Lord Wharton gives evidence about his time as Building Regulations Minister (2015-2016), correspondence with the All Party Parliamentary Fire Safety Group (APG), and the department's prioritization of simplification and red tape reduction. Questioned about why fire safety life risks raised by Sir David Amoss were not urgently addressed.
00:00:28 would you ask L Warton to come back in pleas okay
00:00:34 68 let
00:00:41 68 right won ready to carry on I hope absolutely thank you very much yes Mr mil thank you Mr chairman um Lord warten I ask you now about a different topic namely the appg uh and the correspondence between
00:00:52 appg uh and the correspondence between your department and that group now the APG as I'm sure you're all aware stands for all parliamentary all party parliamentary f safety and rescue group yes yes uh and uh you I think would have
00:01:06 yes yes uh and uh you I think would have been aware of that group during your time as a minister yes yes uh were you aware of which officials were drafting responses to the
00:01:17 responses to the appg uh I don't recall at the time having been aware of which officials would draft the responses no right did you know that often not always but often it was Brian Martin a G7 official I
00:01:28 it was Brian Martin a G7 official I don't recall knowing that right you don't recall does it mean you don't recall I mean I don't think I know but it's not impossible that at some point it was mentioned to me I I don't recall that it was something I was aware
00:01:40 recall that it was something I was aware of right I mean if you had a a question on the substance of the correspondence who would you who would you contact uh my private office uh and who would they contact I I don't know did you not want to know well they would come they would come back with a response if I had a
00:01:52 come back with a response if I had a question or an amendment okay what from some unknown unnamed official you didn't care to well I I I wouldn't put it like that I mean as I say my main point of cont the person I most frequently would speak to uh was Bob Leedom um if there
00:02:04 speak to uh was Bob Leedom um if there was an issue with a piece of Correspondence I would make an amendment send it to my private office and it would come back either appropriately amended or with reasons that something else should be done with it right did you ever feel that you weren't able to
00:02:15 you ever feel that you weren't able to challenge either the APG correspondence or the replies drafted on your behalf no you never felt that I didn't feel that okay now let's go to CLG 301
00:02:27 go to CLG 301 19298 um I'm showing you here a letter from s David Amos the late s David Amos MP Member of Parliament for South End West dated the 10th of September
00:02:38 West dated the 10th of September 2015 received in the department the next uh on the on the 16th of September 2015 as you can see uh so that's the day after as a matter of chronology the the
00:02:50 after as a matter of chronology the the day on which you received the submission um which was the 15th of September now at the first paragraph um so David explains that the group had met your predecessor Steven Williams who had
00:03:02 predecessor Steven Williams who had acknowledged that there were important fire safety matters worthy of full consideration during the review of ADB as you can see and the reference and and review of ADB had been set out in the
00:03:13 review of ADB had been set out in the Secretary of State's letter to the coroner after the inquest I'm summarizing yeah um and he goes on to say this in the next paragraph the group felt that three of these matters had significant Life Safety implications ND
00:03:25 significant Life Safety implications ND were therefore of sufficient priority to be dealt with immediately ahead of the review
00:03:30 review thereafter leading to a publication of a revised document in 2016 to 17 the minister however was not willing to bring the program of work which had already started forward as chairman of
00:03:42 already started forward as chairman of the APG I kindly request assistance with the following two issues and then he goes on uh to to cover those which I'll come to did you appreciate uh that the
00:03:54 come to did you appreciate uh that the APG felt and we Telling You in September that they felt that the current version of ABD had significant Life Safety implications uh I I don't recall exactly
00:04:05 implications uh I I don't recall exactly what I felt when throughout my time of the engagement with APG but I I certainly would have seen the letters and was aware of the breadth of their concerns yes yes I should have I should have pointed out the fact that you are
00:04:17 have pointed out the fact that you are the address e of this letter and I was assuming that you'd read it at the time would that be fair yes I would see it when a reply had already been drafted and it would come in my box for uh signature or to be amended the reply
00:04:28 signature or to be amended the reply that is so I would see it with a reply is that right you wouldn't see it and then send it out and ask people no to address the questions you felt needed to be addressed now my private office would
00:04:39 be addressed now my private office would send it to the relevant team to get a response compile a response and would put it in my folder uh for either signature of the response so they could send it or for any amendment I would then choose to
00:04:50 then choose to make I
00:04:54 see right so is this right when it came back to you did it have these stamps on it Minister JW sorry you can't see that actually if we can scroll to the top of the page um you can see some stamps
00:05:06 the page um you can see some stamps Minister JW subject APG document B building RS official Bob ledom Brian Martin I don't remember would that be normal though I I don't recall you don't
00:05:17 normal though I I don't recall you don't recall the process I don't recall the stamp whether there were stamps on the letter at the time it came to me no I know that I would receive um a proposed reply for Signature and the original letter in a together in a pack
00:05:31 letter in a together in a pack right um do you recall that you had been told the previous day in fact pretty much what the second paragraph of this letter
00:05:40 letter says I don't because I I don't I don't recall exactly what the chronology of these documents finding their way to me would have been I say I remember the letter um but I don't remember exactly
00:05:51 letter um but I don't remember exactly when I saw it and how that timeline interacts with other documents that I saw um and how I felt about that at that time
00:06:03 um now so David goes on as you can see at the foot of the page if we can go back to that please to um ask for for confirmation in paragraph one as follows please can you confirm that the review
00:06:15 please can you confirm that the review of approved document B to the building regulations as set out of the Secretary of State's letter to her honor Francis Kirkham CBE following the Lael house inquest will continue leading to as I mentioned above a revised document being
00:06:27 mentioned above a revised document being published in 2016 to 17 did you note that at the time I don't recall uh well if you read it can be take it that you did no I can't recall I
00:06:40 take it that you did no I can't recall I read it I don't recall what I noted and didn't note at the time no perhaps i' not not frame the question um clearly enough that if you read it at the time then you would have noted it all at the
00:06:51 then you would have noted it all at the time if I read it I would have read it I don't I don't remember whether it had a particular significance or salience to me at the time I remember receiving the letter and I remember would have read the
00:07:00 the letter uh now he he goes on to say a similar commitment was made in a Westminster Hall fire safety debate third of March 2015 relating to the case of Sophie Rosser I'm attaching copies of
00:07:11 of Sophie Rosser I'm attaching copies of the Secretary of State's letter and the Hansard record of the Westminster Hall fire safety debate in the case into the case of Sophie Rossa for your convenience now um You can we take it
00:07:22 convenience now um You can we take it from this that you knew that Steven Williams had made the commitment to deliver the revised ADB by 2016 to 7 uh by that time I I I don't recall
00:07:34 uh by that time I I I don't recall whether I knew that specifically at that time I suspect it is unlikely I read the full Hansard transcript if it was even provided to me I think it more likely only the uh letter itself would be
00:07:45 only the uh letter itself would be provided to me in the pack um but I was aware that this commitment existed as we have uh already discussed right um let me see if I can lay this to rest can we go to
00:07:56 go to rki um 655 live
00:08:03 please now this is a fire sector Federation overview from uh you I think is that right from me well it says
00:08:16 think is that right from me well it says from on admin SEC for building regulations Minister James Warton MP at least it it it has to do with you it's for me yes it's for you all right um uh
00:08:27 for me yes it's for you all right um uh did you read it I I don't recall uh very well it hasn't got a date on it I don't know whether you can assist us with it but uh
00:08:38 um when do you think you first I I don't remember having um seen this document at the time it doesn't mean I didn't but I don't recall it uh all right um and it says in the second paragraph
00:08:51 and it says in the second paragraph indeed your predecessor a year ago wrote to the leader of a local Authority stating we do have plans to review part B of the building regulations and expect any revisions to take effect in 2016 to 177 with this in mind we have
00:09:02 177 with this in mind we have commissioned the building research establishment to look at a number of issues which will provide an evidence based for a future review given work is now underway I'm not inclined to consider issues in isolation and in advance of this wider
00:09:13 advance of this wider work he reiterated this at the Sophie Rosser adjournment debate in Westminster Hall in March last year uh when he cited a revised document to be completed in 2016 to 17 which
00:09:24 to be completed in 2016 to 17 which would see the guidance simplified where possible and updated when whilst revising the technical content at this at the same time Stephen Williams also wrote in similar terms to our chairman saying I do acknowledge that the matters
00:09:36 saying I do acknowledge that the matters to which you refer are worthy of full consideration and I've asked my officials to ensure that they are included in the ongoing review were those matters that you knew or knew of
00:09:47 those matters that you knew or knew of in September 2015 as best I recall I I was familiar with the matters in in a an overall sense but I don't recall this particular document or and I'm not sure how
00:09:58 document or and I'm not sure how familiar I was with the Sophie Rosser adjournment debate I don't remember that being a particular prominence in my mind at the time right and did you know that Sophie Rosser was a young architect who had died trying to rescue her fiance
00:10:10 had died trying to rescue her fiance from a fire in a development in docklands and whose inquest had happened in September 2014 where the coroner had highlighted a number of fire safety problems with the building self closers
00:10:21 problems with the building self closers inadequate smoke ventilation and any one fire and risk and F fire risk assessment since 1997 anything like that I think I think I had a very high level awareness
00:10:33 think I had a very high level awareness of the issues around it but I wouldn't uh I don't recall having known the detail in those terms now right so you see it was referred to as I showed you in in the letter to you um that s David
00:10:47 in in the letter to you um that s David had sent you on um date of the 10th of September were you not interested to understand what had happened to sfhi Rossa and why that was relevant to anything to do with you uh I don't
00:10:59 anything to do with you uh I don't recall exactly what steps I took at the time but I don't remember having received a copy of or read the uh Hansard of the adjournment debate did you not want to see it given that it was something raised I don't recall exactly
00:11:12 something raised I don't recall exactly what questions I asked what full understanding that I had at the time uh but I didn't read the entire hand out of the adjournment debate now uh now there's a reply to S David's letter at cg3 is 1 9454
00:11:30 uh now um it it's uh undated as you can see but we understand from uh other evidence that it was sent on the 23rd of October 2015 would that be about right
00:11:43 October 2015 would that be about right to the best of your recollection Lord W uh it would seem to make sense in line with the timeline of the previous letter yes uh and if we look at it uh in the second paragraph you say and I I'm so
00:11:55 second paragraph you say and I I'm so sorry forgive me if we go to the bottom we can see your name is at the bottom of it you scroll to the bottom there's your name now go to the second paragraph it's still on the screen I have yet to agree a detailed work plan for building
00:12:06 a detailed work plan for building regulations with my officials you say that's the first sentence now just pausing there here we are late October 2015 after the coroner's letter sent in
00:12:17 2015 after the coroner's letter sent in March 2013 so some 2 and a half years later and as you say a detailed work plan had not been agreed did that fact in October 2015 not calls you to go to
00:12:30 in October 2015 not calls you to go to Bob ledum or any other official with responsibility for the building regulations and approved document B and ask him well what is the detailed work plan uh where is it I don't recall
00:12:41 plan uh where is it I don't recall whether I asked that specific question but I did on a number of occasions raise concerns and frustration with delay to the progress of of addressing these
00:12:52 the progress of of addressing these issues when you received the 10th of September
00:12:57 September letter from David Amis was this the reply and draft that had come with it I I would assume so it looks it looks like it but I can't remember the exact detail of the letter
00:13:08 remember the exact detail of the letter that I finally signed on that date I I perfectly plausibly yes did I notice it I know it it's not a signed copy but I would think it is and when you received the draft how would you go about making
00:13:19 the draft how would you go about making amendments on it if you were going to make any did you make them in manuscript manuscript amendments usually yes unless unless there's something very substantial to change in which case I might speak to my private secretary and and not not literally dictate word for
00:13:31 and not not literally dictate word for word but have a more detailed conversation about changes a letter like this I would expect to make manuscript amendments and is that because they didn't come to you electronically they were presented to you as physical hard documents that's correct yes and were they in your box yes I see so you would
00:13:44 they in your box yes I see so you would um you'd come across them in the course of your ordinary box work that's right right and you'd make manuscript amendments and then you put them back in your box for your private secretary to take away yes and then would you see the
00:13:55 take away yes and then would you see the final version presumably you would with your amendments in it did you do you remember an occas when your amendments got debated between you and the relevant officials
00:14:05 no uh when you um signed this letter did you go back to the 15th of September submission which you only been with you
00:14:16 submission which you only been with you for four weeks or so to double check what had been done to progress the review uh I don't recall whether I asked about it as I say on a number of occasions I know I know I raised the issue of the delay whether I did it
00:14:28 issue of the delay whether I did it specifically as result of of this letter I don't remember right um now we we now we now learn that you learned you you attended an informal
00:14:39 you learned you you attended an informal lunch with the APG the following month 26th of November 2015 and we have a note of that um we also I think see that two two days before that lunch on the 24th
00:14:51 two days before that lunch on the 24th of November you were provided with a briefing note for that lunch uh by Brian Martin at your request um can we just go please to CLG
00:15:08 17717 this is an email of the 24th of November
00:15:13 November 2015 to you from Brian Martin copy to Bob LEDs and others including Richard Harold uh Peter scoffield and Sally Randall as requested see attached a briefing as follows
00:15:26 see attached a briefing as follows summary sir David Amos MP chairman of the all party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group APG has invited you to an informal launch with some members of the group and Brian Robinson chairman of the fire sector
00:15:37 the fire sector Federation uh routine meeting will take place on Thursday the 26th of November 2015 from 12:00 p.m. to 1: p.m. in the barry room House of Lords recommendation that you
00:15:48 House of Lords recommendation that you one approach the meeting in quotes listening mode close quotes two note the lines to take attached to danx a uh now that's mail may not recall
00:15:59 a uh now that's mail may not recall receiving that email I I wouldn't receive that email that's to my private office uh but the the substance of it may well have been put into a cover note on the submission I don't remember exactly uh yes and let's go to CLG
00:16:12 exactly uh yes and let's go to CLG 17718 which is the document attached to to this
00:16:17 to this email there's the first page it's from Brian Martin cleared by Bob ledom Sally Randall as well to you dated the 24th of
00:16:28 Randall as well to you dated the 24th of November 2015 15 all party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group lunch meeting 26th November 2015 and then there's a summary which is exactly the same as in the email we've just seen the
00:16:39 same as in the email we've just seen the timing the same recommendation the same and the lines to take in Annex a as you can see and if we go to page two in the briefing
00:16:49 briefing note uh or submission uh page two paragraph 7 Under The Heading likely topic of discussion it says this
00:17:00 says this uh in 2013 the inquiry into the six deaths in the far at Lael house recommended that the guidance in approved document B should be simplified Eric pickles's response to the coroner set out his intention to review part B
00:17:12 set out his intention to review part B during this Parliament and this would include simplification where this was possible a copy of the letter is at Annex
00:17:20 Annex C now Annex C is at CLG
00:17:27 17733 let's just have that up there it is it's uh Eric pickles's 20 as it turns out 20th of May 2013 response to the
00:17:40 out 20th of May 2013 response to the coroner's rule 43 letter of the 28th of March
00:17:45 March 2013 would it be your would it have been your usual practice to read briefing notes and the annexes such as this yes I think you tell us in Paris 16 that it
00:17:56 think you tell us in Paris 16 that it was uh now if we go back please then to the note that CLG
00:18:06 that CLG 17718 page 2 paragraph
00:18:10 7 you see there that he says in the penultimate Line This would include simplification where this was
00:18:21 possible what did you make of the where this was possible qualification we now see here I don't recall having particularly picked up on it as an issue
00:18:32 particularly picked up on it as an issue right it
00:18:33 right it seems an unnecessary statement of fact but I mean you can't simplify where it's not possible but I did I don't remember having picked up on that as a particular uh
00:18:46 uh salience no did did that therefore not cause you to stop and say well hang on what is this department actually committed to is it just simplifying language or is it simplifying language
00:18:58 language or is it simplifying language were possible or what did you not ask that question I don't remember asking that question specifically in relation to this paragraph but um as we've seen I I'd received a number of or by this
00:19:10 I'd received a number of or by this point had received some and throughout my time there received a number of submissions describing what work was proposed and ultimately
00:19:19 planned now following the meeting you were
00:19:22 were proposed you were provided with a note of the meeting by Brian Martin on the 30th of November let's go to that it's a cg10
00:19:34 8066 and we can see from the heading that it's entitled all party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group lunch meeting 26th November
00:19:44 2015 uh and at the top um it says uh who who is
00:19:51 who is present uh the purpose invitation where it takes place and who is in attendance you can see a cast there including the S David D Miss Mary Glendon Pete Alis Ronnie King uh and others including
00:20:04 Ronnie King uh and others including Brian Martin from the and Sarah Morgan from the
00:20:06 from the department and then s David Amos MP chairman of the all party group introduced the group and flagged that they had not been able to persuade previous ministers that a review of approved document B was urgent so just
00:20:19 approved document B was urgent so just pausing there do you remember sir David stressing the urgency of the work uh I don't remember specifically I I find it entirely plausible I think there was some discussion of document B at that
00:20:30 some discussion of document B at that meeting but I don't remember exactly what was discussed and I don't recall having read this note at the time when you say there was some discussion of approved document B at that meeting was that not the totality of the discussion
00:20:41 that not the totality of the discussion or were there other things discussed it not um I remember I I've had the opportunity to read this document as part of this process I don't recall having read it at the time my recollection is that there was a significant Focus uh for example the
00:20:53 significant Focus uh for example the issue of retr retrofiting sprinklers which I don't think is captured in this document so I iured that approved document B was discussed um I think that in so far as
00:21:05 discussed um I think that in so far as it goes this document probably captures most of that but I don't think this is a uh entirely comprehensive note from what I recall of that meeting and if you look at what you said
00:21:17 meeting and if you look at what you said at the
00:21:18 at the bottom uh in the two paragraphs there uh you say that you did not want to do work with building regulations sorry did want
00:21:30 with building regulations sorry did want to do the work with building regulations and hope to set out your plans in the early New Year then it says he welcomed comments from the all party group and the Federation however he was clear that the principal objective for any work would be simplification and the
00:21:42 would be simplification and the reduction of red tape do you agree that that's what you said I I don't recall and I don't as I say I don't recall seeing this note at that time would have you any reason sitting there now to think that that was
00:21:54 sitting there now to think that that was a misre recording of what you said uh no but uh I think that the not may not be a a fullsome record of everything that was said well it's not verbatim and I rather get purports to be but does it C have
00:22:05 get purports to be but does it C have you got any reason to think sitting there now that it doesn't capture the gist of what you said with a reasonable degree of accuracy Lord Wharton I think it may not be complete I think for an hourong meeting
00:22:18 complete I think for an hourong meeting there's a there as I've mentioned the issue of sprinklers which I notice is not in this note I don't think this note captures in total what is what was said I I don't dispute it's quite possible
00:22:30 I I don't dispute it's quite possible that I said simplification reduction of red tape would would be part of the aim of what we're going to do um I would I don't recall having said it was the principal objective of work uh and I don't think that this note fully
00:22:41 don't think that this note fully captures everything that was discussed at that meeting accepting it's not verbatim but still I think there are emissions even from the memory that I have six seven years on he goes on he raised a concern that a
00:22:54 on he goes on he raised a concern that a debate on a significant change in scope for Part B Beyond Life Safety could significant delay progress and should should be raised as a separate issue did that option namely
00:23:05 issue did that option namely prioritizing the review on life safety issues get picked up as an option either at this meeting or or in its aftermath I don't recall do you remember whether Brian Martin said anything at this
00:23:17 Brian Martin said anything at this meeting uh I don't remember Brian the only reason I'm aware that Brian Martin was at this meeting is because this note tells me
00:23:25 tells me so I I see so you have no independent recollection of Mr Martin or his presence or whether he said anything that is correct which would lead me to believe he probably didn't say very much of anything but I I don't recall in
00:23:38 of anything but I I don't recall in detail now if we look at the bottom of the
00:23:45 page uh in the previous paragraph you had said that or it's recorded as you saying that you would hope to set out your plans early in the new year that's in
00:23:58 plans early in the new year that's in the penal ulate paragraph I'm sorry just after the way we see your name yeah I can see um now um if we get on that to CLG
00:24:13 17731 uh this is annex a to the submission that you had received on the 24th of November so two days before and this is lines to
00:24:26 before and this is lines to take and you'll recall that that was referred to in the submission yes yes and uh it says uh here in the first bullet point um we have not yet agreed a
00:24:37 bullet point um we have not yet agreed a detailed work plan for building regulations what we do with the fire safety aspects will need to align with any other work we are doing I hope to set out our plans early in the new
00:24:48 set out our plans early in the new year so is it right that what you said in the meeting or are recorded as having said in the meeting according to the note was lifted from anxa not for batim
00:25:01 note was lifted from anxa not for batim but the sense of it that would appear to be the case yes did you ask Brian Martin who had provided you with anxa here as you see or Bob ledum or anybody else
00:25:12 you see or Bob ledum or anybody else what was the thinking behind the early New Year time frame I don't recall now at the time at the end of November 2015 the 15th of September 2015 submission had scheduled publication of
00:25:24 submission had scheduled publication of the discussion document for later in 2015 we saw that earlier this morning together didn't we yes yes uh now the 10th of November submission has
00:25:35 10th of November submission has scheduled publication of the discussion document for early 2016 yes yes yes so uh um did you
00:25:47 uh um did you query uh this aspect at the time I don't recall in the second bullet point it says as you know the department commissioned some preliminary research
00:25:58 commissioned some preliminary research on some technical issues and has now commissioned a usability survey what did you know about that research on the technical issues um I don't recall knowing anything about the research on the technical issues did you
00:26:09 research on the technical issues did you ask I don't I don't recall whether I did or not I so I recall receiving I recall the meeting and remember parts of it uh and this document is familiar to me uh beyond that I can't remember what
00:26:20 beyond that I can't remember what specific questions I asked arising from that or or specific issues that I discussed further either with my private office or with other officials you remember
00:26:29 remember asking what um whether those uh technical issues address matters of Life Safety far safety I I don't recall if we go back to your first statement please uh page 12 paragraph
00:26:44 statement please uh page 12 paragraph 27 you say in that paragraph five lines
00:26:52 down
00:26:56 uh uh uh it it's towards the end the right hand side of the paragraph I note from the readout that the APG expressed the opinion that the review of approved document B should not be limited to
00:27:07 document B should not be limited to clarification and simplification but rather should be a wholesale review I made clear that the principal focus of the review would be on clarification and simplification now um the the the
00:27:20 simplification now um the the the readout there I think is a reference to the post meeting note um correct me if I'm wrong about this Lord Wharton let's have it it's at cg1 tri0
00:27:36 8066 is that that's the same document uh yes right that's what you mean by the readout I see uh I think so yeah yes it is yes now and then let's go
00:27:47 yeah yes it is yes now and then let's go back to the penultimate paragraph uh sorry um pre penultimate paragraph last line clear that the principal objective for any work would be simplification and the reduction of red tap
00:27:59 red tap did that principal objective as you understood it involve the technical issues requiring attention as a matter of Life
00:28:07 of Life Safety I couldn't with certainty tell you what what I what is meant by that right can you help what was covered then perhaps in more general terms as I I have a limited sorry what was covered by
00:28:19 have a limited sorry what was covered by the phrase simplification and the reduction of red tape uh well so my I don't recall the specific details of the discussion at the meeting itself
00:28:31 of the discussion at the meeting itself um I would say that I I can certainly um I think at the time I would have seen simplification and reduction in uh bureaucratic burden as a positive thing to do and would want to have pursued
00:28:43 to do and would want to have pursued that as part of the process uh I think that the the where I would take issue with this is that it if were were one to infer from it that that is to the
00:28:54 infer from it that that is to the exclusion of anything else which would not have been my intention and indeed in all of the discussion that I had I think one of the challenges that led to or one of the causes of delay was actually that this was a piece of work that was
00:29:05 this was a piece of work that was broadened out rather than narrowed uh in order to ensure that it was comprehensive and and at no point did I that I recall um refused that that process by which uh the department advised me we should make it more
00:29:17 advised me we should make it more comprehensive and take in the
00:29:21 round did you make it clear at the meeting that a full review of ADB would be included in phase two for delivery in October 2019 along with the review of
00:29:32 October 2019 along with the review of building regulation policy more widely uh I don't recall I would be surprised if I set out timetables which had not been published to the meeting um it wouldn't be appropriate or wise
00:29:44 wouldn't be appropriate or wise necessarily for me to have done so um but I do recall having sought to reassure the group that the views that they had would be taken into account uh and that I would do what I could to to
00:29:55 and that I would do what I could to to ensure that the department took those views seriously
00:30:01 why didn't you tell the meeting on what you knew by that time uh that the target date for 2016 to 17 whatever that meant as promised by Eric
00:30:14 whatever that meant as promised by Eric pickles to the coroner was now most unlikely if not impossible to be met I I don't recall the detail of the discussion around that I I can't say whether that came up and what I said as
00:30:25 whether that came up and what I said as I say I don't think this note is comprehensive I don't dispute much of the information in it and I have only limited memory of the actual discussion and this this particular engagement right
00:30:41 uh can we take it there that if you had told the meeting David Amos particularly that the
00:30:49 that the 201617 deadline whatever that meant was now either very unlikely to be or incapable of being met then David Amos
00:31:01 incapable of being met then David Amos would have reacted in some way that would appear logically true yes you have no recollection of telling those present at this meeting
00:31:13 telling those present at this meeting that on what you knew that deadline would not be met but that's correct and the note does not record you're saying in clear terms or in any
00:31:26 you're saying in clear terms or in any terms that deadline is not going to be met again correct I mean I would clarify and you it would be not necessarily appropriate to pre-announce decisions
00:31:38 appropriate to pre-announce decisions that may not be public to an all party parliamentary group
00:31:45 meeting
00:31:51 no now let's go to the next letter that comes from the appg CLG one
00:32:00 7860 this is a letter from David Amos to you a few days later dated the 1st of December
00:32:07 December 2015 we can see it comes from the APG it's signed by S David as we can see addressed to you and it thanks you for coming to the lunch previous Thursday as
00:32:18 coming to the lunch previous Thursday as you can see from the first paragraph and if we look at the second paragraph Dan so David says this over the past two years of Correspondence between your predecessor Steven Williams and myself the group has felt continuous
00:32:30 the group has felt continuous frustration over dismissive responses to its well-founded and justifiable concerns whereas yesterday we did find a more considerate tone to the discussions which was welcomed by all and then he goes on I'm sure you
00:32:43 all and then he goes on I'm sure you received a strong clear message from yesterday's meeting that the existence guid existing guidance in approved document B to the building regulations last updated in 2006 is badly in need of
00:32:54 last updated in 2006 is badly in need of revision or as the group suggested replacing it with with something else that is all encompassing given that the original building regulations were introduced in the 1960s having developed from a series of bylaws based on
00:33:06 from a series of bylaws based on National models with the regional variations the origins of some of these requirements can be traced back to the Redevelopment of London following the great fire in
00:33:17 1666 now just just pausing there um you say let's go look at your second witness statement page 10 and if we can go there please to paragraph um 2
00:33:29 please to paragraph um 2 three you say having quoted from the letter uh and other parts which I haven't read to you this did indeed reflect the strong clear message of the APG that I received at the meeting that
00:33:41 APG that I received at the meeting that the guidance was out of date and badly in need of revision the regulations themselves were incoherent and in places out moded and that ideally a unified all-encompassing system of Regulation should take their place so can we take
00:33:54 should take their place so can we take it from that the the urgency Express at the meeting was not lost on you uh yes I think the position of the APG was was clear yes respect yes and life safety
00:34:05 clear yes respect yes and life safety you appreciated that work on approved document B was urgent precisely because it concerned matters of Life Safety I appreciated the view of APG was that they wanted this to be something that was done as soon as possible and they
00:34:16 was done as soon as possible and they had a very strong uh opinion on the matter did you not share that view uh I I didn't necessarily have a stronger View and I was receiving advice from
00:34:28 View and I was receiving advice from officials in the department that indicated that uh as I've said earlier in my evidence the system was working well um but the work what need work did need to be undertaken to make amendments and improvements and the plans are being
00:34:40 and improvements and the plans are being put in place to do that well you say you didn't have a stronger view um but did you
00:34:47 you not either share or have sympathy with the view and the urgency of the view that s David was expressing that there were defects and um outdated aspects of
00:34:59 were defects and um outdated aspects of approved document B and the building regulations more generally some of which went back to the 17th century uh which now urgently needed revision precisely because if not revised people might die
00:35:13 because if not revised people might die I received a a very a clear message from the APG members on this issue yes I took advice from officials on it and was assured that generally the system was
00:35:24 assured that generally the system was working well but that the review was indeed proposed and we'd had previous discussions of it and I had submissions on that and there was a plan for that to be a review right now did you get the
00:35:35 be a review right now did you get the impression from your officials uh that s David a s David am's and the apg's uh expression of urgency in the reasons for it were exaggerated
00:35:47 exaggerated unnecessary and over the top uh I don't recall any of those terms being used but I did receive advice from officials that ran contrary to the strong view they PG
00:35:58 ran contrary to the strong view they PG had right so your officials were telling you were they that s David Amos was overstating the case for urgency and there wasn't such a great a risk to Life Safety as he was making out
00:36:11 risk to Life Safety as he was making out was that how you understood the advice the gist I would say I don't remember my officials ever commenting on S David um himself nor would I expect civil servants to do so but the advice they were giving me was in line with the
00:36:22 were giving me was in line with the comments that I've already made yes well let's be clear um you are you weren't able to take advice from anybody other than your officials the body of
00:36:33 than your officials the body of officials in the department were you uh no that was your sole source of information uh by far the the primary source yes right and you didn't have an independent view did you of whether the
00:36:44 independent view did you of whether the apg's concerns were valid and um reasonably expressed or invalid and immoderately expressed no I did not no so you were entirely reliant on your officials so can we take it that when
00:36:56 officials so can we take it that when you formed the view uh that um that in in response to the appg that view is entirely based on what your officials were telling you yes so
00:37:07 your officials were telling you yes so can we take it therefore that your officials were giving you advice to the effect that the apg's uh requests to you were
00:37:18 apg's uh requests to you were overstated and unnecessarily uh and unreasonably uh
00:37:28 uh I think I don't recall the the did the APG have have a view had a view and they expressed it to me exactly the terms in which they did that other than what's captured in the letter and in
00:37:39 what's captured in the letter and in terms of the discussion at the meeting I can't recall in detail um the reason I'm slightly hesitant to agree with that um summary is that yes part of the message
00:37:50 summary is that yes part of the message that I received from the Department is that things are not as bad as they're conveying things are working well the system is a good one but the second part of that message is we also have a plan that will address and give the APG the
00:38:01 that will address and give the APG the chance to be involv in the process of addressing those concerns where they exist now then go back to the letter at page two please at CLG
00:38:15 17860 uh if you look excuse me if you look at the first paragraph on that page it says as follows today's buildings have a much higher content of readily available
00:38:26 higher content of readily available combustible material examples are Timber and polystyrene mixes in structure cladding and insulation with internal fire protection usually afforded by layers of plaster board and use of fire
00:38:37 layers of plaster board and use of fire stopping padding a plaster board compartment is often incomplete above full ceilings and becomes imperfect over time through DIY and wear and tear this fire hazard results in many fires because adequate recommendations to
00:38:48 because adequate recommendations to developers simply do not exist there is little or no requirement to mitigate external fire spread uh now if we go having read that together go to your second witness
00:38:59 together go to your second witness statement at page
00:39:02 10 paragraph 24 you say having having uh cited some of that um in the fourth line um you
00:39:13 line um you say uh I recall accepting that statement as likely to be accurate I very vaguely remember raising the flammability of materials with the building regulations team though this would not have been a
00:39:24 team though this would not have been a technical discussion but rather along the lines of me asking whether it was a problem and how they intended to address it as previously stated I recall being told that these issues would be considered as part of the
00:39:36 considered as part of the review uh and I'm sorry to do this to you but can we go to one other paragraph par 29 on page 13 before we come to the question and at paragraph 29 on page 13
00:39:47 question and at paragraph 29 on page 13 you say in the um third
00:39:54 line uh uh I I believe and would expect that it was Bob ledom who had told me that the system was working well for the avoidance of doubt the words working well are my words intended to summarize
00:40:06 well are my words intended to summarize the general sentiment of the advice I received I was informed that the number of deaths from Firs had fallen substantially over the years and understood this was considered to be attributable at least in part to the building regulations this did not seem
00:40:18 building regulations this did not seem unreasonable to
00:40:22 me so that's where we see the sentiment now did that sentiment there that you've just expressed in that um was that working on your mind when you read s David's 1 of December letter uh as I say
00:40:35 David's 1 of December letter uh as I say I don't remember specifically what I was thinking as I read it but yes it will have been that would be the the background against which I would have assessed additional information that came to me I see and you never tested Bob lsum on on this uh on his statistics
00:40:49 Bob lsum on on this uh on his statistics or on what he was telling you you just took it at face value no I I certainly had further discussions I think I make reference to that in all I can't remember exactly when but I do remember asking about fire spread and fire safety
00:41:02 asking about fire spread and fire safety specifically at some point but again the briefings that I received were reassuring in their nature and and left me with the impression that whilst improvements could be made there was a process for that and the system that was
00:41:13 process for that and the system that was in place at that time was an effective one right now I think you were as you tell us elsewhere in your statements aware that um the concerns raised by the APG uh concerned
00:41:25 concerns raised by the APG uh concerned combustible materials in modern buildings yes U yes some yes but and you thought that that would be covered as part of the upcoming review I I believed so
00:41:36 so yes now um did you appreciate that the APG were telling you that the then current version of approved document B provide little or no guidance to
00:41:47 provide little or no guidance to developers about external fires spread um I I mean the words are in the letter I don't uh recall exactly what I thought about it but again as I say these were
00:41:58 about it but again as I say these were the issues and the letter were raised with the officials on Whose advice I depended and the advice that I was given was in line with what I've already described I'm just seeking to explore with you really to what extent you actually understood the gravity of the
00:42:10 actually understood the gravity of the risks posed by modern methods of construction the presence of combustible material in uh external wall built structures above 18 M and the adequacy of the guidance given to those carrying
00:42:22 of the guidance given to those carrying out the work under the building regulations yeah I I would say I had a a limited standing not being a a technical expert and I relied on the advice that I was given yeah and and the advice you
00:42:33 was given yeah and and the advice you were given did that draw particular attention to external far spread or was external far spread just one of a number of a swaye of issues to do with changing ADB or not uh I don't recall
00:42:45 ADB or not uh I don't recall specifically um I would therefore subject
00:42:48 subject to the fact that I don't recall say it was more the latter than the former of those two
00:42:53 those two statements so can we take it that those issues didn't strike you at the time as particularly deserving of your particular ministerial
00:43:05 particular ministerial attention they didn't stand out as against the general uh proposal for work to be done on the relevant documents they didn't stand out specific issues at the time as against the other issues
00:43:16 the time as against the other issues that needed to be addressed such as as as we've seen in the documents the coroner recommendation for simplification yeah now um uh this letter as we've seen was sent to you in December 2015 at that point as we
00:43:28 December 2015 at that point as we established earlier today you had seen the 10th of November 2015 submission which had explained that the revised documents would be published for external review in the second half of
00:43:39 external review in the second half of 2017 yes yes yes and and the revised regulations and approved documents uh in 2018 was it your impression come
00:43:50 2018 was it your impression come December
00:43:51 December 2015 that the issues about the com use of combustible materials in modern buildings would be addressed as part of the review to be finalized in 2018 uh yes I understood to be a comprehensive
00:44:02 yes I understood to be a comprehensive process of review and that there would be a process of Engagement and I specifically remember um and I I can't remember exactly when I said it but re sort of asking I suppose instructing
00:44:15 re sort of asking I suppose instructing the um the officials that the APG should be involved in that process of review so I wanted specific attention given to the APG because of the concerns they had raised with me as part of that process right now you I think approved
00:44:27 right now you I think approved the November submission on the 7th of December
00:44:32 December 2015 yes I I take your word for the date well let's look at don't do that let's look at CLG
00:44:45 17855 and this is from your office to Greg Clark 7th December I think we looked at it earlier today y uh on this JW agrees with the proog proposed program and next steps and and then we
00:44:57 program and next steps and and then we have the bit about um the building controls mhm um yes yes so so can we take it that you knew when you expressed your agreement to Sarah Morgan and she
00:45:08 your agreement to Sarah Morgan and she in turn to to Greg Clark of the apg's concerns uh and that a wholesale review and replacement was what the group
00:45:19 and replacement was what the group sought uh yes yes and you knew I think by then because you've been told by S David on a letter the week before that the building act itself so far as they were of the view was increasingly
00:45:32 they were of the view was increasingly out moded but that a fundamental rewrite would be timec consuming and and imply a full review of the entire appro relation yes yes yes so in light of that
00:45:43 yes yes yes so in light of that knowledge why did you approve the 10th of November submission on the 7th of December 2015 knowing what you by then knew and had learned from the APG in the interim that the work proposed would not
00:45:54 interim that the work proposed would not address those concerns I'm sorry that it wouldn't address those concerns or that it wasn't sufficiently um Speedy well both actually um you raise it okay I I didn't appreciate that
00:46:06 raise it okay I I didn't appreciate that the work proposed wouldn't address the concerns of the APG and indeed I wanted the AP to APG to be part of that work my understanding of the work that would be undertaken was that it would be uh comprehensive and allow for amendments
00:46:18 comprehensive and allow for amendments to be made to the building regulations as required and I was convinced of the need for it to be comprehensive on the basis that it needed to be done properly rather than piece me amendments made that may have unintended consequences or
00:46:29 that may have unintended consequences or not have the desired effect right so can we take it then that the despite the apg's requests for urgency specifically on the matter of Life Safety raised with
00:46:40 on the matter of Life Safety raised with you twice I think first on the 26th of November and secondly on in the 1st of December letter both times both dates 2015 you nonetheless went ahead and approved the submission on the 7th of
00:46:51 approved the submission on the 7th of December 2015 uh which would have have the effect essentially of producing a uh a um a revision to ADB that would not appear until 2018 on the basis of that I
00:47:04 appear until 2018 on the basis of that I answer that was the the proper way to make the to undertake the work yes
00:47:10 yes now we've seen I think uh the 1st of April 2016 submission which is the next one that follows the November 2015 submission that's CLG 3019 344 we looked at that this morning
00:47:23 3019 344 we looked at that this morning let's go back to that again if we can page two
00:47:28 page two and on page two you can see Annex B uh which uh we looked at Annex C remember which was the timeline um the murder mystery novel but if we go to
00:47:40 murder mystery novel but if we go to Annex B summary of proposed discussion paper um do you recall that the discussion paper was provided to you in order to set out the scope of the review
00:47:51 order to set out the scope of the review of ADB yes U I'm sure it will have been I don't recall specifically let let's go to it uh it's at cg3 1 93 343 1
00:48:05 19343 it's called Annex a that's an error it should be B but it is nonetheless a draft a chapter outline of discussion paper did you read it at the time do you think uh if it was provided
00:48:16 time do you think uh if it was provided to me I would have it looks somewhat familiar to me now but I can't remember the detail on it yes and again as you said in your statement as we as we've repeatedly now examined you would ordinarily read submissions annexes in
00:48:27 ordinarily read submissions annexes in their entirety such as this yes yes um now um so I get to assume that you did read it at the time it's it's only five pages long if we go to page two the section relevant to approv
00:48:40 two the section relevant to approv document B uh is there uh in the middle of the page under chapter four periodic review of the building regulations and it says Part B fire safety this section will set out
00:48:51 fire safety this section will set out Our intention for a limited scope review focusing on simplification and specific technical issues this will help to manage expectations and strong lobbying for expansion of Regulation this will lead to an update of Part B which will
00:49:03 lead to an update of Part B which will also fulfill last government's commitment to clarify guidance in this part of the regulations now the advice that that um was given to you was that the apg's concerns regarding the increased
00:49:15 concerns regarding the increased quantity of combustible materials in modern buildings and where the changes made to stop it or regulated would form part of the review of ADB yes uh that
00:49:27 part of the review of ADB yes uh that was my understanding yes yes um but there's no reference here to combustible materials is there no but I would assume that technical issues would
00:49:38 would assume that technical issues would cover that and as I said I specifically asked officials to engage with the APG as part of that process so I would have expected if there was an emission about which they particularly concerned it would then be drawn to my attention
00:49:49 would then be drawn to my attention right was it but the process didn't begin whilst I was there so no no no so no and nor is there reference to new technology in construction or external fir spread or cladding for that matter
00:50:02 fir spread or cladding for that matter is there they aren't specifically mentioned but I would expect that technical issues would cover those sorts of matters given that these were issues which um s David Amos had taken the trouble to spell out in his first of
00:50:15 trouble to spell out in his first of December letter did it strike you at the time that this particular section might be a little bit short on detail no it didn't when you when you read it did you
00:50:27 read it did you understand did you hark back to the David amus first of December 2015 letter and understand that the review would focus on technical matters including the use of combustible insulation in
00:50:39 use of combustible insulation in high-rise buildings above 18 M the use of uh modern methods of construction external fires spread and matters of that nature uh I don't recall what I thought at the time of reading this um
00:50:51 thought at the time of reading this um what I I do recall is that my expectation was that the APG would have the opportunity to raise its concerns as part of that process as I said I specifically asked officials to ensure
00:51:02 specifically asked officials to ensure that that would be the case um and I would logically expect if there was any issue that the APG felt wouldn't be or wasn't being addressed that they would not be backwards and coming forwards on that they were a very vocal group did
00:51:14 that they were a very vocal group did you have any idea yourself on what matters ADB would be or would need to be amended or clarified uh no I didn't look to preempt a process that is by its nature a technical one and in which I
00:51:25 nature a technical one and in which I don't have expertise were we not interested the point of having a process in to my mind was to determine what amendment should be made I I wasn't going to say um as effectively a a lay
00:51:38 going to say um as effectively a a lay person in respect of of the detail of the document these are the things that I expect to see at the end of the process what I would expect and that's why there are discussion papers and consultations and opportunities for stakeholders to
00:51:49 and opportunities for stakeholders to engage is that if there were emissions that would be raised as part of that process at that point the minister if it was me still me at that time it would be me but whoever it was would have the opportunity to consider why the process
00:52:00 opportunity to consider why the process had rejected anything that stakeholders raised and thought ought to be included including the concerns of the
00:52:10 APG were you not concerned though given the advice that you'd been receiving from your
00:52:19 from your officials which was that or to the effect that sir David's concerns were perhaps overstated because things were working well
00:52:30 working well statistically that these specific technical issues might not receive the anxious attention that they deserved and that your officials might
00:52:43 deserved and that your officials might perhaps be at risk of un under underestimating them so I don't recall having that concern at the time but the process would be such that stakeholders
00:52:54 process would be such that stakeholders including of course the appg would have the opportunity to take part in it as I say I'd asked for specific attention to be given to the APG because of the discussion and engagement I had had with
00:53:05 discussion and engagement I had had with them and therefore I would expect that if issues arose as part of this this process of review and discussion and consultation that stakeholders felt were not being acted upon that that would be
00:53:16 not being acted upon that that would be drawn to my attention so you uh I'm getting the impression and please correct me if this is wrong that you were really you regarded yourself as really reactive both to what stakeholders told you and what your
00:53:27 stakeholders told you and what your officials were telling you um and would make a decision as when you needed to based on what was put on your desk I don't know whether that's an accurate characterization in as far as this proess is concerned I expected a
00:53:39 this proess is concerned I expected a process to be undertaken that that would in an appropriate and structured way allow interested parties to make submissions and there are those to then be taken into account and my understanding was that given the APG had
00:53:52 understanding was that given the APG had raised a range of issues with me um they would be engaged with and indeed I gave instructions to that effect I wanted Pro it is not a necessarily a proper way to make policy to have informal meetings
00:54:06 make policy to have informal meetings with ministers and for policy to spin out of them what is what is important is that where legitimate concerns are raised uh processes are followed that allow those concerns to be considered
00:54:17 allow those concerns to be considered and amendments made where where they should be right I felt that was what was proposed
00:54:25 here did did you not think at the time that six people had died at lacol as a result there was this process whatever it was long or short
00:54:36 process whatever it was long or short thin or fat there were specific technical issues you as the minister in charge of this portfolio ought to keep proactive tabs on what the technical issues were so as to make sure that what
00:54:48 issues were so as to make sure that what at least what what other ever changes may be made in due course whatever happened at Lael could not be repeated my my understanding was there
00:55:00 repeated my my understanding was there was a process of review I was convinced by the advice I was given that this was the right way to undertake that and it seemed appropriate to me therefore to follow that advice and as I say in so far as additional concerns were raised
00:55:12 far as additional concerns were raised with me I asked the team to pay special attention to those raising those concerns to ensure that they were taken into account and acted on in an appropriate way I didn't want to preempt that that
00:55:23 that that process did anybody ever tell you at this time or any other during your um your um your being imp post that
00:55:34 um your um your being imp post that there was at least one matter in respect of which Clarity was needed namely whether the current guidance clearly effectively banned panels with a combustable core I I don't recall being told that now did anybody ever tell you
00:55:47 told that now did anybody ever tell you during your ministerial role that there was in your own Department the knowledge by April
00:55:54 by April 2016 that there were possibly many high andrise buildings out there in our country with such cladding panels on them namely panels with a combustible
00:56:05 them namely panels with a combustible core which the guidance back in 2006 had intended to ban but which had not or might not have been understood as such
00:56:17 might not have been understood as such no let's move into January 2016 next letter CLG 17862
00:56:30 this is a letter from you to S David Amos of the APG in response to his letter of the 1st of December we've seen now we know from um other evidence that this response although it's not dated
00:56:42 this response although it's not dated was sent on the 6th of January 2016 would that be about right I would think so yes um if you look at paragraph two you say this and again I apologize your signature appears at the bottom if we
00:56:53 signature appears at the bottom if we could just scroll down so we can just make it clear to to everyone that it's your
00:56:58 your letter can we scroll down to the bottom of the
00:57:01 of the page thank you now let's look at the uh uh uh the second paragraph you can note the first paragraph of course but look at the
00:57:12 paragraph of course but look at the second as I said when we met I hope to set out the government's intentions regarding building regulations in the new year I think I made it clear that a key objective in anything we do will be to simplify the regulations wherever
00:57:24 to simplify the regulations wherever possible to reduce the burden of tape on industry whilst ensuring Public Safety now that wording is very similar to if not identical to
00:57:36 is very similar to if not identical to Mr Martin's note to you the briefing note on the 24th of November 2015 ahead of the APG meeting on the 26th isn't it yes
00:57:47 26th isn't it yes yes why didn't you reassure sir David that the review of ADB would address the specific concerns raised by him in his first the December letter concerning in
00:57:58 first the December letter concerning in particular The increased quantity of combustible material in modern buildings um I don't know why that wasn't I didn't include that in this letter but um I had I I thought and
00:58:10 letter but um I had I I thought and certainly uh in the meeting and generally in in discussions I would have with any member of the group uh being clear throughout that I wanted them to be engaged and would they would have the opportunity to raise those concerns that
00:58:23 opportunity to raise those concerns that it's not in this letter it isn't the letter could be more fome but it doesn't detract from the fact as I recall them which is always clear throughout with s David and the APG that they would be involved in this process but they've
00:58:36 involved in this process but they've raised their specific concerns they've taken the trouble to set them out across at least two pages in detail why did you not think to respond in kind and and tell s David
00:58:47 respond in kind and and tell s David that the specific concerns about cladding external far spread the increased quantity of combustible material in modern buildings the use of mod methods of construction would specifically be identified and give him
00:58:59 specifically be identified and give him that reassurance uh I say it wasn't in the it wasn't it's not in the letter it doesn't mean that I didn't feel the reassurance had been given but this is the letter that was put to me and I
00:59:11 the letter that was put to me and I accepted it and signed it well that's it isn't it you accepted it and signed it but did you not apply your mind before you put your pen on it to whether or not it really did deal in in an upfront
00:59:22 it really did deal in in an upfront candid and and proper way with the concerns that s David had take in the trouble to identify well I I felt the assurances that I had given to David and continued to give the group throughout
00:59:33 continued to give the group throughout my time there and the instructions that I given officials to engage with the group and ensure they were part of the process that was being planned would ensure that their concerns were raised in the appropriate way I didn't want to
00:59:44 in the appropriate way I didn't want to or wouldn't want to preempt the outcome of an appropriate and quite technical uh process involving engagement with wide range of stakeholders for improvements that could then then come from it um
00:59:56 that could then then come from it um this letter could have been longer I think that is true but I don't think it detracts from the reality which is that I had every intention of ensuring the group was properly engaged with why did you continue with the same
01:00:08 with why did you continue with the same line that we had seen before which was that the key objective was to simplify the regulations where possible uh to reduce the burden of red tape whilst ensuring Public Safety um but it says a key objective so I don't think it's
01:00:20 key objective so I don't think it's exclusively saying that's the the object uh it's the line that was in the letter that was put in front of me and I didn't think it was necessary to change it why not why not given that that there are
01:00:32 not why not given that that there are specific matters about life safety on the page which which which one might think would require the government being you at least to to check to to
01:00:45 you at least to to check to to clock so that that s David would at least know that his message in those specific respects have been understood because the assurance that I got
01:00:56 because the assurance that I got conveyed to S David was that I wanted them to be part of that process and would ensure that they were whilst I was in post and I'd given instructions to that effect so the way that I proposed to address the concerns that s David
01:01:07 to address the concerns that s David raised was to give particular uh prominence to the views of the APG as part of an appropriate process which would result in amendments recommended by people who had the technical
01:01:20 by people who had the technical expertise and knowledge to make those recommendations I I didn't think it was for me to necessar neily preempt that process and as I say uh when I look at the correspondence now it is it is I
01:01:32 the correspondence now it is it is I think um shorter than it ought to have been but I don't think it changed the facts of the matter which is that the way in which I wanted to address the concerns in line with the advice I've been given from officials at the department was by a review process in
01:01:45 department was by a review process in which the APG would be involved yes you said that a number of times my my my my point is really that of course they may be involved but why not give them the assurance that that the specific matters
01:01:56 assurance that that the specific matters ask that question well did you appreciate that the simplification of the regulations wasn't the apg's concerns uh yes they had they had other
01:02:07 concerns uh yes they had they had other concerns but nonetheless my understanding was that they would have they would be taken into account as part of the process that had been
01:02:24 agreed the way it's put in this letter where uh to simplify the regulations wherever possible to reduce the burden of red tape on industry whilst ensuring Public Safety
01:02:36 Safety uh how did you read that before you signed it uh I I don't recall um now how I read that at the time but I I do recall my intention throughout which as
01:02:47 recall my intention throughout which as you've observed I've set out now a number of times does that tell us about your government's priorities namely to cut red tape whilst in ensuring Public Safety as opposed to ensuring Public
01:02:59 Safety as opposed to ensuring Public Safety regardless of the regulatory burden I think that would be to read too much into this letter what's the relevance of reducing the burden of red tape on industry there then I think that's generally a good thing to do
01:03:11 that's generally a good thing to do where it can appropriately be done I don't I think it may it may and now I'm in danger of speculating which I don't want to do uh particularly but in line of the discussions we've already had it may give an insight into a thought
01:03:22 may give an insight into a thought process from the person who wrote this letter um which is you say may have been an issue within the uh the team within the department but my view um throughout was that I never felt that reducing
01:03:35 was that I never felt that reducing regulatory burden was going to prevent us from doing anything that we ought to do and I felt that there was a plan in place in order to do uh in an appropriate way uh engaging with
01:03:46 appropriate way uh engaging with interested parties uh that to undertake the changes that were needed to update the guidance let's go then into February 2016 CLG 1
01:03:57 2016 CLG 1 8064 this is the apg's letter to you of the 1st of February 2016 in reply to your letter of the 6th of January uh uh second paragraph down your
01:04:09 January uh uh second paragraph down your letter was tabled at the group's last business meeting on 26th of January attended by 13 peers and members of parliament where there was unanimous dejection with the response given to the legitimate concerns which the group had
01:04:21 legitimate concerns which the group had properly raised with you uh and it goes on on the group acknowledges that a key objective in anything government does will be to simplify the regulations wherever possible to reduce the burden
01:04:32 wherever possible to reduce the burden of red tape on industry whilst ensuring Public Safety and then he says this uh it is the phrase public whilst ensuring Public Safety which is the greatest of the greatest importance to the
01:04:43 the greatest importance to the group so far we are only seeing the emphasis on simplifying the wording of the regulations but ignoring what the fire and construction sectors are telling you that the existing guidance is in need of change and that there is
01:04:55 is in need of change and that there is evidence that the present problems in the built environment may be compromising both life and socioeconomic safety and then he goes on I would reiterate again that today's buildings
01:05:06 reiterate again that today's buildings have a much higher content of readily available combustible material examples are Timber and polystyrene mixes in structure cladding and insulation with internal fire protection usually afforded by layers of plaster board and
01:05:18 afforded by layers of plaster board and use of fire stopping padding and if we go over the page the at the second paragraph down he says image of these problems frequently appear on our television screens and the solution has
01:05:29 television screens and the solution has to be more than just simplifying the wording of the
01:05:33 regulations and this post emps if you like a question I asked you about five minutes ago so forgive the repetition or apparent appearance of it but did you appreciate what the APG were telling you
01:05:44 appreciate what the APG were telling you here that there were live problems in the built environment which might be compromising Life Safety uh I mean yes that is what that it's it's evident on the face of what they've written that that was the The
01:05:55 they've written that that was the The View that they were conveying um I in in the position I had had did not have large groups of organizations or bodies saying this to me I think at the time it was effectively the APG that was driving
01:06:08 was effectively the APG that was driving this concern um and nonetheless I wanted to ensure that was taken fully into account and as I say I think I felt that we had a process by which that could be done but the process you told him about
01:06:19 done but the process you told him about as we've seen and uh I don't want to go over all ground is one of simplification where possible here he is telling you that that won't do did you understand that did you take that on board I didn't take that view my my view was that it
01:06:31 take that view my my view was that it included amendments technical amendments and I would and and that uh there would be a proper discussion with and consultation with stakeholders including the APG so I would expect that process to take into account the concerns that
01:06:43 to take into account the concerns that the APG was Raising right right let's some let's see the response then CLG 1 8061 this is you back to him 14th of February
01:06:53 February 2016 again undated but we know that's the date from other evidence looking at the second paragraph you say I'm sorry to hear that the group was unhappy with the content of my letter and I hope I will convince
01:07:05 of my letter and I hope I will convince you otherwise as we progress um how was that response adequate um did you think at the time to address the apg's concerns well as I reflected it now I think it is um rather more Curt than it
01:07:17 think it is um rather more Curt than it should have been but I think it reflected a frustration on my part that I felt that um there was a proposal on the table that would address the concerns of APG as I said I had following the meeting with them
01:07:28 following the meeting with them specifically instructed officials that I wanted them to be part of that process and had reassured them that that would be the case and I felt therefore the letter they sent me was uh premature in that they hadn't if they'd come to me
01:07:39 that they hadn't if they'd come to me and said the process has started and it's not addressing our concerns I would have liked to think I would have a different view but at this stage I thought we had a plan to address it and that therefore the letter from the APG was a little bit premature and um that
01:07:54 was a little bit premature and um that therefore that was the respon that was sent because I think I think it reflects a frustration that I had that I felt that they hadn't appreciated that my intention was to ensure that their voice was part of a process that would
01:08:05 voice was part of a process that would hopefully resolve their concerns did it occur to you at the time that your that their
01:08:13 their uh failure as you saw it to to to appreciate your intention to ensure that their voice was part of a process was
01:08:24 their voice was part of a process was derived from the fact that you had engaged with the specifics in their letter or letters on more than one occasion uh I don't I don't recall exactly uh what I thought they knew at
01:08:36 exactly uh what I thought they knew at the time um I would though add and again I don't want to misremember things that that took place I'll would be very clear that I don't have detailed notes of engagements with members of the APG but
01:08:49 engagements with members of the APG but written correspondence to the department is not the only way that members of parliament engage with colleagues you have discussions and you have other um sort of either whether it's a cup of tea in the Parliamentary tea room or a brief
01:09:00 in the Parliamentary tea room or a brief chat in the lobby um the engagement that I had particular with sir David who I knew well was not purely through the medium of formal letters through civil servants and through the department and
01:09:11 servants and through the department and I think that I felt at the time that uh he knew that he would be that my intention was to ensure they were involved in part of this process and I was therefore a little frustrated that
01:09:22 was therefore a little frustrated that at the tone that the APG was taking in formal correspondence did you have t or other informal conversations with s David on this subject outside the scope of this correspond I certainly had
01:09:33 of this correspond I certainly had informal conversations with s David I don't want to give the impression they were regular but it's something that on more than one occasion we discussed and again it would be brief uh we didn't sit down and have formal meetings about it
01:09:44 down and have formal meetings about it um but not just Mr D with the APG generally I thought that they understood what my proposal was and therefore was irritated by the tone of the letter that was received than
01:09:58 did you go to your officials and ask them about the detail he was referring to for example what was on television what's all this business about poyene mixes in cladding and
01:10:10 about poyene mixes in cladding and insulation uh I don't recall specifically having done so now why is that um because I felt that there was a plan in place that would properly address the concerns that were being
01:10:21 address the concerns that were being raised uh let's go to the next one uh CLG 3 is 1 19334 to D's response to you 22nd of February 2016 in response to
01:10:32 February 2016 in response to your uh 14th of February 2016 letter
01:10:39 letter um bottom of the page if we can your 6th January letter said you hope to set out the government's intentions regarding building regulations in the new year and as we are already well into February
01:10:50 as we are already well into February some further clarification very soon would be extremely helpful given the many assurances is previously given by former ministers and secretaries of State in this
01:11:00 regard uh that that's um what he says there and he refers to many many assurances now let's look at your response to that that's at cg3 is 1
01:11:12 19335 that's date of the 7th of March 2016 or at least it has a stamp to that effect uh and we can see your signature at the bottom this this is the signed version uh to S David Amos and he you
01:11:24 version uh to S David Amos and he you say this in the first paragraph uh in the second line I can I assure you that they will be given proper consideration in due
01:11:32 in due course and in the second paragraph I'm not yet in a position to set out our plans for building regulations it is important to recognize that fire safety is just one element of the regulations and the building control system there
01:11:43 and the building control system there are other pressures on building regulations and I think it best to consider them all in the round what did you mean when you said that fire safety was just one element of the regulations um well I mean that is that
01:11:55 regulations um well I mean that is that is the case the regulations cover a wide range of things I remember for example the debate in my time there included low carbon zero carbon homes there were issues around uh the requirement to simplify which would benefit yes um fire
01:12:09 simplify which would benefit yes um fire but also other parts of the work but I think the the important part of the message that is that the view that I had taken which I hope I've been clear about throughout is that it a more
01:12:20 throughout is that it a more comprehensive piece of work taking into account everything would have a better outcome including on the issue of of fire safety but um that it shouldn't necessarily be done in isolation because that's not the right way to amend these documents and that was acting on the
01:12:32 documents and that was acting on the advice that I'd be given right whil there may have been other pressures on building regulations of course as you I think recognize this was about fire safety and therefore Life
01:12:43 about fire safety and therefore Life Safety um what could be more important to any government than life safety um I don't disagree with that but my my view is and my understanding was and is that if you try to make amendments to on
01:12:55 if you try to make amendments to on small part without considering the entirety of the what you're doing you won't necessarily have the effect that you intend and I that is makes sense to me if you're going to amend a technical and complex document you have to do it
01:13:07 and complex document you have to do it properly and comprehensively um I understood that to be what was proposed um and my intention was that the concerns of the APG would be part of that process and properly addressed
01:13:19 that process and properly addressed where appropriate as a result of it um and indeed I would even looking at this letter and I appreciate again it's a short letter um which if I were to be there again I would probably uh request
01:13:31 there again I would probably uh request a much more fullsome response but nonetheless I've in manuscript in my pen underlined that I've instructed officials to ensure that the group is kept informed of developments my intention was to involve the group in
01:13:42 intention was to involve the group in this process because I wanted the things that they had raised with me to be concer to be addressed uh in an appropriate way yes and whilst what you just said is
01:13:54 way yes and whilst what you just said is plot is entirely rational one might think as a matter of fact at the time did you ever ask your officials to explain to you what it was about the the necessary
01:14:08 you what it was about the the necessary changes to approved document B relating to Life Safety that couldn't be done in isolation or or perhaps those which could be done in isolation in advance of
01:14:19 could be done in isolation in advance of the rest and explain to you precisely why they couldn't as opposed to the The General
01:14:25 General idea that well if you're going to make changes to an approved document it has to be a holistic exercise so as to avoid unintended consequences did that did you actually ever ask anyone to do the work I don't I
01:14:38 ever ask anyone to do the work I don't I don't recall whether I asked that question in those terms but we had been through the process reflected in some of the submissions that we'd seen uh where in meetings I'd had with them they they had explained to me that that was the
01:14:49 had explained to me that that was the right way to do it and I'd been convinced by the answers that they had given right
01:14:56 Mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes I think it is thank you very much well Lord won we'll have a a break during now during the afternoon we'll take it now uh we'll come back please at
01:15:09 take it now uh we'll come back please at halfast 3 and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room all right you thank you very much would you go with the aser please
01:15:25 thank you Mr milet half hour
01:15:53 three
01:16:23 e
01:16:53 e
01:17:23 e
01:17:53 e
01:18:23 e
01:18:53 e
01:19:23 e
01:19:53 e
01:20:23 e
01:20:53 e
01:21:23 e
01:21:53 e
01:22:23 e
01:22:53 e
01:23:23 e
01:23:53 e
01:24:23 e
01:24:53 e
01:25:23 e
01:25:53 e
01:26:23 e
01:26:53 e
01:27:23 e
01:27:53 e
01:28:23 e
01:28:53 e
01:29:23 e
01:29:53 e
01:30:22 e
01:30:52 e e
01:31:25 [Music] would you ask Lo to come back in
01:31:40 please all right Lord Warton ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes SP it yes thank you very much Mr chairman can I ask you to look uh then finally on the subject of the APG correspondence at
01:31:51 the subject of the APG correspondence at CLG
01:31:52 CLG 33084
01:31:55 33084 Z and I'd like within that document Run please to go to page
01:32:02 seven now what I'm showing you here is a briefing note written immediately after the Grandfield Tower Fire by Simon Ridley who was the director general for decentralization and
01:32:14 decentralization and growth uh for Helen magnamar um who are taken over as director general for the Department from Peter scoffield uh and what uh Simon Ridley says uh in the
01:32:26 what uh Simon Ridley says uh in the fourth bullet point down this is after a review of the APG
01:32:32 APG documents uh the second bullet point I'll show you first uh the lack of urgency or reason for the delay is striking most telling is David amos' letter of the 10th of
01:32:43 is David amos' letter of the 10th of September 2015 which explicitly States the APG failed ADB issues quotes had significant Life Safety implications quotes and quotes are of sufficient priority to be dealt with immediately
01:32:54 priority to be dealt with immediately closed quotes and the minister has said to have not been willing to bring work forward James warton's 13th October letter is a clear a is is clear a detailed work plan had not been agreed
01:33:05 detailed work plan had not been agreed at that point so we look like we've done all but nothing in the first 2.5 years focus on red tape very clear and then in the penultimate bullet point the
01:33:16 then in the penultimate bullet point the APG provides warnings on cladding and combustibility and more generally issues with modern materials Etc we never acknowledge this as far as I can see either to argue against or address it
01:33:27 either to argue against or address it isn't covered as an issue in any advice or drafts of the various draft reviews stroke consultations in recent months now I'm just pausing on that bullet point there is it correct as a
01:33:40 point there is it correct as a fact um first the government or you when you were a minister never did owledge cladding and combustibility and more generally issues with modern materials
01:33:52 generally issues with modern materials back to the AP APG uh in the correspondence with the APG I think that is correct right and is it correct also that it wasn't covered in any advice or drafts of various draft reviews or
01:34:04 of various draft reviews or consultations that you had seen either uh there were other um so for example I remember Julian braer MD raised an issue which was to do with um combustible materials on Modern methods of
01:34:15 materials on Modern methods of construction was a wooden um construction uh building and I had a meeting with him about it so it did come up during my time there but I don't I I don't recall as having sent any
01:34:26 don't recall as having sent any documents to APG regarding that yes and in the last bullet point Mr Ridley says our correspondence with the APG is appalling delayed partial and
01:34:38 APG is appalling delayed partial and looks chaotic would you accept that criticism um not necessarily in those terms but as I've already said I think that it could have been more fullsome and more um and and more clearly
01:34:49 and more um and and more clearly addressed the issues uh I did feel that we had proposals in place to um properly take into account of the concerns the APG had raised but no I I I would accept
01:35:00 APG had raised but no I I I would accept the correspondence was was below um the standard of Engagement that you should be
01:35:10 expected now I want to turn to the topic of delay in publication of the BR research can we start here on this with your first statement please page nine paragraph 21 and you say there
01:35:25 I understand that a submission concerning building regulations and energy performance external research and implementation program was sent to my private office on 14th of December 2015 it requested approval to publish the
01:35:37 it requested approval to publish the research including research relevant to Part B that had been commissioned under previous ministers I'm informed that officials sent emails to my private office chasing the submission on 3rd of March 2016 24th March 2016 and 9th of
01:35:50 March 2016 24th March 2016 and 9th of May 2016 there was discussion between various private offices in respect of the unpublished research on 10th of May 2016 I do not recall being aware of this submission had I seen it I would have
01:36:01 submission had I seen it I would have considered it a routine matter to approve it and would have done so without
01:36:05 without hesitation now let's look at at some of this first please cg3 1
01:36:12 19347 page four
01:36:25 cg3 is 1 19347 PID
01:36:33 for now this is an email um dated the 14th of December 2015 uh from Andrew Newton to your private
01:36:44 private office uh and he sends a submission attached to it he says hi Sarah please find attached submission that is seeking ministerial approval to public a series of historical research reports from work
01:36:56 of historical research reports from work carried out under the coalition government it consists of the submission itself plus a single Annex summary approval for publishing a number of research reports commissioned under the coalition government in line with the government's commitment to publish all
01:37:09 government's commitment to publish all research now um a little background for you before we come to the question the research was commissioned in 2012 reported in February 2015 but because of purda before the general
01:37:22 because of purda before the general election in 2015 15 and then reading in time when you became minister no approval was sought for this publication until December 2015 that's the history were you aware of that history I don't recall having
01:37:33 of that history I don't recall having been aware of it now did neb bring it bring bring it to your attention I don't remember having had this brought to my attention no did you know that the research was the recent research that you'd been told in the 20 in the 15th of
01:37:46 you'd been told in the 20 in the 15th of September 2015 submission that we looked at before that identified a number of technical issues which required attention in order to protect Life Safety no it didn't right can we turn to the submission itself again
01:37:59 the submission itself again cg10
01:38:06 8140 I'm sorry I say again I think you haven't seen it yet um here it is 14th of December 2015 from Andrew Newton cleared by Bob ledson to you uh and uh
01:38:17 cleared by Bob ledson to you uh and uh the recommendation at three says uh that you agree that the enclosed research report are published in line with the Department's commitment to publish the results of all research carried out four
01:38:28 results of all research carried out four under background the building regulations and energy performance research program is designed to provide evidence to informed decisions on changes to building regulations standards and the building control
01:38:39 standards and the building control system and then at paragraph five Under The Heading publication of research reports a number of reports from research projects commissioned under the last government are now ready for
01:38:50 last government are now ready for publication summaries are below uh and then um you can see under that seven topics Under The Heading far under the heading um under different headings
01:39:03 the heading um under different headings say sound insulation criteria that's approved document e toilet provision approved document G fire compartment sizes B approved document B over the page investigation
01:39:15 document B over the page investigation of real fires approved document B uh fire safety procedural guide hot water safety risks domestic security standards which is Q accidental dwelling
01:39:26 standards which is Q accidental dwelling fire casualty profiles and assuring the safety of electrical installation Works in
01:39:33 in dwellings and then at paragraph six it says this more detail on SC on the scope of each research project and key findings from the reports are provided in Annex
01:39:42 in Annex a copies of the full reports can be provided if the minister wishes to see them now these seven topics are referred to or were referred to as the seven work streams were you aware of that uh I
01:39:53 streams were you aware of that uh I don't think so I don't recall having been so right now we've heard evidence before for example from Bob lsom on day 241 at page 197 that the submission of the discussion document to set the scope
01:40:05 the discussion document to set the scope of the review of the building regulations and approved document B was contingent upon dependent upon the publication of this seven workstream research did you know that I don't
01:40:16 research did you know that I don't recall having known that now right his he told us that these seven work streams were to to feed into the full review of ad depending on what they recommended or suggested did you know that I don't
01:40:28 suggested did you know that I don't remember recall having known that now he also told us that it was certainly a worry his words that without publication of those reports any work on review of approved document B couldn't be
01:40:39 approved document B couldn't be progressed that's what he told us at day 241 page 196 did you know that no I don't recall having known that right now it was Richard Harold's
01:40:50 right now it was Richard Harold's evidence and that's par 65 of his witness statement at page 20 that these final research reports remained important in being able to launch the part B technical
01:41:03 part B technical review did you know that I I I don't recall having been aware of this issue or these documents no although he did say in his oral evidence that actually these the discussion document could have
01:41:14 these the discussion document could have been taken forward without the publication of the seven work streams so he qualified his evidence to be fair to you in answering the question but I think you're telling us you had no idea about about these I can't remember I
01:41:25 about about these I can't remember I can't remember this being an issue that I was aware
01:41:30 of so C can we take it and apologize for repeating the question that the you didn't know that the view among officials within the department was that progressing the review of approved
01:41:41 progressing the review of approved document B was contingent on the publication of This research no um as far as I can recall I was unaware of this this issue can you account for why you were unaware of it uh no one had
01:41:52 you were unaware of it uh no one had told me as as far as I remember I suppose that's true but can you account can you explain how it come came about that none of your officials did tell you uh not not without
01:42:03 did tell you uh not not without speculating I have no knowledge of of facts as to why that was the case ought they to have told you uh looking at it now it would appear yes certainly right now let's go to cg3 is 1
01:42:18 19347 um this is an email of the 3rd of March 2016 to all PS
01:42:26 advisors uh at the top of the page uh I'm so sorry I apologize the we want um page three of this email run
01:42:38 run um there it is Andrew Newton 3D of March 2016 to all advisers subject forward agreement to publish a number of historical research reports submission an anx any news on us being able to
01:42:50 an anx any news on us being able to publish these reports question mark now this would have gone to your private office I think wouldn't it yes uh actually I'm not sure um all I don't know whether all advisers would include
01:43:01 know whether all advisers would include my private office oh right who would it include it might be the special advisers right would it find its way to you or your uh if somebody sent but I don't know whether all advisers would include anyone in my private office um if it
01:43:13 anyone in my private office um if it went to the special advisers then I mean they might share it with my private office but I don't know I see all right now the email is from Andrew Newton and he's asking about the 14th of December
01:43:24 he's asking about the 14th of December 2015 submission and whether there was any news on being able to publish if you look at the third paragraph down he says while I know that they are very much non-urgent and far from being a priority
01:43:35 non-urgent and far from being a priority it would be good if we could start getting them published because there is likely to be pqs about unpublished research before too long which will be much easier for the Department to answer if we've at least started the process of getting the position up to date with all
01:43:46 getting the position up to date with all this historical research now I do you recall seeing this document or knowing about at the time no do you know why Andrew Newton is
01:43:57 no do you know why Andrew Newton is saying that the research is very much non-urgent and far from being a priority no
01:44:05 no it is would you agree completely inconsistent with the importance attached to the publication of This research by officials in the building regulations division As Told to the inquiry in their evidence it would
01:44:16 inquiry in their evidence it would appear to be I I suppose you could make the argument that uh I don't know how much how how long they need to have been Lish before you can start the work so you could perhaps time the two you could
01:44:27 you could perhaps time the two you could prepare everything and these could come out in short order before that um the discussion document was released but I I don't I don't recall having been aware of any of this discussion was there a view in government the best of your
01:44:38 view in government the best of your recollection that research commissioned by the previous coalition government was unimportant or had no connection with current policy Uh I that would was never
01:44:49 current policy Uh I that would was never communicated to me if it was the case I I I mean I if if you would like me to I can speculate but I I don't know factually what happened at this time right let's then move up the string to the to the top of Page
01:45:01 the to the top of Page Three there's another email this time the 24th of March from Andrew Newton to all advisers this time it's copied to Brian Martin uh Nick price Richard Harold and Bob ledom as you can see so
01:45:13 Harold and Bob ledom as you can see so this one would have come into your officials or did did in fact advisers is there any news on when we might be able to start publishing these please as I said in my previous email on this see below I fully appreciate that this
01:45:24 below I fully appreciate that this clearance process is far from being a priority but we now have our first foi in relation to them requesting access to the findings of the report on part e sound insulation we're working with the foi team on the best way to respond
01:45:37 foi team on the best way to respond which will probably need to be something along the lines of it being prepared for publication shortly after recess this makes it quite important that we start publishing these in April both to ensure we meet any commitments given but also so any future queries on these reports
01:45:49 so any future queries on these reports will be easier to answer
01:45:53 uh again I do I take it that you weren't aware of this email as far as I recall I was una aware of this yes right was there anything in practice stopping any of those copied into the email from contacting your private office and
01:46:05 contacting your private office and telling your private office and thereby you they would hope saying to you well look Mr Newton is wrong um this is a priority we need this research to be published because without it it's
01:46:17 published because without it it's holding up the review of ADB I'm not aware of anything that would stop from contacting my private office and and similarly could they in in practice have concered you directly bring it to your direct attention it would be highly unusual
01:46:30 would be highly unusual um most engagement between a minister and the department goes through the private office but in for example individual meetings it could be raised yes and and and I mean they could raise it directly but that would be I suspect
01:46:42 it directly but that would be I suspect stepping outside of agreed procedures and do I take it that in individual meetings they didn't raise it with you again I have no recollection of this issue being raised
01:46:53 issue being raised now um moving up the thread again if we can please to page
01:47:01 two uh you can see that at the top of page two under the um Great British Coast graphic there's uh an email from Andrew Newton 9th of May 2016 copied to
01:47:15 Andrew Newton 9th of May 2016 copied to among other people Brian Martin and Richard Harold uh sent to All advisors and he says Dear Omar I'm sorry to ask about these again but as you can see
01:47:26 about these again but as you can see from the below email people are starting to ask about unpublished research again and then he continues in a similar vein in the third line as of themselves I recognize that clearing historical research reports for publication are not
01:47:38 research reports for publication are not necessarily a priority but both of these factors now make it quite important that we start publishing these in the next few weeks if nothing else pulling together a response to the sense about science interest in this will be much
01:47:49 science interest in this will be much easier to complete if we've started to bring the position more up to date
01:47:55 uh now uh again can I take it that you weren't aware of this email either you can yeah so you can't explain why Mr Newton is for the third time now taking the position that these the publication
01:48:06 the position that these the publication of these is not a priority um no I can't it seems to have broadened out to A A large group of recipients would be my only observation including um Mark franois the minister of state's private
01:48:18 franois the minister of state's private office but not mine we I mean previously discussed the screening and triage process for submissions was do you know whether this submission was a a victim of that uh I'm
01:48:30 submission was a a victim of that uh I'm this this isn't even yet a submission from what I can
01:48:41 say I mean it maybe that that would have been a way of raising it if it had been compiled as a submission and submitted to a
01:48:50 minister and then if we go to the top of the check
01:48:54 the check page one there's an email of the 10th of
01:49:01 May to all advisors uh sorry from all advisers to PS Mark franois and your private
01:49:12 PS Mark franois and your private secretary and also all advisers Lucy Sarah there are a number of historic research reports a lot of them are in the building regulations space I I got an email from Richard
01:49:23 space I I got an email from Richard Harold about this on Friday and I'm in the process of trying to manage putting them out Jacob clearly has an interest from a comm's perspective I'm asking for a list of all outstanding reports from the coalition government but there are
01:49:34 the coalition government but there are some potential issues here I will come speak to you both thanks Omar and Omar is Omar elahi who was Lord hessel's private
01:49:42 private secretary uh uh now um that email went to you it looks like or your private office at least yes to my private office yes yes and that's at the top of a string which includes the three emails
01:49:55 string which includes the three emails from Andrew Newton 3rd of March uh 24th of March and 9th of May all about the publication are you sure you didn't see this at the time I have no memory of
01:50:06 this at the time I have no memory of seeing this no I wouldn't see generally emails that are sent to my private office I mean right that would not be normal for me to see their
01:50:15 inbox but this was relevant though wasn't it to something which was squarely within your responsibility uh namely um the ability to get on with approved document B it
01:50:26 to get on with approved document B it would appear to be yes yeah so can you explain why it is that your private office having received this email string and identifying one thing which was holding up the getting on with that exercise not brought to your attention
01:50:37 exercise not brought to your attention for your for your action I can't uh no so as far as I can remember I was unaware of this um I don't know whether it's accurate to say this was holding up
01:50:48 it's accurate to say this was holding up the
01:50:49 the process um because as I say it may be that this this is something that could have either been done very quickly um and then the and not therefore held up the process if if the need became that pertinent uh or indeed I think there was
01:51:01 pertinent uh or indeed I think there was some indication earlier that the process could be undertaken without these although it wasn't the ideal um route but I I don't recall being aware of any of this at the
01:51:12 of this at the time but this related to the 14th of December 20 2015 submission and if it was put at the bottom of the pile can you explain how that happened I can't I I I was unaware
01:51:25 that happened I can't I I I was unaware of this issue as best I can recall I I I don't have any memory of being aware of this issue and when um I looked at this as I commented in my witness statement it seems an entirely routine thing to me
01:51:36 it seems an entirely routine thing to me I don't see why there would be a concern about I I can see why there would be a concern in theory potentially about publishing documents that had been commissioned by the Coalition and why
01:51:47 commissioned by the Coalition and why and I see this refers to Jacob uh who would be Jacob Wilmer who was the special adviser who primarily looked after um media relations and comms for the Secretary of State so I can see why
01:51:58 the Secretary of State so I can see why he might want to have a look at things that were being published for fear that something could cause embarrassment or um not be in line with where the government's position uh but I don't see why these documents would be likely to
01:52:09 why these documents would be likely to do that and and I don't if to be entirely honest understand why if this was an issue this wasn't escalated does that point to a serious administrative error in your office uh
01:52:22 administrative error in your office uh it would appear this only came to my office towards the very end um but it would certainly this is something that had it been brought to my attention I would I would like to think it could have been very quickly resolved indeed
01:52:33 have been very quickly resolved indeed but does the does the fact that it wasn't not point to a serious administrative error or oversight in your office well on the limited fact that I have I don't want to make a judgment about the administration of my
01:52:44 judgment about the administration of my office which I my experience of it was that it was professional and ran well and and did a good job for me in my time as a minister there um it appears that something has gone wrong in this instance but it also
01:52:55 wrong in this instance but it also appears that my private office at least was only involved in the very latter stages of this this series of correspondents well I mean that may be enough you you you accept I think that something has gone wrong in my office
01:53:07 something has gone wrong in my office I'm just asking you um to accept that I think you do accept it I yes I think this this this should should probably have been escalated to me it could have been resolved I didn't
01:53:18 me it could have been resolved I didn't see it I suspect what lies behind it is a comm's concern and that that's that that itself sat outside of my office and the issue here is how it was interacting with things that the department needed to do outside of the the narrow comm's
01:53:31 to do outside of the the narrow comm's consideration but that is my interpretation of it as I say I I was unaware of this at the
01:53:39 time was there any sort of system in place for tracking submissions uh and making sure that they didn't fall through the cracks I would assume so I'm not familiar with exactly how that would work but I don't see and
01:53:52 how that would work but I don't see and it's one of the things that strikes me as unusual about this series of Correspondence is that at no point does it appear to have become a submission was any consider consideration given to the fact that your office may have been part of the holdup sitting on a
01:54:04 part of the holdup sitting on a ministerial submission which was delaying the review of ADB well I I wasn't aware of it so it's not a matter that I would have considered at the time no um all right but um the system of which you a minister
01:54:18 um the system of which you a minister was was essentially holding up the review of
01:54:20 review of ADB uh I mean it strikes me looking into that this is this is something more to do with the special advisers for whom I had no responsibility but if if the point at which it came to my office uh
01:54:33 point at which it came to my office uh had they had they appreciated that this was an important issue I would expect it to have been raised with me and it wasn't beyond that the more General cause for this problem seems to sit outside of my office with something else
01:54:44 outside of my office with something else that was going on in the department was there an internal mechanism within the department or within your office for making sure that the the reasons for the whole as we can see from this email run uh wasn't a bottleneck at ministerial
01:54:57 uh wasn't a bottleneck at ministerial level uh this looks like a bottleneck at special advisor level to me but I I'm not aware of what process in place I don't see any evidence of a bottl neck at ministerial level
01:55:13 here well there is a bottleneck isn't the ministerial level in the sense that the the submission had essentially said that there was going to be no progress on DB review until the publication of
01:55:25 on DB review until the publication of the
01:55:26 the research and that hadn't happened and so your department couldn't deliver on the promise to the coroner without the publication of the research isn't that a bottleneck either
01:55:37 research isn't that a bottleneck either your level or certainly within your department it's within the department but I think that and my interpretation of this as I say I wasn't aware of this at the time is that the holdup appears to be getting approval from special
01:55:49 to be getting approval from special advisers for the release of this of these documents so what I would take from this is which is in principle doesn't surprise me as an an interpretation of what might have happened if I might um Mr chairman I
01:56:01 happened if I might um Mr chairman I don't know um it would appear to me that the special advisers have said uh we want to check everything before it is published which is understandable from the Coalition time which is understandable we would want to see what's going out um and as a result
01:56:14 what's going out um and as a result things that they haven't checked and approved have not been published and the bottleneck would appear to have been in getting that approval at that level um what strikes me about this is at no point did anybody compile it in a submission to me to either say there is
01:56:26 submission to me to either say there is a problem here this needs to be unblocked can you make a decision or or even to make me aware of it and again I I suspect because the point at which there was a hold was it it needed to be
01:56:37 there was a hold was it it needed to be approved by the special advisor before it would then go in a submission for me to me to make the decision and I'm not um saying that that should have happened it certainly shouldn't but it's something of which I was entirely unaware to the best of my
01:56:51 recollection well let's just go to CLG let's go to CLG 1
01:57:01 8140 this is uh this is the submission for the we looked at this before didn't we did you remember uh yes yes that's why I was referring to the 14th of
01:57:12 why I was referring to the 14th of December 2015 submission MH uh and about the
01:57:16 the reports now this had come from Andrew Newton to you directly I I don't I I I don't know whether this came to me I mean this was prepared by stressed to you yes but I don't know whether I received it oh did you not I don't know
01:57:29 received it oh did you not I don't know I don't recall I don't recall having seen it I mean I I saw many submissions it's possible that I just don't recall but given the routine nature of it I would have thought if I had seen it I would have approved it and then I would
01:57:41 would have approved it and then I would expect the publication to take place I I wonder whether therefore I if that could well have happened but in which case I don't recall it or I wonder if it ever reached final form and went into my box as it may have been W in for approval
01:57:53 as it may have been W in for approval from the process we've just seen an email chain about before it it could go into my box right I'm I can only apologize I don't have a clear memory of this and when I read it I I even if I
01:58:04 this and when I read it I I even if I had seen it it it looks routine and straightforward and I don't see why it would stand out what comes as effectively news to me which I didn't know at the time is that there was this series of email correspondents going on
01:58:15 series of email correspondents going on which I was not
01:58:20 aware yes uh well can presumably we can be fairly confident that it got to your private office can't we because it's addressed to your private secretary um I
01:58:32 addressed to your private secretary um I I I honestly can't say chairman I mean it we can we all I can say from this is that a um submission was drafted and prepared whether it actually went to my
01:58:43 prepared whether it actually went to my private secretary I don't know um and whether my private secretary then waited for whatever further approval process which was the bottleneck we've been looking at or it didn't get to my private secretary until that bottleneck
01:58:54 private secretary until that bottleneck was cleared and it had been prepared in draft I can't honestly say I I just don't recall I wasn't involved all right thank you sorry I I no no right right um
01:59:06 thank you sorry I I no no right right um we've heard from a number of w we've heard from a number of witnesses uh on the subject of the publication of the seven workstreams reports um that and this was expressed
01:59:18 reports um that and this was expressed in a number of different ways by various Witnesses here uh that um the sign off for publication of This research not being given was a considerable source of frustration both to Mr Martin and to Mr
01:59:31 frustration both to Mr Martin and to Mr Harold uh that's day 241 page 198 Lin 70-22 just for our record
01:59:39 uh and there are various others uh did you have any awareness at the time so March May 2016 of the frustrations felt in the
01:59:52 2016 of the frustrations felt in the building regulations division in trying to progress the ADB review uh I as I said I I can't recall having been aware of this issue at all and and when I look at it I can't
02:00:05 and and when I look at it I can't envisage why had this been put to me this wouldn't have been a very straightforward thing to deal with well
02:00:14 indeed do do you accept that it shouldn't have been the way it was and that the requests by those officials for authority to progress policy matters should have been dealt with in in a
02:00:26 should have been dealt with in in a timely manner yes and that your office should have been accessible to them to get this work done uh yes although when I reflect on the the email
02:00:38 although when I reflect on the the email chain it appears my office was only involved at towards the end of it which makes me think that and again it's speculation I don't know whatever the issue was sat sat elsewhere than my office now could my office have potentially resolved it by drawing to my
02:00:50 potentially resolved it by drawing to my it to my attention that they became aware of it possibly but I think that the issue itself sat outside of my office judging on The Limited information I have and the fact that I wasn't aware of it we've also heard from
02:01:02 wasn't aware of it we've also heard from Richard Harold and Bob ledson at various points in their evidence that they were experiencing a sense of frustration in the period 2015 and
02:01:13 frustration in the period 2015 and 2016 um because of the low priority in the department accorded to the ADB review and they always felt that they were as it were at the back of the queue that was their evidence did you ever get
02:01:24 that was their evidence did you ever get a sense of that um feeling or sense from them no um I mean as we've seen and I think as you have heard in my evidence
02:01:35 think as you have heard in my evidence if if anything I I had a frustration at the time it was taking I don't recall anyone turning around and saying to me this is because of some other reprioritization of which I was not aware were you ever made aware that the
02:01:47 aware were you ever made aware that the anxiety and frustration within the building regulations division was having the effect that some of the members of staff were so stressed it was making them ill
02:02:03 no are you able to explain why it was that when the department in the shape of Brian Martin was told in February 2016
02:02:14 Brian Martin was told in February 2016 by uh an industry player boo mury that aluminium composite material polyethylene cord products were being
02:02:25 polyethylene cord products were being routinely used on high-rise buildings in the UK that fact was kept to Mr Martin not accelerated to Mr Harold not accelerated further to Mr
02:02:38 accelerated further to Mr ledson no I don't recall having been aware of that at all no indeed can you explain why even you weren't aware of that um I I mean ministers don't manage
02:02:49 that um I I mean ministers don't manage the HR of the department I I would expect expect the the team to be run in an appropriate way and appropriate things to be brought to me I I don't have a mechanism for being aware of things of which I am not aware are you
02:03:01 things of which I am not aware are you are you responsible for the escalation system in your and the supervis supervision and monitoring system in your department um not directly no I wouldn't think so right who is uh
02:03:14 wouldn't think so right who is uh ultimately the permanent secretary right
02:03:22 do you accept looking back on it now that you ought to have been told that within the UK built environment there were potentially a significant number of high-rise buildings uh which are clad in
02:03:33 high-rise buildings uh which are clad in aluminium composite material with a combustible core yes and that that was potentially as a result of a legacy uh of uh either absence of any regulation
02:03:44 of uh either absence of any regulation at all in ADB by way of guidance uh or um guidance in ADB which was unclear open to interpretation and misleading
02:03:55 yes were you aware that the building regulations division had been experiencing acute problems with the recruitment of senior professional technical officers I don't recall having been no
02:04:07 officers I don't recall having been no did nobody tell you that those roles had been phased out over time and that by March 2016 in effect uh they were down to five grade sevens instead of four grade sevens and four spto instead of
02:04:19 grade sevens and four spto instead of eight uh no I don't recall being being aware of that and again my expectation is that is something that would be dealt with by the Civil Service rather than ministers however had something like that been drawn to my attention clearly
02:04:30 that been drawn to my attention clearly it would have been something I would have raised right who would you have raised it with probably the permanent secretary and the secretary of state right so you didn't know the department was struggling to recruit people with the right skill sets and the depth of knowledge to be able to carry forward
02:04:43 knowledge to be able to carry forward the work I I don't recall that having been rais with me now right
02:04:51 [Applause]
02:04:58 and whose responsibility would it or should it have been to ensure that uh the building regulation system remained up to dat and in Pace with
02:05:11 up to dat and in Pace with industry
02:05:13 industry um combination of the building regulations team and Department um who then through decision that I would take as a minister based on recommendations that they would have given to me at that
02:05:25 that they would have given to me at that time now Brian Martin was this was the technical policy lead on fire safety matters in the department were you aware at any time that pretty much anything relating to fire safety would go to him
02:05:36 relating to fire safety would go to him during the time that he was fire safety policy lead no you weren't aware of that so you weren't aware were you therefore that effectively there was no one in the department who was able to challenge him
02:05:47 department who was able to challenge him on fire safety matters or peer-review him in any really profound way no I I wasn't aware of that um although my mind understanding is that there was a team
02:05:58 understanding is that there was a team of people and I would expect there to be systems within the team to properly account for that but no I wasn't right was it um your experience during your time as Minister that that technical
02:06:10 time as Minister that that technical policy leads generally had a very large degree of autonomy or was this an unusual case uh I I couldn't honestly say it's not an issue with which I
02:06:21 say it's not an issue with which I particularly involv myself my role as a minister was to um ask for things for the from the Department where I felt that within my policy era I wanted something and respond to things that
02:06:33 something and respond to things that needed ministerial decision from the Department going the other way where they needed those decisions in order to continue carrying out the government's policy I see I mean it sounds very much correct me if I'm wrong about this Lord Warton but
02:06:44 Warton but structural uh structural questions and the efficacy of line management monitoring supervision peer review resourcing within the officials in your
02:06:57 resourcing within the officials in your department is this right where where a matter either principally or solely for the permanent secretary and the civil service but yes and the civil service but not for you they correct that would
02:07:08 but not for you they correct that would be my understanding right and is this right the best you could do would be to raise any problem in those respects with the Secretary of State or the permanent secretary and do your best to help
02:07:19 secretary and do your best to help within the confines of your responsibility as minister yes and I mean I think within that if a problem was brought to my attention I would try to address it but that would be quite
02:07:42 unusual do do you accept looking back on it and we we've looked at quite a bit of evidence today that neither you nor your private office ever really engaged with the detailed substance of the work of
02:07:53 the detailed substance of the work of the buildings regulation division no you don't accept that no um am
02:07:59 am I my feeling at the time was that a number of issues had been raised and there was a a sensible plan which should take took into account the advice I was given to address those issues uh yes
02:08:10 given to address those issues uh yes that that that answer is that's of course a general one but can you give me an example of an area of detail substance of the building regulations or the approved documents which you which
02:08:21 the approved documents which you which you familiarized yourself with took an interest in I mean from the best of my memory it was there was the example I talked about earlier with Julian braia where we got into a particular issue because I he had raised a concern with
02:08:32 because I he had raised a concern with me um there was an issue that we worked with on the department for culture media and Sport uh regarding noise and issues around um it it overlapped with planning consents for conversion of um venues at
02:08:45 consents for conversion of um venues at the time um which we had a number of meetings about um where issues arose that
02:08:52 that um required more involvement that we would of course get more involved there was no reluctance on my private officer's part or mine to address issues when as and when they arose the the
02:09:03 when as and when they arose the the challenge here is that my understanding was that this was in hand and being addressed and I I relied on the advice I was given in in coming to that understanding so you've given us an example in that answer Julian braia now
02:09:16 example in that answer Julian braia now is that timberframe buildings yes it was yes as a result of a fire at something called I think the old t is that right that sounds right yes yes and he was the MP wasn't he for Canterbury that's correct
02:09:27 correct yes um can we go to that let's see let's look at at this cg3 30835 correct me if I'm wrong about this Lord
02:09:43 Wharton uh now uh here is uh an email from Cherry
02:09:55 Grant uh who is from the office of Julian braier Member of Parliament for Canterbury and witol please find below the latest press
02:10:06 witol please find below the latest press release from Julian braier regarding his meeting today with James Warton MP minister in charge of building regulations to discuss fire safety issues after the old tenary fire last July and the date is July
02:10:18 July and the date is July 2016 is this the event that you're referring to uh this is yes in the round yes I this is a press release his office wanted to put out after I'd met him but yes it is and there's a press relies below that about
02:10:31 there's a press relies below that about the old Tanner fire safety
02:10:35 shortfalls uh now I think as you said this was a Timber about timber frame buildings and the fire had destroyed 45 homes
02:10:43 homes yes I don't recall the detail I will be correct okay but and we can see from the press release if you look at that in there if you look two paragraphs up from the bottom of the page it says this um
02:10:56 the bottom of the page it says this um the minister agreed to consider the fire safety inspection points that Clive and Steven raised in his discussions with the
02:11:03 the industry uh what investigations did you put in train as a result of that fire I can't remember the detail of that my my recollection was that this fire had taken place in um Mr bra's constituency
02:11:17 taken place in um Mr bra's constituency he was concerned about it and wrote to me I I don't recall whether there was a parliamentary debate about it or not I can't I can't quite remember this specific whether he raised it in the debate but we I I received a briefing on it from the Department to the best of my
02:11:29 it from the Department to the best of my recollection the issue turned out that it was not that the the the construction had been not in compliance with the regulations but there was an issue with the inspection rather than it being an issue with the regulations um there was regulations not
02:11:41 regulations um there was regulations not being properly applied by an inspector rather than the regulations themselves right being wrong on in terms of allowing something that was um that should not have been allowed I met with with u Mr braia we had a discussion
02:11:53 with u Mr braia we had a discussion about it uh I took that though I informed him of our understanding of it which he found helpful they raised points about the inspection um and that I then reflected those back in the
02:12:05 I then reflected those back in the department and we've touched on already there was a sort of ongoing debate around approved inspectors their interaction with local Authority inspectors um whether that system should be looked at and changed and it was part
02:12:16 be looked at and changed and it was part of the consideration around that um I don't think it went significantly further than that in my time there but it was something that that when you ask for examples of being more of of giving more Focus to issues
02:12:28 more of of giving more Focus to issues that arise in this area that would be an example where um I think an engagement with a a colleague that the colleague found very helpful and which I hope did
02:12:40 found very helpful and which I hope did inform the Department's view of the approved inspector's regime right um looking back on it do do you accept that you never made comments or
02:12:51 that you never made comments or challenged any of the submissions that were sent up to you by the officials no um I would often discuss submissions with officials and I mean challenge can also be in the form of asking questions
02:13:03 also be in the form of asking questions I didn't seek to if an official expl explain something that was technical to me then I wouldn't necessarily say you need to rewrite this and change it but I would want to be
02:13:14 and change it but I would want to be want to ensure that I understood what they were saying to me and that I found that their advice was plausible which I generally did apart from asking once about the speed of the review can you recall any occasion on which you challenged anything in the submissions
02:13:26 challenged anything in the submissions that you saw on the on approved document B I certainly asked more than once about the speed of the review it was an ongoing um frustration but I can't going
02:13:37 ongoing um frustration but I can't going back six or seven years remember the detail of discussions that I had around it I think as an example I know one of the um which we've discussed in in this hearing today um one of the documents
02:13:48 hearing today um one of the documents they put to me then resulted in a meeting with four official whom you named and in that meeting I would have asked questions that's not just signing off what's in front of me that's wanting to understand having those discussions
02:13:59 to understand having those discussions and ultimately being reassured by people on Whose advice are relied right I there are do you recall specific occasions on which you challenge what you were being told in I I don't recall the specific questions that I asked it's six or seven
02:14:11 questions that I asked it's six or seven years
02:14:12 years ago do you consider looking back on it that you allocated sufficient time to understanding in depth the issues underlying lack andol and The Wider problems underlying approved document in terms of external fir
02:14:24 terms of external fir spread uh in in given the information that was available to me at the time yes well what was the information given to you at the time well you've seen much of it and the advice that I received from
02:14:35 it and the advice that I received from officials when these matters discussed in the briefings that I had right so the material we've been looking at together is there anything else you would point to that gave you a deeper more granular
02:14:46 to that gave you a deeper more granular understanding the discussions around the the materials so as I think it says I think in my witness statement that you I had probably more than a dozen meetings for example with B Bob ledom go taking
02:14:58 for example with B Bob ledom go taking me through issues and uh ensuring that where I had questions they were appropriately responded to and that I was satisfied with the advice that I was being
02:15:08 being given now I just want to go back on one factual question um can we please go to CLG 17868
02:15:23 this is an email from Andrew Newton of the 14th of December 2015 to PS James Warton so that's your email address copied widely around uh
02:15:35 copied widely around uh government uh and it says hi Sarah please find attached submission that is seeking ministerial approval to publish a series of historical research reports from work carried out under the coalition government and we saw the
02:15:47 coalition government and we saw the submission but this is the email which covers it do you accept looking at it that it did go at least to to your private secretary yes I think it's clear that it did yes and therefore if it
02:15:58 that it did yes and therefore if it didn't come to you that would be a serious breakdown in Communications within your office not necessarily it depends on the other considerations that my office would have to take so every submission that goes to your private
02:16:09 submission that goes to your private office does not automatically go into your box your off your private office has a role in uh ensuring that whatever needs to be done for examp in in this case and I say I'm I'm speculating I don't know what went on here but if for
02:16:20 don't know what went on here but if for example this needed to be cleared by the special advisers before it went to me for clearance that may still be where the holdup was um now I I think it's you can make the argument this should have
02:16:31 can make the argument this should have been raised with me if if there was concern that this was being held up somewhere to see if I could help unblock it but not every submission that is sent to your private office is then immediately put into your box your private office has a role in triaging
02:16:42 private office has a role in triaging and um where appropriate returning and asking for amendment to submissions but this one is asking for ministerial approval was it the system that your office would decide what you
02:16:54 that your office would decide what you should or shouldn't give ministerial approval to uh they would no they my office the private office and it's not POS just my office this is a normal process the private office manage what goes into the ministerial
02:17:05 goes into the ministerial box so if somebody asks a ministerial approval for something they will draft a submission and put it to the private office the private office will then potentially ask for amendment to it if
02:17:16 potentially ask for amendment to it if there are things that need to be clearer or or added or or removed or whatever um and they will then or should then ensure everything else is lined up so that by the time it gets into The Minister's box
02:17:27 the time it gets into The Minister's box ministers get a lot of a lot of things in their box they have to be managed in that sense the flow of documents needs to be managed that it's ready to go and so and I I don't know what happened with this I don't recall having ever seen it
02:17:38 this I don't recall having ever seen it but it's quite possible that if for example the this could not be approved under the procedures that existed until the special advisers had signed it off that rather than putting it in my box it
02:17:49 that rather than putting it in my box it then went back into that system so that it was ready to go by the time it got into my box sorry my my question was a bit bit more a bit simpler and perhaps bit a bit simplistic for which forgive
02:18:00 bit a bit simplistic for which forgive me but was it the normal procedure that where a
02:18:04 where a submission came for ministerial approval to your office it would ordinarily go into your box for your approval I don't know you don't know you
02:18:16 approval I don't know you don't know you don't know whether that was the system or not well I know that once a submission had gone had been approved by my private office it would go into my box my Pro private office would have a
02:18:27 box my Pro private office would have a system for approving that I mean they have to manage what goes into a Minister's box that's normal for a private office as I say I I don't know why I don't recall having seen this um I
02:18:38 why I don't recall having seen this um I most likely I did not see it because I don't see why I wouldn't have just approved it but beyond that I would be speculating as to why this didn't make it to me but I but I would think there would be a reason because there was no
02:18:50 would be a reason because there was no shortage of things it into my
02:18:54 box there's right uh well thank you very much Lord Wharton those are my prepared questions there there is there are one or two I know that I'm being asked to
02:19:06 or two I know that I'm being asked to ask which I now need to consider a little bit more closely so can I ask with the usual usual break break please yes well or Warton you may know this but when Council gets to the end of his prepared questions we have to have a
02:19:18 prepared questions we have to have a short break B to enable him to check that nothing's been left out and also to enable others who are following the proceedings from elsewhere to suggest questions that perhaps we ought to put
02:19:29 questions that perhaps we ought to put to you so we'll uh we'll rise now we'll come back at halfast 4 I think that'll be enough time if not we can be told yes all right well well halfast 4
02:19:42 told yes all right well well halfast 4 or as soon as possible after after that as we can and then we'll see if there any more questions for you all right thank you thank you very much would you go the arer pleas
02:20:00 please right Mr M if you need more than the 10 minutes I'm currently allowing you can ask the aser to tell us I'm very grateful Mr chairman thank you thank you very
02:20:19 much
02:20:49 e
02:21:19 e
02:21:49 e
02:22:19 e
02:22:49 e
02:23:19 e
02:23:49 e
02:24:19 e
02:24:49 e
02:25:19 e
02:25:49 e
02:26:19 e
02:26:49 e
02:27:19 e
02:27:49 e
02:28:19 e
02:28:49 e
02:29:19 e
02:29:49 e
02:30:18 e
02:30:48 e e
02:31:33 would you ask Lord Warton to come back in please than
02:31:44 you right Lord Warden let's see if there any more questions for you thank you yes Mr V yes Mr chair Lord won can I ask you please to be shown h31
02:32:02 9995 now um this uh is a report of the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts entitled The failure of the fire control project uh I think you
02:32:14 fire control project uh I think you probably ignore the warning in red that this is an embargoed advanced copy given it date uh which was the 14th of September 2011 take that from uh me um
02:32:26 September 2011 take that from uh me um you can find that in fact on page three if we just look at that and then if we go in that please to page seven you can see that it says
02:32:37 this summary this is one of the worst cases of a project failure that the committee has seen in many years Fire Control was an ambitious project with the objectives of improving National resilience efficiency and Technology by
02:32:50 resilience efficiency and Technology by replacing the control room functions of 46 local fire and Rescue Services in England with a network of nine purpose built Regional control centers using a national computer system the project was launched in 2004 but following a series
02:33:02 launched in 2004 but following a series of delays and difficulties was terminated in December 2010 with none of the original objectives achieved and a minimum of £469 million being wasted project was flawed from the outset ETC
02:33:14 project was flawed from the outset ETC now um when you came in to post as Minister were you made aware of the fire control project uh gosh I I don't recall although I think I was on the Public
02:33:25 although I think I was on the Public Accounts committee at the time of this report so I did have some awareness of it
02:33:30 it yes did you contribute to the report do you think I I honestly don't recall um it will be in the it will tell you in the
02:33:37 the report we we we did a lot of reports I I do this this issue is familiar to me so well not in detail but it I think this must have been a report with which I either attended the hearing
02:33:48 with which I either attended the hearing to cont to to report some way CU it it isn't a totally new document to me right was it your own view that the the project was an object failure
02:34:01 project was an object failure uh I've been subject to again this is 10 years ago um or more um it was the view of the committee which I suspect I did not um go against so I collectively the
02:34:14 not um go against so I collectively the riew of the committee which I accepted and was prepared to stand by right what was your understanding of the reason for the project being scrapped entirely I I don't recall this is over a decade ago right uh and if you look at page
02:34:30 nine you can see that it says there
02:34:35 there uh in paragraph one the department failed to secure the cooperation and support of local fire and Rescue Services did you what did you understand this the state of cooperation between
02:34:46 this the state of cooperation between the department and local fire and Rescue Services to have been I I honestly don't don't recall right what about during your time as a minister um is that something on your watch I I I don't think it was directly
02:34:58 watch I I I don't think it was directly on my watch no uh I didn't deal with the the fire and Rescue Services directly as a minister you that wasn't yours who's whose responsibility was that during your time I think it would have been Mark Mark franois and then I think it
02:35:10 Mark Mark franois and then I think it then followed Brandon to the home office I think at some point it was merged with the home office but it but fire service wasn't in my right uh portfolio as best I recall I would Rec if it
02:35:23 was right and do you know why despite the scale of failure and waste nobody in the department was held accountable as the
02:35:34 department was held accountable as the report says uh page
02:35:39 10 to page nine actually and over to page 10 paragraph 5 sorry I'm so sorry page nine paragraph five despite the scale of failure and waste no one in the department has has been held accountable
02:35:50 department has has been held accountable do you know why that was um I don't but I mean I must apologize this is not a document I was expecting to um be commenting on and it's something that a committee that I sat on over 10 years ago so I I don't have a I haven't
02:36:03 ago so I I don't have a I haven't applied my mind to what had happened with this report and this document in advance of this hearing very well thank you very much um Lord Walton those are all the prepared questions I have for you save one and it's a question that we reserve for people involved with
02:36:15 reserve for people involved with particular matters relating to um the lead up to Grenville Tower uh and it's aftermath and looking back on the evidence we've looked through over the day and looking back on your own experience at the time is there anything
02:36:26 experience at the time is there anything as a minister that you would have done differently it's a difficult question to answer as I'm sure you will appreciate and one that I have given significant thought since the the terrible events um
02:36:39 thought since the the terrible events um that that unfolded there uh and I don't want to apply hindsight to talk about things that had we known what we know today in in totality I would have done but when I look at um the evidence and
02:36:52 but when I look at um the evidence and my time there uh I think that I would had if I were to live it again uh want to have broader uh engagement with interested parties and stakeholders
02:37:04 interested parties and stakeholders across a whole range of policy areas uh and I feel without wishing to prejudge what this inquiry may find that I didn't always get the the full picture of
02:37:15 always get the the full picture of concerns that were raised or issues that were raised in areas for which I had resp responsibility presented to me uh I think that's reflected to some extent as well in the correspondence the PG which
02:37:27 well in the correspondence the PG which I would wish had been more fome and engaging uh so there are things that I would have done differently um and it is something as I say I've given significant thought to uh but I I I'm
02:37:38 significant thought to uh but I I I'm hesitant to draw out conclusions based on facts that unfolded rather than those that can apply um in more more generally to the approach that I would have taken where I'd be put back into that role
02:37:50 where I'd be put back into that role knowing then what I know then with the experience that I have now well thank you very much Miss Lord Warton it remains for me to thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and
02:38:01 very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you so thank you very much thank you yes and I must add my thanks Lord Orton on behalf of all three members of the panel it's been very helpful to hear what you have to
02:38:12 very helpful to hear what you have to tell us we get a an unusual and valuable insight into the workings of the department when we if from a a former minister so we're very grateful and um
02:38:23 minister so we're very grateful and um thank you very much for giving us your time thank you now you're free to go of course thank you thank you very much
02:38:39 indeed well thank you very much Mr milet uh that brings us to the end of today and to the end of the week it does and our next witness is on Monday today uh
02:38:50 our next witness is on Monday today uh when we hope to hear from Mr Steven Williams yes thank you very much well at that point therefore we will uh conclude the present hearing and we'll resume at
02:39:02 the present hearing and we'll resume at 10:00 on Monday morning please thank you very much thank you