Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence - Thursday 31st March 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:17 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:21 hearing today we're going to hear evidence from the lord wharton of yarm who was at one time a junior minister in the department for communities and local government yes mr miller yes mr chairman

00:00:32 government yes mr miller yes mr chairman good morning to you good morning members of the panel i now call the lord wharton of yam

00:00:46 good morning lord warden i understand that you're going to affirm yes well the words there on the screen in front of you would you please read them out to us i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the

00:00:58 truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much please sit down make yourself comfortable there

00:01:09 yes when you're ready thank you very much mr chairman lord walter good morning good morning can i start by thanking you very much for coming to this public inquiry and assisting us with your evidence we're extremely grateful to you if you have any difficulty understanding

00:01:21 if you have any difficulty understanding any of my questions please just say so and i can put the question again or i can rephrase it so that you can understand it better can i ask you please also to keep your voice up

00:01:31 voice up so that the person who sits to your right

00:01:34 right uh it can get down on the transcript everything you're saying clearly and accurately also please don't nod or shake your head you have to say yes or no as the case may be so that the transcript can reflect your your answer

00:01:46 transcript can reflect your your answer um if you need a break at any time other than the scheduled breaks that will take mid-morning and mid-afternoon then please just say and and

00:01:55 and and we can take a break if need be now you've provided two witness statements to the inquiry can i show you your first please um it's at clg3030834

00:02:08 uh and there it is on the screen in front of you everything that i'm going to show you will will appear on the screen in front of you this is the first page of it dated the 20th of april 2021. if we go to page 19 please you'll see

00:02:20 if we go to page 19 please you'll see that there is a date of the 20th of april 2021 with your name above that and your signature is that your signature it is yes yes and have you read this statement recently yes and can you confirm that its contents are true uh

00:02:32 confirm that its contents are true uh yes thank you can i please now show you your second witness statement to the inquiry clg three zeros three four two eight nine

00:02:40 that there it is 12 july 2021 page 12 please

00:02:45 please signature again is that your signature that is yes and have you read this statement recently and again can you confirm that his contents are true they are

00:02:52 are have you discussed your witness statement or evidence with anybody before coming here today only my legal team right now i want to start by asking you some questions about your background and your role first what qualifications do you

00:03:04 role first what qualifications do you hold um i'm a qualified solicitor um and i am a higher educational qualification is an undergraduate degree in what subject law law

00:03:16 in what subject law law and between 2010 and 2017 i think you were the mp for stockton south is that right that's correct uh and what was your career history before 2010 uh i was a

00:03:25 a solicitor and before that a trainee solicitor right and which firm would you would were you with a firm called black at heart and pratt i think they then renamed bhp law in the north east of england right and on the 11th of may 2015 you were appointed parliamentary

00:03:37 2015 you were appointed parliamentary under secretary of state for local growth and northern powerhouse at the department of communities and local government that is correct and that was after the conservative government came to power on the 7th of

00:03:48 government came to power on the 7th of may 2015 i think uh yes yes and you stayed in that position you tell us i think until 17th july 2016 when you became parliamentary under secretary of state for international development yeah that sounds about right

00:04:01 development yeah that sounds about right yes right now we're going to focus on the period 11th of may 2015 to 17th of july 2016. so it says 14 months or so when you were working at the department

00:04:12 when you were working at the department for communities and local government dclg

00:04:15 dclg and or the department for short if you like

00:04:18 like now between 2011 and 2017 i think it's right isn't it that there were no fewer than three secretaries of state for the department and five junior ministers with responsibility for the building

00:04:29 with responsibility for the building regulations uh that may well be correct i haven't counted them uh right um let's see if we can just do a quick uh inventory um eric pickles secretary of state 2010 to

00:04:40 state 2010 to 2015 a matter of historical fact and during his time um there were three junior ministers andrew stunnell don foster and stephen williams the latter

00:04:51 foster and stephen williams the latter 2013-15

00:04:52 2013-15 and then greg clark took over from eric pickles as secretary of state in may 2015 and sajid javid from him in july 2016.

00:05:00 2016. yes yes absolutely correct and you may not have these dates in your head i know they're hard to hold but i'm just giving them to you so that you can um remember them and i think it's right that you were the junior minister with

00:05:11 that you were the junior minister with responsibility for the building regulations from the 11th of may 2015 until the 17th of july 2016 with greg clark as your secretary of state yes yes you i think took over directly from

00:05:24 you i think took over directly from stephen williams didn't you yes i did yes and then gavin barwell now the right honourable the lord barwell took over from you in july 2016 correct yes now during your tenure the permanent

00:05:35 now during your tenure the permanent secretary was melanie dawes yes yes yes and she was the was she the director general with responsibility for the building regulations sorry she was the permanent secretary um

00:05:46 sorry she was the permanent secretary um was peter schofield the director general with responsibility for the building uh i couldn't honestly say i i mainly dealt with bob ledson on building regulations issues exactly what the the titles and the hierarchy were i

00:05:58 the the titles and the hierarchy were i can't recall in detail right you mainly dealt with bob ledson in so far as i dealt with officials yes insofar as you dealt with officials at all well most of my engagement with the department would be through my private office when i have

00:06:09 be through my private office when i have had meetings on building regulations insofar as i remember that the person that sticks in my mind was bob right he was deputy director wasn't he if you say so yes i don't recall this exact

00:06:21 say so yes i don't recall this exact title

00:06:22 title right and did you not remember that the um officials above him with responsibility for building regulations were sally randall as director june 14 to april 16 and steve quartermaine

00:06:34 to april 16 and steve quartermaine taking over from miss randall in april 2016. i i don't recall i i recall having meeting when i had meeting about building regulations uh the person i remember was bob ledson um since then

00:06:46 remember was bob ledson um since then and and clearly i've i've followed some of the inquiry and i'm aware of some of the documents i see there were others involved some of those names and faces are somewhat familiar to me but my overriding memory was it was bob ledson

00:06:57 overriding memory was it was bob ledson that i dealt with okay now a paragraph four of your statement which i don't think we need to turn up you tell us that when you joined the department in may 2015

00:07:05 may 2015 uh you had a number of responsibilities and i'll i'll list them by way of inclusion

00:07:10 inclusion first of all northern powerhouse supporting the secretary of state on city deals yes yes and then european regional development fund

00:07:19 fund yes

00:07:20 yes enterprise zones and local enterprise partnerships yes and i think also acting as supporting minister on the devolution bill

00:07:27 bill after november 2015. yes and then things like planning casework yep building regulations yes and of course in the normal way of an mp attending to the needs of your constituents of course yes

00:07:39 needs of your constituents of course yes yes how did you ensure that you were able to provide leadership across those num that number of work streams that you've agreed you had um

00:07:49 um interesting question uh you as a minister when you first arrived you spent a period of familiarization which i went through being briefed on different aspects of my portfolio and then in individual meetings with

00:08:02 and then in individual meetings with either internally appropriate people from the department or externally with appropriate stakeholders you would respond to submissions and questions and give guidance on direction

00:08:13 guidance on direction where you felt that you you were inclined to do so as the minister right when you say give guidance on direction where you felt you were inclined to do so as the minister and where would that direction

00:08:24 and where would that direction come from and would it come from your knowledge of generic government policy or some insight into technical matters i wouldn't claim to have a great

00:08:37 i wouldn't claim to have a great technical expertise in a number of these areas that's you rely on the advice you're given for your technical understanding but then the role of the minister is to take an overview and say this is the direction in which i would like us to

00:08:48 direction in which i would like us to travel or as a department has to go or work to be focused and i would i would do that i see

00:08:55 and did in relation to what you describe as direction of travel uh would you consult with the secretary of state

00:09:06 of state sometimes yes in matters where you were unsure perhaps um there were there'd be issues in which the secretary of state took an interest so but

00:09:14 so but fundamentally the secretary of state is in charge in the department they um

00:09:19 um it's not

00:09:20 it's not i don't need to prescribe exactly how responsibilities are then allocated to ministers so to take the example of that job when i was in it the northern powerhouse role was what the prime minister asked me to do when i was appointed when i arrived at

00:09:31 when i was appointed when i arrived at the department there were a number of other

00:09:34 other roles and responsibilities that ministers needed to take on and the secretary of state decided to whom they would be allocated and so that portfolio some would be core to what the prime minister asked me to do some would be

00:09:45 minister asked me to do some would be things the secretary of state asked me to do

00:09:47 to do where he had a view he would have overridingly be in charge and his view would

00:09:54 would take precedence over mine in other areas which were of less direct interest or less political focus then i would be left to do the work myself or oversee the work of the

00:10:05 myself or oversee the work of the department myself with relatively little oversight from secretary of state

00:10:11 have you any insight into why you ended up with building regulations not particularly no right uh

00:10:18 right uh now you say a paragraph six of your first statement and i don't think we need to go to it uh that the building regulations formed a small part of the work you undertook in the department yes uh if we look at paragraph nine

00:10:30 uh if we look at paragraph nine of the of the statement of page three at

00:10:35 at clg3030834 page three you say this in the third line amongst other things they that's your officials

00:10:45 officials would screen and triage submissions and correspondence before i would see them and having regard to my workload and according to the priority attached to the submission would place it in my ministerial box for me to consider my private office would

00:10:58 me to consider my private office would generally pass me more than a dozen ministerial submissions a week requiring varying levels of input i did not have a special advisor or spad and

00:11:08 and i'm sorry i'm going to show you two more parts of your statement if you don't mind at paragraph 17 if you go to paragraph 17 on

00:11:21 on page 7

00:11:24 7 sorry page 6 you say as stated above i was and am not an expert

00:11:31 an expert in the building in building regulations and was largely guided by the advice of expert officials in light of this in practice the officials in charge of the building regulations team retained

00:11:42 the building regulations team retained responsibility for overseeing and ensuring the progress of work in relation to building regulations including the simplification of approved document b it is worth mentioning however that i do recall asking the building regulations

00:11:53 recall asking the building regulations team whether the review could be completed more quickly but it was explained to me that it was a complex and inherently lengthy process that could not be foreshortened and that it was in hand and i accepted this

00:12:06 was in hand and i accepted this now i'll come back to that latter part of that paragraph um shortly um

00:12:12 um finally if i can just show you para page 15 paragraph 37

00:12:20 at 37 you you say uh in the second sentence my private office shared with officials any correspondence i received in relation to fire safety

00:12:31 i received in relation to fire safety and i was briefed by officials as and when they or i considered appropriate now i've shown you quite a lot of your statement there but having looked at at it all first how did your

00:12:44 looked at at it all first how did your private office determine the priority of submissions um i'm speculating as i i can't speak directly for my private office at the time

00:12:53 time but

00:12:54 but there would be various things that would push

00:12:57 push either submission or a piece of correspondence up the hierarchy as it were so for example correspondence from a member of parliament will be more likely to receive a direct response from me correspondence as i understood it from

00:13:10 correspondence as i understood it from members of the public would often be responded to by an official and not seen by me regarding submissions they would take into account again i'm i'm speculating i've never worked in a private office but i would expect them

00:13:21 private office but i would expect them to take into account um urgency [Music]

00:13:25 [Music] their perception of political focus attached to an issue and to make a judgment

00:13:31 judgment as to when it should be submitted to me and where or indeed whether it should be submitted in the form to which it was uh supplied to them right now what you've just told us and it sounds all very logical but why did you need to

00:13:42 logical but why did you need to speculate did you not know how your officials triaged issues in detail no why is that well it's my understanding but i've never worked in a private office there are um

00:13:53 worked in a private office there are um sort of rather mysterious places i think right when you came in as minister did you not want to know how the private office worked so that when there was a triage process in place for which you of course were ultimately responsible as a minister you at least understood its

00:14:05 minister you at least understood its mechanics yes and what i've described is my understanding of how it worked but day to day i i didn't see that work right you didn't see the work of triage but did somebody sit you down and tell

00:14:16 but did somebody sit you down and tell you how it worked or is what you've told us um generality by way of your observations and experience over the time you were there i i don't really recall i'd imagine it's a bit of both if you work in a political environment

00:14:28 if you work in a political environment you know how these things work if you've been a minister you know how these things work um i'm sure i will have had briefings on this when i first arrived in post but i i can't remember how much of what i've just told you is my general

00:14:40 i've just told you is my general understanding and how much i was told at the time

00:14:42 the time do you accept that your function as a minister uh and parliamentary under secretary included acting as a decision maker on any issue concerning the building regulations

00:14:53 building regulations uh any issue that required ministerial decision yes

00:14:58 and can we agree that uh

00:15:01 uh inherent in that function was the obligation to challenge or question the advice of officials yes yes and do you accept that those obligations were unaffected by the fact that you were the junior minister and the person with the

00:15:12 junior minister and the person with the ultimate responsibility and decision-making function was the secretary of state yes and also do you agree that as minister in charge of building regulations you retained responsibility for oversight of

00:15:24 retained responsibility for oversight of any review of the building regulations yes yes

00:15:28 yes yes what would cause you to seek out advice unilaterally on your part on a particular question in relation to fire safety or the building regulations uh i mean it could be it could be

00:15:40 uh i mean it could be it could be anything from someone raising a someone could raise a concern with me a piece of information which i've been unaware it could be a an interest that i had personally to want to pursue an issue ministers have quite wide discretion to

00:15:52 ministers have quite wide discretion to ask questions and seek further information did you have a personal interest in any particular aspect of the building regulations specifically or safety more generally not that i recall no

00:16:05 not that i recall no do

00:16:05 do did you meet peter schofield the director general with any degree of regularity um i i don't honestly recall i'm sure i will have met him on quite a number of

00:16:16 will have met him on quite a number of occasions but i i can't tell you whether it was a regular meeting or something that just took place was quite a long time ago and does the same go for the directors sally randall and then steve quartermaine uh i honestly couldn't say

00:16:28 quartermaine uh i honestly couldn't say again i'm

00:16:29 again i'm i'm sure from what i've seen of the documents that i will have met them and engage with them and they seem familiar to me somewhat but i don't remember specifically the individual meetings i had with them and

00:16:40 had with them and you recall meeting bob ledson he's the one who ticks in your mind yes did you meet him regularly or just a lot um i would say

00:16:48 would say more a lot than regularly there wasn't a regular scheduled meeting that i that i can remember now you say in your witness statement to paragraph 10 your first statement that uh you don't recall the name sally randall richard harrell or

00:17:00 name sally randall richard harrell or brian martin is that that's right that was correct at the time of the statement um i've obviously having been aware of the work of the inquiry those names are somewhat more familiar to me now but i at that time i i didn't recall them no

00:17:13 at that time i i didn't recall them no did the majority of the advice that you received in relation to fire safety and the building regulations come from bob ledson uh logically i would say yes from what i remember as i said bob was the person i primarily remember is talking

00:17:25 person i primarily remember is talking to me about the issues around the building regulations right were you aware that bob led some was what is called or was called a policy professional but who had no technical expertise i don't recall specifically

00:17:36 expertise i don't recall specifically being aware of that now right does it surprise you uh not necessarily right um who else do you recall receiving briefings or oral advice from in respect

00:17:48 briefings or oral advice from in respect of fire safety or the building regulations uh my private office i would discuss submissions and matters with my private sector and assistant private secretaries

00:17:59 sector and assistant private secretaries and then

00:18:01 and then outside bodies i recall meeting with the all party parliamentary group um

00:18:06 um beyond that uh i'm not sure i can recall specific individuals and your pr your private secretaries could you just list the names primarily in this space my private

00:18:18 names primarily in this space my private secretary was k mckendrick and the assistant private secretary was sarah morgan

00:18:28 right and that's care as in k-e-r-r that's correct right thank you now when you were appointed do you remember a formalized or even un informal handover process from stephen

00:18:41 informal handover process from stephen williams no

00:18:45 did you even meet him no so when you arrived as junior minister how did it work we were just shown into an office and given a part of papers it

00:18:56 an office and given a part of papers it was it is a bit like that yes um my so you are shown into an office and given a pile of papers introduced to your new private office who are the civil servants who run your life as a minister as it were

00:19:08 run your life as a minister as it were they were then arranged for me a series of briefings on the areas of policy for which i had responsibility right and when you were shown into the office and the desk containing the powers of paper had you any

00:19:19 paper had you any any particular understanding or insight into the building regulations or the approved documents um so the answer question is no but i mean just for clarity i was shown into an empty office right

00:19:31 right desk and chair was it yes yes but no papers

00:19:35 papers so you really were a blank blank slate yes

00:19:38 yes right

00:19:41 and can we take it you didn't come into the empty office with any particular insight into or interest in the building regulations that is correct um i want to ask you then about your

00:19:52 um i want to ask you then about your knowledge of the building regulations um to what extent during your time as junior minister did you become familiar with the building regulations and the system for building control in england

00:20:04 system for building control in england and wales so i don't recall the exact timeline from memory i am familiar with some of the documents that that i did see at the time um what is normal and what i remember

00:20:15 um what is normal and what i remember taking place as a process was a series of briefings on the different parts of my portfolio in the first few weeks that i was in post

00:20:23 post that would be a combination of written submissions and notes and then meetings with relevant officials to talk about work that was being undertaken issues that were potentially on the agenda and

00:20:35 that were potentially on the agenda and about which over which i needed to take a decision and to familiarize myself and subscribe to me as the new minister with the portfolio did you come to know that the statutory scheme involved the imposition of

00:20:46 scheme involved the imposition of overarching functional requirements or what i call performance requirements um i think so insofar as i fully understand your your question i was given a briefing on how

00:20:57 given a briefing on how the um the building regulations work the role of the approved documents uh and then given a a as i say a a i think it in it it was appended to my witness statement um a document that

00:21:10 witness statement um a document that summarized the current position of the department regarding building regulations and work that was being undertaken who gave you that briefing as far as i recall bob ludson right

00:21:21 did you

00:21:25 gather an understanding of the overarching aim of the functional requirements i think so right did you gather an overarching understanding of um

00:21:34 um functional requirement b4 about external fire spread um i understood the document b generally i wouldn't have a granular understanding of individual parts within it right

00:21:46 parts within it right did you look at it yes i was given all of the relevant documents right at the time did you look at it with a lawyer's eye i'm not sure i understand that question well as a trained solicitor given a piece of statutory guidance

00:21:59 piece of statutory guidance uh hanging off the back of a statutory piece of statutory regulation did you not want to see how it worked well i i recall being briefed on how i worked and feeling that i had a a general understanding of of how the

00:22:11 a general understanding of of how the building regulations worked yes i didn't and i wouldn't claim to have gone in detail line by line through a document um about which i had very little technical expertise right did you know at least this much that

00:22:23 did you know at least this much that part b

00:22:24 part b of the regulations excuse me and particularly approved document b was about fire safety yes and therefore life safety yes yes

00:22:35 and therefore life safety yes yes did you know oh did you come to know that the approved documents were for the purpose of providing practical guidance on how to meet the functional requirements of the building regulations yes i

00:22:47 of the building regulations yes i believe that was in my early briefings did you learn anything about how the department sought to keep up to date with current practices and trends in the building industry so as to be able to

00:22:58 building industry so as to be able to issue or review or amend the practical guidance yes again i was briefed on the role of the building regulations advisory committee and the work that department did and the work that they had proposed in their

00:23:10 work that they had proposed in their timeline at that time right did you know about the work done by technical policy officers to anticipate new developments in the construction industry

00:23:19 industry i would

00:23:20 i would say in a limited sense yes so for example i knew bre and and i was briefed on that the sort of work that they did uh i can't er you can honestly recall the detail of

00:23:31 er you can honestly recall the detail of the understanding i had at that time of technical work that was done by individual officers within the department what were you told about the relationship between government and the

00:23:43 relationship between government and the bre

00:23:44 bre they were an advisory committee to ensure that the government understood the impact of building regulations on um the sector and the government was getting feedback on

00:23:55 on how they should operate where they were working where they weren't um and it was a it was effectively a a relatively qualified stakeholder group that would inform government decision making

00:24:06 making as best i recall right did you you saying that that last answer that you understood that they were an advisory committee

00:24:13 committee uh

00:24:13 uh did you

00:24:15 did you think were you told that there was a formal

00:24:18 formal relationship a formal nexus between government and the bre um interface i think they were they sat under the department i understood it to be a formally established group it wasn't an ad hoc

00:24:29 established group it wasn't an ad hoc group or an entirely external body is the best of my understanding it was something that the department used mr millet i think there might be a misunderstanding here can we just clarify whether you are

00:24:40 clarify whether you are asking the witness about bre or brac

00:24:45 or brac bre sorry i was answering on brack that's my no sorry that i i answered the question on brac on bre i understood it was an external body that tested materials and undertook

00:24:57 body that tested materials and undertook that's that sort of technical scientific work

00:25:04 and going back to the question then

00:25:08 what were you told about the relationship between government and the bre sorry that the bre's role was i think they were as i recall an independent company but they

00:25:19 an independent company but they undertook work for the government on the testing of materials and other such technical um investigative work that might be required

00:25:31 did you ever take any steps yourself to satisfy yourself that the work done by the technical policy officers at the lower echelons of the official hierarchy was effective in

00:25:44 the official hierarchy was effective in keeping the approved documents up to date and fit for purpose um i'd other than asking such a general questions when i was briefed on them and discussed them with officials

00:25:55 officials i don't recall having commissioned any additional work to investigate the quality of what they're producing now

00:26:11 uh did you understand at any time that officials were forbidden or at least strongly discouraged from

00:26:22 from advising members of the public for which read members of the construction industry of the intention underlying the language in the approved documents

00:26:33 in the approved documents no i don't think so right

00:26:39 now i want to ask you one or two questions about deregulation um before i do can i just ask you this apart from the

00:26:48 the drafting of the building regulations and the production of practical guidance to assist industry in complying with those regulations did you understand the department to have a role in overseeing the regime

00:26:59 have a role in overseeing the regime generally yes i did you did did you understand that the department had or at least should have had some degree of regulatory oversight

00:27:12 yes yes yes

00:27:17 in other words making sure or keeping tabs on

00:27:21 tabs on uh industry to ensure that it knows what's required by the building regulations and yes yes

00:27:29 yes and similarly identifying any common

00:27:33 common problems with misinterpretation misunderstanding or non-compliance uh i don't again i don't know whether i had that

00:27:40 that discussion in those particular words but that would be in line with my understanding of the department's role yes yes okay thank you now um i want to ask you about deregulation in light of that um

00:27:52 um one in one out is this right was an administrative policy introduced in 2011 by the coalition government yes i assume it's a matter of historic record i was

00:28:03 it's a matter of historic record i was familiar with one in one out and i was familiar with a desire to be generally deregulatory um whether it was introduced in 2011 and exactly by whom i couldn't i couldn't tell you right um

00:28:14 couldn't i couldn't tell you right um when you

00:28:15 when you came in to go into government in

00:28:18 in 2015

00:28:20 2015 um i think it was one in two out which had been introduced in 2013. that sounds familiar right did anybody ever sit you down and explain how the one in two up

00:28:31 explain how the one in two up policy worked not that i recall no were you ever given any documents to show all regulations or protocols or guidance yourself and to i don't recall having seen any documents no

00:28:42 no right what does it mean in your mind um

00:28:48 from my memory it wasn't something given particular um or undue focus i was aware of a general wish to be do you regulatory where appropriate

00:28:59 appropriate um but this i became a minister for two and a half years after 2013 as you described the two in one outright i take your word for i don't remember being briefed on it particularly

00:29:10 particularly it was just a general view that being uh erring on the side of being deregulatory as opposed to uh creating additional regulatory burden would was seen to be a good thing and at

00:29:21 would was seen to be a good thing and at a very basic level of course you know one in two out i mean if you want to bring in a new regulation you've got to find two that you're going to take out right did you understand how that worked as a matter of mechanics no i don't feel that it was a a particular pressure on

00:29:33 that it was a a particular pressure on my

00:29:34 my decision making or my role as a minister at that time i don't remember it being a particularly salient or pertinent issue did you ever discuss

00:29:42 discuss one in two out with your fellow junior ministers i don't recall having done so or the secretary of state i don't recall having done so or with any of your officials particularly bob ledson uh i don't remember discussing that but let bob

00:29:53 remember discussing that but let bob burst them i think i have had on at least one occasion a discussion with my private secretary about it um i suspect and i don't remember this clearly and so to have to

00:30:04 clearly and so to have to be open this may not be an exact description i don't think it was there's anything to do with the um the subject matter here but at some point the issue of one in two out coming up and my private sector

00:30:15 two out coming up and my private sector explaining that uh it would not be uh to it wouldn't be in line with government policy to do things that created lots of new regulations but i don't think that was anything to do with building regulations to the terms of general discussion about

00:30:26 terms of general discussion about something else right so

00:30:29 so it sounds what you've just told us that the regulatory agenda was simply an atmosphere in the department to which you might or might not pay regard rather than a fiat if you like a set of rules with

00:30:42 a fiat if you like a set of rules with which your officials had to comply that was how it felt to me at the time that said i i don't recall having tried to introduce a particular new regulation at which point

00:30:53 particular new regulation at which point it may have been uh may have stopped being an atmosphere and become rather specific because for a junior minister tries to do things against government policy and they tend to be told about it and they get they got too far down the track did that happen to you not that i

00:31:04 track did that happen to you not that i recall it didn't i don't recall it happening to me no right you probably would recall it if you did i would think so yes um did you um ever pass on any guidance to those carrying

00:31:15 pass on any guidance to those carrying out the work on the on the building regulations and the approved documents um

00:31:21 um regarding the applicability of the deregulatory agenda well if i can put it this way the one in two-hour rule i don't recall right i don't recall having done so but right

00:31:36 so do you remember ever telling bob ledson or any other official that the direct the deregulation agenda and i use the phrase because you use it paragraph 18 of your own statement

00:31:48 paragraph 18 of your own statement that that agenda um did not obstruct changes to regulations or guidance relating to fire safety

00:31:55 safety uh

00:31:55 uh i don't recall specifically but that would be a i mean logically that would make sense to me i mean my understanding of what was the work that was proposed and i don't want to jump ahead to parts i'm sure you'll want to discuss

00:32:07 sure you'll want to discuss um later but my view of a proposed piece of work on on simplification would be that that is inherently a positive and arguably deregulatory thing to do and so i wasn't aware of any work that

00:32:19 and so i wasn't aware of any work that was being undertaken by the building regulations team that i thought would um

00:32:24 um cause concerns in in terms of increasing regulatory burden right well we're on the point what was your view at the time about

00:32:31 about a change to the approved documents which are after all statutory guidance to guide comp compliance with a regulation

00:32:45 which was clarificatory in other words clarified the existing intention of the secretary of state underlying the language in the approved document i i would consider

00:32:56 approved document i i would consider that and did at the time consider that to be a positive thing to do therefore not something which required to be matched with two other deregulatory changes no i would see that as a reduction in

00:33:07 would see that as a reduction in regulation rather than a new or additional regulation right

00:33:12 right can i show you what mr martin has said in his statement can we please have mr brian martin's statement back up again clg

00:33:22 3019469 page 87

00:33:32 and he says this and there's an underlying document which we could go to but this is a shorthand on 16th july 2013 secretary of state eric pickles wrote to nick clegg mp and vince cable mp seeking clearance from

00:33:44 vince cable mp seeking clearance from the home affairs committee and the economic affairs reducing regulation subcommittee to consult publicly on the results of the recent review of the building regulations and housing standards the pro forma for the request

00:33:55 standards the pro forma for the request was included i note that the secretary of state includes a line in his letter that housing standards are not within the scope of the one in two out system i'm not able to say what the secretary of state meant by housing standards but

00:34:08 of state meant by housing standards but as i said out above it was my understanding that building regulations were within the scope of the one-in-two out system now mr martin confirmed the view that

00:34:19 now mr martin confirmed the view that he's expressed there about his understanding at the time in that last sentence in his oral evidence to the inquiry on day two five two at page one four six

00:34:27 four six uh where i and let's go to that

00:34:33 day 252 page 146 and if i can show you

00:34:43 thank you look at line 12 question was it your understanding throughout that the one in one out and one in two out policies applied to guidance under the regulations including the approved

00:34:55 regulations including the approved documents

00:34:56 documents answer yes what was the basis on which you understood that to be the case answer i'm sure it's something we discussed at various points but it's pretty it would be a fairly pointless policy if it didn't impact on the technical guidance

00:35:08 didn't impact on the technical guidance supporting the building regulations uh

00:35:11 uh 922 well that's an argument but if were you ever told it applies or did you ever read a document or an instruction or a protocol or policy that told you that adb or any of the approved documents were subject to these policies answer

00:35:24 were subject to these policies answer we had we had a fairly regular interaction with colleagues in the business department for business i can't remember what it was called at the time and there's a better regulation executive there his team of officials that deal with regulatory policy

00:35:36 that deal with regulatory policy uh

00:35:37 uh now um

00:35:39 now um that was his that was his evidence and we've seen his evidence also in his statement um against that background can i then show you the letter that he's referring to clg-3019227

00:35:56 and if we there it is and addressed to nick clegg and vince cable in that order 16th of july 2013 i appreciate this is more than two years

00:36:07 i appreciate this is more than two years before you come on the scene but or about two years before you come on the scene but if we go to page three in it please in the third substantive paragraph up from the bottom uh he says um

00:36:19 um does eric pickles uh this is a red tape challenge measure and i'm advised that housing standards are not within the scope of the one in two-hour system now we know that the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 had been

00:36:31 fire safety order 2005 had been specifically exempted from the government's red tape challenge in 2012. when you came in as a minister were you aware of that no you weren't

00:36:43 do you agree with from the best of your recollection with what mr martin has said in his written statement and his oral evidence

00:36:54 statement and his oral evidence building regulations being subject to the one in one out or one in two hour agenda i i don't recall having ever thought about the one in two out agenda in relation to building regulations i can't in all honesty say

00:37:07 regulations i can't in all honesty say that i had a view on it at the time or if i had a view i can't recall what it was

00:37:12 was can we go then to clg one triple zero seven eight six zero

00:37:18 now this is a letter from the the late sir david amos mp dated the first of december 2015 uh to you

00:37:28 uh to you uh now we're going to come back to this letter in some more detail later in your evidence just for context sake it was written a few days after you were into you had attended an informal lunch

00:37:39 you had attended an informal lunch with the appg at which mr martin uh and others were present on the 26th of november 2015. so that's the context and that's what's referred to in the

00:37:50 and that's what's referred to in the first paragraph of the letter as you can see

00:37:53 see now if we go to page two in this letter before the numbered list it says this at yesterday's meeting you gave some steer which we understood to be

00:38:04 steer which we understood to be and then there is a list and if you go down to item six in the list

00:38:09 list it says this it is acknowledged that there is a political policy of not increasing the burden of regulation simplification is necessary and should one measure be introduced it would need to offset by the removal of two others

00:38:21 to offset by the removal of two others depending on validity

00:38:25 validity now i should also tell you of course that this letter was entirely in the context of the revisions to adb and the pressure that apbg was seeking to bring on central government

00:38:36 to bring on central government to get on with the revision that's the context

00:38:39 context looking at item six and what sir david has said there was he correct uh i don't know i don't recall having said that at the meeting with the

00:38:50 having said that at the meeting with the appg it's possible that i did but i have no memory of it and i don't recall having

00:38:55 having considered the one in two out policy

00:38:59 policy in relation to building regulations or is particularly relevant to the work that was proposed to be undertaken in reviewing of the part b abd

00:39:10 abd but i i can't say that i have a perfect memory of that that meeting which was a long time ago it strikes me looking at that the the one to six list that is quite

00:39:21 the the one to six list that is quite comprehensive and specific and i would be

00:39:24 be quite surprised that if at an informal meeting i made commitments with that clarity i mean the reality is you try to avoid

00:39:31 avoid making too firm a commitment in informal meetings because you need to get advice and and

00:39:36 and and consider what you're going to do rather than decide things when you're meeting people at the time yes i understand that david was quite clear not to use the word commitment he said you gave a steer or some steer and he was simply recording the steer that he understood

00:39:49 recording the steer that he understood and as you can see from six this one of the stairs that you gave was an acknowledgement of the

00:39:55 of the political policy of deregulation um if your understanding was that any changes a particularly clarification or simplification

00:40:06 simplification of

00:40:06 of the building regulations and the approved documents was not subject to your own in your understanding at the time to the deregulatory agenda why did you give that steer i'd say i said i

00:40:17 you give that steer i'd say i said i don't recall having given that steer however my and i'm my only hesitation here what i don't know is because it was quite a long time ago how much of this is my understanding because

00:40:28 much of this is my understanding because i've thought about it since and how much of it is what i felt and thought at the time it's difficult to recall right however my view of taking an existing document and simplifying it is that itself would be

00:40:39 itself would be most likely deregulatory anyway i don't see why that would trigger the one in two out at all that said the one in two out policy was not something that i remember being particularly influential in my

00:40:50 being particularly influential in my time as a minister at dchildren now you've given us what you call a logical answer and i'm not i won't comment on that one way or the other but did you ever check the understanding that you've just told

00:41:01 the understanding that you've just told us about here with anybody um in either in the department uh or in the the department's legal department or with anybody else i don't recall having concern

00:41:12 concern right

00:41:13 right um

00:41:15 um your recollection of this is perhaps understandably not as clear as it could be given the time that's adapted since but you're not able to quarrel with what sir david says here about what you

00:41:27 what sir david says here about what you had said at the meeting at least given some steer on because i can't recall no i can't say with any certainty what i did i didn't say i'd all i can the only observation i can make is that i would be surprised if

00:41:38 can make is that i would be surprised if i'd been as specific in generality of these six points as they would would convey now i'd like to look in a little bit more detail with you at um what

00:41:49 more detail with you at um what officials in the department thought we've seen a little bit of brian martin's evidence um

00:41:56 um let's show you something else can we please go to day 255 page 19 of brian martin's evidence

00:42:16 and if we go to page line page 19 line 19

00:42:23 he says this and this is i should just tell you this is now

00:42:29 is now february 2016. uh he says yeah i think at this time we really struggled to get anything done within the department it had been difficult you know following the coalition government taking over after the financial crisis there was a lot of

00:42:40 the financial crisis there was a lot of pressure on the team in relation to deregulation and so on and that had continued to magnify over the following period once we got past the 2015 election

00:42:49 election we had a combination of an even greater ambition towards deregulation regulation was a dirty word and there was so much political disruption it was very difficult to get any kind of traction and any document that would have gone

00:43:01 and any document that would have gone out from the department would have needed to have had a political approval so i think at that stage it would have been incredibly difficult to do that

00:43:10 and if we go on at line at page 35 line six

00:43:15 six same transcript he says

00:43:20 he says um

00:43:21 um looking at the policy area was raising standards

00:43:23 standards was going to be incredibly difficult under

00:43:26 under that under the regime we were working under

00:43:31 and then finally i just want to show you one more uh a piece of his evidence day 255 page 37 two pages on and if we look at line nine there he says government position

00:43:43 nine there he says government position was that committing more resources to fire protection or any other regulation was you know the opposite of where the government wanted to go so you need a very strong evidence base to justify an increase in requirements

00:43:55 to justify an increase in requirements and that's what he told us and i've given you quite a bit of his transcript are you able to explain why it was that mr martin had formed the view that the building regulations were within the scope at least of the one in two out policy

00:44:07 policy uh i'm not i haven't i have no reason to believe that i didn't i don't recall having had a view on whether they were within or outside of it um

00:44:15 um i still when i consider reviewing any document that exists

00:44:19 exists wouldn't fully i wouldn't think that that would trigger the um the provisions regardless if you're simplifying and amending something that exists it doesn't strike me as a new regulation however i accept don't i'm not hugely familiar with the

00:44:32 don't i'm not hugely familiar with the the details of that policy uh the only other observation i make is is reading the evidence that you've just put before me there

00:44:39 me there is mr martin's other comments do chime with my recollection it was a a

00:44:45 a despite being a continuation of half of the coalition government was a very new government felt very new and very quickly there were a lot of political events

00:44:56 political events outside of the specifics of the work that for example mr martin was doing that meant it was incredibly busy time so when he says that there were a lot of politic i can't remember that were to use on the other page but saying there

00:45:07 use on the other page but saying there was a lot going on in politics effectively that's very true

00:45:11 are you able to explain why mr martin formed the view that building regulations were subject to the one into our policy i'm i'm not but they they may well have been i'll say i i didn't i don't recall the one into our policy

00:45:23 i don't recall the one into our policy having come up in relation to any of the work that was proposed on building regulations when i was there and so i i don't remember having it even rising as an issue where it was a cause of concern what i would expect is

00:45:35 of concern what i would expect is if we were proposing to do something that would run into a policy like that which therefore may or may not be possible or it might have implications for it

00:45:43 for it i would expect to have had a discussion about that and been told we should do this but one of the problems is this policy i don't remember having ever had that discussion right now

00:45:54 now can i show you what richard harrell said to us

00:45:57 to us on day 243 day 243 page 51 please

00:46:06 and at lines 1 to 7 he says this when you issued an updated approved document there was a cost to industry and familiarizing itself with the revised document and that was captured by the impact assessment

00:46:18 captured by the impact assessment process

00:46:19 process gosh so simply that simply the cost associated with looking at a revised simplified approved document yeah that was deemed to be a cost to industry yes even though the substantive requirements have not changed

00:46:31 have not changed and then he corrects himself might be regarded as a benefit to industry if the savings from the clarification were greater than the cost of the time taken to familiarize yourself but it will be subject to impact assessment work on that basis

00:46:43 that basis and that's in the context of of deregulation and my question is were you aware at any time

00:46:50 time that this was the basis on which officials in the department were working namely that their hands were tied by the one in two out to regulatory policy no you weren't no i would expect almost

00:47:02 no you weren't no i would expect almost any change should be subject to an impact assessment of some sort but i wasn't aware that that would trigger the one into our policy were you also unaware that it was

00:47:13 were you also unaware that it was envisaged by these officials certainly brian martin and richard harrell that the government's deregulatory policies would include uh impact on parts of the building regulations concerned with life safety

00:47:25 regulations concerned with life safety uh i don't recall it having been raised with me or discussing that i don't recall having discussed one in two out in relation to building regulations and for the best of my recollection my

00:47:37 for the best of my recollection my understanding at the time would have been that a simplification of a document would be an inherently good thing and it would be deregulatory so no i wasn't aware that the view of officials was that this would uh be subject to those provisions are

00:47:49 uh be subject to those provisions are you able to explain why you were ignorant of the attitude taken by these officials towards the deregulatory agenda and their

00:48:00 their understanding based on the evidence i've shown you

00:48:03 shown you that it applied even to a clarificatory or simplificatory change to the approved documents

00:48:10 documents um

00:48:11 um i would

00:48:12 i would think because no one said to me this is a problem that we have or this is a concern that we have that's stopping us from acting and the context in which i was operation at times i understood that there was to be a comprehensive review of some of the

00:48:24 be a comprehensive review of some of the documents particularly part b and so work was planned no one was saying to me oh but this work can't be done not always or there is some impact on this work that

00:48:32 work that we

00:48:33 we feel is stopping us from doing what we should do

00:48:36 should do and so

00:48:37 and so if i wasn't told about it i guess i didn't know so you weren't aware is this right of a culture

00:48:45 culture within your department of constraint based on an understanding of the uh application of the deregulatory agenda to matters of life safety that

00:48:57 agenda to matters of life safety that you

00:48:58 you now you're being asked about it did not share

00:49:01 share um i think that's right i want to be clear

00:49:05 clear i think there was a general view that deregulation is a good thing and unnecessary regulation would be something we should avoid but i wasn't aware that that was in any way constraining work in the area of fire

00:49:17 constraining work in the area of fire safety and indeed my understanding is that a comprehensive piece of work in this area was planned and being progressed

00:49:31 now we know that the building regulation division never gave consideration to whether any of its work might legitimately count uh as a subject of an exemption from the

00:49:42 uh as a subject of an exemption from the one into our policy because for example life safety issues were in play are you able to explain why that is uh no are you able to explain why it is

00:49:53 uh no are you able to explain why it is that no official as we've been told in that division took any advice on whether if clarification of the building regulations or the approved documents was all that was required the one into our policy was engaged no

00:50:07 and again what's the reason for why you are not able to explain those things because my understanding was there was there was a piece of work that was planned

00:50:17 planned and i was as far as i can recall never told this is a problem that is getting in the way of that work being undertaken so

00:50:24 so given that the advice i was being given at the time was we are going to do this piece of work it is going to be comprehensive and no one was saying to me oh but there's a reason that we can't do it or won't do it i don't know why i would

00:50:36 won't do it i don't know why i would therefore

00:50:37 therefore even think to ask that question as far as i understood this was something that was going to go ahead right who had the responsibility in the department to ensure that the officials working on and responsible for the

00:50:49 working on and responsible for the regulations building regulations and the approved documents understood precisely the scope of the deregulatory agenda and its application to their work

00:51:00 and its application to their work fundamentally i would i would think the permanent secretary but i i couldn't tell you exactly who whether that was delegated to somebody else or which for which which civil servant was responsible and sure for ensuring that that was part of the department's policy

00:51:12 that was part of the department's policy process

00:51:13 process but it would be something that at that side of the way the department works but was it not something over which you had responsibility or accountability some yes

00:51:22 yes so can you explain can you account for why it is that your understanding of the impact or effect of the deregulatory agenda was not just not shared by

00:51:32 shared by the officials at the coalface in the department but actually that they thought the opposite well as i say i my understanding was that the work that

00:51:43 that the work that they were being asked to undertake or proposing to undertake was being put in place and at no point do i recall someone saying to me there is this problem or this hurdle and so i i didn't even i would imagine

00:51:55 and so i i didn't even i would imagine i'm thinking about it i don't see why i would have thought ah how is this going to be a problem for us when everyone was saying this work was going to happen well what about the steer that you'd given at the 26th of november 2015 lunch i know you can't

00:52:07 november 2015 lunch i know you can't recall it but on the basis uh the sir david amuse's recollection in his letter five days later of that lunch is more perfect than yours is now was was this not on your radar well as i say i can't recall it

00:52:19 radar well as i say i can't recall it i no point do i do i recall the deregulatory agenda being something that got in the way of work that was going to be undertaken in this part of my portfolio were there any checks and balances in place within your department

00:52:32 balances in place within your department at the time so far as you understood it to make sure that life safety issues were not unacceptably compromised by the deregulatory agenda um i don't remember your specific policies no

00:52:44 policies no in general in government looking up or down were you uh were you aware of any

00:52:51 of any safeguarding mechanisms within the deregulatory agenda that would mean that officials and ministers such as you would stop and think before

00:53:02 think before refusing

00:53:03 refusing to

00:53:05 to simplify or clarify or amend regulations which had to do with life safety

00:53:11 safety or health and safety more generally so i'm not aware of anything specific but as i say it's it's something that you would expect to be highlighted if it became if if there was any concern you would expect that to be raised and i don't recall it at any

00:53:23 be raised and i don't recall it at any stage being raised and indeed quite the opposite as far as i was aware work was planned

00:53:28 planned are you able lord wharton to account for why the regulatory agenda was regarded by your officials at the time as a constraint on their freedom to review and amend the approved documents if in fact according

00:53:41 approved documents if in fact according to your understanding it wasn't um i'm not it was never raised with me it appears to be something that and was

00:53:51 was that came in that came into place before i arrived at the department but then at no point did do i recall anyone saying to me this is a constraint on what we're trying to do in this area as i say

00:54:02 trying to do in this area as i say i'm in danger of and i apologize for doing so repeating myself my understanding at the time was work was to be undertaken and i don't remember anybody saying there is something that is stopping us from undertaking that work and it is this particular policy

00:54:15 work and it is this particular policy well let's let's then turn to the work um let's look now at the coroner's recommendations following the latin house

00:54:21 house in camberwell in london in july 2009 now we're going to come later to your initial briefing on the building regulations division when you joined the department in may 2015

00:54:33 joined the department in may 2015 shortly but as an initial point let's just look at this bob ledson when he gave evidence told us that um he could not recall mentioning the latino house fire or the coroner's recommendations to you in your first

00:54:46 recommendations to you in your first oral briefing that's that was his evidence and just for our purposes that's day two four one page 212 line 19. nor does he recall sending you a copy of those recommendations at the time of that meeting

00:54:59 at the time of that meeting is that your recollection um i i don't recall when i became aware of them so that's perfectly possible yes and do you remember when you did first learn about the lack of house fire i don't i remember at some stage being

00:55:10 don't i remember at some stage being aware of it but i don't remember exactly when that was when did you first learn that there had been a coroner's inquest and that she'd made recommendations i would suspect at the same time but again i don't recall the exact meeting or document in which i

00:55:22 the exact meeting or document in which i was um made aware of that information did you ever take a look yourself at the coroner's recommendations which followed the inquest uh i i remember having seen or i can't say exactly when

00:55:33 having seen or i can't say exactly when the letter from then secretary of state eric pickles at the time i don't recall having gone further than that and looked into the detail of the specific recommendations from the coroner right

00:55:44 do you remember when you saw the pickles letter i don't you say you look you looked at it uh what was the context in which you looked at it i don't recall

00:55:55 looked at it i don't recall let's look at the coroner's letter please clg-401870

00:56:03 um this is the letter dated the 28th of march 2013 to eric pickles the then secretary of state on the subject of the latin house fire third of july 2009 and

00:56:15 2009 and this is the formal rule 43 letter i'm looking at its first page can you remember when you first saw this document i can't remember when i first saw this document there uh can we take it that you did see it at

00:56:27 uh can we take it that you did see it at some stage it is familiar to me i can't tell you when i first saw it i genuinely can't remember

00:56:34 remember well can i just let me see if i can just pin it down a bit can we take you that you saw it at some stage during your tenure as junior minister i honestly can't remember i know it's familiar to me as a document i recall

00:56:47 familiar to me as a document i recall seeing the secret that eric pickles reply to it um

00:56:51 um it's quite possible i saw this when i was a minister but i can't honestly say with clarity that i recall it was a long time ago

00:56:58 time ago well let's see how we go then um if we turn please to page three we can find the recommendations that the coroner had dressed to the to the department relating to the building regulations and approved document b and

00:57:12 regulations and approved document b and if we scroll up a little bit please we can see the heading

00:57:16 heading and given your lack of recollection of it i'm going to take a little time just reading it to you it says building regulations and approved document b during these inquests we examined approved document b 2000 edition

00:57:28 approved document b 2000 edition incorporating 2000 and 2002 amendments adb

00:57:32 adb i'm aware that adb has subsequently been amended and believe that a further amendment is due to be published soon the introduction to adb states that it is quote intended to provide guidance

00:57:43 is quote intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations close quotes however adb is a most difficult document to use further it is necessary to refer to additional documents in order to find an answer to

00:57:54 documents in order to find an answer to relatively straightforward questions concerning the fire protection properties of materials to be incorporated into the fabric of a building

00:58:02 building and then we have against that background the recommendations as follows it is recommended that your department review adb to ensure that it and then you see three bullet points bullet point one

00:58:13 bullet point one provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4 of the building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building and the

00:58:24 envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection bullet point two is expressed in words and adopts a

00:58:35 is expressed in words and adopts a format which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just to professionals who may already have a

00:58:46 to professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control matters third bullet point provides guidance which is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or

00:58:57 to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock are not only those engaged in design and construction of new buildings

00:59:06 now looking at the first bullet point there do you accept looking at it that it refers clearly to the need for clear guidance

00:59:13 guidance on external fire spread yes yes now let's then look at your first statement

00:59:21 statement um please uh page 4 paragraph 13.

00:59:27 you say there

00:59:31 shortly shortly after taking out my ministerial post in may 2015 i requested a briefing from the building regulations team as part of that briefing on 28 may 2015 i was sent a forward look this

00:59:42 2015 i was sent a forward look this document included reference to the coroner's recommendations and the previous government's aim to review and simplify approved document b by 2016 stroke 17. it indicated that officials intended to issue a discussion document

00:59:53 intended to issue a discussion document publicly setting out its proposals by the summer recess

00:59:58 now is it right the bob ledson was the official who provided you with that briefing yes i believe so i think my yes my my sort of introductory briefing as as best as i recall was provided by bob bledsoe can we then go to page 15

01:00:10 bledsoe can we then go to page 15 paragraph 34

01:00:15 and if you look at the second line in that paragraph you say this made clear that the principal issue for mhclg in terms of fire safety was to review

01:00:27 terms of fire safety was to review simplify and clarify approved document b it remained my understanding that this was the key issue

01:00:34 issue did you understand at the time that this project was indeed to review simplify and clarify approved document b yes and did you think that that was by way of response to the coroner's recommendations i

01:00:47 recommendations i i don't recall exactly what i thought at the time but but logically yes that would make sense what were you told about why that work was being undertaken i don't recall did you consider at the time that the coroner's recommendation

01:00:59 time that the coroner's recommendation was a requirement for a fundamental clarification or change of adb and not simply the desire for plain english um well the coroner's recommendation is a recommendation um

01:01:10 recommendation is a recommendation um but

01:01:11 but it struck me as an obviously good thing to do if there were concerns either about the content or

01:01:18 or the clarity of the document to have a process by which it was reviewed and improved did were you told by bob versus what the underlying problem was which had emerged at the lack of house inquest which which

01:01:30 at the lack of house inquest which which had necessitated uh

01:01:33 uh the

01:01:34 the uh well as you understood it um the um

01:01:39 um the um review simplification and clarification of approved document b i don't recall did do you not remember asking him or him i don't recall i don't i don't recall the detail of the discussion we

01:01:50 recall the detail of the discussion we had in that meeting right does it follow you also don't recall asking him what technical parts of adb would be included in that review i i don't recall right did you have a did you come away from that meeting with any kind of understanding i know you can't remember

01:02:01 understanding i know you can't remember but at least remembering that you had an understanding of what of what was required

01:02:06 required um

01:02:08 um well as i said i don't recall i recall the meeting only vaguely uh however from

01:02:15 from again looking at it and and the only concern i don't want to apply hindsight but

01:02:20 but uh if it was it was explained to me what was proposed i would have asked questions that i felt were appropriate and come away feeling that that was an appropriate course of action because i thought it was a positive thing to do the review that was

01:02:31 positive thing to do the review that was being talked about did you ever uh

01:02:37 uh ask yourself or ask any of your officials whether there was a a record

01:02:42 a record um kept relating to the latino inquest by the department so for example a file which had

01:02:49 which had um the evidence the transcripts the recommendations the response of the secretary of state um the briefings that have been given to the secretary of state i don't recall having them so now

01:03:02 i don't recall having them so now no

01:03:03 no did you know that in fact there wasn't a proper record of which recommendations had been accepted which rejected and what precisely the work the department had committed to do was

01:03:16 committed to do was i don't well i didn't ask whether there was a file regarding a proper record i don't know what form that necessarily take but i would assume and i had separate occasions when um coroner's

01:03:29 separate occasions when um coroner's letters came to me on other issues whereby there would be a process by which advice was given to the minister the minister would make a decision and i would assume instead all the decisions are recorded properly in appropriate record cat right

01:03:40 record cat right let me try it slightly differently do you remember coming away from that meeting with bob ledson where he briefed you about lacanal with any particular understanding about whether the coroner's

01:03:51 whether the coroner's recommendations were to be or had been uh accepted or rejected i don't recall um what i what i recall uh understanding that the changes that

01:04:02 uh understanding that the changes that were going to be made to approve document b were in response to that and addressed some of the issues that had been raised uh i don't recall in more detail what my understanding at that time was

01:04:13 understanding at that time was do do you remember at least having an a a vague inkling as to what work had been done to date and what were remained to be done

01:04:22 be done in relation to the coroner's recommendations as i say i have very limited recollection of that meeting we'll get we'll turn in more detail i think next to that briefing um it happened on the 26th of may

01:04:34 happened on the 26th of may 2015 and we have an email to confirm that

01:04:37 that let me just show it to you so you can be sure about what i'm telling you it's clg40208

01:04:44 clg40208 to page two

01:04:51 and as you can see from the foot of the page

01:04:54 page uh there's an email from you to bob led some copy to sally randall peter schofield and your um is that your private secretary ps yes the emails from ips i wouldn't

01:05:05 ps yes the emails from ips i wouldn't send emails to officials myself no i mean presumably you would see this before it went no not necessarily unlikely that i would do so would it not be copy to you no

01:05:18 right hi bob thanks for briefing the minister earlier so i think that's all we need for this that's the date i think we need anything else

01:05:26 else from it um but there it is uh now you're saying your first statement and we don't need to go back to it um largely because we've already looked at it that it was you who requested a briefing from the building regulations team

01:05:38 building regulations team yes uh it would have been on the advice of my private office and the request will have been sent by my private office so when i say it will have come as the minister would like a briefing from but the the administration of it would have come from my private office at the time right

01:05:50 from my private office at the time right did you

01:05:51 did you when you say it came from your private office was it you who wanted the meeting or or was it something that your private office thought would be a good idea uh and convened without even asking

01:06:01 asking my private office again uh i don't recollect exactly the details of how this meeting came about but my private office will have said we propose a series of meetings to familiarize yourself with to finalize you with your

01:06:12 yourself with to finalize you with your portfolio do you agree to have these meetings and i would say yes i do right okay um

01:06:21 was it uh

01:06:25 well um was it your understanding or so far as you can recall it the understanding of your private office that the principal issue for the department for discussion was the review simplification and clarification of

01:06:38 simplification and clarification of approved document b i remember that being the the key piece of work that was being planned so yes i mean whether that that exact portal versus i can't speak

01:06:49 that exact portal versus i can't speak for my private office's understanding but that certainly became the main thing we were expecting from the uh building regulations team right now if we go back to your second statement please let's look at that clg three zero three four

01:07:00 look at that clg three zero three four two eight nine page two paragraph five

01:07:07 fourth line up from the bottom you say at at some point i became aware that the building regulations team is preparing for a review of the building regulations and associated guidance

01:07:19 regulations and associated guidance though i cannot now recall whether this was mentioned in the briefing or sometime later now is it your recollection that it was you that requested this meeting um no i will have agreed to the meeting

01:07:31 um no i will have agreed to the meeting and the request will come if in order for the meeting to happen i think well there's only two ways it could have come about either the team would have asked for it or my private office on my behalf would have asked for it right what is most likely is my

01:07:43 it right what is most likely is my private office recommended it and i said yes that's a good idea i see so at all events whether it was you or your private office the impetus for this meeting had come from you or your department your office i can't

01:07:55 department your office i can't say that that is um absolutely the case do you have any recollection of being told anything about the review of adb approved document b at that briefing i don't recall now before that meeting

01:08:07 now before that meeting you were sent a one-page brief and a set of slides

01:08:11 of slides and i think you addressed that in this paragraph here yes yes just above it yes now let's look at those slides clg one triple zero seven zero two two

01:08:24 uh and as you can see um on page one there is a promising title an introduction to the building regulations did you does this trigger a recollection is this the slide pack you were shown i

01:08:37 is this the slide pack you were shown i i'm sure it is um i don't recall whether i've shown it then or i've seen it since i'm familiar with the document somewhat familiar with the document now right

01:08:46 right i generally can't remember whether i've shown it at that meeting or not when you were sent it did did you look at it uh again i

01:08:54 again i i have seen it i can't remember when i saw it and it would be sent to my private office not to me right but there'd be little point wouldn't there sending it to your private office unless you were going to look at it i would agree with that yes

01:09:05 look at it i would agree with that yes did you

01:09:06 did you i as i say i'm i can't remember i remember having i have seen it and i think it is highly likely that that i was shown it and it would be added to my papers by the private office in which case i would have seen it at the time but i don't

01:09:17 but i don't have a clear memory of when i saw it and what i thought of it at that time um no i'm not going to go through all of these slides with you you'll be glad to hear but let's go to page four and we see there

01:09:29 and we see there a

01:09:31 a photograph and a question why do we have the building regulations now do you recognize the photograph uh yeah well i think i do now but no no at the time i wouldn't have no i think it's

01:09:42 the time i wouldn't have no i think it's rolling point isn't it i'm not sure exactly which building it is

01:09:47 is there's a danger i'll make a mistake if i try and remember the name and it says why do we have the building regulations to deliver basic minimum health and safety standards to protect the public particularly householders

01:09:59 householders and then the last bullet point to provide a cost-effective level playing field for builders and then if you go to page 16

01:10:12 and we can we can run through this document at some length but just picking some points out page 16 key drivers for making changes to the building regulations are and here they are deregulation and simplification supporting government

01:10:25 simplification supporting government policy priorities such as energy efficiency as you can see keeping the system up to date ensuring the regulations and supporting guidance reflect latest technologies building practices and standards and they are

01:10:37 practices and standards and they are operating as intended responding to new issues climate change and implementation of european legislation you see that

01:10:46 at least on that was that something that you understood at the time uh again i don't know i can't remember when i saw this but that those things seem logical points to me

01:10:57 those things seem logical points to me now the only reference we see in in this document to approve document b is page eight

01:11:04 and on page eight uh we can see uh

01:11:11 uh a little heading ensuring bad things don't happen uh

01:11:16 uh and a a sort of montage of pictures do you remember this does this just ring a bell with you again it looks familiar now but i don't recall when i first well it's part a structure

01:11:27 it's part a structure and there is what i would

01:11:30 would suggest is ronan point as a photograph part b fire safety and there's lachnal yeah

01:11:35 yeah part c contamination and moisture and there's england and wales a lot of things as well of interest that's the only reference to part b fire safety

01:11:47 reference to part b fire safety anywhere

01:11:48 anywhere and there's also a reference on page 11 to means of escape um other than the picture the photograph under part b that we've just seen on page eight there's absolutely no mention at all in this

01:11:59 absolutely no mention at all in this document of lachen house um are you able to explain why that is no i didn't prepare this document no i know but are you able to explain now why it is that your officials did not put

01:12:11 it is that your officials did not put anything about lack of house the causes of the fire the fact that six people had died the fact that they'd been an inquest the coroner's recommendations or the secretary of state's promise in response to you in this pack

01:12:23 response to you in this pack no i'm not looking back on it do you consider that surprising yes can you account for it uh how do you mean well can you explain

01:12:34 uh how do you mean well can you explain it no

01:12:37 it no were any concerns raised with you at the time regarding insufficient checking of building work or a race to the bottom arising from a risk of competition in the building control system

01:12:48 system uh there was a there wasn't an ongoing debate around approved inspectors um i remember that being primarily focused on uh it was a combination of sort of the

01:13:00 uh it was a combination of sort of the private competition nature or local authority nature approved inspectors and creating more access for people to do the work

01:13:06 the work and concerns that have been raised i think by parliamentarians with constituent issues about a misunderstanding of the role of an impr approved inspector for example um i remember it being

01:13:18 for example um i remember it being raised that they want there was a view that they should approve the for example if you buy a new house they approved if it's got it's been it's been signed off by an approved inspector you should expect it to be a certain quality where the role of an approved inspector is

01:13:30 the role of an approved inspector is not to do that but to ensure it meets the

01:13:32 the regulatory requirements rather than the aesthetic requirement or whatever it might else it might be that people would want so there was a general public misunderstanding about the role of approved inspectors that was raised on a number of occasions by

01:13:44 raised on a number of occasions by parliamentarians that is insofar as i recall the the debate around that and what was happening on that what was government's response to these concerns at the time

01:13:56 these concerns at the time um

01:13:57 um i think the main concern that was being raised by other mps with me and it was only a handful was actually that there was an issue of misunderstanding of the role of approved inspectors where people thought if they

01:14:08 inspectors where people thought if they bought a house that had been inspected that everything about it would have been inspected rather than it would be inspected for the legal requirements or the requirements of the regulations right

01:14:18 right um i i don't think there was a great body of work to address that it was something we were trying to i remember there was one a german debate in parliament about it it was a matter of trying to explain the role rather than amend it at the time

01:14:30 than amend it at the time thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes yes i think it is um lord orton we have a break halfway through each session and this seems like a good time to have

01:14:40 to have our morning break so we'll stop there we'll resume please at half past 11 and uh i'd ask you as i'd ask all the other witnesses please don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it

01:14:51 your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone when you're out of the room thank you thank you very much would you like to give the our ship please

01:15:09 thank you very much harvest 11 please

01:31:29 would you ask lord warren to come back in please

01:31:34 see keep me running through it

01:31:42 right little what are you ready to carry on

01:31:45 on um before you do can i just enter a little plea that you try to keep your uh

01:31:51 uh speech a bit slower because i think the transcriber is having difficulty sometimes in keeping up with you you're not alone in that i may say apologies of course the stability is as much to blame as you but if you can it would help her

01:32:03 as you but if you can it would help her i'm sure a lot thank you very much yes mr yes mr chairman can we please turn to clg three zeros one nine two seven four

01:32:14 now this is an email sent by bob ledson to your private office on the 28th of may 2015 so two days are following the briefing from mr ledson you see that yes and uh it's

01:32:27 ledson you see that yes and uh it's it says it has an attachment called forward look may cover note 15

01:32:33 15 150528 forward look may 2015. there are two attachments let's look at the first of those which is at clg3019275

01:32:46 and this is the first of the cover notes uh entitled building regulations forward look

01:32:52 look dated 28th may 2015 from bob ledson to you

01:32:56 you uh and uh

01:32:58 uh and uh it's it i think it's fair to say and correct me if i'm wrong that this document sets out um at the very highest and broadest level the priorities of the building regulations division

01:33:09 regulations division yes

01:33:10 yes uh i mean i don't i mean it says it attaches the forward lock up to early autumn i mean it has immediate issues i don't know whether i know it's a signed priority to them well let me try it this way did you did you look at this at the

01:33:22 way did you did you look at this at the time do you think i'm sure i would have yes now if we go down to paragraph four we can see forward look uh the attached table provides a forward look

01:33:32 look up to early autumn immediate issues are and then if you look at them it's decision on way forward on zero carbon response to the proposed changes to the london plan

01:33:43 london plan and then agreeing approach to implementing part of the eu broadband directive

01:33:48 directive and nothing they're about a review of approved document b or the coroner's recommendations following latin house is there no although i would i say i don't recall what i don't remember what i thought at

01:34:00 what i don't remember what i thought at the time but looking at it now i would suggest that five refers to that but you're right it's not um pulled out in the for those bullet points on the point four

01:34:10 four no and looking at point five we will advise also in due course on issues for building regulations in response to government deregulation policy including opportunities for further simplification the timing of

01:34:21 for further simplification the timing of this is as yet unclear however again there's no reference there to a review of approved document b or the coroner's recommendations not specifically no do you recall

01:34:33 not specifically no do you recall discussing that topic the topic of the simplification of approved document b and the building regulations at that meeting uh i don't recall exactly when i

01:34:45 meeting uh i don't recall exactly when i would have discussed it i know it's something i discussed on a number of occasions

01:34:51 do you agree looking at the document because that looks like that's all we've got but any simplification of the building regulations was being presented here in the context of a response to government deregulation policy

01:35:03 policy rather than the coroner's recommendation recommendations from the latino house inquest and in this document yes yes and was that the context of the discussion i don't

01:35:12 i don't recall

01:35:14 recall can you explain why the the simplification of the building regulations was in the context of deregulation rather than the recommendations arising from the inquest

01:35:26 recommendations arising from the inquest no

01:35:28 no let's go to the second attachment

01:35:32 clg30 is 19276 please

01:35:40 and this is a a table entitled building regulations key decisions stroke issues june to october

01:35:49 october and uh

01:35:51 and uh if you

01:35:52 if you look down

01:35:54 look down you can see the fourth item down fourth issue down fire safety

01:36:00 and if you look under the decision column it says publication of discussion document on technical changes to fire safety provisions in building regulations particularly changes needed to follow up previous government

01:36:11 to follow up previous government commitments to the coroner after the latino house fire uh now just on the little i've shown you so far do you recall seeing this document at the time i don't recall this

01:36:22 document at the time i don't recall this document but i would imagine i would have seen it yes and if you look under timing uh in the timing column fourth item done it says end june

01:36:33 it says end june the previous government committed to taking forward to changes needed in response to latin house fire in 2016-17 we would like to issue the discussion document before the summer recess

01:36:45 now

01:36:49 were you um did you note at the timing there of the proposed publication of the of the discussion document i i don't recall you don't recall

01:37:00 don't recall do you remember whether you understood what the technical changes to fire safety provisions were um

01:37:07 um again i don't recall but i wouldn't think that i would understand the technical detail of the changes i was aware that changes there was a proposal to make changes to the document right did you ask i do i don't i don't recall right or did

01:37:19 i do i don't i don't recall right or did you just think that this was for the technical team working your way far below you for them to work out for themselves i don't think i would have thought of it in those terms now not in those terms perhaps which perhaps are a bit stark but did you think

01:37:30 bit stark but did you think to yourself at the time i'd like to understand these technical changes because they're to do with fire safety or do you think i don't need to understand these technical changes to fire safety because i'm not really qualified to do so and there are better

01:37:41 qualified to do so and there are better people qualified i i don't recall what was your general approach to me when you were presented with things that were described as technical um i don't think i had a general approach for things described as technical my

01:37:54 things described as technical my view of this is that there was a proposed piece of work that would improve simplify address issues that had been raised with one of the documents uh there was a plan for that work to be undertaken and i

01:38:06 for that work to be undertaken and i followed the advice of officials and approved where appropriate progress towards delivering that that end right in the right-hand column as you can see

01:38:17 in the right-hand column as you can see the author of this document bob ledson had set out the fact that previous government had committed to taking forward changes needed

01:38:26 needed changes needed in response to latino house fire in 2016-17

01:38:32 2016-17 did you ask what the changes were that were needed i don't recall did you not want to know exactly what the previous government had committed to i i'm not saying i didn't ask i'm saying i don't

01:38:43 saying i didn't ask i'm saying i don't remember

01:38:48 to the best of your recollection at the time

01:38:51 time was it your understanding that the review involved changes to technical requirements um and as i say i'm i'm my my nervousness is that i don't want

01:39:02 my my nervousness is that i don't want to apply what i think now and and reinterpret what i what i do remember of my my view at the time but i think my view at the time would have been that um as it was briefed was going to take place there would be a simplification

01:39:13 place there would be a simplification and amendments made that were in line with the requirements so some would be technical and some would be simplification i think there's the issues of cross-referencing and it'd be a complicated document to read and so on as well so it would be a mix of changes

01:39:25 as well so it would be a mix of changes and there was a proposal for a process under which that would be that work would be undertaken and the deadline as we can see and i'm assuming you understood because it's clear was end of

01:39:36 understood because it's clear was end of june

01:39:37 june 2015. the proposal for publishing a discussion document i think was before the recess yes yes did you come to appreciate that it was in order that the scope of the review of

01:39:48 in order that the scope of the review of adb could be determined that there should be this discussion document uh again i mean that i think that is that is my understanding i can't recall exactly what i understood at the time and the impression that i do distinctly

01:40:01 and the impression that i do distinctly remember having was that this was a a quite a comprehensive piece of work it wasn't just some small changes it was a significant body of work needed to be undertaken to properly review and amend this document did you

01:40:14 review and amend this document did you at this time and at any event before the summer recess asked bob ledson or anybody else in the department how work was progressing on the discussion document i i know that a number of times

01:40:25 document i i know that a number of times the progress of the overall review was something that i asked questions about i can't tell you specifically what questions i asked about this document i don't recall were you aware at the time

01:40:36 aware at the time that progressing the review of adb was at least in the minds of the officials in the department contingent upon publishing this discussion document again uh

01:40:46 again uh that would make sense to me i think you know in order to in order to have a review process one of the first things you do is talk to stakeholders about what should or should not be included in that so

01:40:57 included in that so yes that makes sense but i don't remember exactly what my unsettling order was at the time or the discussions that i had at the time right when it says the previous government committed to taking forward changes by

01:41:09 to taking forward changes by 2016-2017 did you ask about what those commitments were in any detail again i don't recall the specific discussion that followed from this document did you ask

01:41:19 ask then or about that time how work was progressing to deliver on those commitments by the deadline 2016-17 uh whilst i know that on a number of occasions i asked what about progress with this process

01:41:31 what about progress with this process overall

01:41:33 overall i don't know whether it was in reference specifically to that deadline and at some point i suspect it became clear that this would this work was taking longer than it should and i would imagine that that

01:41:44 it should and i would imagine that that discussion included that but again i don't not recalling having seen this specific document i don't recall exactly what followed from it um

01:41:52 um you can see it says 2016-17 what did you understand by that

01:41:58 by that i would my understanding of that would be that that gives the the time frame in which a lot of the completion work on this document would be expected and it should be completed by the end of 2017. so i would read that effectively as no

01:42:10 so i would read that effectively as no later than the end of 2017. i see melanie dawes told us as i think did others

01:42:16 others bob led some that that meant uh end of the financial year 2016 17 so end of march 2017. was that not your understanding that wouldn't be my understanding but i

01:42:27 understanding but i it's possible it's not written in the terms so does that mean that um the

01:42:33 the deadline would be anything between the 1st of january 2016 and the 31st of december 2017 in your mind i would say that the way that's written is open to that interpretation yes right did you

01:42:45 that interpretation yes right did you have any

01:42:46 have any feeling in your mind about what a little bit more precisely than a two-year period was indicated or intended

01:42:54 intended by a target date uh no i knew it was a comprehensive piece of work um and that it it would require

01:43:02 require a significant commitment of resources but it was one that we had agreed to undertake

01:43:06 undertake and

01:43:07 and at that that deadline was was set out to me in this document and i think in others but i didn't have a more granular feeling for it than that right

01:43:19 looking at this document are you surprised now sitting there that this document or documentation set sent to you which was intended to give you a high level overview of the most

01:43:30 high level overview of the most important

01:43:31 important issues in the building regulations division

01:43:34 division the technical changes to fire safety provisions relating to government commitments was buried away in the fourth line of this table a second attachment to an email not highlighted in the briefing note or

01:43:46 not highlighted in the briefing note or in the covering email yes i am can you explain how come no i i didn't uh write the document i could speculate but it's not i i can't say why it was set out the way it's been

01:43:57 say why it was set out the way it's been set out i mean do you accept that this project should have been front of front and center of the issues upon which your mind was to be concentrated yes not least because it was safety critical safety and critical and a timeline had

01:44:09 safety and critical and a timeline had been given yes absolutely does this reflect the department's overall attitude to the importance of this project i i can't say

01:44:21 i mean does this tell us that

01:44:24 that amendment of approved document b important though it was to life safety had been allowed to sink into the morass of other priorities competing for air in the stifling atmosphere of deregulation

01:44:36 deregulation again i may not use those terms but i would agree that this is not given the prominence that looking at it now i would expect it to have been given in the briefings that i received

01:44:47 received now let's go to clg one triple zero seven zero three four

01:44:54 this uh is an email from your private office

01:44:57 office following the briefing dated 28th of may 2015

01:45:04 2015 and if we go to page two uh

01:45:08 uh we can see

01:45:12 that

01:45:15 there's an email there is an email from your office to bob ledson 26th of may 2015. hi bob thanks for briefing the minister earlier to follow up the minister would like a short note which covers a forward look of key

01:45:27 which covers a forward look of key issues

01:45:29 issues which will arise over the next few months key bodies that we should set up meetings with and if possible how pressing it is to meet with each of them it would also be great if you could send up the existing one page of summaries you mentioned

01:45:40 you mentioned now if we go back to the to the top of that thread of that email run um we can see that on the 28th of may 2015 bob ledson emailed sally randle

01:45:53 2015 bob ledson emailed sally randle with an attachment called a war book 2015

01:45:57 2015 importance high and he says here are the one pages we've prepared on difficult issues there's an intervening email which i don't think i need to show you um and

01:46:09 don't think i need to show you um and you could see the war book referred to what i want to do is show you show you the war book and ask if you had seen it before clg one triple zero seven zero three five

01:46:19 five page two

01:46:29 and here is the document fire safety part b and sprinklers background stroke issue while the number of fires and fire casualties continue to fall year on year fire safety in buildings remains an area where

01:46:41 buildings remains an area where government is continually pressed to do more

01:46:45 more now did you read this document at the time do you think i don't recall but it's likely and the the overall impression that it gives accords with what i feel was the impression i had of this uh

01:46:56 impression i had of this uh part of work at that time well the statistics told you that all was well but some people weren't satisfied and were putting pressure on um i certainly i certainly remember distinctly being told that fire death by fire was

01:47:09 told that fire death by fire was reducing year on year and that the current system was working well who told you that i don't recall was it one of your officials or somebody one of my officials i was told within the department but i don't it was the over

01:47:21 department but i don't it was the over overarching impression i had of the way the building regulations was operating from the advice that i received was that there were as a set of documents an area of policy working well but there was work proposed to make

01:47:33 but there was work proposed to make improvements if it was working well did it occur to you to seek to identify why improvements were made and what improvements were needed well um no i mean i i was aware that there was

01:47:44 no i mean i i was aware that there was proposal for simplification and response to the the coroner's letter i can't recall exactly when i became aware of that

01:47:50 that but the impression that i was given throughout was this was a system that was doing its job but there were changes planned that would make it better

01:48:00 the system that was doing its job how did you relate that impression on the one hand

01:48:06 one hand to the coroner's recommendations so far as you knew what they were on the other as i say that there were changes that could be made that could improve it but nonetheless that it was fit for purpose

01:48:18 nonetheless that it was fit for purpose as it was as i inherited this as a responsible minister at the time you say there were changes that were made made that

01:48:24 that could improve it at the time um making improving changes to approve document b i think you would accept wasn't something that the department would do

01:48:35 something that the department would do without some need to do so um well

01:48:40 um well my understanding was that there would be a complex piece of work that would take into account a number of factors that may lead to a better outcome better documents at the end of that work so

01:48:51 documents at the end of that work so there was a plan to undertake that work what i wasn't under the impression of is that there was something obvious and straightforward that should be done immediately to i mean i'm paraphrasing my view at the time so the impression i

01:49:02 my view at the time so the impression i the impression i had was this is a system that is working but where there might be improvements that we can make and there are things that we should take into account we have a plan for doing that

01:49:12 that i'm just seeking to understand how you could have that impression given that six people had died in 2009 and the inquest the coroner had recommended had recommended what i've shown you in her recommendations letter

01:49:24 shown you in her recommendations letter and that had been responded to by government and was your impression that all was well with adb and that these changes were

01:49:32 were just for the sake of improving it on the one hand or was your impression that changes were needed to adb because six people had died as a result of a defect in the regulations or at least a potential defect in the regulations my

01:49:44 potential defect in the regulations my impression was that adb was working well but there were lessons that could be drawn from that in that tragic incident and that there was a process being proposed by which that work would be undertaken but that it is not a

01:49:56 undertaken but that it is not a straightforward thing to do and it's a complex area and that would take time and require quite a considerable amount of engagement consultation and thought you will appreciate and this is a view that i i would have had at the time i

01:50:08 that i i would have had at the time i would think that making the wrong changes could have a detrimental effect to something that on the evidence that was being presented to me

01:50:15 to me was resulting in reductions in the number of deaths by fire year on year so it's important to get it right did you have any thoughts about what the statistics actually represented

01:50:26 statistics actually represented that although fire deaths were falling year on year in

01:50:31 in the sense of frequency those statistics told you nothing about severity the kinds of incidents in which people were dying all the kinds of incidents in which they weren't dying

01:50:42 incidents in which they weren't dying but where risk was building up the impression i was given and i relied on the advice that i was getting is that things were improving year on year and that was a sign that what was in place

01:50:54 that was a sign that what was in place at that time was working well

01:50:59 now you have no training as a statistician or or any kind of risk assessment or analysis no i don't and i will i would i mean i'm sure again i don't recall what specific

01:51:10 again i don't recall what specific questions i asked i'm sure there will be questions that i would ask but the impression i came away with which i do recall is that this was a system that was working right

01:51:19 right excuse me right now can we go to page two

01:51:22 two uh uh under the heading issues straight decisions for new ministers and we need to scroll down to the fourth bullet point down there and it says this there is ongoing albeit unfocused concern about the impacts of

01:51:34 unfocused concern about the impacts of modern construction methods and materials which is in bold particularly the wider use of combustible fame insulation and wood based products which can often result in larger fires

01:51:46 now you say you would have seen this document at the time so can we take it that you would have seen

01:51:52 seen that ongoing but unfocused concern articulated there yes yes were you told in may 2015

01:52:03 were you told in may 2015 of this specific concern regarding combustible foam insulation often resulting in bigger fires i don't

01:52:10 i don't i don't recall it having drawn specifically to my attention i mean clearly it's mentioned in this document um

01:52:16 um but

01:52:17 but i don't at any time remember it being raised with me as an issue of particular concern or or salient to the department or

01:52:25 or with an urgency around it right

01:52:28 right were you told at any time about any concern anybody in the department had

01:52:35 had about the use of combustible foam insulation by the industry on buildings above 18 meters i don't recall having ever had a discussion to that effect you were never told that there was uh some evidence of widespread

01:52:47 uh some evidence of widespread non-compliance in high-rise buildings again i don't remember i don't remember being told that now

01:52:54 that now it

01:52:55 it can we take it or are we to what we see in that bullet point there is the sum total you were told about a looming problem discovered by your officials about the potentially widespread use of combustible insulation

01:53:07 widespread use of combustible insulation materials above 18 meters i certainly don't i don't recall any more focus being given to it or attention drawn to it than is represented in that document it may have been mentioned in other documents that i received over the

01:53:18 documents that i received over the course of my time there but i think that accurately reflects the um

01:53:24 um extent to which it was drawn to my attention right are you able to account as the minister responsible for this department and this piece of regulation and guidance how it was that your officials failed to bring

01:53:37 was that your officials failed to bring to your attention in plain terms a potentially endemic fire safety risk to thousands of occupants of high-rise buildings up and down the country no i'm not

01:53:48 not and then below that there's another bullet point it says a key decision for ministers will be to decide whether only life safety benefits are considered in deciding the effectiveness of fire safety provisions

01:54:00 safety provisions what was that what was your understanding of what that was um i don't recall did it mean to you at the time that the review would be focused and narrowed down only to those affecting life safety

01:54:11 down only to those affecting life safety i i certainly don't recall having ever made a decision along those lines um i would think reading it now that it means that as part of the process we were talking about there were decisions decisions to be taken about where the

01:54:22 decisions to be taken about where the focus should be and what the final document should look like but in my time we never got to that stage

01:54:29 stage can we then go to um clg 30s 19294 brack

01:54:39 what i'm showing you here is a minute of a meeting on the 17th of june

01:54:44 june 2015

01:54:47 2015 of a brac meeting

01:54:52 and

01:54:55 if we go to item three on page two

01:55:02 it it says building regulations minister james wharton visits brac uh now um and it then goes on at 3.1 the chairman welcomed the minister and provided an introduction to brac focused

01:55:14 provided an introduction to brac focused on the diversity of expertise and experience of the committee and the range of areas covered from across the construction industry do you remember being present at this meeting vaguely vaguely

01:55:26 meeting vaguely vaguely um

01:55:27 um do you remember whether you stayed for the whole of the meeting or only item three

01:55:32 three i don't recall but i would expect i stayed for only item three right and item three two starts like this in response to questions on the four policy items identified to this gender item the

01:55:44 items identified to this gender item the main focus of the discussion that followed was and then the first three bullet points are about you and what you're saying thanking the committee welcoming informal engagement saying you

01:55:56 informal engagement saying you previously worked on warm front so aware of the possible issues relating to zero carbon buildings and and some q a and then if you turn to the top of page three

01:56:11 um the last bullet point under this section item three is the minister welcomed back's views and ideas on areas for future consideration and requested that the committee write to him formally on the areas disgust

01:56:22 to him formally on the areas disgust do you think you left at that point i think i don't want to deal with i don't recall but i think it's quite possible right okay now um if we go to page seven

01:56:34 page seven let's see if you were there for this um item 10 part b update officials provided an update on the research relating to part b safety

01:56:48 uh and then at 10.4 uh

01:56:53 uh if you go to 10.4 on page 8.

01:56:56 8. it was confirmed that a review of part b was still planned though this had yet to be signed off by the new ministers on the assumption that a review of part b will go ahead brac members were asked to express an

01:57:07 brac members were asked to express an interest in taking part in a part b working group and various people then volunteered um were you there for that part of the meeting i don't think so as i said i

01:57:18 meeting i don't think so as i said i don't remember the meeting in detail but no i think i it was in my first meeting with brac i think and i i went to introduce myself say hello to meet them and and that was my role in the meeting

01:57:29 and and that was my role in the meeting i don't think i stayed throughout okay did you get did you receive this minute though to confirm or get your view on what is stated about what your role was there was was accurate i don't remember

01:57:42 um

01:57:45 what was your understanding at the time of what needed to be signed off by you as at june 2015 is this the 10.4 part b

01:57:56 as at june 2015 is this the 10.4 part b you're referring to the um part b work

01:57:59 work uh in relation to the review of approved argument b what was your understanding what

01:58:06 what signed off i don't remember what my understanding was at the time did you ask at the time well what is the progress on the discussion document given that the deadline is the end of this month june

01:58:18 deadline is the end of this month june i know i asked on a number of occasions what was happening with the review of part b overall i don't recall whether i asked specifically about that deadline and that document

01:58:29 deadline and that document did you ask whether you were whether your officials were still on track to get that stage the discussion document completed by the deadline at the end of june again i i asked on a number of occasions

01:58:41 i asked on a number of occasions what the progress was or why there was delay i don't recall whether i specifically asked about individual deadlines or exactly which time i i made those requests or ask

01:58:52 time i i made those requests or ask those questions at this stage june

01:58:55 june 2015 how long did you expect the review of part b to take to complete and be signed off by you i i don't recall was it clear in your mind following your briefing that we've seen and

01:59:07 your briefing that we've seen and the fourth line in the table we looked at

01:59:10 at at the end of may that um that this would happen by 2016-17 i see no reason that i would have had to question that or doubt that so

01:59:22 question that or doubt that so i would assume so but i i don't recall the detail of what i thought at that time do you remember having any feel at the time for whether that was achievable given that the discussion document has yet not even been agreed

01:59:34 has yet not even been agreed um

01:59:35 um sorry i'm a little confused by the timeline if

01:59:40 i can't i don't recall when i became aware that the discussion document had not been agreed but i think at the time of this meeting i was still expecting the discussion document i don't know i'm not aware of having been told that it was delayed at this stage

01:59:53 had you discussed the time frame the deadline 2016 to 17 at this time with bob ledson or anybody else i don't recall

02:00:04 now when the discussion document sorry if i just i'm interested to add that i would expect that insofar as i discussed the work that was going to be undertaken to part b the time frame would have been set out to me as part of

02:00:15 would have been set out to me as part of that so i whilst i don't recall having specifically asked the question almost certainly it would have been part of the discussion that we had and i would have relied on the advice i was given right now um at this point though

02:00:27 given right now um at this point though let me just say that we're clear were you still expecting the discussion document to be presented to you for sign off by the end of that month june 2015 i would expect so yes right

02:00:39 right and certainly nobody had told you at that stage that it wasn't going to happen is can we take it not that i remember no no now um

02:00:47 now um the end of june 2015 came and went without the discussion document coming across your desk for signature i think that that as a matter of record is correct isn't it yes

02:00:58 is correct isn't it yes um when it didn't appear before the end of june 2015 did you make inquiries as to why that was um i don't recall i remember making inquiries about the progress of that piece of work as i

02:01:09 the progress of that piece of work as i say on a number of occasions i don't recall exactly when i asked or exactly which whether i asked in a granular sense about individual stages of the work that was proposed now the inquiries heard evidence that in

02:01:20 now the inquiries heard evidence that in the summer of 2015 a decision had been made by department officials to include the review of approved document b into a wider review of building regulations policy

02:01:32 building regulations policy and the reason that the inquiry has been given for that is that it was more likely

02:01:36 likely that deregulation could be identified to balance out the regulation likely to follow from the review of approved document b that's what we were told by bob ledson

02:01:47 bob ledson in his

02:01:48 in his witness statement now were you aware of that decision i think i recall at some point being aware of it it was it was put to me that a bigger a more comprehensive and larger

02:01:59 a bigger a more comprehensive and larger piece of work would be an appropriate way to approach the issue and i think i was agreeable to that um whether i was aware of it in those terms i don't remember do you remember having

02:02:10 do you remember having even an outline a discussion with bob ledson about it i don't remember having a discussion with bob let bob led some about it uh specifically i remember that i became i was made aware so it was either in a briefing document or in a

02:02:21 either in a briefing document or in a discussion that the proposal was for a comprehensive piece of work that was it would explain to me at the time why that was the case and i remember being agreeable to that as it seemed a sensible way to proceed and and

02:02:34 seemed a sensible way to proceed and and i was relying on the advice of those who were

02:02:36 were experts in this area who said that is the right way to deal with this this piece of work did it occur to you that by

02:02:43 by locating the review of approved document b within a wider review of building regulations more generally and building control more generally that would slow the process down and delay the commitment made by the

02:02:56 and delay the commitment made by the previous secretary of state to the coroner um i i don't recall specifically the discussion but that that would make sense however my view at the time was would have been that it is important

02:03:07 was would have been that it is important to do the work properly and if the advice from officials is that it should be a comprehensive piece of work taking into account a number of other factors that nonetheless that interlink can interact and it's better to do the work right than to set off on a piece of work

02:03:19 right than to set off on a piece of work that will be incomplete and shouldn't be taken in isolation well

02:03:24 was that your understanding namely that in order to get the review of adb right you need to do a you needed to do a much wider review of the building regulations

02:03:36 wider review of the building regulations including parts which were not to do with fire safety and building control generally yes who told you that i don't recall but that was my understanding i'd like to understand the basis of that understanding i i i

02:03:48 understanding i i i i can only i can only offer up the the sort of logic and the advice that i was given at the time which was that needed these documents which should be taken as a whole um there is interaction between them there were there are issues around

02:04:00 them there were there are issues around if you're going to look at issues of safety you look you would logically look at issues of inspection and how the system works um i don't recall exactly when and in what form that discussion takes place but i

02:04:12 form that discussion takes place but i would be uh was agreeable to a broader piece of work in order to as i would perceive it and would advise at the time do the work properly um rather than to do something in isolation and possibly

02:04:23 do something in isolation and possibly not get the best outcome the reason as i said to you that

02:04:30 that that decision was taken as bob ledson says it was that it was by doing that more likely that deregulation which would necessarily

02:04:42 the deregulation could be identified to balance out the regulation that which would necessarily follow from adb in other words adb was folded into a wider review of

02:04:53 adb was folded into a wider review of building regulations and building control generally in order to cater for the effect of the deregulatory policy the one in two out and then one in three out of gender

02:05:05 and then one in three out of gender was that the basis of your understanding uh that doesn't sound familiar to me i would

02:05:11 would it if there was an opportunity to deregulate in a way that wouldn't have a negative impact i would see that as a welcome thing to attempt to do but my understanding is as i said i set out to you that the proper way to

02:05:23 i set out to you that the proper way to do this

02:05:24 do this was comprehensively and thoroughly and i on that basis understood that was what was being proposed right now you said in your statement as we've seen i don't need to go back to it with

02:05:36 seen i don't need to go back to it with you but you can't conceive you said that the deregulatory agenda could possibly have obstructed changes to regulations or guidance relating to fire safety that was

02:05:44 was paragraph 18 of your statement given what bob ledson has said as i've put to you do you accept that it was precisely because of at least in his and his official's mind

02:05:55 his official's mind because of the deregulatory agenda uh policy that the decision was taken to subsume the review of approved document b into a wider review of building regulations and building control in

02:06:07 regulations and building control in order to attempt to and to achieve a net zero cost

02:06:11 zero cost to the regulatory changes i don't recall that being my understanding um

02:06:17 um did you understand um

02:06:21 um that the coroner's recommendations couldn't be adequately addressed without a complete review

02:06:28 so again i to the best of my recollection and it is six or seven years ago um my understanding was that the appropriate way to make amendments was

02:06:39 appropriate way to make amendments was to do a more comprehensive review taking into account a number of factors that were important to get the right outcome um against a backdrop of which i've been told the current system is working well there are improvements you need to make

02:06:51 there are improvements you need to make i was i was then given to understand that the best way to do that was comprehensively and i felt that that was a reasonable way to proceed

02:07:04 did you ever ask yourself or ask your officials the question if we're going to fold the review of approved document b into a wider review of building regulations and building

02:07:15 of building regulations and building control

02:07:20 why is that necessary or how will that leave

02:07:23 leave the promise to address the coroner's recommendations by 2016 2017

02:07:29 2017 so i don't recall the specific questions i asked i will certainly have asked why are we doing this or why is this being proposed

02:07:35 proposed and as i say the the understanding that i was left with was that in order to do this properly it should take account of more factors than just those in in the one document and my view

02:07:47 and my view was would be that it's important to get the right outcome and to get a document that's fit for purpose at the end of this process and so i would be generally supportive of that advice that i was being great i mean

02:07:58 mean can you

02:08:00 can you give us an insight into why it would be that bob ledson would not tell you that the reason why he had decided that it was a good thing to fold the the review of approved

02:08:11 to fold the the review of approved document b into a wider review was for the in order to serve the the regulatory agenda why wouldn't he tell you that i don't know i don't recall

02:08:23 you that i don't know i don't recall having been told that and if that was the purpose i would expect to see that reflected in a submission or document to that effect as far as i recall i was advised this was the right and

02:08:34 i was advised this was the right and proper way to do get the right outcome of what was a complex piece of work and relying on that advice i was supportive of that approach

02:08:54 are you able to account for how your officials appear to have not only misunderstood the scope of the deregulatory agenda as you would have it um but to have

02:09:05 as you would have it um but to have used their understanding to justify a wider review which would necessarily delay the execution and delivery of the promise made by the previous secretary of state to the

02:09:17 the previous secretary of state to the coroner um i'm not um but my understanding of the purpose of a wider review was to get the best possible outcome um and because again as far as i can remember the deregulatory agenda was not raised as a

02:09:29 deregulatory agenda was not raised as a blocking issue with me with respect to this

02:09:32 this i suspect therefore we didn't explore it and i didn't if i wasn't told this is the this is the real reason we are doing this minister then i wouldn't ask why i mean does it help me with this does it

02:09:44 i mean does it help me with this does it come to this that either you're wrong and your deregulatory agenda cared not at all for the regulation of life safety or your right but you and your ministerial predecessors had

02:09:56 and your ministerial predecessors had allowed your officials to labor under a fatal misapprehension uh

02:10:02 uh i should i don't know whether those are the only two possible interpretations of the facts i'd i don't think it's for me to choose between them uh well can you think of a third well as i say

02:10:13 well as i say my did

02:10:15 my did my understanding was that that was not the reason for the decision to do a more comprehensive review had anybody said to me at the time this is why we are proposing this longer piece of work than i would have asked questions about it and i'd have expected

02:10:27 questions about it and i'd have expected that to be reflected in the submissions i received which would say we are proposing to a more comprehensive piece of work because of the deregulatory agenda rather than for other reasons um now i don't recall having seen anything to that effect

02:10:38 to that effect but that is the extent of my memory of of what took place i don't really feel i should speculate further um because i'm i can tell you what i remember and and the facts as i recall them i i don't have a

02:10:50 them i i don't have a fully formed view on on how the policy should have interacted and what went wrong that is with respect to chairman the purpose of parliament part of this inquiry oh i yes

02:11:01 oh i yes you're right about what we're doing but i'm just seeking to see if you can account as in explain and perhaps take responsibility for what appears to have been a fundamental misunderstanding between what you

02:11:12 misunderstanding between what you thought about the regulatory agenda and what your officials have told us they thought

02:11:16 thought now

02:11:17 now lord wharton i suggested to you two alternatives and you suggested that there might that might not be the universe of possibilities

02:11:28 not be the universe of possibilities uh i asked you for a third i don't think you were able to give us one i'll suggest one and see what you make of it and be

02:11:34 and be frank about this are your officials now when they're giving evidence to the inquiry just blowing up the regulatory agenda out of all proportion as an excuse to cover up for their glacial progress

02:11:47 for their glacial progress i haven't i don't know i've no reason to question or doubt any of the evidence that the officials have given to this inquiry now let's move on in time september 2015. can we go please to clg three

02:11:59 2015. can we go please to clg three zeros one nine three zero one

02:12:04 this is uh uh an email sent by richard harrell on the 15th of the september 2015 to your private office and that of the secretary of state

02:12:15 and that of the secretary of state yes

02:12:16 yes yes yes

02:12:18 yes yes and it's copied to peter scofield sally randall and bob ledson and the subject is building regulations review and there are some attachments

02:12:28 uh and uh the

02:12:32 uh uh the category is printed i'm not quite sure that whether that tells it it tells us that it had to be printed for you but um what is what does that mean i don't know you don't know um

02:12:46 and the topic as you can see is proposals for a productivity review of building control now did would you have read this at the time do you think uh i would think so yes uh oh

02:12:58 yes uh oh this looks like this is an email to my it's gone to my assist then assistant private secretary uh so i wouldn't have seen this email unless it was saying that it was printed for me and perhaps it was i don't recall

02:13:09 for me and perhaps it was i don't recall if it was put in front of me i would have read it right

02:13:13 right uh now um

02:13:14 uh now um i've assumed that you have read the submission at the time on the basis of what you say in your first statement about it or generally and you say in your first statement of paragraph 16 i would

02:13:25 statement of paragraph 16 i would ordinarily read submissions and annexes in their entirety when submitted to me my apologies i think i wouldn't have read this email it strikes me that the document that's attached to it is what i would have read um and the email to me

02:13:37 would have read um and the email to me looks like effectively a copy and paste or summary of that submission but it's the submission not the email that would have been given to me to read i follow let's just look at the recommendation in the email and then

02:13:49 the email and then take it in stages if you

02:13:52 if you look at

02:13:54 look at the recommendation in the second bullet point under it paragraph three second bullet it says this agree to the simplification program proposed for statutory guidance stroke approved

02:14:06 for statutory guidance stroke approved documents and the outline program of work to cover the review to review technical requirements of the building regulations annex b

02:14:14 now you may not have read that as you say but you would have read the annex can we look at the submission clg 3019302

02:14:26 it's also dated the 15th of september 2015.

02:14:29 2015. it comes from richard harrell and it goes to you and greg clark yes yes yes it carries the same title and it has a summary

02:14:40 and it has a summary can we take it that you would have read this document if not the covering yes i would yes thank you now um if we go to page three

02:14:48 at the top of page three it says this phase one simplification program to october 2017 work two minimize complexity and quantity of statutory guidance

02:15:00 quantity of statutory guidance simplify and harmonize guidance to improve ease of use and legibility consolidate the building regulations to improve clarity and ease of application and an ambitious program to move the

02:15:11 and an ambitious program to move the approved documents fully online we estimate

02:15:14 estimate this could potentially deliver 10 million pounds or more in annual savings to industry and then phase two to october 2019 detailed review of statutory guidance in

02:15:26 detailed review of statutory guidance in key approved documents with a view to achieving deregulation where possible and to ensure technical guidance is otherwise fit for purpose and cost effective we cannot estimate savings at this time but the building control

02:15:37 this time but the building control review in 2013 achieved deregulatory savings of 53 million pounds per annum and similar overall savings might be reasonably expected from this process

02:15:47 now if you go to paragraph 11 on the same page

02:15:50 same page just look down with me if you would at the bold in the last part of that paragraph it says do you agree that we should work up the proposals for phase one and phase two as part of a discussion paper for publication later

02:16:02 discussion paper for publication later this year and for formal consultation next year

02:16:07 next year before i ask you about that

02:16:11 that i'd like to look at annex b with you

02:16:14 with you because this is a submission so we've seen the email here's the submission now we go to nxb this is at clg3019304

02:16:26 so we're now digging deep into the document you were sent and xb is entitled simplifying statutory guidance in the approved documents and reviewing technical requirements and if you go um

02:16:39 and if you go um to

02:16:39 to page three at the bottom

02:16:51 we can see that the work involved in phase two

02:16:55 phase two it was entitled reviewing technical requirements of the building regulations and if we go to page four we can see under the review of technical requirements page four

02:17:06 page four under the second heading there review of technical requirements of approved guidance

02:17:11 guidance that work would include in the first bullet point end-to-end review of the technical requirements in the approved documents and if you go to paragraph five

02:17:22 and if you go to paragraph five that's then spelt out in more detail it would not be possible to undertake in-depth review of all of the technical requirements for all of the approved documents during this parliament alongside emerging government priorities

02:17:33 alongside emerging government priorities energy efficiency of existing buildings broadband et cetera see below we therefore propose developing and publishing a new long-term timetable for review of specific parts to provide industry with certainty and allow dclg

02:17:45 industry with certainty and allow dclg to program substantive work streams with the resources available and then if we go to page six paragraph ten we can see their proposed program of

02:17:56 we can see their proposed program of work

02:17:57 work we need to set out a program which maximizes deregulation whilst also meeting existing and emerging obligations the building regulations and standards division is already committed in principle to a number of activities

02:18:09 in principle to a number of activities specifically part b

02:18:12 fire safety and then it goes on as follows

02:18:15 follows the previous sos secretary of state committed to undertaking review and simplification of part b following the lachnal house disaster which was critical of the clarity and format of

02:18:26 critical of the clarity and format of existing guidance which it was suggested contributed to a number of deaths there are also a number of technical issues which recent research identifies as requiring attention in order to protect life safety

02:18:38 life safety and then i'm sorry to show you so much of this before coming to a question but if we look at page seven we find the time table

02:18:48 and under phase one the timetable runs from october 2015 to october 2017 yes

02:18:56 yes and phase one is simplification exercise with

02:19:00 with parts e

02:19:02 parts e sound g water safety and efficiency h waste and r uh broadband included there yes yes now you can see from what i've just read to you that the review of adb

02:19:14 just read to you that the review of adb isn't included in phase one is it apart from uh the simplification exercise uh correct yes yes and you can see from phase two larger

02:19:25 and you can see from phase two larger scale deregulation october 2015 to october 2019 so that's a four year span there we see part b technical review listed yes yes now did you note at the

02:19:38 listed yes yes now did you note at the time when you saw this document that the date for publication of the discussion document

02:19:43 document had been pushed back to sometime later this year

02:19:46 this year from the by the summer recess or end of june uh i don't recall or i specifically noticed at the time but i was aware there was delay right did you ask why there was a delay i don't recall

02:19:58 i don't recall can you explain why the review had evolved into two parts phases one and two with the two ending in october 2019 even on your time scale almost two years after the last date promised by the

02:20:10 after the last date promised by the secretary of state so i i can't remember how it was explained to me at the time or to what extent it was um if i were to attempt to explain it would be that it's a larger and more complex piece of work

02:20:21 larger and more complex piece of work than than was initially envisaged as we we've discussed and i looked at it and it's not clear now when i look at this document it would appear that phase two is running in parallel with phase one so it's not that the complete phase one then start phase

02:20:33 the complete phase one then start phase two this would this would to my reading now and as i say whilst i accept i saw this at the time i don't recall the detail of the discussions i had um would appear that the technical review is starting at the same time as phase one

02:20:44 starting at the same time as phase one but it's a bigger and longer piece of work which wouldn't necessarily surprise me right

02:20:52 it looks from the the body of nxb here and the timeline here that no work on adb apart from simplification was envisaged in favor phase one for adb

02:21:03 was envisaged in favor phase one for adb uh well that that's triggered phase one would appear to run at the same in parallel with phase two on those timelines

02:21:13 in what phase one or two as you understood it at the time was the work to be done that would address the coroner's recommendations i i don't recall the detail of my understanding at the time did you ask

02:21:24 understanding at the time did you ask that question i don't remember and we have no evidence that you did can we take it that you didn't no i don't remember um from the documents that i've seen there

02:21:35 from the documents that i've seen there are

02:21:36 are a large segment of activity for which there isn't evidence it doesn't mean that they didn't take place no i understand i mean when you say i don't remember do you remember i don't remember doing it one way or the other i might have done or i don't recall doing it and therefore

02:21:48 i don't recall doing it and therefore i'm confident now that i didn't the former in as much as i would use the words that you've chosen but this was

02:21:55 this was six or seven years ago and i don't remember the detail of the discussions that i had at that time was it nonetheless clear in your mind at the time

02:22:02 the time having seen this document that the deadline remained 2016 to 17 for delivering on the promises to the coroner um it would appear clear from this document that that deadline was no longer going to be

02:22:13 that deadline was no longer going to be delivered on did you have any thoughts about where that left the public commitment by the previous secretary of state i don't recall i know that i understood

02:22:25 i don't recall i know that i understood there was delay and so

02:22:28 and so yes i would understand that that would therefore mean and i remember being at various stages frustrated by some of the delay

02:22:34 delay but uh the extent to which i then uh if you drew the pattern through the line between that and the commitment in the rest of the coroner i don't i don't recall i i just knew that the work

02:22:45 recall i i just knew that the work needed to be undertaken i'd been told that it the best way to do it was more comprehensively and this is what i was presented with as a

02:22:53 a summary and in order to get agreement to the work that was being proposed if we

02:22:59 if we go back to page six of this document paragraph 10 we see there

02:23:07 under part b as i've read to you um

02:23:11 um a reference to the latin house disaster now

02:23:14 now correct me if i'm wrong lord warden but this is the first reference in any submission to you about the latino house fire the inquest and the recommendations made we saw reference in the

02:23:25 saw reference in the um

02:23:26 um in the fourth line of the document in the june but this is the first time we can see a submission on that did this submission prompt you to ask

02:23:37 prompt you to ask or to see exactly what the recommendations were i don't recall right

02:23:43 right were you not interested when you were told here that the previous secretary of state had made a commitment to undertaking a review and simplification of part b following the national house disaster etc did you not want to at

02:23:54 disaster etc did you not want to at least look at what the

02:23:57 what the coroner's recommendations were that the secretary of state had committed to

02:24:02 to as i say i had a number of discussions and briefings and documents and so on about this of course i was interested in it i don't recall the specific questions i asked

02:24:14 the specific questions i asked or what they were or which parts of it i asked questions about as a result of getting this particular submission right i mean

02:24:21 i mean would you agree looking at it the the submission here is setting out the fact that the existing guidance had attracted criticism from the coroner following the latter house fire

02:24:34 yes yes and that it was suggested by the coroner that the guidance may have contributed to the number of deaths sorry to a number of deaths yes yes

02:24:45 number of deaths yes yes and that there were technical issues live issues that required attention in order to protect life safety yes that's correct did you not wonder why that information was buried away on page six of annex b to this submission

02:24:57 of annex b to this submission as opposed to being put in large letters on the front even of the email for your attention well i certainly think reflecting on it now it should have been more prominently at the forefront of the

02:25:09 more prominently at the forefront of the document but i wouldn't use the term buried away it's part of a document that sets out the entirety of the proposals in this area for approval it's it's not hidden and lucknow specifically referred to it

02:25:22 lucknow specifically referred to it i think it could have been more it could have been clearer and if i were

02:25:26 if i were reviewing the way that uh submissions are written for example i think

02:25:30 think it would be helpful in this document to highlight that one of the effects of what's proposed here is to delay the um publicly committed to deadline for work that was going to be undertaken

02:25:41 that was going to be undertaken but i wouldn't nonetheless describe this as hidden away i mean it's very clearly definitely a quite prominent part of the document right and did you understand it as such that even though it was on page six within

02:25:52 even though it was on page six within annex b it was nonetheless prominent prominent enough for you i i would certainly i'd again again i don't recall exactly what i thought at the time but one of the things that your

02:26:03 the time but one of the things that your attention would always be drawn to in a submission that's requiring approval to undertake some work is the the proposed program of work section or its equivalent which is a key part of the document saying this is what we want we're going to do if you

02:26:14 is what we want we're going to do if you approve it right

02:26:17 looking at the second sentence in that part there are also a number of technical issues which recent research identifies as requiring attention in order in order to protect life safety did you

02:26:28 life safety did you ask what those technical issues were i'd that's how i don't recall the questions that i asked following receiving this document were you not concerned that they hadn't been spelled out for you as i said i don't recall the question that i asked

02:26:40 question that i asked right

02:26:43 um did you

02:26:46 did you not

02:26:47 not uh

02:26:49 uh think to yourself when you saw um what we see there under part b fire safety that that was inconsistent with the line that you had got from officials

02:27:00 the line that you had got from officials which was that the current system was working well

02:27:05 um i don't recall again what i specifically thought about it but my understanding that the system was working well but there is some work that we are proposing to make further

02:27:16 we are proposing to make further improvements those are not there to me they're not inconsistent understandings of of where things were as presented to me at that time were they really not i mean i'd like to

02:27:27 were they really not i mean i'd like to understand that how could the fact that the coroner had been critical of the clarity and format of the existing guidance which it was suggested contributed to a number of deaths and that there were

02:27:38 number of deaths and that there were other outstanding technical issues which were needed attention to protect life safety

02:27:43 safety uh

02:27:44 uh um how could that be consistent with the notion that the current system was working well subject to a few improvements well you

02:27:52 well you the system as i say i the understanding i had was and the briefings i given were that the system was was effective and death from fires were decreasing and was generally working well but there were improvements that could be made and

02:28:03 improvements that could be made and against that you have the backdrop of new materials the way that um the way that we construct buildings evolving there were questions around the way that inspections and so on are done

02:28:15 way that inspections and so on are done that we discussed earlier focused in other areas and the issue of simplification was one that has been a was consistent throughout not just in this but in other areas

02:28:26 this but in other areas where

02:28:27 where improvements could be made something can be working well without being as good as it can possibly be but if you're going to make changes to it my view is that you do them comprehensively and thoughtfully and particularly in

02:28:38 and thoughtfully and particularly in areas that are as technical and important as this after full and proper consultation with appropriate stakeholders and experts and did this submission here not alert you to the fact that there were

02:28:50 alert you to the fact that there were urgent

02:28:51 urgent and live issues regarding life safety fire safety that needed to be addressed which the then current guidance wasn't addressing notwithstanding the line that was being fed to you by your officials that all

02:29:02 fed to you by your officials that all was working well did that not occur this drew to my attention that there was work that needed to be undertaken and this is the submission proposing that work

02:29:10 work and that's why i would agree to it if if my view would be nothing needs to be done then i would have declined

02:29:16 declined approval to undertake this piece of work my view was something needs to be done here is a plan for that from people on whose advice i rely they tell me this is the right way to do it it looks on the face of it reasonable therefore i will

02:29:28 face of it reasonable therefore i will prove it and support this piece of work being undertaken so it was your thought that notwithstanding being told that uh

02:29:37 uh the

02:29:39 the uh lachlan house dissolved that the lack of inquest was critical of the clarity and format of the existing guidance which had possibly contributed to a number of deaths and the existence of technical issues of

02:29:51 and the existence of technical issues of uh which had identified the need to protect life safety not withstanding those matters the system was working well was that your view my view was and my understanding at the time was that there

02:30:04 understanding at the time was that there are improvements that we need to look at making and this is the right way to do it but that overall the system is fit for purpose now i'm not saying that my view today i think again not wishing to preempt what findings might be

02:30:15 findings might be but if i'm asked to explain how i understood it at that time from the briefings that i'd had was my understanding was that the building regulations were working well but improvements could and would be made

02:30:26 but improvements could and would be made and this was a plan for an appropriate process to ensure that was done properly right

02:30:34 we're looking at it now admittedly with the benefit of hindsight what should you have been told uh with the benefit of hindsight that

02:30:42 that uh

02:30:44 uh what i think has become apparent and again being very careful not to preempt any of the findings of this process that there were far more concerns being raised and were drawn to my attention and all that i was aware of at the time

02:30:55 and all that i was aware of at the time and that

02:30:57 and that the urgency and seriousness of what needs to be changed was much greater than i was led to understand or the understanding that i took from the information that i was given

02:31:25 did it occur to you that the work to simplify and clarify proof document be could actually be separated out from the wider review and undertaken as a short more urgent product project

02:31:38 i don't recall specifically but i i know that my understanding once either one but once i had discussion about it my understanding certainly at the point at which um this had been approved

02:31:51 um this had been approved was that the appropriate way to do it was to just to do both pieces of effectively combine both pieces of work that it would be a mistake to do one piece of work without taking into account the other right

02:32:02 right now you attended a meeting with peter schofield sally randall bob ledson and richard harrell on the 19th of october 2015. to discuss this submission i think

02:32:14 do you remember that i don't recall it but i accept it's very likely

02:32:21 let's um look at your first statement please page five paragraph 15

02:32:29 and you say there in the fifth line up from the bottom that as mentioned below i do remember at some stage raising the issue of the speed of the review and i was told that it was a complex matter which could not

02:32:41 it was a complex matter which could not be foreshortened i couldn't remember precisely what happened

02:32:45 happened and you make the same point in a number of other

02:32:48 of other areas of your statements is it likely therefore that you raised the speed of the review with your officials

02:32:54 officials either before or at this meeting in october 2015 yes i think it's likely yes and you were told that it would be comprehensive because of the way different parts of the building regulations interactive i think is that

02:33:07 regulations interactive i think is that right again that sounds right yeah yeah and um you accepted all that now um if we go to paragraph 10 of your second witness statement please at page four

02:33:22 you also say that you say i also recall

02:33:29 this is very very end of the page i also and then turn the page to page five i also recall understanding that the review would encompass the work outlined in eric pickles response to the latin

02:33:40 in eric pickles response to the latin house coroner's recommendations did you discuss with anybody at the meeting in october 2015 within which phase the work to address the coroner's recommendations would be addressed

02:33:52 recommendations would be addressed i don't remember or the deadline of the 2016-17

02:33:56 2016-17 for delivering on the secretary of state's promise to the current i have very little memory of that meeting i don't remember i mean did it occur to you that it was not going to be

02:34:07 not going to be quite seriously delayed i think it did i have certainly the issue of delay is one that i've revisited a number of times right now let's go then to november 2015 clg one triple zero seven eight zero

02:34:19 clg one triple zero seven eight zero four

02:34:26 uh and this is a submission date of 10th of november 2015 from alex murphy cleared by bob ledson and it comes to you and greg clark copy to other ministers and the title is

02:34:38 copy to other ministers and the title is simplification of building regulations and the building control system did you read this at the time i would assume so i don't recall specifically if it was put in my box i would have read it

02:34:49 it can we go please to page three paragraph 14

02:34:53 14 first bullet point down uh under paragraph 14 this is under the heading program and next steps and it says this publication of a discussion document in early 2016 to set out

02:35:05 document in early 2016 to set out direction of travel this is an important first step to engage with industry and gather ideas we will coordinate publication with cutting red tape review process

02:35:16 process now it's clear was it clear when you read this that the

02:35:23 that the publication date for the discussion document was now not only not end of june 2015 nor

02:35:31 nor late in 2015 as the 15th of september submission had suggested but early 2016 in other words this is now the second pushback date yes yes

02:35:44 now the second pushback date yes yes uh and if you look at the second bullet point from the bottom of the page revise ads published for external review second half of 2017. now

02:35:55 now i know it wasn't your view at the time but assuming that the area pickles deadline for delivering on the commitments to the coroner was march 2017 as others have told us then

02:36:06 then this submission would be confirmation that that deadline was now definitely going to be missed yes

02:36:12 yes and even on your own understanding of the

02:36:16 of the meaning of 2016 to 17 second half of 2017 would be late in the late in the window wouldn't it two-year window yes and that's only still for external review publications i

02:36:28 still for external review publications i think it's clear from this that deadline would be messed yes indeed thank you um

02:36:34 but you you you say in your first statement paragraph 15 we don't need to go to it that you now see that the change in time frame had not been highlighted in this submission you have no recollection of it and can't

02:36:46 you have no recollection of it and can't say why you weren't aware of it at the time

02:36:48 time but help me with this how ought that change in the timetable have been flagged to you uh i would propose there should be a very clear reference in this probably

02:36:59 very clear reference in this probably given the importance of it uh boldly embolden at the beginning to say this means we are going to miss a commitment that you have publicly has been publicly made by previous secretary of state and by the department how ought

02:37:10 of state and by the department how ought um

02:37:12 um that the change i see and it wasn't uh i don't recall it i i haven't got the full document in front of me but i don't recall at any stage that being as front and center as you would expect something

02:37:23 and center as you would expect something of that importance to be but if you had read this document carefully as i know you have in preparation to give evidence you would have noticed that the deadline

02:37:34 you would have noticed that the deadline had slipped back by now a total of some nine months

02:37:40 correct and you would have noticed that there was no way that the promise made by the secretary of state previous secretary of state to the coroner was going to be met yes

02:37:58 but can we take it at the time you didn't notice that i don't i don't recall when i first became aware that the deadline wouldn't be met but um throughout the issue of delay to this

02:38:09 throughout the issue of delay to this process was a live one and one with which i was engaged in the department

02:38:14 did any thought get given by you or your officials to telling the coroner that because of various matters happening within within the department the secretary secretary of state's

02:38:26 the secretary secretary of state's promise to her for a full review of adb by 2016 2017 would now no longer be met i don't recall having ever had a discussion about writing to the coroner about it right

02:38:38 about it right did you yourself not wonder whether the coroner ought to be told that the promise that had been given to her by the secretary of state was no longer going to be made um i

02:38:49 going to be made um i i don't know whether that would be normal procedure but i don't recall having thought of writing to the coroner myself now was then was there a sense at all of any

02:39:00 was then was there a sense at all of any urgency

02:39:01 urgency in getting on with the work at least trying to meet the

02:39:06 the deadline promised to the corrupt but to to the coroner by the secretary of state there was certainly on my part um a

02:39:13 a clearly conveyed sense of frustration at the delay

02:39:17 the delay um whether it was with reference specifically to keeping the coroner updated on progress i don't recall it having been said

02:39:33 you say they were certainly on your part a clearly conveyed sense of frustration at the delay to whom did you express that sense of frustration um again i don't remember the exact incidents and moments when it happened

02:39:44 incidents and moments when it happened but through my private office i can remember asking the question and and

02:39:50 and raising the issue of delay on a number of occasions so it would have been conveyed to the the team i assume through bob ledson but i can't say who my private office would have related to i think there are some if i recall correctly some documents to that effect in there and what were you told

02:40:03 effect in there and what were you told um

02:40:04 um [Music]

02:40:05 [Music] effectively due to the complex that as far as i recall the the complexity and the need to do the work properly and that the you know it was better to do a comprehensive and thorough piece of work than it is to do something quickly

02:40:17 work than it is to do something quickly and and possibly come out with an outcome that is not fit for purpose or suboptimal but you say you accepted that as an explanation yes so why were you frustrated at the delay then i think that there were several moments of

02:40:28 that there were several moments of further delay which were what well we've just looked at two documents that show two different um stages on which things were pushed back

02:40:37 back and

02:40:38 and i think i had i had a general irritation with the fact that something that i kept being told here's the date we're going to do it seemed to always run away from us when we got close to it but i can't say that i specifically

02:40:49 but i can't say that i specifically recall the incident the moment the moment at which i raised these concerns i know that throughout on a number of occasions i raised concern with delay

02:41:06 if you had been given as you say good reasons why there was no delay why were you concerned well you can be given good reasons for one delay and then tell this is what

02:41:18 one delay and then tell this is what what we think the time zone timelines will be

02:41:20 will be if there is then further delay then you you question whether the sufficient planning thought of timelines had gone into

02:41:27 into what was explained to you the first time it's you sort of delay is i'm i'm afraid not uncommon in government this is something that sadly to some expect extent you expect and get used to i think on this there

02:41:40 and get used to i think on this there were more incidences of delay than you would normally expect

02:41:47 can we then go to clg one triple zero seven eight five five

02:41:56 all right now this is an email from your private office to the permanent secretary

02:42:00 secretary of state greg clark 7th of december 2015.

02:42:06 2015. uh and um

02:42:07 uh and um your assistant sarah morgan

02:42:12 morgan says

02:42:14 says uh this if you look at the second bullet put down in particular paraten he i think that's you wants to look at legitimate vehicles to make improvements and repeal redundant

02:42:26 make improvements and repeal redundant provisions he thinks one thing we could look at doing through this is enabling ais that's approved inspectors to undertake more of the types of work currently certainly the responsibility of la's local authorities

02:42:37 of la's local authorities and para9

02:42:39 and para9 do you accept that by repealing redundant provisions and simplifying language

02:42:44 language the department you

02:42:47 you secretary of state would not be addressing issues of substance highlighted by the coroner uh yes i i would say i'm not i'm on top of the entire context of this at the time but i

02:42:58 at the time but i i don't think that that was that wasn't the sole piece of work we would look at so they for example reference the approved inspectors i don't think it's related to the work the um recommendations of the

02:43:09 the work the um recommendations of the coroner so i would have a general view that repealing redundant provisions is a good thing to do right so this is part of the wider review particularly of building control rather than anything to do with the coroner's recommendations and the

02:43:20 coroner's recommendations and the secretary of state's promise i would suggest i i would think so reading it now this is part of the wide review yes whether it overlaps with or or interacts with the coroner's recommendations i don't recall from

02:43:32 don't recall from reading this now let's then go to the spring of 2016 lord wharton clg three zero is one nine three four four

02:43:43 this is a submission date of the first of april 2016

02:43:49 uh and

02:43:52 and we can see it um from richard harrell to you cleared by bob ledson titled simplification of building regulations and building control systems next

02:44:02 next steps um do you remember receiving this uh i don't but i'm i'm confident i will have received it um it refers to an annex c as we'll come

02:44:13 um it refers to an annex c as we'll come to that was also sent to you a few days later

02:44:15 later just looking at this document paragraph 2 timing

02:44:23 it says normal course of business but an early response will enable us to do the work to allow if you decide publication of the discussion document in early may now

02:44:34 now looking at that did you realize at the time that the timetable had now shifted back from the end of june 2015 to later in 2015 and then early 2016 and now early may 2016 so this is yet a further

02:44:46 may 2016 so this is yet a further pushback for the discussion document so i i don't recall specifically um what i

02:44:53 what i realized or understood at that time but in line with my previous comments this this would be another example of that that deadline effectively seeming to run away from

02:45:04 effectively seeming to run away from uh from me and from what we're proposing to do did you ask why the discussion document was yet again delayed now for the third time so again i don't i don't recall what i asked specifically um upon receiving this but a number of times i

02:45:16 receiving this but a number of times i asked the question about delay and were you given a good reason as to any reason why it was being delayed now for the third time i don't recall do you remember asking questions about um how come

02:45:28 um how come your officials had been over optimistic the previous year at least twice i certainly remember asking questions on a number of occasions about delay

02:45:39 a number of occasions about delay as i say one of the responses i've given the one that sticks in my mind we've discussed which was the the nature of having a more comprehensive review um and doing the work in its entirety uh but i don't remember exactly what i

02:45:51 but i don't remember exactly what i asked upon receiving this particular submission who did you have those conversations about delay with uh primarily it would be through my private office so i would exp i would ask my assistant private secretary or private secretary to raise

02:46:03 secretary or private secretary to raise and these issues they would go back and give me a response it may well be that i had that that discussion directly with bottled bob led some on one or more occasions but i don't recall i just recall that it was an issue that

02:46:15 i just recall that it was an issue that i had raised

02:46:18 did you have any thoughts at the time as to whether publication of in early may 2016 of the discussion document was feasible uh i don't recall

02:46:32 you even if

02:46:34 even if that deadline had been met do you accept as we've been told that the secretary of state would also have to sign it off um

02:46:42 um yes i mean i would expect so and i think looking at the timing of this i would expect almost anything published by the department would have been scrutinized and very closely and then after that there would be a a right round process

02:46:54 there would be a a right round process across government yes uh

02:46:57 uh yes

02:46:58 yes or whether yes i'm at some stage and making changes yes i haven't got in my mind at the moment the exact timeline of what happens when but there would need to be a right run process for any changes yes so in light

02:47:09 process for any changes yes so in light of that was it really realistic for the discussion document to be ready for publication in early may 2016 given that you've not even seen a draft on the first of april i would say it's an ambitious timetable

02:47:20 ambitious timetable given the date of this document

02:47:25 looking at the bottom of page two we can see that annex c uh

02:47:33 uh foot of the page is identified and it's an as it says an outline timetable for building regulations review work

02:47:43 uh now um let's go to that document clg one triple zero eight one two two

02:47:51 it's actually entitled annex b but it is the timeline nonetheless when you were sent this as you were on the 6th of april 2016 did you read it i would yes i will have

02:48:03 i would yes i will have i'm just it does look familiar to me i mean the detail of it isn't but it there's a it's quite a a striking document and i can remember i think i can i can vaguely recall thinking it looked complicated at the

02:48:14 thinking it looked complicated at the time yes well just to be clear for the record you did receive it on the 6th of april and there's an email to your office clg one triple zero eight one two one just for the record i don't need to show

02:48:25 just for the record i don't need to show it to you um we can see if we look at it together that it projects that the approved documents will be finalized in the first half of 2018. yes uh yes you can see that there's a there's a middle blue

02:48:37 there's a middle blue rectangle uh which straddles end of 2017 down to q2 2018 finalize approved documents can you see yes i can see that yes and did that relate as you understood it

02:48:48 and did that relate as you understood it to the phase one work the simplification of approved documents i i don't recall what my understanding was or whether i asked specific questions about it at the time so

02:48:59 questions about it at the time so um as i look at it now i would think that that potentially makes sense yes but it's a it's a complex and not entirely clear timeline no you're well did you when you

02:49:11 timeline no you're well did you when you got it did you go back to anybody and say this is complex and not entirely clear

02:49:17 clear i i don't recall and well you can see that when it says finalize approved documents

02:49:22 documents it doesn't does it split the two phases between simplification of approved documents and technical review that's correct did you did that occur to you at the time when you saw this i don't recall

02:49:35 you saw this i don't recall it's an obvious question isn't it given that you've been given these two faces and i would like to be able to say oh yes but

02:49:41 yes but i don't remember did you notice leaving aside that

02:49:49 that problem of complexity that the timetable had slipped um from october 17 for the phase one simplification exercise uh to

02:50:00 uh to q2

02:50:01 q2 2018. i don't recall or alternatively uh that the technical review enabling complete finalization of the approved documents had suddenly come back by about 16

02:50:12 had suddenly come back by about 16 months from october 2019 uh to

02:50:16 uh to end of june 2018 mysteriously yeah i i say the document looks familiar to me i don't remember what questions or comments i had after having received it

02:50:27 after having received it did it not strike you at the time as mysteriously inconsistent with the timetable projected within the two phases

02:50:34 phases in the submission that you'd received in november uh it may well have done but i don't recall right

02:50:42 now you in your first witness statement you say that the extension to the time frame identified here was not highlighted in the submission itself that's what you say in your first statement of paragraph 16 we don't need

02:50:53 statement of paragraph 16 we don't need to go to it but let's look at paragraph let's go to your second statement paragraph 13 page 5.

02:51:07 uh you say there

02:51:10 and this is in the context of this document

02:51:15 and what you say in your first statement your first statement is quoted you say i note the change in the time frame is not highlighted in the submission paragraph 15 however i note again that the extension to the time frame is not

02:51:27 extension to the time frame is not highlighted in the submission itself and i do not now recall whether or not i noticed it for myself paragraph 16. that that neatly encapsulates your evidence in the first statement

02:51:37 statement question do you consider that the changes in time frame ought to have been highlighted to you if so to whom would this responsibility have fallen do you say this the purpose of a submission such as this is to seek

02:51:48 submission such as this is to seek ministerial approval on an informed basis and in my view the change in the time frame was and it was important information which ought to have been made clear to me i did not think it is reasonable to expect a minister or his

02:51:59 reasonable to expect a minister or his or her private office to have to remember or cross refer to previous submissions in order to spot important changes like this and in my view a minister should be entitled to expect a submission to set out all relevant facts

02:52:10 submission to set out all relevant facts in a clear and straightforward way the individuals in the building regulations team who drafted and approved this submission ought in my opinion to have highlighted the change in the timetable clearly in the submission in an ideal

02:52:21 clearly in the submission in an ideal world my private office would also have identified change before the submission went into my box and asked the building regulations team to amend the submission accordingly however with the quantity of work my private office dealt with on a

02:52:32 work my private office dealt with on a daily basis it is unrealistic to expect them to have time to descend to this level of detail in scrutinizing submissions now would i be right in thinking that you stand by that paragraph i've just

02:52:44 you stand by that paragraph i've just read to you today yes now looking back at the submission then please clg three zero one nine three four four

02:52:55 four four go go to paragraph six in it

02:53:02 foot of page one under the heading simplification and review of technical requirements and it says this we have started work on simplifying the approved documents and developing options to simplify

02:53:13 developing options to simplify regulations and legislation to support improved productivity and reduce costs for industry this will go hand in hand with technical review of some parts of the regulations with a view to identifying opportunities for simplification and deregulation

02:53:27 simplification and deregulation and did that cause any confusion in your mind about what work would be done when

02:53:32 when i don't recall that it did but i don't recall

02:53:36 recall my reaction to this document as i said i'm sure i will have seen this at the time

02:53:39 time um

02:53:40 um looking at it now i mean i don't think it's as clear as as perhaps it could be but it would reinforce the view i had when we looked at the two phases that they are that they were things that could be run

02:53:52 that they were things that could be run in parallel the technical and the simplification work in parallel but did you think that the technical work would be done within the simplification phase now in other words they would not only be run in parallel but the two ends would would be

02:54:06 parallel but the two ends would would be coexistent i mean i don't recall what i thought i'm reading that but that's not necessarily how i would interpret that but

02:54:15 but looking at the statement you've read from my witness statement a moment ago i think this is this is part of the point which i was making which and i apologize if i

02:54:26 was making which and i apologize if i deviated from giving simply a factual account and gave an opinion but

02:54:30 but reading submissions should be to assist ministers in understanding the position and making decisions it shouldn't be akin to trying to interpret a murder mystery novel you don't you shouldn't be trying to

02:54:42 you don't you shouldn't be trying to figure out what it really means it should be clear on the face of it and i think it is fair to say that taken as a whole these submissions are not

02:54:54 can we go to paragraph 14 of your second statement then page six

02:55:00 uh and you say all of that said i'm doubtful whether anything would have been different had the change in time frame been drawn to my attention i would have probably have asked for an explanation for the delay and has previously

02:55:12 for the delay and has previously indicated though i cannot now recall it is possible that i identified the change for myself and asked for an explanation as a result however my experience is that everything happens slowly in the civil service and the likelihood is that

02:55:24 civil service and the likelihood is that nothing i could have done would have speeded the review up

02:55:28 now if you had been aware of the delay and sought to unpick the mysteries of this document and would you not have wanted to

02:55:39 and would you not have wanted to investigate precisely what the technical issues the live technical issues were within adb which required attention in order to protect life safety uh well i'm i was aware of delay

02:55:50 uh well i'm i was aware of delay throughout as we have discussed and frustrated by it i think that when i look back one of the things that could have been given more

02:56:01 could have been given more that could have resulted in more pressure being put to brought to bear to ensure work was done in timely manner or indeed the question that i could have asked being is a matter of resourcing one of the

02:56:12 is a matter of resourcing one of the issues around whether there is delay um i think i may have pushed that issue harder had it had it been more at the forefront of my mind but i mean ultimately um

02:56:24 um paragraph 14 of my statement there captures my understanding of my time as a minister in that department do you

02:56:30 do you it was i think in in your gift though to ask

02:56:34 ask whether there could be a split and whether the life safety critical change is needed to approve document b could be

02:56:41 could be accelerated and treated as a separate project it was certainly in my gift to ask whatever i liked as the minister as i have said i did ask a number of

02:56:52 as i have said i did ask a number of questions around this and i don't recall specifically what they were but the understanding that i was given from the advice i received was that the right way to undertake this work was as a whole

02:57:01 a whole and separating out specific bits would potentially result in suboptimal or inappropriate changes or even unintended negative consequences so i i wasn't i was reasonably convinced

02:57:14 so i i wasn't i was reasonably convinced by the general argument that this needs to be done comprehensively and taken as a whole and i i still find that plausible

02:57:19 plausible separately from that the delay is an area in which i think that it could have been clearer and it could have been more directly addressed to the submissions that i

02:57:30 addressed to the submissions that i received

02:57:36 is it fair to say that you took the advice that you received from your officials about the programmers of work at face value no i mean i did ask questions about it and pushed on it and that's why

02:57:47 and pushed on it and that's why for example when i asked about delays it was explained to me um ultimately it was explained to me in a way that i found convincing yes and took those explanations at face value um

02:57:59 explanations at face value um what took at face value to me would would imply that didn't ask questions and just accepted it and i don't think that was the case ultimately i accepted the advice that i was given yes

02:58:15 were you left therefore with the understanding that even though there may have been urgent technical life safety issues

02:58:23 issues and defects in the approved document identified by the coroner which had contributed to the latino deaths those could not be cured separately from a full

02:58:34 a full drains up review of approved document b which was now going to take one into 2017 and 20 percent 2019. i was convinced of the argument that the review should be done comprehensively

02:58:48 mr chairman it's a minute short of one o'clock but i'm going to um

02:58:53 um i'm going to i'm going to suggest that this is an appropriate member for a break i think that's a very appropriate suggestion yes thank you well it's time we all had a break chance to get some lunch

02:59:04 a break chance to get some lunch so we'll stop there we'll resume please at two o'clock and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it while you're out of the problem all right thank you very much thank you would you give the ushers

02:59:16 much thank you would you give the ushers [Music]

02:59:24 thank you very much two o'clock please thank you