complexity of changes
01:37:18 changes and how much new research was needed to underpin policy development this process could take anything between 18 months and four years to complete so you explain that there
01:37:29 explain that there now that formal review process is this right relates to changes to the requirements or guidance yes
01:37:38 yes what was the process if it was felt that the existing requirements or guidance did not need to change but needed clarification
01:37:49 you would seek legal advice as to whether it was a change or a clarification and that would determine whether you could [Music]
01:38:00 [Music] uh issue
01:38:02 uh issue possibly an faq or something of that nature
01:38:06 nature um
01:38:07 um potentially i guess an amendment slip to an approved document rather than republishing an approved document um
01:38:15 um but uh i don't recall um
01:38:18 um [Music]
01:38:21 [Music] actually pursuing that option at any stage no
01:38:25 stage no um we also know a little bit about faqs and we'll come back to those in more detail when you say potentially an amendment slip to the approved document can you describe exactly what that would be
01:38:35 be this was the way that very minor amendments to approve documents were made particularly when everyone had hard copy approved documents there it's just a simple
01:38:46 simple page setting out what to delete or amend in an approved document and what the changes so
01:38:54 so historically people would keep the amendment slips in the back of the relevant approved document when they had hard copies but it's basically an instruction to amend a
01:39:06 relatively minor part of or a small part of an approved document it saves the republication of the whole document it said it's a sorry it's a way of avoiding
01:39:21 um waste
01:39:23 waste in a hard cop really in a hard copy kind of world and where clarifications ever um
01:39:29 um brought about by way of these amendment slips
01:39:32 slips i don't know right i see was there a formal process where
01:39:38 where the guidance required clarification as opposed to change or was the process an ad hoc one depending on what the change involved
01:40:02 clarifications would not normally be done by amending the approved document i think is the answer so how would they be done routinely pretty much the only option was actually
01:40:14 pretty much the only option was actually using an faq right i see yeah i think now if we go back to paragraph 15 page 5 of your statement we were looking at this before
01:40:25 this before and i said i'd come back to the last sentence of paragraph 15 which reads matters of particular importance or urgency would be flagged where my assistance or attention was required
01:40:37 assistance or attention was required was there an established process for raising such urgent issues with you no
01:40:45 no it would
01:40:46 it would either be done verbally in person or probably by email
01:40:53 right i see so you're just describing the practice there um in terms of how the department worked yes yes right and do you ever remember matters of particular importance or
01:41:05 matters of particular importance or urgency relating to fire safety being flagged and raised with you
01:41:12 um [Music]
01:41:14 [Music] there was there are a number of exchanges relating to fire safety [Music]
01:41:21 [Music] the issue with kingspan k15 is one example i
01:41:27 example i um
01:41:31 i mean i i can't off the top of my head i'm sure that they were right i see yeah
01:41:39 and was there a process for considering urgent or important amendments outside the formal review process that you we saw you describe at paragraph 17 of your statement
01:41:54 if you wanted to amend a requirement then it went through the formal review process sorry when i say a requirement if you wanted to change the standard that was set out in statutory guidance
01:42:06 that was set out in statutory guidance if you wanted to change something that was material then that would always go through the full process as far as i was aware even if it was time critical and urgent
01:42:24 i wasn't aware of any exemption to that requirement once you were into actually changing technical requirements in the approved documents it's a very
01:42:35 in the approved documents it's a very slow process right so you weren't aware of any fast-track expedited process that could be followed if for example someone realized that they'd put out something
01:42:46 realized that they'd put out something in an approved document and for public safety reasons that needed to be urgently clarified
01:42:54 i imagine that if it's a clarification then
01:43:00 then you could either use an faq or possibly a circular letter although
01:43:06 although i
01:43:07 i um
01:43:09 um not for clarification purposes but i had um
01:43:12 um taken advice on using circular letters to
01:43:16 to issue corrective advice i.e where i thought that there was um
01:43:24 was um divergent from the intent of the way that the building regulations and the statutory guidance was being followed in a particular instance and
01:43:32 and the advice i was given was that using a circular letter in that way would
01:43:37 would be limited to simply highlighting the existing wording in the approved document and the regulation so you would not be allowed to
01:43:45 to reshape the guidance but you could write to everyone say we are writing to remind you of the guidance in such and such a document which states such right and what was your understanding about why you were limited in just
01:43:57 about why you were limited in just highlighting the existing text and you couldn't
01:43:59 couldn't put any kind of gloss or interpretation on that so the approved documents are the guidance approved by the secretary of state and
01:44:08 and um
01:44:09 um you had to go through due process to make a material change if you like to the approved documents yeah but i think what you're saying is aside from
01:44:20 from the clarification the faq route or a circular letter route there wasn't um a well understood expedited process by which urgent matters
01:44:31 by which urgent matters could be changed in the approved document if necessary there's no established process for doing that no yeah and these circular letters when they were sent out who would they go to for example if it was a circular
01:44:43 go to for example if it was a circular letter about approved document b who would that be sent to i think it goes out to
01:44:48 out to building control bodies and
01:44:52 and associated industry bodies for dissemination right
01:44:59 and just to be clear were you reliant on the technical specialists in your team to identify the need to review the guidance in the approved documents
01:45:10 uh the technical policy leads would uh yeah set out where they thought changes to the approved documents needed to be made
01:45:20 yes you tell us in your statement that where necessary the department would second industry experts to support policy development and and we're aware that mr martin was
01:45:32 and and we're aware that mr martin was so seconded before he joined your department but are you aware of any other instances where industry experts were seconded in relation to fire safety while you were head of technical policy
01:45:44 head of technical policy uh
01:45:45 uh no and
01:45:48 the reason for that was that people seconded into the department counted as part of the
01:45:56 the head count for the division so i would have needed to make a vacancy to second someone in and uh that did not occur right i see i understand
01:46:08 occur right i see i understand i want to turn some questions now about the lachenal house fire inquest so we know that the la canal house fire occurred on the 3rd of july 2009 it was a tower block cladding fire in
01:46:19 a tower block cladding fire in camberwell london in which six people died
01:46:22 died and the inquest into that fire took place between the 14th of january and the 28th of march 2013. um did you have any awareness of the lack of house fire prior to coming uh
01:46:33 lack of house fire prior to coming uh into your role as head of technical policy
01:46:36 policy um
01:46:37 um yes i was aware of the inquest as it was progressing but that was um [Music]
01:46:46 [Music] a
01:46:46 a [Music]
01:46:48 [Music] purely by the fact that um members of the division were involved in the inquest process right yes now you tell us we don't need to turn up up i don't think uh paragraph 39 of your
01:46:59 don't think uh paragraph 39 of your witness statement on page 12 that you say from a very early stage in my role i was aware of the work streams resulting from the fire at lac and house is that right that's correct
01:47:10 is that right that's correct and how did you come to understand each of those work streams arising from lack of house
01:47:17 of house it would have been part of the handover process with mr bird right and did you receive any documents in order to help you get up to speed with what the different work strands were
01:47:28 different work strands were i recall being given packages of documents by mr bird but i can't recall specifically whether that included documents relating to black and white
01:47:39 black and white right do you remember ever reading the coroner's rule 43 letter to the department
01:47:57 i i can't recall right do you ever remember reading any of the submissions that were sent to ministers
01:48:04 ministers in 2013 we know there was a submission to minister don foster on the 11th of april 2013 and there was a submission sent to eric pickles about how to respond on the 13th of may
01:48:17 about how to respond on the 13th of may 2013. did you ever see any of those submissions uh no did you ever read the letter of response to the coroner which was uh prepared and sent on behalf of mr pickles i do recall
01:48:30 sent on behalf of mr pickles i do recall reading that yes yeah you saw that now let's turn first to the rule 43 letter sent to the department by the coroner
01:48:39 coroner uh hirona francis kirkham if we can go to clg 401870
01:48:49 here we've got her letter we can see her details at the top sent to the right honourable eric pickles mp on the 28th of march 2013.
01:49:02 so i think you said you don't recall now you've seen this does this provoke any recollection about whether you ever read this letter from the coroner
01:49:14 have definitely read this letter from the coroner but i can't remember when yeah now the recommendation dealt with by your department relating to the building regulations and the approved document appears on page three if we go to that
01:49:29 and if we look um at the first paragraph she says during these inquests we examined the pre-document b 2000 edition incorporating 2000 2002 amendments i'm aware that adb has subsequently been
01:49:41 i'm aware that adb has subsequently been amended and believed that a further amendment is due to be published soon the introduction to adb states that it is intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations however adb is a most difficult document
01:49:54 however adb is a most difficult document to use further it is necessary to refer to additional documents in order to find an answer to relatively straightforward questions concerning the fire protection properties of materials to be incorporated into the fabric of a
01:50:06 incorporated into the fabric of a building
01:50:07 building do you see that paragraph i do and then underneath that she has three recommendations it's recommended that your department review adb to ensure that it
01:50:18 that it and we can see that she says uh provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4 of the building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the
01:50:29 over the external envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection second recommendation is it that it adb
01:50:40 second recommendation is it that it adb should be reviewed to ensure that it is expressed in words and adopts a format which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just
01:50:51 refurbishment of buildings and not just to professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control matters and then the third recommendation was to review adb to ensure that it provides guidance which is of assistance to those
01:51:04 guidance which is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock and not only those engaged in design and construction of new buildings so we have those three recommendations
01:51:17 so we have those three recommendations have you read the department's opening submissions for this module of the inquiry
01:51:23 inquiry i have not right i just want to look at those it's at clg 3036387
01:51:35 so these are the opening submissions on behalf of the department for leveling up housing and communities for this module of this enquiry and if we look on page 36
01:51:49 at paragraph 112 a to e are a number of uh points about the lack of house coroner's recommendations and this is the to be fair this is the department's position i just want to ask
01:52:01 department's position i just want to ask you about it so
01:52:03 so it says 112 having given extensive consideration to the response to the lack of house coroner's recommendations issue the department's position is that and a we have the department's response
01:52:14 and a we have the department's response to the coroner was inadequate and should have clearly set out whether each recommendation had been accepted to what extent and any relevant reasoning
01:52:25 extent and any relevant reasoning now
01:52:26 now did you ever form a view in your time as head of technical policy about the adequacy of the department's response to the coroner i
01:52:37 i don't recall doing so right sorry could i think about that a little bit further of course
01:52:52 could you repeat the question please yes did you ever form a view in your time as head of technical policy about the adequacy of the department's response to the coroner
01:53:06 i
01:53:09 when i had my hand over with mr bird the two elements stem flowing from the coroner's
01:53:19 coroner's report
01:53:20 report that i was made aware of were the general simplification and clarity exercise
01:53:28 exercise um
01:53:29 um and then from eric pickles letter the work relating to competent persons schemes
01:53:36 schemes um
01:53:38 um i
01:53:55 i did probe around
01:53:58 around the scope
01:53:59 the scope of
01:54:01 of those two recommendations on a number of occasions
01:54:06 occasions just to make sure that the scope of what we were doing was correct um
01:54:12 um [Music]
01:54:15 and
01:54:19 i concluded that we were doing the right things i thought in response to those recommendations
01:54:28 do you i see
01:54:32 when you say probe around the scope what do you mean you probed around the scope of those two recommendations um
01:54:44 i think that on
01:54:49 i checked whether there were any technical changes that needed to be made and what was the answer what were you told
01:54:56 told that it was a simplification exercise and
01:55:02 the competent person scheme issue so does it follow from that that um
01:55:09 um you were told there weren't any technical changes that needed to be made um
01:55:15 um that's correct yeah that was your understanding in terms of uh
01:55:21 uh yeah as far as i can recall
01:55:25 and who did you check that with that that was the exercise you had to be engaged in there's an email exchange with brian martin which i think you'll be aware of i'm coming to that yeah
01:55:37 be aware of i'm coming to that yeah um
01:55:37 um [Music]
01:55:39 [Music] yeah i mean i was aware that the departments well the department's position was based on the update of adb 2006 in terms of recommendation one and
01:55:55 the issue of the guidance from the lga on
01:56:02 flats and their operation that had been part of the handover discussion so i did understand that those recommendations were deemed to be have been addressed
01:56:14 were deemed to be have been addressed through separate mechanisms yes i see and i'll come to that so i think what you're saying is you were led to believe that the 2006 version of adb had addressed
01:56:25 had addressed some of the coroner's concerns yes right and this um idea that the coroner's recommendations were limited to simplification and the competent person scheme yes
01:56:38 and the competent person scheme yes did it come as a surprise to you when you first read in fact what the coroner had been suggesting in the recommendations when did you first see that
01:56:52 i i don't recall in all honesty right do you remember seeing it at at any time prior to
01:56:59 prior to leaving the department in 2017 the detail of what she'd actually suggested
01:57:06 yes i'm sure that i did i just can't recall when that was but just to be clear in your mind all that the department had committed to was simplification and the competence person
01:57:17 simplification and the competence person scheme is that right um
01:57:21 um yeah as far as i can recall those were the two key actions the department oh well sorry and the review of adb
01:57:30 right i see um
01:57:33 um b of these submissions picks up on the point you just made about the 2006 version of adb and i'll come back to that let's look at c it says without having made its position clear in its response the department should have
01:57:44 response the department should have treated the work to clarify and simplify adb as an urgent priority and so should not have decided to fold the work into a broader review expected to take at least another three years do you accept that that
01:57:57 do you accept that that acceptance do you accept that the department should have treated the work to clarify and simplify adb as an urgent priority and shouldn't have folded it into a broader review expected
01:58:09 folded it into a broader review expected to take at least another three years do you accept that um
01:58:14 um no i think at the time
01:58:19 the need to run these processes in parallel was
01:58:25 to a certain degree logical
01:58:30 just because of [Music]
01:58:32 [Music] well at least in part because of uh resource constraints and the process constraints involved um
01:58:39 um [Music]
01:58:40 [Music] in retrospect i think it would have been um
01:58:45 um and i
01:58:46 and i would probably have been in a better position if that had been the decision to actually just undertake the simplification exercise as
01:58:57 undertake the simplification exercise as a
01:58:58 a as a short project if that were possible right are you saying with hindsight it would have been better to keep those two strands of work separate
01:59:10 um assuming that the simplification exercise
01:59:14 exercise was
01:59:15 was achievable within without going through the full process which may not be the case
01:59:21 case uh you know in hindsight if that would have assisted in um providing greater clarity then yes of course right let's look at d it says their subsequent delays to the original timetable should
01:59:33 delays to the original timetable should have been highlighted to ministers and led to a reconsideration of whether changes to adb required more urgent progression do you accept that that the subsequent delays to the original timetable i think that's
01:59:45 original timetable i think that's referring to the 2016-2017 commitment to reviewing adb that was uh in mr pickles letter to the coroner should have been highlighted to ministers the
01:59:56 have been highlighted to ministers the delays to that and should have led to a reconsideration of whether changes to adb require more urgent progression do you accept that um no i don't accept that um i accepted him
02:00:09 no i don't accept that um i accepted him in the part that yes in retrospect we should have been clearly with ministers about how that was progressing but actually the practicalities of uh moving that forward
02:00:21 uh moving that forward um
02:00:22 um more quickly were challenging i think
02:00:26 i think right
02:00:28 right and e
02:00:29 and e it said there the department missed the opportunity to look beyond the recommendations made by the coroner and consider how widespread the use of non-compliant materials on high-rise buildings was and the associated fire
02:00:40 buildings was and the associated fire safety risks do you accept that
02:00:45 um
02:00:50 no i don't think i do
02:00:53 i do the events at lacanal were very specific in terms of external fire spread as i understand them and
02:01:01 and those were taken seriously and further research was commissioned to look at the issues with spandrel panels and so forth [Music]
02:01:12 the environment we worked in was highly constrained
02:01:19 it was very difficult to [Music]
02:01:28 expand the scope of our activities and
02:01:31 and [Music]
02:01:33 [Music] there was constant i would say downward pressure maybe no sorry that's not the right phrase [Music]
02:01:42 [Music] they were it felt it was a very constrained environment in terms of expanding the scope of the work that we did
02:01:53 when you say the events at lacanal were were very specific
02:01:59 you say that the in terms of external fire spread the events at lachlan were very specific in terms of external fire spread what do you mean by that
02:02:11 my understanding was that
02:02:14 was that a great
02:02:15 a great in terms of the external fire spread there was a
02:02:21 problem with the spandrel panels to the reglazed windows and how they interacted and these were the non-compliant elements um
02:02:34 and that that is a very specific the confusion was as to whether the panels were part of a wall or a window in essence as i understood it um
02:02:43 um and that seemed very specific issue that was quite limited it was about not realizing that the regulations applied to an element
02:02:54 the regulations applied to an element rather than [Music]
02:03:01 the regulations actually being in error sorry the approved document or guidance being an error right were you ever made aware that there was unusual downward fire spread uh noted at la canal house
02:03:15 uh noted at la canal house i'm aware of that now but i wasn't at the time right when you say research was commissioned in relation to spandrel panels what are you referring to there i believe there was a research report in
02:03:27 i believe there was a research report in 20 april delivered by bre in april 2016 which was some experimental smallish scale fire research to look at the kind of factors that had been
02:03:39 the kind of factors that had been identified at lacking in terms of fire spread
02:03:45 i see was that the research carried out by mr crowder i believe so but i i couldn't say for sure right it was delivered to the the reports were delivered to the department
02:03:56 reports were delivered to the department in april 2016. right i see now i i just want to take each of the recommendations that the coroner made and just ask you in more detail about them
02:04:05 them um if we look back at the first again this is at clg four zeros seven at page three
02:04:17 we can see and we read it before that what she's asked for in the first bullet is that review adb to ensure that it provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4
02:04:28 b4 with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention
02:04:34 attention should be paid to whether proposed work might reduce existing fire protection now was it your understanding when you were head of technical policy that this recommendation had been accepted or
02:04:45 recommendation had been accepted or rejected by the department
02:04:49 what i understood was that the department's position was that the amendments to adb 2006 had addressed this recommendation
02:05:00 and when you say it was the department's position whose position was that um
02:05:05 um [Music]
02:05:14 it's a good question essentially it flowed from the advice i guess that went to the secretary of state and who put that advice together uh it would have been either anthony
02:05:27 uh it would have been either anthony bird or brian martin right
02:05:29 right so your understanding was that clear advice had been given to the secretary of state to the effect that recommendation number one uh had been met fully met by the 2006.
02:05:42 uh had been met fully met by the 2006. sorry i i can't i shouldn't speculate about this i'm i'm i'm drawing myself into i i understood that
02:05:51 that um we weren't the recommendation one had been addressed by the adb 2006 review and that would have come from my handover discussion with mr bird right and addressed in its entirety with
02:06:03 and addressed in its entirety with nothing left for the department to do or was it still accepted that there was some work that the department needed to do beyond the 2006 version of adb um
02:06:16 i i don't recall um that level of uh detail but i do recall
02:06:22 recall um that within the simplification plan i always
02:06:26 always envisaged that we would return to these factors to make sure that they were
02:06:34 were suitably clear so do you mean that as part of the exercise to try and simplify approved document b your expectation was that the question
02:06:45 your expectation was that the question of whether it was clear enough would also be
02:06:48 also be grappled with um
02:06:50 um [Music]
02:06:51 [Music] i expected us to i i expected us to look at section 12 and undertake a clarification exercise in the same way that we were doing with the rest of the document
02:07:02 doing with the rest of the document right and when did you expect that that work would be carried out as part of what project that would be part of the simplification work i think the adb review when it was
02:07:14 work i think the adb review when it was combined
02:07:16 combined became i think you'd be well aware there were difficulties in progressing that for various reasons
02:07:24 it was initially imagined that
02:07:27 that they would be it would be a combined simplification and technical update um
02:07:34 um the
02:07:36 the simplification work was progressing but it wasn't complete in 2017 and um
02:07:45 and um i imagined that the section section 12 would be going through that same process so it had reached the same level of maturity as the review of the rest of the document
02:07:59 right so
02:08:02 the simplification work in relation to external file spread when would that be addressed
02:08:09 addressed it would have been addressed
02:08:12 addressed [Music]
02:08:16 clearly we had problems in progressing that review it would have been addressed um once we had um got to the point where we had a working group in place i would imagine
02:08:27 working group in place i would imagine right so as part of the technical review then
02:08:30 then um
02:08:30 um [Music]
02:08:34 i think even the simpler simplification work needed external input to ensure that we were clarifying and improving not um right
02:08:46 um right uh well yeah we would we would seek external input as to whether what we were doing is actually assisting and improving matters right now just going back to what we were looking at you have told us that you
02:08:57 looking at you have told us that you were informed either by mr martin or mr bird that the 2006 version of adb had addressed the coroner's first concern yes i believe so
02:09:08 coroner's first concern yes i believe so did you take any steps yourself to satisfy yourself that that was an appropriate line to be taking
02:09:19 uh i
02:09:23 i understood that this had been um [Music]
02:09:28 [Music] looked into in depth and in detail certainly um as a result of the department's involvement in the actual inquest and
02:09:40 and therefore i didn't actually challenge or look to
02:09:48 amend that position yeah does it follow that you didn't ever go to the 2006 edition of adb yourself to check whether or not in fact it had
02:10:00 to check whether or not in fact it had addressed the concerns that we see expressed here by the coroner uh that's that's correct so you you never went to the text and looked for yourself and worked out what the changes were i
02:10:13 and worked out what the changes were i don't recall doing so did you have a clear understanding in your own mind of what the changes had been in the 2006 edition of adb even in in general terms
02:10:24 i understood that there was a reorganization the sections but no i didn't have a detailed understanding of those changes right what was mr martin's attitude to the
02:10:35 what was mr martin's attitude to the recommendations that had been made by the coroner did you get the impression that mr martin was taking her recommendations seriously yes
02:10:44 yes but i was not involved in those discussions at the point that these discussions these decisions on what to take forward were were made so i can't comment on on that
02:10:55 on that but yes mr martin i think absolutely took uh these matters seriously did you were you ever in his presence when he was dismissive of the recommendations that had been made by the coroner or seeking
02:11:06 had been made by the coroner or seeking to play them down i don't recall so
02:11:13 um
02:11:19 if we can go back to the department's opening submissions at clg 3036387 i want to look at paragraph 96
02:11:31 i want to look at paragraph 96 on page 32.
02:11:35 [Music] i want to pick it up four lines down as the sentence begins officials agreed it says officials agreed that further general improvements could be made to
02:11:47 general improvements could be made to the clarity and presentation of adb and the document had already been earmarked for re-drafting in accordance with the department's new style guide but they did not agree that in its 2006
02:11:58 but they did not agree that in its 2006 iteration it was so inaccessible that a competent professional for whom the document was produced would not be able to understand the guidance it provided this led officials to conclude that
02:12:09 this led officials to conclude that there was nothing about recommendation for that was like that was safety critical do you see that
02:12:17 yes i do now you were an official at the time but are you saying that you weren't one of the officials that actually reached this view yourself
02:12:28 this view yourself that it uh
02:12:31 such that they didn't agree that in its 2006 iteration it was so inaccessible that a competent professional would wouldn't be able to understand the guidance i i wasn't involved in
02:12:42 guidance i i wasn't involved in formulating the position on
02:12:45 on black and white house so no basically i i wasn't involved in that so is your evidence that effectively the position was set when you came in as head of technical that's correct and you were just implementing
02:12:58 correct and you were just implementing what had already been agreed that's correct
02:13:01 correct let let's turn to some emails now if we go to clg three zeros one eight nine three zero this is an email chain between you and mr martin in may 2016
02:13:14 mr martin in may 2016 and i want to start at the bottom of page one in the third email down right at the bottom there's an email dated the 25th of may at 10 40 a.m from you to mr martin
02:13:27 at 10 40 a.m from you to mr martin and if we go over the page we can see the content of the email
02:13:33 and we can see
02:13:37 if we look in the third paragraph of this email you say this as an aside i've never quite understood what needed to be sorted out in adb as a
02:13:49 what needed to be sorted out in adb as a result of lack of house was it primarily application of requirements to retrofit work or guidance on surface spread of flame or perhaps a bit of both
02:14:01 or perhaps a bit of both do you see that i do now we're going to come back just so you know to come we'll come back to this email chain later to discuss some other issues
02:14:10 issues that it raises about workload etc and mr martin's workload but just sticking with the lack of house theme so this is over two years since you
02:14:21 so this is over two years since you became head of technical policy in january 2014. we're now in may 2016. can you explain how you were still unclear
02:14:31 unclear about what needed to be sorted out in approved document b at this time i'm very embarrassed by this email and i apologize if it's caused any distress or
02:14:42 apologize if it's caused any distress or upset
02:14:44 upset [Music]
02:14:46 [Music] it's a naive email and it was purposefully written in a naive manner um at the time there was some tension between myself and mr
02:14:58 some tension between myself and mr martin um largely i think stemming from [Music]
02:15:03 [Music] my putting pressure on mr martin with regards to the adb simplification work [Music]
02:15:12 [Music] i also recall at the time that
02:15:18 that mr martin was taking
02:15:23 taking short periods of leave at short notice and i believe that he was dissatisfied to the point where he was um
02:15:30 um looking for alternative employment um
02:15:34 um i had probed mr martin on a number of occasions about the scope of the lack of recommendations and
02:15:43 and i think the intent when i first probably um wrote this i probably wrote can i just check that there are no technical changes that
02:15:55 that there are no technical changes that are needed to
02:15:58 to adb
02:16:00 adb step flowing from lack of house because time was moving on and the time to meet the coroner's recommendation was um
02:16:09 um well we were progressing through time and if we needed to make technical changes i wanted to be absolutely sure that we didn't need to make any more but because of that tension and not wanting to
02:16:20 probe i wrote a very open naive email to
02:16:26 email to try to seek a slightly broader conversation about whether there were technical changes that were
02:16:33 that were needed
02:16:35 needed so
02:16:37 yeah it's a very i'm very ashamed of this
02:16:41 this email exchange are you saying that at the time you were having to count your language carefully for fear of upsetting mr martin further is that what you're saying i didn't want
02:16:52 is that what you're saying i didn't want to
02:16:53 to upset him unnecessarily yes that's quite right
02:16:57 right and why would asking whether there were any technical requirements um to aid technical changes to adb that needed to be made following the lachen or house fire
02:17:08 following the lachen or house fire why would asking that question have inflamed the situation with mr martin i don't know if um [Music]
02:17:17 [Music] because i'd probed on i seem to remember i was i'd probed on these areas before and
02:17:23 and um
02:17:24 um i you know this is a an email about me trying to manage and retain people within my
02:17:31 within my team in a way that's the way i felt about it at the time um whilst checking on those processes and um you know
02:17:43 you know it was meant to just be a more gentle way of
02:17:46 way of sense checking that there weren't technical changes that were needed yeah now you said you'd probe mr martin on a number of occasions about the scope of
02:17:57 number of occasions about the scope of the recommendations before this yes well i remember conversations where we'd we
02:18:02 we we'd kind of gone over i think um what was needed and what was necessary yeah and um
02:18:09 and um what was it about those conversations that hadn't given you the information you needed i felt i did have i i i pretty it was pretty clear from those conversations
02:18:20 pretty clear from those conversations what mr martin believed we had committed to doing that was not unclear this is just the clumsy way of trying to open a conversation um
02:18:31 open a conversation um to sense check that there weren't technical changes that were going to be difficult to achieve before they committed deadline for delivery yeah so is the reality that at this point you
02:18:43 is the reality that at this point you did have some doubts in the back of your mind about whether or not um there was more that did need to be done
02:18:51 done uh no i just wanted to know i just wanted to open that conversation and know that um we weren't that they weren't i just wanted to make absolutely sure
02:19:03 i just wanted to make absolutely sure that we weren't thinking that there were technical changes that needed to be made to adb
02:19:10 yes but um is that because you hadn't had a clear answer previously about whether there were technical changes that needed to be made to adb no it was because i was mindful that time was
02:19:21 because i was mindful that time was moving on we weren't managing to progress at matters as quickly as we had planned and it was purely about not running out it was you know if we needed to make
02:19:33 it was you know if we needed to make technical changes then that was going to be
02:19:36 be extremely difficult i still felt simplification work was deliverable
02:19:43 were you nervous about challenging mr martin because the division couldn't afford to lose him
02:19:51 i didn't want to [Music]
02:20:00 incentivize or make a situation worse when i felt you didn't need to but i didn't worry about challenging mr martin we did have our disagreements um it just didn't seem to me that i just
02:20:12 um it just didn't seem to me that i just thought this was a way of um
02:20:16 um open that conversation that was a bit more sensitive yeah but but either way i mean even if you were having to be careful here and even if this was just something you were trying to tick off your you know your
02:20:28 trying to tick off your you know your worry list if you like and we'll come to another worry list later but um
02:20:34 um wasn't this very late in the day to be checking whether there were technical changes
02:20:39 changes that needed to be made made to approve document b arising from lack of house
02:20:47 it was i i was pretty i i felt clear in my mind that we were looking at a simplification exercise primarily um allied with um
02:20:58 um allied with um well by this stage where things were getting difficult with the technical review but um
02:21:05 i was clear about that i just wanted to check and it's a clumsy way of checking did you ever ask mr martin to prepare you a short briefing document explaining what the coroner's concerns had been at
02:21:17 what the coroner's concerns had been at the lack of house inquest so you could have a very clear understanding of what the problems had been that she
02:21:25 that she we saw that then she referred to in her letter did you ever ask him to prepare that document no i didn't why not wasn't that an obvious thing to ask him to do so that you had a very clear understanding of where you stood
02:21:41 i i was quite clear from the handover in 2014
02:21:49 what the task was that we were meant to do flowing from the letter the rule 43 letter when the handover happened um
02:22:00 um but i was just mindful i just wanted to check
02:22:05 check that there was um that that was right it's it's it was a it was purely about looking at the come on sure come on to the program for the adb review at some stage but it was
02:22:17 the adb review at some stage but it was looking at where we were in that time scale and just wanting to be absolutely sure that we weren't missing something but do you accept this was very late in the day to be doing that you're two
02:22:29 the day to be doing that you're two years on
02:22:30 years on in your role as a head of technical policy
02:22:33 policy and you're in to mid mid-2016 now but it's about the progress of from my perspective at that moment in time it's about the progress and time um
02:22:44 um i
02:22:45 i it was a set it was a i was i was clear about what i've been tasked to
02:22:52 to deliver
02:22:54 deliver and i just wanted to make sure that there was nothing missing from that
02:23:04 i see was your failure to get on top of this issue in the first two years in post a result of the low priority which the department was giving to the review of adb and any action to implement the coroner's recommendations
02:23:19 pretty much the entire division's work were distorted from 2014 to
02:23:25 to almost mid 2015 by housing standards review work that we were doing um and that [Music]
02:23:35 [Music] given the the delivery deadlines for the research supporting the technical adb review
02:23:41 review created
02:23:43 created some delay but it definitely delayed the work looking at simplification right we didn't have the capacity to carry that simplification work forward
02:23:54 carry that simplification work forward at the same time as
02:23:57 as delivering the measures that were required by the housing standards review was that ever clearly spelt out to ministers did you ever say to ministers in a submission
02:24:08 ever say to ministers in a submission the housing standards review work is so all-encompassing that we are not going to be able to progress any work including the simplification work arising from lack of house because of it
02:24:19 arising from lack of house because of it no but at
02:24:21 no but at the time that it was going on so i'm i'm going to
02:24:26 unpack a little bit around that if that's okay um so when the housing standards review in 2014 the housing standards review was meant to deliver in october 2014. the research reports were due to be
02:24:38 the research reports were due to be delivered at the earliest at the end of 2014 kind of first quarter 2015 to underpin the technical review the simplification exercise was a less
02:24:49 the simplification exercise was a less onerous
02:24:51 onerous exercise in some respects than the technical review um
02:24:56 um and so there's a kind of slippage of two time scales across each other in this space where whereby actually
02:25:05 what what's happening here is that i'm starting to get concerned that we can't deliver the technical review
02:25:12 review whilst i still believe we can deliver the simplified document as part of that process right i see so is your evidence that the time slipped with both of them and say there wasn't a an opportunity in which
02:25:24 there wasn't a an opportunity in which you could spell out to ministers that one particular work strand was directly impacting on the other
02:25:32 um i mean i think in retrospect we should have actually absolutely had a tracker on this and we should have we should have had much better programme management but we didn't have anyone to
02:25:44 management but we didn't have anyone to do it we didn't have any resources within the team deployed to manage programs
02:25:54 so it was largely down to the policy leads or myself to to try and look at time scales [Music]
02:26:02 [Music] we should have i think been much clearer but in
02:26:10 all honesty i don't know that we were the problems we were experiencing with delays around this time were pretty much unprecedented and we were struggling to
02:26:21 unprecedented and we were struggling to deal with what was going to happen and what was happening in terms of those time scales so i don't think at this point
02:26:32 at this point i had absolute clarity about some of these issues right yeah it was it was a matter of making best efforts and this was part of it this was a an inquiry to try and make sure that
02:26:44 an inquiry to try and make sure that there really wasn't something that did need to be flanked right i guess let's look at mr martin's response to you if we go further up the email chain on page one the second email down is
02:26:56 on page one the second email down is dated the 26th of may 2016 at 806. and um he says again we'll come back to this email in the context of his workload later um you can see in the penultimate
02:27:08 um you can see in the penultimate paragraph he says the commitment following lachnal house was a general simplification one more important was a look at replacement window cp competent
02:27:19 at replacement window cp competent person schemes we're trying again to address the cp schemes do you see that there i do what did you understand him to mean by the commitment following lack our house was a general simplification one
02:27:32 was a general simplification one uh this is recommendation two from the coroner's letter with regards to improving the clarity and legibility and understandably understandable understandability of adb
02:27:44 understandability of adb right and at the time you got this email did you understand it to mean um the second recommendation by the coroner that was my understanding yes right
02:27:56 and did you ever go back to the coroner's letter and uh check the recommendations she'd made and the commitment that the department had made following it i don't recall doing so
02:28:10 now you reply to mr martin um if we go to the top of the chain
02:28:20 we can see you're dealing with this in the second paragraph down this is the 27th of may 2016. you say let's also work out what reba e can do
02:28:31 reba e can do who are you referring to there uh riba enterprises they were the publisher of the approved documents yeah and the manual of building control may help if post nakano questions were about
02:28:43 help if post nakano questions were about which requirements apply question mark i think you might also want to ask nick to look at the ads for brevity never known a man more concise let me know if you need help with the ggf and
02:28:55 you need help with the ggf and cps etc do you see that there i do um
02:29:00 um now
02:29:02 now brian martin had written that the commitment was a general simplification one
02:29:07 one why did you reply saying the manual of building control may help if post lacking or questions were about which requirements apply
02:29:16 um this was
02:29:18 this was about the complexity of the building regulations it was about whether
02:29:29 the trigger points for application of different
02:29:34 different parts of the building regulations in the regulations were not clearly understood which might have contributed to
02:29:43 to the
02:29:44 the spandrel panels not meeting the requirements for a wall rather than being considered as part of a window
02:29:52 a window so
02:29:53 so it's really about saying
02:29:58 you know let's look at the manual for building control that we're trying to draft
02:30:03 draft and if there are opportunities to provide greater clarity in that document as to legal application or limits of application or whatever it may be then we should do that right
02:30:15 we should do that right but can you see that you're potentially talking at cross purposes he's merely talking about simplification you're talking about um
02:30:24 um clarification as to which requirements apply aren't those potentially different things
02:30:33 well it wouldn't be a legal change it would be a clarification in another document as to how those mechanisms worked
02:30:50 right but i don't know that answers my question he seems to be talking about simplification and you're talking about clarification as to which requirements apply did you think that simplification and
02:31:01 did you think that simplification and clarification was synonymous at the time
02:31:09 i mean these are two different projects
02:31:12 projects and i'm just trying to link them up to best effect if there's any way that we can use the manual to address for instance some of the um
02:31:22 um [Music]
02:31:24 [Music] issues that maybe the competent person schemes or others were having in understanding what they needed to do right see what we don't see is a very clear document or email setting out exactly
02:31:36 document or email setting out exactly what you thought this clarification work or simplification work involved do we no
02:31:42 we no and um
02:31:45 and um can you explain why you didn't get that from mr martin why you didn't pin him down at this point and say hang on stop we've got to be very clear exactly what we're talking about in terms of simplification or clarification and
02:31:57 simplification or clarification and exactly what bits of the guidance we're talking about why wasn't that ever done in this period
02:32:08 mr martin's reply had confirmed the position that i understood there was a process for the simplification exercise
02:32:19 simplification exercise in terms of looking at how to improve [Music]
02:32:25 [Music] the clarity of adb although as i say it's still conjoined with the technical review to a degree at this point um so
02:32:33 um so that process was just going to continue as far as i was concerned because we didn't seem to need to change direction right
02:32:43 right now let's go back to the coroner's second recommendation cld401870 page three this was to ensure that adb is expressed
02:32:54 this was to ensure that adb is expressed in words and adopts a format which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just the professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building
02:33:05 have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control matters was it your understanding that that recommendation was accepted or rejected
02:33:13 yeah i think it was partially accepted um i that there should be a clearer document
02:33:22 um and but i understand that the view was that there was a limit to the extent that you could
02:33:31 could remove the technical nature of the language involved in approved document b i.e
02:33:37 i.e you know there were limits as to how practical it was to write a statutory guidance document that was accessible to everyone working across the
02:33:50 everyone working across the entire maintenance chain as well as other
02:33:55 other um
02:33:55 um [Music]
02:33:57 [Music] sorry
02:34:00 yeah it's about how far you can go in in reducing the technical complexity of the guidance right that there's a limit to what you can do and i understood that that had been the point made in secretary of
02:34:12 been the point made in secretary of state's reply i think right let's look at eric pickles response to the coroner on the 20th of may 2013 clg402788
02:34:25 um this is his response to her and if we go to uh page two and look at the last two paragraphs we see a response in relation to the building regulations
02:34:37 regulations and we can see he says finally in relation to building regulations i've noted your concerns about the difficulties that some of those involved in the inquest had with the interpretation of approved document b i can assure you that my department is
02:34:49 i can assure you that my department is committed to a program of simplification however the design of fire protection in buildings is a complex subject and should remain to some extent in the realm of professionals
02:35:00 realm of professionals and it goes on we have commissioned research which will feed into a future review of this part of the building regulations we expect this work to form the basis of a formal review leading to the publication of a new edition of the
02:35:11 the publication of a new edition of the approved document in 2016-2017 the revision will be drafted in accordance with a new style guide for approved documents aimed at
02:35:21 aimed at ensuring the guidance is capable of being more easily understood and that the need to cross-reference is reduced now just going back um and looking at the first of those paragraphs
02:35:34 the first of those paragraphs it's written i can assure you that my department is committed to a program of simplification that's the second sentence of that penultimate paragraph can we agree now that the coroner was
02:35:46 can we agree now that the coroner was not looking for simplification but for clarity and an intelligible format and language wasn't she
02:35:56 that's correct but in our terms simplification the simplification exercise covered those issues so
02:36:06 issues so the new formats plain english edits uh taking this through a process to assess um how to improve workflow and understanding they were all part of the
02:36:18 understanding they were all part of the uh
02:36:19 uh simplification work that we were planning to do i see
02:36:25 i see if we look at the final sentence of that paragraph where it says however the design of fire protection in buildings is a complex subject and should remain to some extent in the realm of professionals
02:36:36 professionals do you know were you ever told what professionals were being referred to there
02:36:44 no but i took the clarity and simplification work very seriously i'd driven that very hard across not just
02:36:55 just um
02:36:56 um adb but across all of the approved documents
02:36:59 documents to develop better consistency and deliver better outputs so
02:37:07 i guess what i'm saying is that to the extent that it was possible i was genuinely
02:37:14 genuinely passionate about improving the usability of the approved documents as far as possible so i did these these were you know the last line of that letter again i wasn't
02:37:25 line of that letter again i wasn't involved in drafting the letter um
02:37:28 um i i thought that there were important opportunities to improve outcomes
02:37:35 outcomes more broadly and i was driving those a lot harder than i think would have been imagined when this letter was written in i think it's 2013 isn't it
02:37:45 isn't it i see so are you are you saying that when you pick this project up you think you took it more seriously than perhaps your predecessors had been taking it
02:37:56 taking it no
02:37:56 no i think that i expanded the scope tried to expand the scope of what we were doing and that includes things like the manual to the building regulations which would have
02:38:07 building regulations which would have provided
02:38:08 provided you know a better procedural guide to help people achieve the right outcomes
02:38:14 outcomes and more consistency across i took more consistency across the statutory guidance also these seemed like kind of small iterative changes but the approved documents were
02:38:27 but the approved documents were relatively you know somewhat incoherent by this stage they had at least four different
02:38:33 different introductory front ends with different descriptions in that were increasingly out of date the structure and the format of the guidance these were all not consistent and and across the piece
02:38:45 not consistent and and across the piece that made it much more difficult for people to go from one document to another document or to understand how the consistency of the system was meant to work so this was um
02:38:57 to work so this was um i think what i'm trying to say is that um
02:38:59 um i thought i was probably being more ambitious about the overall improvement we could get in compliance and outcomes from that process than had been imagined at this point
02:39:12 imagined at this point i see
02:39:14 i see um but going back to the statement there that this is a complex subject should remain to some extent in the realm of professionals did those professionals include for example
02:39:25 those professionals include for example architects cladding designers building control officers um
02:39:31 i wasn't involved in the statement but i am absolutely sure that it would refer to construction sector professionals right were you ever told that one of the experts that was appointed by the coroner to the lack of house at inquest
02:39:43 coroner to the lack of house at inquest and mr david walker um had managed to get pretty confused about whether certain requirements applied to the external wall of the building were you ever told that
02:39:55 of the building were you ever told that no no
02:39:57 no no were you ever taught so you weren't told what his qualifications were and that it was perhaps surprising that someone in his position was
02:40:05 was able to get so confused you were never fed that was never fed back to you um
02:40:12 um no
02:40:17 wasn't that the problem with never getting a proper readout about what had actually happened at lacanal house so that you had a very clear picture of what the problems were that you were seeking to address
02:40:40 um
02:40:45 i i i accept and i wish that i had um
02:40:53 looked in more depth but the commission i was given in 2014 was quite specific
02:41:04 was quite specific and
02:41:06 we [Music]
02:41:08 [Music] we were having trouble driving that forward as it was but um
02:41:13 um [Music]
02:41:15 [Music] i think
02:41:16 i think the
02:41:19 the internal processes within the department and within the division were heavily driven by correspondence documents and records
02:41:30 correspondence documents and records rather than developing internal reports it was part of
02:41:35 of a kind of culture which was really about expediency because of in my view um inadequate
02:41:46 because of in my view um inadequate resourcing right is that shorthand for saying there simply wouldn't have been time for somebody to sit down and spend some time capturing
02:41:57 some time capturing the problems that were encountered at lachnal the difficulties the coroner had in interpreting the guidance herself the difficulty the experts had in interpreting the guidance so that the full context to her recommendations were
02:42:08 full context to her recommendations were understood are you saying there simply wasn't time to do that i'm saying that culturally if you tried to take that approach across all of the issues that the division was looking at it was
02:42:19 the division was looking at it was completely unsupportable [Music]
02:42:25 [Music] the scope of the work that we were involved with is very large it is complex there were a great number of issues that were coming up um and i think this was
02:42:37 were coming up um and i think this was true
02:42:39 true of many aspects of what we were doing the way that we worked was we had been squeezed
02:42:47 squeezed to fit the resource rather than matched to a robust set of processes
02:42:56 processes to manage
02:42:57 to manage issues like this [Music]
02:43:02 [Music] there was no protocol within the department for how to record or deal with
02:43:07 with coroner's recommendations it sat within the policy leads responsibilities and it was their job to either hand that on or
02:43:17 on or to actually deliver against those and i know this may sound very strange but
02:43:23 but you know this is the civil ser you know certainly within our division and i think probably more widely the kind of process side is is often very weak because it has been
02:43:35 is often very weak because it has been thinned out to allow resources to be developed delivered to other priorities in in the case of our division
02:43:44 division um
02:43:45 um the process for amending or changing regulation was becoming so onerous that we were working hand-to-mouth to try and cover the scope and the ground that we needed to
02:43:57 and the ground that we needed to um
02:43:58 um we
02:44:01 we um
02:44:02 um so put it you know i appreciate and i wish yes i wish that i had done that but
02:44:09 but um
02:44:09 um [Music]
02:44:13 we had you know been squeezed so much that we were literally you know the only way we could keep up with what was going on was this very
02:44:24 up with what was going on was this very light touch approach to reviewing and considering you had to keep making decisions and because if you start you know we were yeah struggling to to
02:44:35 yeah struggling to to deal with the scope of the the um
02:44:39 um portfolios that we had and
02:44:42 and um
02:44:43 um this is symptomatic of that right okay um i want to ask you some questions now about the competent person scheme if we go over to page three of um eric pickles letter
02:44:56 um eric pickles letter we can see that it says in the meantime however i've commissioned my officials to review the current guidance issued by the providers by providers of competent person schemes for window installers the review is
02:45:09 for window installers the review is intended to ensure that members of these schemes are fully aware of the scope of these schemes and the fire safety measures which should be addressed and is i believe an appropriate response to the problems that came to light
02:45:20 to the problems that came to light during the inquests you see that there yeah now if we look at your witness statement page 12 paragraph 39
02:45:31 and i want to pick it up it's um kind of eight lines down in the middle of the line there's a sentence beginning my understanding is that do you have that yes i do
02:45:43 do you have that yes i do and you say my understanding is that whilst the coroner's report focused on the need for an approved document b review
02:45:49 review the view of officials was that work to improve internal procedures and the competent person scheme was at least equally important because unless the requirements in guidance were adequately
02:46:00 requirements in guidance were adequately communicated to operatives via the competent person scheme then quality of compliance could be affected now
02:46:09 now this wasn't an issue that the coroner had raised at all was it no not to the best of my knowledge no did you understand that at the time that she hadn't actually raised the competence person scheme yeah i think i
02:46:20 competence person scheme yeah i think i did yeah yeah when you say that it was your understanding that the view of officials was that work on the competent person scheme was at least equally important which officials are you referring to
02:46:32 which officials are you referring to um i think both anthony bird and brian martin right and on what basis did those officials hold the view that that work was equally as important
02:46:43 as important as work on the approved document itself well these are my words i can't actually i think i've probably overstated in my witness statement um by accident
02:46:56 um by accident the point that was being made was that to address the root cause if the competent person schemes were not actually operating effectively
02:47:08 effectively then
02:47:09 then changing the guidance in the approved document would be changing the guidance or simplifying that guidance in the approved document would actually be irrelevant if they were not actually operating in a way
02:47:20 were not actually operating in a way which ensured they understood what they needed to do to comply with part b yes i understand it's a potential problem if that guidance isn't being communicated properly to those who are actually carrying out the work but
02:47:32 actually carrying out the work but isn't the primary consideration making sure that the guidance itself is actually clear
02:47:42 yes it's necessary for the guidance to be clear
02:47:46 be clear but if people don't refer to the guidance or know that they need to apply it then that is um at least uh as problematic i would have thought right
02:47:56 right can we go to an email on this topic clg402792
02:48:06 this is an email sent by mr martin to
02:48:10 to anthea nicholson within the department and others and copying you in do you see that yes who who is miss nicholson and the others that we see copied there
02:48:23 others that we see copied there anthea nicholson was a grade seven working in and i should explain this um responsibility for the legislation so the building act and the building
02:48:34 so the building act and the building regulations for oversight of competent person schemes oversight of the building control system oversight of building control bodies sat within a separate team
02:48:44 team within the division anthony nicholson was a grade seven working in that team and at the time i believe was leading on looking at competent person scheme issues ian drummond
02:48:56 scheme issues ian drummond was the grade seven in charge of um the uh system as a whole legislation um the other about factors i've mentioned
02:49:06 mentioned um uh alison lockyer um was uh i think an heo or an seo supporting them fine okay
02:49:17 okay now we can see that mr martin says all and we can see the subject is findings of a review of replacement window scheme guidance following the latino house inquest he says all further to this i've
02:49:28 inquest he says all further to this i've drafted the attached letter back to the cp scheme providers competent person scheme providers comments please and then he says this plan is to stir them up and see if they can't work it
02:49:39 them up and see if they can't work it all out for themselves do you see that yeah
02:49:43 yeah now
02:49:45 now does that accurately sum up what the department was doing stir them up and see if they can't work it all out for themselves
02:50:00 the point is that the
02:50:05 onus was on the competent person schemes to
02:50:11 to address the defaults in their actual schemes we didn't own the schemes but we might have oversight of them
02:50:21 and uh therefore um
02:50:25 um you know what's being suggested is that we set them up a task to resolve the difficulties that they have within their um
02:50:33 um own systems right
02:50:36 right so it sounds like that mr martin's summary was a fair summary of the plan to get them to take it upon themselves to provide better guidance yes
02:50:48 to provide better guidance yes yes and again you've got to remember that
02:50:52 that um
02:50:53 um we're working within a policy environment where actual regulatory intervention has to be the last result there was a presumption that you start with industry taking responsibility and acting for itself and then work through
02:51:05 acting for itself and then work through to regulation if that's what you needed to do and and that's what mr martin is he's basically saying put a lot of pressure on them to go and address these issues right
02:51:17 to go and address these issues right and can you help us was that work on the competent person schemes ever completed so far as you understood i think there were delays
02:51:25 delays um
02:51:25 um [Music]
02:51:27 [Music] there was it was hard work getting the competent person schemes to resolve those issues as far as i remember and i don't believe it actually reached a
02:51:36 reached a conclusion no that does seem to be consistent with mr martin's evidence for the transcript that's at paragraph 35 page 13 of his statement now the final recommendation of the coroner
02:51:46 coroner uh if we go back to her letter clg401870 page three was to review adb to ensure that it provides guidance which is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or
02:51:58 to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock and not only those engaged in design and construction of new buildings now can you help us uh was this recommendation accepted or rejected so far as you
02:52:09 accepted or rejected so far as you understood um
02:52:14 it was um
02:52:17 um believed to have been addressed by the issue of the lga's guidance on purpose-built flats so rather than having guidance on this matter in adb
02:52:28 matter in adb it was
02:52:30 it was [Music]
02:52:32 [Music] the
02:52:33 the yeah so the lga's purpose built flats guidance which had been i think joint funded by
02:52:39 funded by the department
02:52:43 right and who told you that who told you that this recommendation had been addressed by the issue of the lga's guidance on purpose-built blocks of flats i
02:52:52 flats i i would imagine it was part of the handover process that i had right so as far as you were concerned that was not a recommendation that you were taking forward when you were head of technical policy no
02:53:05 now let's turn to an email now clg 50634
02:53:17 this is an email from anthony bird to you and various other officials including mr martin on the 11th of july 2013 email confirms
02:53:29 on the 11th of july 2013 email confirms we can see it from the title the subject our meeting today at 2pm to discuss 2016-17 review do you see that yes i do and um if the email itself it says chaps
02:53:42 um if the email itself it says chaps were due to sit down together at 2 pm today to discuss the potential scope of the 2016-17 technical review can i therefore suggest two items for discussion update on the cpr and potential impacts for current approved documents and any
02:53:54 for current approved documents and any future technical reviews and two what technical parts of the regulations should be included in any 2016 review and why obviously ministers have already shown their hand on part b following lack of
02:54:05 their hand on part b following lack of our house
02:54:06 our house and it goes on et cetera do you see that i do now did you attend that meeting um
02:54:13 um i assume that i did but i don't recall the meeting can you help us as to what particular issues were discussed about approved document b and which parts of that would be included in the 2016-2017 review oh i
02:54:26 included in the 2016-2017 review oh i have no recollection that can assist you i'm afraid
02:54:31 if we could go to another email clg3018917
02:54:42 what we can see in this email chain is that on the fourth of february 2014 in the second email down you
02:54:49 you forward an email chain to brian martin and mr ledson and you ask if you go to the [Music]
02:55:00 [Music] second paragraph so um the paragraph beginning how does this align in the second sentence you say do we have ministerial agreement to implement the adb review if not then statements in
02:55:12 the adb review if not then statements in the sub need to be suitably qualified and then we can see going up to the top of the chain on page one that mr martin responds
02:55:24 responds on the 4th of february in the last paragraph um so he quotes from mr pickles letter and then in the last paragraph he says we've repeated this line a couple of
02:55:36 we've repeated this line a couple of times since it's also in brandon lewis's speech for thursday it's not an absolute commitment do you see that i do now
02:55:46 now when you receive that email what did you understand mr martin to mean by that it's not an absolute commitment that
02:55:56 that the scope of the adb review would still be subject to further approvals i imagine i mean i don't i don't recall what i thought at the time but i i looking at that
02:56:07 but i i looking at that [Music]
02:56:09 [Music] there are still clearance processes that you will go through as you develop the policy [Music]
02:56:18 [Music] and of course that deadline would shift across administrations so there would be a process of um although i don't think it would have happened there would be a process of
02:56:29 process of um
02:56:31 um making a new administration uh
02:56:35 uh aware of that commitment i see
02:56:38 i see i mean you tell us in your statement we don't need to go to it paragraph 103 page 27 that you were fully aware of the commitment after lacking house did you understand it to be a provisional
02:56:49 understand it to be a provisional commitment no
02:56:52 no it was
02:56:54 it was a
02:56:55 a commitment to undertake that work but there are always kind of further qualifications as you go through the process if we had gone to ministers with
02:57:06 if we had gone to ministers with um
02:57:07 um an enormous program of regulation they would have had the right to um uh make a further decision on that and uh the scope of the technical part of
02:57:18 uh the scope of the technical part of the review um i think uh i'm not sure um but i think the scope of that review was still to be determined at this point
02:57:31 i see so she said no it was a commitment to undertake that work so it was a firm commitment as far as you understood it everything is transient
02:57:42 everything is transient when you go across certain boundaries but yes the intent and the commitment was absolutely sincere
02:57:52 sincere but
02:57:53 but it doesn't mean that we wouldn't need to um
02:57:55 um [Music]
02:57:57 [Music] get further ministerial approvals for the way that was taken forward i think the the this is very much about the technical part of the review and the
02:58:09 technical part of the review and the work that was to address uh recommendation to being conjoined um
02:58:14 um [Music]
02:58:16 [Music] the technical review you'd still always need to re-qualify the scope um at a future point so it's not that we have carp launch to do anything we want i think
02:58:27 anything we want i think it isn't the key to this the use of the word we expect and what he's saying is we expect this to what the line is we expect this to be part of the formal review
02:58:39 part of the formal review but it's not a commitment it's a way of giving comfort to the recipient without formally giving some form of undertaking isn't it um
02:58:52 i i entirely accept your point um
02:59:04 i didn't read it in that way at the time but i i i may be other ways of reading it if it's just how it struck me that's all
02:59:15 yeah i mean i my understanding was that we would need to sense check that commitment as time went on but it wasn't that the commitment wasn't sincere at that time
02:59:28 yeah if that's right isn't that statement of the obvious that then for example there might be changes in administration why isn't that an odd thing if that's what he meant isn't that quite an odd thing for him to be saying
02:59:42 uh new administrations always have the opportunity to change the decisions of the previous administration yeah and what i'm saying is that's obvious why he wouldn't need to spell that out
02:59:54 why he wouldn't need to spell that out to you i i'm i'm talking about well i'm this was my understanding at the time you i i can't absolutely definitively say what mr
03:00:05 absolutely definitively say what mr martin meant by that okay plus we can look at one more email before we break clg
03:00:10 clg 50707
03:00:15 there's a third email down in this chain is from you to mr ledson and mr martin on the 12th of october 2016 at 13 52
03:00:26 12th of october 2016 at 13 52 and you say this is about a proof document b in the second paragraph it would be useful to have a recap on commitments made by the secretary of state on part b following lachnal house specifically what were the complaints
03:00:39 specifically what were the complaints levied
03:00:40 levied and to what extent are we seeking to address them through our proposed review program once a meeting date is arranged we should also set aside 45 minutes for a pre-meet to cover this do you see that
03:00:51 a pre-meet to cover this do you see that yes
03:00:53 yes now
03:00:54 now only five months before we saw in may 2016 you'd been asking mr martin about this very same topic we've discussed that in detail can you explain why in october 2016 you
03:01:06 can you explain why in october 2016 you still appear to be unclear about the commitments made in response to the lack of incident and to the extent to which your proposed review was addressing them this is a
03:01:16 this is a person
03:01:19 person absolutely normal request to have the right information and papers to hand when going into a meeting with a another department
03:01:33 i worked across a very large portfolio um
03:01:37 um [Music]
03:01:38 [Music] and
03:01:40 and asking for the information to be reprovided is perfectly normal i think but isn't it symptomatic of the fact
03:01:51 but isn't it symptomatic of the fact that you hadn't ever been given a clear statement
03:01:55 statement of what the complaints were that were levied and what you actually were seeking to address through your proposed new program isn't that the truth no i don't accept that
03:02:06 don't accept that it's just making sure that it's not what i think i was driving at was
03:02:12 the information shouldn't just be what we committed to it's actually also i also wanted um information on
03:02:23 the actual um
03:02:25 um [Music]
03:02:27 [Music] i wanted all of the other information in relation to
03:02:32 what the problems were to hand that's what it is but can we agree if you'd asked for a clear briefing document from mr martin earlier setting that out you wouldn't need to be asking this question again in
03:02:43 need to be asking this question again in october 2016 would you
03:02:52 i would still be asking for papers again to be honest if i'm going into a meeting with the home office or another department and i haven't you know
03:03:02 you know i would
03:03:03 i would engage with these areas of work as and when was necessary it's very periodic
03:03:10 periodic um
03:03:13 the span of work that i'm doing at that time
03:03:16 time imposes a
03:03:17 imposes a uh
03:03:20 uh big
03:03:21 big mental workload and i just want the information refreshed so that i have it all to hand when that meeting happens okay mr chairman is that a good moment
03:03:33 okay mr chairman is that a good moment sorry i've gone slightly over that's all right start again make an adjustment as we need to mr harold we've got to the stage where we ought to have a break now for everyone to have some lunch so we'll stop now
03:03:43 stop now we'll resume at five past two please and again when you're out of the room please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it thank you
03:03:52 thank you thank you very much
03:04:03 thank you very much for five past two please
03:06:37 you