Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence -Thursday 3rd March 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:24 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr bob ludson would you ask mr ledson to come back in please

00:00:38 [Music]

00:00:47 good morning mr ledson good morning we're ready to carry on indeed yes thank you very much yes mr good morning mr chairman good morning members of the panel mr alex good morning to you good morning now we were in the chronology in

00:00:58 morning now we were in the chronology in 2015 yesterday when we finished yes and that is where we start again today now just summarizing a little bit of uh what i i think you shared with us yesterday at the end you didn't publish the discussion

00:01:10 you didn't publish the discussion document before the summer 2015 recess no no

00:01:15 no no and i think you've also told us that there were delays as your plans evolved over the summer to locate the review of adb within a wider review of building control that's correct yes now let's go

00:01:26 control that's correct yes now let's go to your witness statement please um clg three zeros one nine four six five page 21

00:01:32 21 paragraph 77

00:01:36 and you say the foot of the page there that

00:01:39 that this change in approach was was because it was considered that the most appropriate way to present our work on adb to the minister was to present this in the context of the overall review of the building regulations then referred

00:01:51 the building regulations then referred to as the productivity review of building control which incorporated the part b project on which we had been working

00:01:58 working we decided we would position the part b work within that broader program of work we wanted to present the minister an overall picture of work on the building regulations rather than make submissions

00:02:09 regulations rather than make submissions in a more piecemeal fashion and if you go on to page 22 lower down paragraph 80 you say this it was recognized that the requirements of regulatory policy meant

00:02:21 requirements of regulatory policy meant that any proposal for changes to adb might need to be offset by deregulation savings elsewhere in building regulations we therefore envisaged including within the productivity review

00:02:32 including within the productivity review a project on part b issues which would bring together the outcomes of the researches reports together with the commitment to simplify adb now

00:02:41 now i've read two chunks to you there before i ask you about that can i look with you at what richard harrell says about this topic in his statement of course clg3019487

00:02:53 clg3019487 page 22 paragraph 80.

00:03:00 and it's at the foot of the page as you see and he says during the summer of 2015 we had considered issuing a separate discussion paper setting out the potential scope of work on part b

00:03:12 on part b however we were concerned that the issues already identified within the scope of such a future review could impose significant additional cost and perdition potentially become stranded by the need to find balancing deregulation

00:03:25 the need to find balancing deregulation in line with overarching government policy on regulation we decided to include part b within the wider package of building regulations work where it was more likely that the necessary balancing deregulation could be captured

00:03:37 balancing deregulation could be captured my recollection is that at various stages over the subsequent months we bob ledson brian martin and myself continue to debate and consider whether to try to make the part b review a separate work

00:03:49 make the part b review a separate work stream

00:03:50 stream but initially decided this would not help us to progress matters further and subsequently became something of a hostage to fortune as political events unfolded in 2016. now i've read quite a bit to you let me

00:04:02 now i've read quite a bit to you let me ask you a number of questions first do you remember when the decision was made to fold the part b review into a wider review of building regulations work

00:04:13 review of building regulations work i would

00:04:15 i would think that it probably would have been um early to mid summer 2015 so at the time when we were thinking of the advice that we would be

00:04:26 thinking of the advice that we would be presenting uh to minister water and the substantive advice following that sort of forward look note that we talked about um yesterday right where did this idea come from in other words to subsume

00:04:37 idea come from in other words to subsume the review of adb into a wider review well i think this was as a consequence of the discussions which is um which i had with richard harrell and brian martin

00:04:47 martin um and indeed a discussion which we did hold

00:04:52 hold in the summer with sally randall who was my director at the time and indeed peter scofield the director general at the time who made the decision um

00:05:07 well it's got um the reason i'm hesitating it was because of my recollection it was more of a sort of collective view that we together we thought

00:05:15 thought this would be the best way forward rather than an individual saying i have decided that we are going to do x um as i was head of division then ultimately you know i

00:05:26 division then ultimately you know i would have been i was the responsible person so in that sense it was my decision but it wasn't a decision i just took off my own bat i took it after a lot of consideration as as is described particularly in by mr

00:05:38 as is described particularly in by mr harold in his statement do you accept that locating the review of approved document be within a wider review of building control or building regulations generally would slow the process down perhaps by some years

00:05:51 process down perhaps by some years um that was a risk i accept that was a risk um i think that the way that we were expecting the program to unfold is that there would be a programme of work with

00:06:02 there would be a programme of work with discrete projects within it and obviously um the part b element of that work program we would have been expected and were working on the basis so that would be

00:06:12 would be at an early stage of the overall progress yes but i accept that and i think you know i think hindsight suggests that that um

00:06:24 hindsight suggests that that um the risk of wrapping it into a broader piece of work particularly trying to get through those first stages is indeed a bit of a slower ship in the convoy that if there's a problem somewhere else it can hold up

00:06:36 somewhere else it can hold up the whole uh process and i accept that that was a risk to the approach that we adopted

00:06:44 adopted at the time did you consider that the presence of that risk would or might falsify the promise that the secretary of state had made to the coroner well i

00:06:55 of state had made to the coroner well i wouldn't use the term falsify undermine then um i think that it would it certainly could um would could have challenged the ability to make that commitment right

00:07:07 commitment right and was any thought given to the secretary of state going back to the coroner and keeping her informed over the progress of what had been

00:07:18 over the progress of what had been promised

00:07:22 i think that's that's an interesting question i say it's an interesting question because

00:07:29 because i am not sure though you might legitimately ask why didn't we find out i'm not sure what process there was for

00:07:39 for as it were going back to coroners to say by the way we're doing you know we thought we were going to do this but we're going to do something slightly differently um and i think that's a legitimate point

00:07:51 and i think that's a legitimate point about all of this about how those sorts of things are indeed followed up it's it's very different for example from a from for example following up a select committee

00:08:00 committee report where there's a much more formal process for following up and and the select committee will have it on its agenda

00:08:06 agenda if it thought the department is not doing something the select committee would be on our backs but there wasn't to my knowledge there wasn't that sort of a process for um

00:08:17 um going back to coroners for example to say i'm you know i'm sorry we we've discovered a problem uh responding to one of your recommendations but did the absence of a process dictate the response i mean why

00:08:29 process dictate the response i mean why was the fact that there was no process in place mean that uh the secretary of state couldn't simply drop the coroner a line well i think that's a perfectly legitimate question for you to ask and i can't i don't have a convincing answer to you on

00:08:40 don't have a convincing answer to you on that were where ministers kept briefed that uh there was a risk that in locating the review of adb within the wider review of building regulations that might undermine or challenge use

00:08:51 that might undermine or challenge use your words the integrity of the promise made by the secretary of state we as you we alluded to the commitments in broad terms in the advice that we

00:09:02 in broad terms in the advice that we put up

00:09:03 put up um i think at this point in time we still thought we could deliver on a 2016-17 time scale um

00:09:12 um but i accept and certainly looking back on it now it would have been better to have been more clear

00:09:18 clear in that advice that you know there is a risk with this approach which could mean that certain things could not have been met to the timetables originally envisaged and indeed you know made uh in public

00:09:30 indeed you know made uh in public statements by previous ministers [Music]

00:09:34 [Music] and was presenting a review of the of part b

00:09:38 part b as part of a package of measures which would show some balance in terms of deregulation the only way in which you could approve or achieve changes to adb

00:09:47 adb well as we discussed yesterday if we were making substantive changes to adb then particularly if those substantive changes were in effect going to um tighten standards

00:09:58 tighten standards then yes under the um one in i think we were in one in three we were one in three out world then i can't remember but anyway that process would have applied and we would have to um to deliver deregulatory savings as we

00:10:11 to deliver deregulatory savings as we discussed yesterday um if we had just at that point said well perhaps we should just look at a simplification of a specific part of adb then

00:10:22 of adb then maybe

00:10:23 maybe it would as i said we'd have still needed to have gone through process

00:10:27 process but whether it would have whether we could have done that more quickly and smoothly i think is a is a fair question

00:10:35 perhaps you can help me with this um i think we all understand that the actual

00:10:41 actual requirement is for industry to comply with the building regulations correct adb contains guidance offering ways in which that

00:10:52 offering ways in which that may be achieved correct you don't have to follow adb if you can comply with the regulations in some other way correct why did you understand that a change to

00:11:04 why did you understand that a change to guidance

00:11:05 guidance which is not mandatory uh

00:11:08 uh could add to the burden on the regulatory burden on business um so i think you've absolutely correctly described the the formal legal position with regard to approved

00:11:20 position with regard to approved documents

00:11:22 documents but

00:11:25 an approved document is a sort of starting point for industry to understand what is needed to achieve compliance so would be a benchmark which as it were for how compliance could be achieved so any

00:11:38 compliance could be achieved so any change to

00:11:39 change to to that

00:11:41 to that i think would certainly could have involved extra costs for those

00:11:47 for those duty holders who chose to use the adb route

00:11:51 route to achieve compliance but that's the point isn't it who chose to yes without as your colleague mr bird was very keen to point out keeping their eyes fixed firmly on the regulations

00:12:03 eyes fixed firmly on the regulations that is correct um but on the other hand um if

00:12:09 um if um if a

00:12:11 um if a duty holder was choosing to use a different route for compliance then i would expect that the building control body would you

00:12:22 that the building control body would you know recognizing this is not what they're not following adb but what what is adb looking for here and how is what is being proposed by i'm sorry the builder

00:12:34 how does that measure up equate that's not the right word

00:12:39 word um with what is in adb so a the approved document guidance would provide a benchmark for consideration of compliance issues even though as you rightly say

00:12:50 rightly say a duty holder could do something different

00:12:53 different um

00:12:55 um so that's that's how i would just seek to describe that situation well i asked the question because one might get the impression from what it said in mr harold's statement and

00:13:06 it said in mr harold's statement and your evidence that um it was regarded in the department as axiomatic

00:13:12 axiomatic that any change to guidance was to be treated as the equivalent of a change in regulation was that question ever really asked and considered well

00:13:23 asked and considered well i was very clear of you and i think i said this yesterday that the one in one out one in two out etcetera methodology clearly brought changes to the approved documents within scope because of the

00:13:35 documents within scope because of the reference to guidance compliance with which could have a legal effect on my personal view which i think is absolutely which is which is soundly based in terms

00:13:46 which is which is soundly based in terms of the interpretation of the relevant part of the building act is that approved document guidance given the specific status of approved document guidance as in section 7 fell within that definition

00:13:58 that definition and therefore whatever we thought about the guidance and the fact that people could do other things the fact that we were changing approved document guidance meant we had to go through that regulatory policy process right thank

00:14:10 regulatory policy process right thank you very much thank you yes

00:14:13 let's turn then to september 2015.

00:14:20 uh and uh email and an email at

00:14:25 clg3019301 please now this is an email from richard harrell

00:14:31 harrell on the 15th of september 2015 to james walton

00:14:35 walton uh who was by then the minister

00:14:38 minister correct copied to sally randall and to you subject building regulations review with some attachments do you see that yes

00:14:45 yes and

00:14:48 and particularly annex b which

00:14:52 which is

00:14:53 is described in the heading there is building regulations productivity review and he says sarah please see attached submission and accompanying annexes covering a wide-ranging program to evaluate and implement reform of the

00:15:04 evaluate and implement reform of the building control and building regulation in england and then if we go please to the attachment which is at clg triple zero one nine three zero two

00:15:20 uh there it is it's from richard harrell to james wharton and copied to you among others yes yes and it sets out what it sets out as

00:15:32 and it sets out what it sets out as summarized in the summary and the recommendation halfway down your screen in the second bullet point says agree to the simplification program proposed for statutory guidance stroke approved documents and the outline

00:15:43 approved documents and the outline program of work to review technical requirements of the building regulations and xb

00:15:48 and xb now if we go to annex b um we find that on page seven

00:16:02 and this is within an xb and you can see there the proposals phase one simplification and phase two larger scale deregulation and the time frames

00:16:12 frames and you can see the first phase simplification uh ends in october 2017 and larger scale deregulation phase two ends in october 2019. do you see that

00:16:25 ends in october 2019. do you see that yes and under that you can see it says part b technical review yes can you explain why the review the technical review

00:16:33 review uh had uh well sorry the review the overall review first had evolved into two parts

00:16:39 two parts um

00:16:41 um so

00:16:42 so this was an exercise looking at um an approach to all of the approved documents so it wasn't just about approved document b

00:16:51 b and the um the approach that we had evolved was to think about two phases of work as suggested in this annex

00:17:02 this annex so the first would be a simplification exercise as described for all approved documents um what was it all of them it only looks like e g h and r um i agree and um

00:17:15 like e g h and r um i agree and um that that is not clear my recollection i think my reading of this is that the parts

00:17:21 the parts in um

00:17:23 in um party ghr

00:17:25 party ghr are specific technical issues that we felt could be started during this phase of the work um

00:17:35 um so that's why i think that they were listed there so i my reading of this and my certainly my recollection at the time is that the simplification exercise in the sort of first indent of under phase one simplification would

00:17:47 of under phase one simplification would have included and did include the part the adb simplification exercise and what did the simplification of approved documents at least those approved documents involved

00:17:58 approved documents involved so this whatever as we discussed yesterday we had moved to a new style of presentation of approved documents um so that would be um one element that we were looking to achieve

00:18:10 we were looking to achieve um we would be undertaking as we did with adb and indeed i think had commissioned at this point or were about to commission a plain english review so we would get a technical

00:18:21 review so we would get a technical editor not a civil servant to actually look at this from the perspective of a reader to

00:18:28 reader to help us

00:18:29 help us with

00:18:31 with improved drafting etc

00:18:35 etc that would so those would be the main main approaches we also had something which we rather grandly called a style guide for approved documents which was much more to do with

00:18:46 documents which was much more to do with how we would format how we would present tables how would we present diagrams etc all of which with the intention of trying to make those more easily understandable now

00:18:59 more easily understandable now just breaking that down a bit did phase one looking at the screen involve

00:19:06 involve simplification as you put it of the external fast spread requirements within adb so as part of the process of in looking at the drafting of adb then then

00:19:18 looking at the drafting of adb then then that section of adb would have been looked at alongside all of the other parts of adb you can see that phase two larger scale deregulation

00:19:29 phase two larger scale deregulation starts at the same time october 2015. yes does that tell us that so far as part b was concerned two things were happening first of all the uh

00:19:41 happening first of all the uh simplification exercise in parallel with the technical review i think that's a fair comment yes but well is that what happened um i think at that point we had indeed sort of had in

00:19:52 that point we had indeed sort of had in our minds that there were two aspects to the work

00:19:55 the work there was the um the simplification exercises we've described and there were the more technical

00:20:01 technical pieces of work which were deriving from the research though may well have been other issues that would need have been included in over in due course what was the point of simplifying adb if it was only going to be changed or might well

00:20:13 only going to be changed or might well be changed as a result of the research leading to the technical review leading to revision well

00:20:21 as i said this is a program for covering all of the approved documents so we did think that there would be value

00:20:29 value in improving the presentation of existing approved documents not making any substantive changes therein but that there would be a benefit of doing that exercise

00:20:42 a benefit of doing that exercise even if you know we would then come forward with more substantive changes at a

00:20:48 at a later date suggested in the phase two well i see so did it work this way that you would simplify approve document b as part of the

00:20:56 the entirety of of the approved documents and publish them into october 2017 and then publish a new part b following the

00:21:04 the technical review uh in october 2019 or by that date was that the plan that in in in broad terms is a is it was would have been the

00:21:15 terms is a is it was would have been the plan though they made the dates um

00:21:17 um you know the the dates october 2015 that that two-year period for simplification obviously covers all of the ads and they would probably um you know would have done it in a in a sequence

00:21:27 sequence um

00:21:28 um the reason i'm slightly hesitating here is because

00:21:37 i think that if we had felt that actually um there are some technical issues which actually we for example those which derive from the research program which

00:21:49 derive from the research program which actually we could do something about now why in the short term uh because the evidence we've got from the

00:21:57 the research projects enables us to come forward with some properly based and soundly based proposals to do that notwithstanding that the technical review was going to follow later

00:22:08 review was going to follow later i think that we would have said well can we fit that into the simplification exercise so it would have been a little bit of a

00:22:13 bit of a simplification plus but we didn't take a view on that and i think we probably would have been frankly opportunistic as to whether can we can we can we fit this in now so we can at least we can deal with this at

00:22:24 we can at least we can deal with this at this point in time even if it's slightly outside the sort of strict parameters of what we're saying of these these phases if you see what i mean well yes and that's the point why didn't you think can we fit in external fire spread in

00:22:36 can we fit in external fire spread in response to the coroner's first bullet point of her written well i think let me change the question please as part of the simplification exercise

00:22:47 as part of the simplification exercise um i'm sorry for them butting in um

00:22:51 so i think we would have expected to have dealt with the coroner's um comments about um

00:22:59 um improving um section 12 as part of that simplification exercise that would have happened or when certainly we would have looked at it as part of that phase one

00:23:10 looked at it as part of that phase one exercise notwithstanding anything else we thought we might do in the phase one exercise or um indeed the phase two exercise that would be

00:23:21 that would be that was my recollection of how we thought and that would be that would have that to my mind was the right way of approaching it right on that basis

00:23:32 approaching it right on that basis the date for delivery is this right the date for delivery of the promise made by the secretary of state to the coroner was october 2017

00:23:43 to the coroner was october 2017 in your minds at the time september 2015. not necessarily because that simplification process was meant to cover all of the approved documents so

00:23:55 approved documents so i think that we would although it's not except it's not explicit in this plan um we would have looked at the approved documents to see

00:24:06 the approved documents to see where you know we would have we would have there would have been a sequence of simplified documents and for example we had started work on approved document

00:24:17 we had started work on approved document b for example in the way that we would not have started work on some of the other

00:24:21 other approved documents so approved document b would have been at the front end of that program exactly when it would have been published um i think my my view and i have thought about this is at this point in time

00:24:33 about this is at this point in time i think there was still in my mind i think um the spring 2017 deadline as per the lack of all commitment was still deliverable it was tight but it was

00:24:44 deliverable it was tight but it was still deliverable for that simplification well how did that fit in how did the delivery of the promise made by the secretary of state 31st of march 2017

00:24:53 2017 fit with the time scales identified in this document here which take you to october 2017 at the earliest because that is a two-year time frame

00:25:05 because that is a two-year time frame covering

00:25:06 covering everything that is covered in that first section under phase one simplification and within that there are a number of strands

00:25:17 a number of strands of work

00:25:18 of work some of which would be we would have expected to do early on in that two year period some of which would have commenced later dependent on

00:25:29 commenced later dependent on a

00:25:30 a how significant a job the simplification would have been be

00:25:35 be how much groundwork had been done at this point in time and see the resources available and indeed all things being equal that

00:25:46 and indeed all things being equal that we were not then suddenly moved on to doing something else now let me show you something a little earlier in this document just to be fair to you there is a reference to be part b but if you get back a page to page six in the light of the answers he's given on timetabling

00:25:58 the answers he's given on timetabling perhaps you can help under uh the heading proposed program of work paragraph 10 it

00:26:05 it says uh in the second sentence the building regulations and standards division is already committed in principle to a number of activities specifically part b fire safety the previous sos committed to undertaking

00:26:16 previous sos committed to undertaking review and simplification of part b following the lack of house disaster which was 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

00:26:27 deaths there are also a number of technical issues which recent research identifies as requiring attention in order to protect life safety now what were the technical issues which recent research had identified as requiring attention in order to protect life

00:26:39 attention in order to protect life safety

00:26:41 safety these would have been those issues which derived from the seven work streams which we talked about yesterday i see but that excluded didn't it as we've seen

00:26:51 seen bullet point one of the recommendations made by the coroner external fast brett because as i think we discussed yesterday

00:27:00 yesterday that was of a different order to the

00:27:03 to the issues for which the research had been undertaken the issues which for which the research had been undertaken were those where um i think i said we weren't quite sure what the question was before we knew

00:27:15 what the question was before we knew what answers we might need as opposed to um the issue about um uh

00:27:21 uh clarifying section 12

00:27:24 12 which i think was of a different order in terms of that's about improved communication rather than going back to first principles is the approach i see i think i see just help me have i

00:27:36 i see i think i see just help me have i got this right on the basis of everything you've said on this document so far

00:27:40 so far that

00:27:41 that there were two things in play the first was addressing the coroner's recommendations arising out of the latin house fire and the second was the technical issues

00:27:52 and the second was the technical issues forming the seven work streams correct that's what this says and then when you go to the phases simplification and then as you can see from the next page page seven the larger scale deregulation part

00:28:03 seven the larger scale deregulation part b technical review um

00:28:06 um is it the case that that's that the lachenal coroner's recommendations would fall into the simplification exercise and the part b technical review was the seven work streams

00:28:17 seven work streams yes right yes yeah i think yes that i see i see

00:28:21 see i see and that is how one is supposed to understand this document even though part b isn't referred to under the simplification exercise phase that is how this document was meant to be understood and um i think

00:28:31 i think we obviously could have made that clearer i mean i think you know we we perhaps made an assumption which was misplaced about um that it was obvious what we were talking about now if it was simply if the response to

00:28:44 now if it was simply if the response to lacanol

00:28:45 lacanol was simplification only and required no further technical review why

00:28:51 why did

00:28:52 did that engage the one in two out policy as it stood at the time which to remind you ran from 2013 to 2016.

00:29:04 so it would have it engaged the one in two-hour policy because um it was as i've described and answered the chairman's question

00:29:16 chairman's question um it was a change to guidance

00:29:19 guidance and because there it was simplification yes not a technical review not like the seven work streams as you've explained so my question again to say you got it clearly why was a why was the process of

00:29:30 clearly why was a why was the process of simplification in answer to the coroner's recommendations something that engaged uh the deregulatory agenda under the one in two out policy well i was going to say that

00:29:43 out policy well i was going to say that i don't we to my mind we were not a process of simplifying the approved documents was not disengaged in principle from the one in to our

00:29:55 in principle from the one in to our process

00:29:56 process what i would then say so we'd have to go through all the process of preparing impact assessments etc what i would then say is that the outcome of that assessment may actually lead to a

00:30:08 assessment may actually lead to a situation where the effect was nil because or indeed you might argue that it um

00:30:17 it um it was a benefit because if the guidance was simpler compliance is easier to achieve that's a benefit to business so

00:30:26 so there's a difference if i may between the process from which we were not exempt and the output of that process which as i say could actually mean that um as far as um uh as far as the one in one

00:30:39 as far as um uh as far as the one in one out process um principles applied um we we we the the adb changes would not um would it would would would would not

00:30:52 um would it would would would would not have involved an extra cost let me see if i've understood this so you take a regular you take a piece of guidance and you simplify it you're not changing it in any

00:31:03 you're not changing it in any substantive way that's not the intention no no

00:31:06 no no what you're doing is essentially it reflecting the intentions of government in a simpler way to make them more accessible correct right

00:31:17 but that has an outcome yes yes and the outcome might be that it's cheaper for industry or it might be that it's more expensive for industry correct and uh is your evidence that because of

00:31:30 and uh is your evidence that because of those potential outcomes and potentially more disadvantageous outcomes to a to a simplification that is why the deregulatory regime was engaged

00:31:42 deregulatory regime was engaged yes absolutely i understand now then let's turn to october 2015. we know from documents uh with that we've seen that there was a meeting to discuss this submission in

00:31:54 meeting to discuss this submission in october attended by james warton you and richard harrell now let's turn to clg one triple zero seven five one one this is an email of the 25th of september 2015 from richard harrell to

00:32:06 september 2015 from richard harrell to you and brian martin sent in advance of the meeting um with a heading copy of building regs reform key decisions and there's a spreadsheet and it sets out the key decisions can we

00:32:18 and it sets out the key decisions can we go to the spreadsheet please that he attached is it clg one triple zero seven five one two

00:32:27 uh now um uh if you scroll down i'll just show you the headings the headings on the left are the columns b and c reform of building regulations key decisions and then

00:32:38 then column d why do this column e what happens if we don't column f key risks etc

00:32:44 etc and if you scroll down to line 19 part b fire safety do you see that yes and then it's uh it says there

00:32:52 there eric

00:32:53 eric pickles commitment following lack of house inquests yes that's why do this under the what happens if we don't column growing pressure from lobby groups key risks etc

00:33:05 key risks etc yes you can see it says significant reputational damage if further fire deaths occur and dclg has not acted yes and why is that only flagging reputational damage to the apartment if

00:33:16 reputational damage to the apartment if further fire deaths occur um

00:33:20 this was an internal document um that we were using to um

00:33:26 um flesh out

00:33:28 flesh out um the sort of the um the approach which was um sort of set out in high level terms um

00:33:37 um in the submission to minister wharton so that just provides the context to this um

00:33:47 i don't know why we just why we referred to significant reputational damage alone in that um in that um

00:33:58 in that um in that

00:33:59 in that box of the spreadsheet well it can't have been the only concern no no i accept that of course i i i would i be wrong in imagining that the department uh would

00:34:10 imagining that the department uh would be concerned um if it had failed to protect life safely of course yes buildings covered by the regulations of course published um if you just look above that it says uh

00:34:21 uh under line 17 in bold reviewing the technical requirements commence work on yeah part b fire safety now this is october what september 2015. had there been a decision

00:34:33 had there been a decision now

00:34:34 now to include part b fire safety in a technical review or was it still just in the simplifi simplification um so

00:34:43 so i it was it was part of the simplification phase i think this was an attempt to sort of draw together all of the various pieces of work not

00:34:54 all of the various pieces of work not just on part b but on the other parts so it would be clear to me reading this that although it could be seen to be part of the technical review or could be

00:35:05 part of the technical review or could be thought to be part of the technical review that the simplification workers we've just discussed would be carrying on

00:35:11 on under as part of the phase were phase one work

00:35:15 one work in line with the um in fact the um rose um

00:35:21 um in the uh from from row uh nine onwards um

00:35:26 um i'm not entirely sure i follow i'm sorry the heading at nine is agree to the simplification program proposed for statutory guidance stroke approved documents and then the first at 11 line 11 simplification of the

00:35:37 11 line 11 simplification of the approved documents and then at 17 reviewing the technical requirements it looks as if simplification was addressed at lines 11 to 15 but technical review

00:35:49 to 15 but technical review from 17 onwards which would include part b

00:35:52 b sure

00:35:53 sure sorry i was um rather clumsily trying to make the point that although it looks as if this spreadsheet is um placing the commitment to simplify

00:36:04 um placing the commitment to simplify adb as part of the technical work stream i was very clear in my own mind that it was part of that

00:36:12 that either sort of first part of the review which you uh which which which you identified earlier was part of the simplification process this i think was just a shorthand for us to ensure that

00:36:23 just a shorthand for us to ensure that we had captured and got in one place all of the various issues that we were going to look at or needed to look at thought we needed to look at across that whole program of work right was it made clear to the minister that part b was was to

00:36:36 to the minister that part b was was to be the subject only of the simplification exercise and wasn't itself

00:36:42 itself needing

00:36:43 needing a technical review at least in at least not in respect of the recommendations made by the coroner well i think um

00:36:50 um that's the um document which you showed slightly earlier

00:36:56 earlier indicated

00:36:57 indicated um annex b was it of the submission yes indeed to my mind um said it quite clearly indicated that there were two parts to the work on approved document b

00:37:08 parts to the work on approved document b the part on the simplification as per the um commitment by um secretary of state law pickles and then the technical work

00:37:17 work and that still stood now um as i say this was an internal document this document to my knowledge um we didn't show to or didn't feel the need to show to the minister because

00:37:29 need to show to the minister because this was about us getting our thinking absolutely clear about how the whole program of work would would might evolve and

00:37:43 so if so forgive me perhaps i mean there was some shorthand which looking at it

00:37:49 at it you know you can i can absolutely understand why conclusions could be drawn from it but what i'm saying is that that was a this is you know we knew what we were thinking about at that time and the thinking was reflected in the

00:38:00 and the thinking was reflected in the advice we provided to minister wharton rather than we'd suddenly change to do something different as per this

00:38:07 this line in this spreadsheet right you say you knew what you were thinking at the time i mean the slight difficulty we have looking at the documents is that they're not entirely consistent are they uh it's difficult to see why one

00:38:19 uh it's difficult to see why one document would would say or through you would say that the review of part b to reflect the recommendations of the coroner would sit within simplification and yet here we have it

00:38:30 simplification and yet here we have it on this as sitting under the heading reviewing the technical requirements yeah well um it doesn't clear it doesn't appear to us on the documents that you were that clear is that is that fair um well

00:38:41 well of course you know if going through documents um

00:38:48 i can absolutely understand why that impression can be gained from this all i can tell you is that um we and by we i accept that's probably me mr howell and mr mr martin maybe one or

00:39:01 mr howell and mr mr martin maybe one or two others in the team knew what we meant here even if looking at this just as a document cold i can absolutely see why you would question what is said there now if we go to james wharton's first

00:39:13 now if we go to james wharton's first witness statement at clg triple zero three zero eight three four page five please

00:39:24 uh you can see

00:39:28 that he says in paragraph 15 on that page and this refers to a later submission in november

00:39:39 in november and

00:39:40 and he uh says two-thirds of the way through the paragraph

00:39:45 paragraph 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 be foreshortened i cannot recall i cannot now recall

00:39:56 cannot recall i cannot now recall precisely when this happened and if we look at his second statement he pins it down a bit more accurately clg3034289 page seven paragraph 15 again

00:40:11 page seven paragraph 15 again and he says as as mentioned in my first witness statement i corresponded with and met with the appg and was aware of their concerns as to the pace of the review

00:40:20 review my recollection which is not perfect is that i raised the question of the speed of the review with bob ledson as a result i did i expect i did say by contacting him through my private office that i cannot now be sure i do not

00:40:32 that i cannot now be sure i do not recall when this was though it would expect it would have been between 16 september 2015 and 19th october 2015. so that's a little earlier than the november document that we'll see

00:40:45 november document that we'll see that he refers to now my question is do you remember james wharton raising the question of the speed with of the review with you at all

00:41:04 i i'm afraid i cannot recall that but i absolutely accept um what minister wharton says here it's the sort of question that he may well have raised with me um

00:41:16 with me um so i accept i accept his recollection do you remember your response

00:41:21 response well i think my response would have been as per um

00:41:25 as per um what is said in paragraph 16 of his um is his statement about the complexity of the range of factors that we needed to address within the review

00:41:41 whether i would have at that point in those that conversation briefed him on the distinction as between the sort of phase one and phase two work i sorry i cannot recall

00:41:52 two work i sorry i cannot recall um it would have been helpful if i had um clearly but i don't know whether i did or not i'm afraid i cannot recall can we get back to his first statement then please that we looked at a moment ago

00:42:04 ago clg3030834 page five uh and

00:42:09 uh and uh if we go over the page to paragraph 17 page six we were on page five we saw paragraph 15 and if we go to page

00:42:20 17 at the end there uh he says it is worth mentioning however this is four lines up from the foot of the paragraph it is worth mentioning however that i do recall

00:42:32 mentioning however that i do 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

00:42:44 foreshortened and that it was in hand and i accepted this and do you remember him being do you remember telling him that um

00:42:53 well i i don't know if this is about specifically um the part b elements of the review or the review as a whole um

00:43:04 we certainly would have discussed the overall plan because we met with minister wharton as you will know from the evidence to discuss it with him i'm trying to recall

00:43:15 recall whether we distinctly in that this conversation talked about part b as opposed to the review as a whole and therefore whether his statement which whether his

00:43:27 whether his statement which whether his statement here refers to the review as a whole or the part b element of the review

00:43:35 review i would fully accept if his recollection is that he asked about part b and that is the reply that he received then i would i would accept his recollection

00:43:46 recollection of that conversation

00:43:50 and if it's correct that he was told that it was in hand that wasn't entirely true was it well it was we had work underway

00:44:01 we had work underway um

00:44:02 um we had the work that we had by that time for example um commissioned for the plain english review for example which i think had been commissioned by that point in time um we had got the research

00:44:14 um we had got the research back from uh bre so we were looking at the

00:44:20 the conclusions from that research as part of the the technical work so work i i do not accept that it wasn't it was incorrect to say that work wasn't was not in hand i mean work was in hand

00:44:31 not in hand i mean work was in hand whether it was sufficient i think is you know

00:44:34 know is it is it is a um is it is a question right

00:44:39 right do you remember spelling out to the minister or anybody else in in these meetings or in documents spelling out to the minister that the review at least of part b was in hand to the extent

00:44:51 in hand to the extent to the extent only of the plain english review having been completed and the bre research having come in um

00:45:01 um i

00:45:01 i cannot recall um

00:45:04 um i'm whether we would have gone into that if it were me whether i would have answered that question precisely as you've suggested i i don't know

00:45:13 know i might have just referred to it in general terms as to give him a sense of generally where um how the work was progressing and where we thought we were going yes

00:45:24 where we thought we were going yes i mean there's giving someone a general sense yes which doesn't alert the minister to the specifics and there's giving a minister a sense of the specifics so that he can understand the general

00:45:35 general is there any reason why you gave him the general impression that it was in hand as he recalls it as opposed to telling him with a little bit more precision what you had done and what you had not

00:45:46 what you had done and what you had not yet done um no there was no specific reason

00:45:50 reason now can we go to clg one triple zero seven nine five four please this is an email

00:45:56 email in january 2016. we're now into 2016 you'll be glad to hear uh uh and it's from richard harrell to you 29th of january

00:46:05 january uh and the subject is building regs review sub bob please see attached the package of documents for clearance to go to james wharton we urgently need to get this cleared

00:46:17 and then it goes on the discussion document itself is already well progressed and we should aim to have a further submission the final draft and right around letter ready to go up to ministers as soon as we get a reply to the sub the date for local elections has

00:46:29 the sub the date for local elections has not yet been disclosed but on the basis that it's likely to be around 8th may and perda is six weeks we must get this out before friday 25th march if we fail to do that

00:46:40 to do that then there is a significant risk that we will be caught by an overlapping purder on the eu referendum in the case of both purdue's we are captured by policies relating to local authorities and europe so we'd be unable to argue the case for

00:46:51 so we'd be unable to argue the case for publication in those periods did you understand that need for us yes yes then we move into april uh of that year can we go to clg three zeros

00:47:03 that year can we go to clg three zeros one nine three four four please yes

00:47:07 yes what i'm showing you here is the first of april 2016 submission to james wharton from richard harrell cleared by you yes title simplification of building regulations and building control systems

00:47:18 regulations and building control systems next steps yes yeah and timing as you can see it paragraph two normal course of business but an early response will enable us to do the work to allow if you decide publication

00:47:29 work to allow if you decide publication of the discussion document in early may yeah

00:47:32 yeah now

00:47:33 now clearly that didn't make richard harrell's urgent deadline of the 25th of march no it did not why is that because the uh the work that we uh still engaged in in trying to get

00:47:44 engaged in in trying to get the draft discussion document into what i would have regarded as a sufficiently good state to put to the minister which took longer than we um

00:47:56 than we had anticipated when we had the discussion um when mr harrell rightly alerted me to the timetabling risks it was just a function unfortunately of the time the capacity

00:48:09 of the time the capacity and the ability to get that document into a shape where i and my and other others senior officers would have felt this is in a good shape to put to the minister what was the

00:48:20 to put to the minister what was the specific hold up can you remember um well i think um there are a number of things going on so i think um i may have mentioned this yesterday although we were not at the stage

00:48:31 were not at the stage of um as it were when we were not at the stage of proposing specific changes to

00:48:38 to uh regulations or guidance uh a number of the issues particularly those related to the building control system

00:48:46 system did require us to double check with our legal colleagues as to are we um um is what we are suggesting something we can do

00:48:57 we can do so um

00:48:58 so um that that that was a stage which we needed to go through i wanted at that stage also to ensure as did mr howard actually mr howell suggested this and i agreed with

00:49:09 howell suggested this and i agreed with him we wanted to make sure that the range of technical issues that we were suggesting needed to be addressed across the whole suite

00:49:20 across the whole suite of the building regulations had been absolutely nailed down and were

00:49:26 were well based with the technical team so

00:49:30 so there was a process of peer review as it were in early 2000 2016

00:49:37 2016 of that

00:49:39 of that and also

00:49:41 and also i think that at this stage although we were not needing and not at the position of

00:49:46 of um

00:49:48 um preparing a formal impact assessment we would have engaged with our analytical colleagues just to see if there's some anything that they could offer into improving the advice that we provided

00:50:01 improving the advice that we provided to james wharton now we missed

00:50:06 the per week we obviously did not achieve the 25th of my march um deadline which mr harold rightly identified as a risk for those reasons and that

00:50:17 as a risk for those reasons and that that was unfortunate because obviously it then basically pushed us back uh two months now i think it's right isn't it that the first of april was not too late to avoid

00:50:28 first of april was not too late to avoid purdue was it um

00:50:31 um well

00:50:32 well um i can't remember when the purdue period at that point um i'll tell you thank you i'll tell you yeah the local elections per day started on the 14th of april and ran to the 5th of may thank you and the

00:50:44 you and the uh eu exit referendum per day period started on the 27th of may and ran until the day of the vote 23rd of june 2016. fine thank you for that so um yes but

00:50:56 fine thank you for that so um yes but what this would have meant is that within the period for example if we wanted to avoid um the local election per day we would have needed for so for that that two-week period the

00:51:08 for so for that that two-week period the first two weeks of april we would have needed first for minister wharton to sign this off second i think almost certainly he would have wanted to engage with the then secretary of state because this was a

00:51:19 secretary of state because this was a significant policy issue so there would have been a period of of clearing this minister water and clearing this with with with minister secretary of state clark

00:51:30 clark we would not we would have had to sought collective clearance for this so we would have had to have gone through a formal right round process across government because this engaged a

00:51:42 government because this engaged a significant number of other departmental interests

00:51:46 interests at the minimum that is a week so when you start to add all of those things together we

00:51:54 we would not have been we would not have achieved we had been able to publish this before the 14th of april right now let's look at uh annex c um

00:52:05 right now let's look at uh annex c um at clg

00:52:06 at clg one triple zero eight one two two which is the annex to this document uh and uh well that's called an xb it is in fact nxt let's not worry about that and it's his program time scales do you

00:52:18 and it's his program time scales do you see that yes and it projects if you look at it that the approved documents would uh be finalized in the first half of 2018 doesn't it it does

00:52:32 of 2018 doesn't it it does and you could see that from the blue oblong

00:52:35 oblong about a quarter of the way down in the middle

00:52:38 middle uh

00:52:39 uh now this i should just say was sent by email on the 6th of april 2016 the reference to that is clg one triple zero eight one two one there's no need to turn that up um the date of

00:52:50 um the date of the first half of 2018 there you see that yeah um does that or did that relate to phase one the simplification process of approved documents or did it relate to everything

00:53:03 so

00:53:06 let's say everything i mean it's simplification yes um well i regularly

00:53:11 regularly it's

00:53:13 looking at this now and having also looked at it subsequently as part of my preparation i absolutely accept it's not clear and it should and we and i should have made sure that it was more clear as to

00:53:24 sure that it was more clear as to exactly

00:53:26 exactly whether

00:53:27 whether um what we were talking about here because we've elided a number of processes which were covering

00:53:34 covering two phases of work and looking at this now

00:53:41 i accept that it would not have been and it's not as clear as it should have been and i accept responsibility for that to the minister about exactly what was going to happen when

00:53:51 when um i think it probably would have been too much detail to have drawn up a similar

00:53:56 similar something like this for every individual project

00:54:02 project but

00:54:03 but it could have been clearer well what would the answer have been if if you'd been asked by james wharton the following question thank you very much for your gantt chart here

00:54:15 much for your gantt chart here when is the date by which the document adb will be produced revised in accordance with the promise made by my predecessor

00:54:26 with the promise made by my predecessor to the uh coroner

00:54:30 but if you'd asked me that question then i would have said you know the commitment is um 2016 indeed

00:54:38 indeed on the on this document when do i see well that date moved to sure well on the way this document is presented then it would be either in the sort of 2017 stroke 2018

00:54:49 either in the sort of 2017 stroke 2018 if you you know just looking at this document we're looking at this document what tells me uh that the recommendation the promise made to the coroner uh to respond to her recommendation in respect

00:55:01 respond to her recommendation in respect of the review of approved document b would be delivered by in 2017. um well this document doesn't no so what would the answer to the minister's question of being well um

00:55:14 minister's question of being well um the answer to the minister's question would have been as i was describing that there was a commitment 2016 2017 um

00:55:22 um at this point in time there was still i think a chance that we would have achieved that deadline with the simplification work i know that this does not say that it would have been very very difficult

00:55:36 if we'd had that conversation if i may continue if we'd had that conversation i would hope that i would say to the minister there is a

00:55:43 is a significant risk to that timetable i would say you know this timetable is trying to cover a lot and perhaps covering too much doesn't capture

00:55:54 covering too much doesn't capture all of the nuances and

00:55:56 and um

00:55:57 um i would hope that i would have said to the minister should we review

00:56:05 the commitment and what do you want us to do do you want us to basically throw everything at that commitment to try and achieve it which would have had knock-on effects to

00:56:16 to the rest of the program or do you want to review

00:56:19 to review that

00:56:20 that that commitment and think about whether the in the light of experience we need to

00:56:26 to go back to the coroner or make a statement that to the effect of regrettably that timetable has slipped i didn't do that

00:56:37 i didn't do that and i accept that that is perhaps something i should have done

00:56:42 done it would have been my job to do that sort of thing and i missed that for his part did the minister not ask you the question what does finalized approved documents

00:56:54 what does finalized approved documents mean there i don't think he asked that question i don't recall him asking that question of me or mr harrell um

00:57:04 i'm trying to recall whether we actually discussed this i know there was some feedback from the private office on the submission but i'm not at all sure given the timetables and the elections that

00:57:16 the timetables and the elections that were happening whether we actually discussed this submission and this timetable face-to-face with minister wharton at that time but i'm happy to be corrected if there are documents which suggest otherwise would you follow from

00:57:29 suggest otherwise would you follow from that but he never asked you the direct question

00:57:31 question uh what is what is the realistic deliverable delivery date now for the promise made to the coroner um i don't recall receiving a request of

00:57:43 um i don't recall receiving a request of that nature from his office let's then turn to gavin barwell now just as a run-up to that um i think agree with me and please don't agree

00:57:54 agree with me and please don't agree with me if this is wrong but after the eu exit referendum there was a change of prime minister and a ministerial reshuffle correct yes and on 17th july 2016 mr gavin barwell now lord barwon i

00:58:05 2016 mr gavin barwell now lord barwon i think was appointed a minister of state for housing and planning correct did the did the reshuffle mean that you had to obtain a new ministerial agreement to continue with work on reviewing adb in our view we would need

00:58:17 reviewing adb in our view we would need to uh confirm with new minister and obviously we had a new secretary of state as well that they were content to proceed with the plans that their predecessors had put in uh had agreed right so it's a yes

00:58:28 put in uh had agreed right so it's a yes sorry yes sorry yes that's okay um in preparation for the reshuffle uh you may remember this but on the 13th of july 2016 richard harrell sent a bundle of submissions to steve carter maine who

00:58:39 of submissions to steve carter maine who is by now your director and to planning director simon gallagher correct yes now i'll show you that it's clg three zeroes one nine three nine

00:58:50 one nine three nine and if you look at the foot of the page there it is there's an email from richard harrell 13th july subject building regulations and space standard submissions and a package was included as he says

00:59:02 and a package was included as he says please see attached a package of submissions alongside a covering note that we've been working on which we need to put up to ministers at some stage we will need to discuss how and when the package includes the first bullet point

00:59:14 package includes the first bullet point covering building regulation review submission seeking agreement to write around on publication of a discussion document now just pause there the right around i think is a reference to what you referred to

00:59:25 you referred to a little earlier as seeking collective clearance across government yes right uh and also draft building regulation review discussion document as annex to above submission

00:59:37 above submission now there's a reply to this document which if you look up the page you can see if we scroll up a little from simon gallagher the next day 14th of july 2016 uh copy to steve quartermaine and to you

00:59:49 uh copy to steve quartermaine and to you richard i intend to leave these to steve to look at next week we certainly shouldn't be rushing to put things to new ministers simon do you know why he said that um because

01:00:01 do you know why he said that um because um although

01:00:05 the nature of the government had not changed it was still a conservative administration um with the um significant changes across the whole of the ministerial

01:00:16 the ministerial team at that point in time we were in effect treating this a week so the department was to my recollection treating this

01:00:27 treating this in process terms very similarly to the

01:00:31 the briefing process we would provide for a new government so there was a

01:00:37 a process of ensuring that

01:00:41 that submissions for example to the new ministerial team were ordered um in fact i think there may even have been some almost like a triage process um so that key documents were put to the

01:00:54 um so that key documents were put to the new ministerial team um who are new to the portfolios um rather than you know business as usual policy teams just deluging a whole load of stuff

01:01:06 just deluging a whole load of stuff to new ministers particularly given the last two months two and a half months very little normal business have been able to been been progressed so that is what mr gallaher would have been referring to i

01:01:17 referring to i we shouldn't put this up just as it is we need to think about how we present this both in terms of the work of the uh of of of um the

01:01:28 the work of the uh of of of um the planning directorate as a whole because we were at this at this point part of the planning directorate plus ensuring that it's um uh is fully um

01:01:38 um taken forward or fully uh uh

01:01:41 uh considered within that sort of overall corporate departmental process now the decision to treat this

01:01:50 this reshuffle as a if it were a change in government whose decision was that was that made uh at cena or echelons yes but outside in other words it

01:02:01 yes but outside in other words it covered all departments when it covered the whole of the department i don't know how other government departments treated this but we were my recollection is that within mhclg

01:02:11 mhclg um

01:02:12 um this was the approach which

01:02:16 we were asked to adopt across other departments within oh yes yeah yeah absolutely yeah i see sorry i'm

01:02:25 sorry i'm within departments in my term you're doing the direct directorates and other divisions within the department but within mhclg yes my recollection is that we had this process we were

01:02:36 is that we had this process we were expected to follow this process and to be honest with you i think if we probably had just put something up i think there's a good chance

01:02:47 i think there's a good chance the private office would have just said well hang on a minute i'm just not putting this in cold to the new minister it needs to be considered as part of that broader briefing uh process

01:02:58 why is it any different in substance though from an ordinary reshuffle for example the reshuffle that had put um

01:03:05 um [Music]

01:03:06 [Music] well well i don't you know this this these decisions taken above my pay grade so i'm sorry i can't you can't or i can't answer that question given the extensive delays of the previous three years

01:03:18 why was this package of submissions not brought to the minister's attention as a matter of urgency and explaining the urgency um

01:03:28 well i obviously i'm not in a position to discuss the relative priority of this piece of work as opposed to other priority pieces of work i mean the view was taken

01:03:38 was taken that um

01:03:40 that um we uh it needed to be held whilst we worked through whilst the department worked through and agreed with the new ministerial team how they wanted to conduct business so

01:03:52 how they wanted to conduct business so um that was why it was not put up until late after the summer break yes and we're now more than three years since the

01:04:01 the secretary of state's promise to the coroner

01:04:04 coroner i mean it appears from certainly from simon gallagher's remark here and from more general matters that there was a complete lack of urgency within your directorate of getting on with this project notwithstanding the promise that

01:04:15 project notwithstanding the promise that had been made by the secretary of state well i don't i don't accept that i mean we have been working very hard in

01:04:24 in difficult circumstances and with other conflicting priorities to try and um

01:04:30 and um advance the work um it was very unfortunate that um as i say that you know as you will know

01:04:38 know the circumstances were such that um we were not able to get this through i mean i have to say also that of course the key issue

01:04:49 that of course the key issue for the new uh for the may administration at that point was working out the implications of the referendum result so in my team we had two significant

01:05:01 so in my team we had two significant pieces of european-based legislation one the energy performance of buildings directive and secondly the construction products regulations so the key thing actually at this point in time because i remember i needed to

01:05:13 in time because i remember i needed to advise us to work on this was to be able to advise ministers on what brexit meant for those two pieces of legislation in terms of the of what we would need to do

01:05:26 terms of the of what we would need to do in terms of implementing the referendum so

01:05:28 so you know there was a lot else happening

01:05:31 happening of great import at this point in time well you say great import can i just get a feel for the extent to which the need to devote your directorate's resources to as you put it working out the

01:05:43 as you put it working out the implications of brexit um

01:05:49 uh had an impact on the on on the adb revision project um well there is only so much time that um

01:05:58 um people would have available um and particularly my time and also mr howell's time we were the senior officials in this area uh and if we are asked to provide urgent

01:06:10 uh and if we are asked to provide urgent advice for example on uh or contribute to urgent advice on the implications of the eu referendum um for legislation in your area then of course we would respond to that um and unfortunately

01:06:23 respond to that um and unfortunately that meant that we would not then have the time

01:06:25 the time for other things that was um unfortunate the way of the where we were at that point in time now i'm not going to say that you know 100 of my time was involved in brexit therefore i couldn't do anything on this

01:06:37 therefore i couldn't do anything on this no that's not right i'm not going to you know

01:06:39 know so but it was an influence it was an affecting factor and uh you know that was that was that was how it was and had any forward planning been undertaken by your directorate

01:06:51 undertaken by your directorate to account for the risk that the resources might have to be diverted or devoted to working out the importance of brexit

01:07:04 i'm smiling a little because

01:07:08 because we you know there was very

01:07:12 to my mind guidance from the cabinet office about how

01:07:16 how departments and i'm choosing my words carefully you'll understand why should position themselves in respect of the outcomes of the eu referendum and i don't think i can say more than than

01:07:28 i don't think i can say more than than that all right now let's move forward in time paragraph 96 of your statement on page 26

01:07:39 and you can see there that you had a meeting you gave an introductory presentation you say on the 21st of july 2016 to gavin barwell on the building regulations uh uh now uh

01:07:52 uh uh now uh you you actually exhibit the presentation yes we don't i think need to see that but he says in his statement that you gave him an introductory meeting on the 8th of august and we also have a meeting invitation for that day

01:08:03 have a meeting invitation for that day just help me were there two introductory briefings uh or was it was there any one namely the one he recalls on the 8th of august 2016.

01:08:14 he recalls on the 8th of august 2016. yes um

01:08:17 yes um i thought there was only one and it may be that i got confused with the date it may well have been that it was an original date on the 21st of july which then got moved to the 8th of august i think that's possibly what happened

01:08:29 i think that's possibly what happened actually right let's look at his p his statement please clg three zeros three zero nine six zero page four uh page four paragraph ten

01:08:42 and if you look at that you see that the top of the screen he refers to the eighth august date and he says at the very top of the screen at the top of the page i remember it

01:08:54 at the top of the page i remember it specifically as being one of the last introductory briefings i had the order of these briefings was determined by my private office my sense was that it reflected the department's view of the urgency of the issues different teams

01:09:05 urgency of the issues different teams we're dealing with i've reviewed the slides from the building regulations briefing the slides do not refer to the rule 43 letter or recommendations now

01:09:15 now his sense that it reflected the department's view of the urgency of the issues different teams were dealing with that's what he says and

01:09:24 and did you get the sense that that is what he thought

01:09:31 i think i can't answer obviously for for what minister barwell thought um

01:09:37 um i do recollect that it's quite right to say

01:09:41 say um

01:09:42 um that the presentation on building regulations probably was towards the end of that process i do recall from general discussions with other colleagues that they um had

01:09:53 with other colleagues that they um had had the similar briefings with minister barwell sooner than we did so

01:10:00 so i think there's a statement of fact i would absolutely agree with what uh minister barwell says in his statement here um as to what that meant in terms of the department's view i

01:10:12 of the department's view i i don't think i can comment on that right let's um let's look at clg three zeroes one nine three six one these are the slides uh that i think you sent on building

01:10:23 uh that i think you sent on building regulations and energy performance of buildings

01:10:27 buildings uh

01:10:28 uh for the purposes of discussion during that meeting yeah the the email is dated the 21st of july 20th that may be where the confusion has risen maybe yes and it says please find a tax slide pack on

01:10:39 says please find a tax slide pack on building regulations to discuss with our minister at our introductory meeting on monday now the monday would be the 24th of july oh that's why obviously that meeting was then moved right uh but you then go on to say i should

01:10:52 uh but you then go on to say i should say this is your email to gavin barwell i do not propose to go through the slide pack in detail on monday but to highlight the key points about the regulations and systems and to give an overview of the key issues which we will

01:11:03 overview of the key issues which we will want to discuss with the minister uh over the coming weeks and months happy to discuss bob yes yes now um let's look at the um

01:11:13 um slide pack please at clg3019362

01:11:24 now it's a document of some nine pages long

01:11:29 long um if we

01:11:31 um if we uh really showing you this in order to to demonstrate a negative that um we can't find anything in this document that contains a reference or indicates

01:11:42 that contains a reference or indicates the lack of house inquest or the recommendations or the secretary of state's commitment to review adb in response to the to the recommendation i accept that because i looked at this this morning and i agree do you know why that was um

01:11:56 as you would you have seen from this side pack those that we were trying to cram in a lot of information across a wide range of issues so inevitably there was um uh the need to

01:12:09 inevitably there was um uh the need to um

01:12:10 um uh

01:12:11 uh elide a lot of issues into sort of simple bullet point statements um and i'm sure you'll go to the page there was a you know within the way this was set out as you know there were some fours it was sub boxes

01:12:23 fours it was sub boxes and there was one smaller box which sets out um

01:12:27 out um future issues for discussion and there were general references in there including i think to the um the building regulations review but i fully accept because there's a statement of fact that there was no reference to um

01:12:41 fact that there was no reference to um to the lack of house uh coroner's recommendation in that um presentation yes thank you do you remember raising the lachenal issue the secretary of state's promise

01:12:52 issue the secretary of state's promise nonetheless orally with the minister when you met him on the 8th of august um i cannot recall but

01:13:03 it was it was a high-level presentation um

01:13:09 um my recollection is we probably spent most of the time actually explaining how the building regulations worked um so that he had a general understanding of the background to the

01:13:20 understanding of the background to the detailed material he would then follow in detailed submissions so

01:13:25 so unless minister barwell uh recollects otherwise then i think it's possible that we would i did not mention it right now you say in your statement we don't we don't need to go to it it's

01:13:36 don't we don't need to go to it it's paragraph 96 on page 26 that you don't recall fire safety issues being discussed at the meeting with the minister well fine if that's my recollection then i'm absolutely sorry

01:13:47 absolutely sorry by that that was your recollection when you wrote your statement i imagine it's is this right it's still your record yes yes or rather non-recollection yes yes um now um let me show you what

01:13:59 yes yes um now um let me show you what mr mr lord barwell says about that he it's this is clg 3030960

01:14:05 3030960 page four paragraph 13

01:14:12 and he says at the uh at the foot of the page there from my initial briefing he says without with officials

01:14:21 uh

01:14:24 yes from my initial briefing with officials i understood that fire safety policy was working and the fatalities from fires were decreasing

01:14:32 i was also conscious that there was a capacity issue in government given the clear stare i had been given by the prime minister that the key priority was addressing the housing supply crisis i accepted the advice i

01:14:43 supply crisis i accepted the advice i was given that the outstanding issue would be dealt with as part of a broader review of building regulations as soon as the housing white paper was published

01:14:53 now he

01:14:56 he uh

01:14:57 uh i think well let me let me show you the slides he was given can we go back to the slideshow please uh at clg3019362

01:15:09 uh and if we go to page three in that document you can see in the top left-hand box that there is uh a set of statistics with some graphics yes and it says we have seen real improvements in fire safety for

01:15:20 real improvements in fire safety for example yes and then it says in 1979 865 people in the uk died from fires and dwellings 30 years later this number had fallen to 353

01:15:31 fallen to 353 yes and that's based on home office fire statistics correct do you remember discussing these statistics or that box with the minister during the meeting um

01:15:43 um i think the recollection would be as set out in lord barbara's statement it would have been a general reference that taking the looking at the fire statistics the situation is improving right

01:15:54 right we would not have gone into detail about these statistics um

01:16:01 um or

01:16:02 or the technical issues about fire safety in that did you discuss the delay to the publication of the discussion document well you did not discuss the discontent

01:16:13 well you did not discuss the discontent i do not recall us discussing the delay to the discussion document um i think as the as the presentation

01:16:24 as the presentation sets out later there was a reference to this was something that we would need to run past or to see your agreement to and we would have mentioned i'm sure we would have mentioned i would have mentioned that explicitly but i don't

01:16:37 mentioned that explicitly but i don't think

01:16:37 think i would have gone through um the detail of what that would have covered so i think it's unlikely in fact i'm sure that i would not have for example referred

01:16:48 not have for example referred specifically at that point to the lack and all house coroner's recommendations and the commitment given by lord pickles

01:16:59 the commitment given by lord pickles does it follow from that that you did not impress on gavin barwell the urgency the need for urgency of the review of approved document be given the time frames promised and

01:17:10 time frames promised and the date you were having this meeting

01:17:18 i cannot recall exactly what i said um

01:17:22 um i would have said that we are wanting to move this move ahead with this i would have said that it was something that we i probably i would expect i would have said it had been something that we were we had been working on

01:17:34 that we were we had been working on quite significantly with minister wharton so it was you know there was a a developed product for him to review rather than starting from scratch

01:17:47 i would not have said we need to get this out next week minister because it would not be my place to say that as i said i don't recall mentioning the lack of house recommendation

01:17:59 the lack of house recommendation um as a

01:18:01 um as a you know an imperative at this point in time

01:18:04 time so that is my recollection and my expectation of the of the way i would have presented this to lord bowl at that meeting without as i say being absolutely clear having an absolutely clear recall

01:18:18 having an absolutely clear recall no

01:18:19 no but does it follow from that that you didn't

01:18:22 didn't or at least don't recall saying to the minister look minister i should tell you this would be in your way not mine that we have eight months to run until the expiry of the promise made by the

01:18:34 the expiry of the promise made by the secretary of state your predecessor but one to the coroner back in 2013 uh we are in very grave danger of missing that deadline um you should know

01:18:46 missing that deadline um you should know that

01:18:47 that i accept that i did probably i would not have said that in those terms at that meeting

01:18:51 meeting but

01:18:52 but no but accounting for differences in yeah

01:18:55 yeah did you explain why you didn't can you explain why you didn't bring that point home clearly to the minister

01:19:11 no i cannot um

01:19:15 um and obviously with hindsight it was an omission

01:19:20 now can we go then to uh i'm afraid slightly back in time late july 2016. clg one triple zero eight three five six

01:19:30 this is an email from richard harrell to all advisors of the 27th of july 2016 copied

01:19:38 copied to you among others with some attachments and the subject is forward historical research reports are you happy for us to start publishing them please

01:19:50 start publishing them please and

01:19:51 and richard harrell says i recognize that there will be a great deal going on in spad's office at the moment but i wanted to ask whether there is any possibility of confirming clearance to

01:20:02 possibility of confirming clearance to publish building regulations research reports that we have previously discussed see email trail below some of these reports are attracting political interest electric electrical safety in particular

01:20:13 electric electrical safety in particular others raise important technical questions where we need to be discussing solutions with industry part e sound insulation and others have life safety implications part b fire safety some of these reports have

01:20:25 fire safety some of these reports have been awaiting publication for 18 months jacob cleared them for publication shortly before the referendum etc and then he goes on we do not believe the publication of any of these reports is likely the importance or

01:20:36 reports is likely the importance or interest outside specific trade sectors and overall our low risk these are very important to our work however and then this is emboldened underlined is there any way we can agree an august publication date preferably in one group

01:20:47 publication date preferably in one group happy to come and speak and discuss with new spads if that would be of benefit now

01:20:55 now going to what he says in the second paragraph there life safety which parts of those reports had life safety implications so he would have been referring there to

01:21:07 so he would have been referring there to the

01:21:08 the work stream reports which we've discussed previously so not the as it were simplification exercise on adb and and particularly external fire spread not that because that was not

01:21:19 spread not that because that was not covered by the research program because as i said to you earlier that was not something we felt we needed research these were the various part b related work stream reports i see these are the seven work

01:21:30 reports i see these are the seven work streams but not the response to the coroner's right correct i apologize um now mr chairman is now a convenient moment

01:21:37 moment yes if that's convenient to you well it's time we had a short break i think mr ledson will have one now we'll come back please at 20 to 12 and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while they're

01:21:49 anyone about your evidence while they're away from the room right thank you very much

01:22:00 thank you very much 2012 please

01:41:04 would you ask mr led some to come back in please

01:41:20 are you good all right yes good thank you yes thank you mr chairman mr led sim it's right isn't it that steve carter may became director responsible for the building regulations and energy performance team prep in uh

01:41:31 and energy performance team prep in uh july in june 2016 i think correct yes uh and he says that paragraph let's look at his statement um clg3030866

01:41:42 and what i want to show you is page 14 paragraph 33

01:41:47 and he says here

01:41:50 here under the question did you consider that decision to relate in any way to concerns as to a delay in taking forward the rule 43 recommendations arising from the

01:42:01 recommendations arising from the national house request

01:42:05 inquest and

01:42:07 and the decision uh relates to something in an earlier email which i may show you but what i want to show you this is here is the

01:42:15 is the second

01:42:16 second uh

01:42:17 uh and third sentences he says this the team had been acting on a previously agreed program of work and since taking over in june 2016 i had recognized the implications of not getting on with the review of part b once this was brought

01:42:29 review of part b once this was brought to my attention and was trying to help them move things on quickly uh

01:42:36 now if we get back in his

01:42:39 in his statement please to page five it also says this a paragraph 17

01:42:50 the work referred to in question three predates my period of management of the brep team i was unaware of the coroner's rule 43 letter until autumn 2016 when bob ledson raised it with me as part of

01:43:01 bob ledson raised it with me as part of a one-to-one discussion where he was briefing me on work in progress at the time bob raised concerns about getting ministers time to allow them to press ahead with the review program

01:43:13 press ahead with the review program now first can you explain why steve quartermaine was only made aware of the rule 43 letter in the autumn of 2016.

01:43:32 so i would have obviously discussed with him the overall program of work and what we were trying to achieve with the discussion document and i would have discussed with

01:43:43 document and i would have discussed with him i'm sure before then because of the references in the advice

01:43:48 advice given to um lord barwell about the part b work contained

01:43:54 contained in that review process um so

01:43:58 so i'm sure i would have discussed the general approach on part b but um i would accept what mr quartermaine says here about the coroner's rule 43 and i'm afraid i don't

01:44:09 coroner's rule 43 and i'm afraid i don't i can't answer why i felt that it wasn't important for me to raise it with him sooner

01:44:16 sooner and do you accept that you should have brought the coroner's letter and the secretary of state's may 2013 response to it to steve quartermaine's attention when he was appointed in june 2013 or shortly afterwards well i certainly

01:44:28 shortly afterwards well i certainly think that if i don't quite know what he means by the autumn but assuming um that that was um

01:44:37 what i would have thought i would have hoped i would have done is that as we were preparing the advice

01:44:45 advice that eventually went to minister barwell in uh in september 2016 that as part of the process of developing that advice that would have been an appropriate point

01:44:57 been an appropriate point to alert mr quartermaine to the coroner's rule 43 letter now i accept that what mr quartermaine by the way mr quartermaine has referred

01:45:10 by the way mr quartermaine has referred to this in his statement suggests that it was not done

01:45:15 done necessarily at that immediate point in time but perhaps later as we were coming as i was becoming concerned about the delays so um that i'm afraid again i have to say i

01:45:26 um that i'm afraid again i have to say i if i it would it must have been a mission on my part if you look at paragraph 18 he goes on to say i immediately recognize the need to press on with the actions announced

01:45:37 to press on with the actions announced in response to the lack of house coroner's report a program of work was underway in line with the secretary of state's response and this had been approved by ministers i therefore tried to expedite the work that was underway i

01:45:48 to expedite the work that was underway i did this by requiring bob to progress the submissions to ministers as soon as possible and he goes on to say that

01:45:56 that submissions were sent to gavin barwell on the 7th of september 2016 regarding the research results and on 15th september 2016 regarding the building regulations discussion document

01:46:07 regulations discussion document now

01:46:08 now why did progressing those submissions need impetus from mr quartermaine well i mean the first point i'd make is that um i don't know if this is the case but my only i'm i feel given

01:46:20 but my only i'm i feel given you know the serious point made about whether i kept my senior managers in touch with the process but the sequence of paragraph 17 and 18 suggests to me that i did speak to mr

01:46:31 suggests to me that i did speak to mr quartermaine about this certainly in the early autumn because this suggests that that conversation happened before those submissions were made on the 7th of september and the 15th december i

01:46:43 of september and the 15th december i just make that as an observation

01:46:46 so the reason for engaging mr quartermaine is a obviously to ensure that mr quartermaine was aware that you know there was a potentially developing

01:46:57 developing issue of timing and timetabling the first point secondly

01:47:03 secondly although

01:47:04 although the

01:47:05 the process

01:47:07 process um for putting advice etc to ministers had sort of la you know loosened or relaxed we were more back in sort of normal business in terms of uh providing or putting advice to ministers rather

01:47:18 or putting advice to ministers rather than all going through that centralized process which i described to you before the break

01:47:24 the break um

01:47:24 um clearly

01:47:26 clearly there was the potential that we still could have got a little bit stuck in terms of getting the internal clearances that we need to put such an important submission to ministers so mr quartermaine

01:47:37 quartermaine you know

01:47:38 you know um helpfully at this point in time um sort of weighed said he would be ready to weigh in to actually if we had found somehow some some other blockages somewhere then he would weigh in to get

01:47:49 somewhere then he would weigh in to get those blockages cleared which was um which was

01:47:52 which was which was

01:47:54 which was and i do remember him throughout this period of time in the autumn being very conscious of helping us get stuff through including as i think as i can see

01:48:06 as i can see um

01:48:07 um uh

01:48:09 uh later on in his statement engaging with

01:48:12 with with the minister's office and indeed i think with special advisers to get things through but it took steve carter maine's arrival and then your discussion with him in september

01:48:23 your discussion with him in september 2016 to get things moving um well i think by this time um clearly the i mean the the the the implications

01:48:34 implications of um

01:48:35 of um or the timetable risks if i may put it like that the timetable risks were becoming more acute well absolutely yes indeed i'm no one's going to dispute that and therefore the urgency

01:48:47 and therefore the urgency of getting things of engaging with ministers and getting things through the system was obviously rising and this is absolutely the point at which

01:48:58 at which um it's right to involve a director and significantly to use his or her authority

01:49:07 authority to try and get things through the system get decisions made etc

01:49:14 etc um i mean the prior to um

01:49:19 um this point in time if you're alluding to the position with previous directors

01:49:26 directors although as you all know from the evidence from my statement and elsewhere we had those discussions we were still in my view in a position that

01:49:35 that we could manage the program reasonably and achieve that timetable therefore and we and things hadn't got held up to the extent they were by this point in in elsewhere in

01:49:47 point in in elsewhere in in ministerial offices um so therefore we didn't need the intervention from previous directors that mr quartermaine identified and took upon himself in the autumn of 2016. i'm sorry that

01:49:58 in the autumn of 2016. i'm sorry that was a rather long answer but i think it's important to sort of make those points

01:50:07 can we go to clg three zeroes one eight

01:50:11 eight please

01:50:16 uh this is a a submission i think to gavin barwell and sanji javid from richard harrell cleared by you and

01:50:25 and although i don't think we see the date of this document um on the page uh it comes through the 15th of september 2016 submission referred to in the statement and the

01:50:36 referred to in the statement and the email we have for that we don't need to go to it is it clg 3019366 to fix it in time 15 september 2016.

01:50:45 2016. now if we go to uh page one you can see the recommendation in the middle of the screen there uh paragraph three that you agree officials should continue to develop the building regulations discussion document annex a with a view to publication in

01:50:58 annex a with a view to publication in the autumn yes and that's the autumn of 2016 correct um the submission in annex a take it from me doesn't mention the lack

01:51:09 take it from me doesn't mention the lack of housing quest the rule 43 letter or the commitment made by eric pickles no i know why is that

01:51:25 i'm not sure um whether or what reference there may have been in the um

01:51:31 um [Music]

01:51:33 [Music] i think like in xa you're referring to that is the draft discussion document is that correct i'm sorry i can't i think there are

01:51:40 there are just trying to understand whether this is the full submission or the discussion document and what may have been referred to in which document

01:51:51 annex a

01:51:55 uh is

01:51:59 a draft discussion document okay which i don't think i have the reference for to give you

01:52:04 give you right but um i i i can find that um if need be um let's let's move on and we can come back to that if necessary um

01:52:15 um do you accept though that there's nothing in this document on the screen that indicates to the minister the need for urgency that had apparently by now being injected by steve carter maine um i mean

01:52:27 um i mean depending on what is said on pages two to four if that's if it's not referenced there then i would accept that uh

01:52:34 uh moving forward in time uh in

01:52:37 uh in late september 29th of september 2016 mr barwell confirmed i think that he agreed with the recommendations to continue the development as recommended here didn't he yes now then there was a brac meeting

01:52:48 he yes now then there was a brac meeting on the 4th of october 2016. we can see the minutes at clg 30 is 19443

01:52:56 yeah and uh

01:53:00 and uh you can see that it's the third bright meeting of 2016 on the 4th of october and you can see the attendees one of whom was aunt bird who i think moved out of your

01:53:13 who i think moved out of your um

01:53:14 um division into energy effectively no um mr bird at this point had left the department and he had been appointed as a member of brac a full-time member of full-time members

01:53:25 a full-time member of full-time members right so this is this he is listed on the list of attendees as a full-time member of bragg i follow uh now um you say it paragraph 140 of your statement there's no need to turn it up that you attended but you're not recorded as

01:53:36 attended but you're not recorded as present is that as per the last black meter as per the previous discussion about officials wouldn't be listed on the attendance list right now let's go to page three and look at paragraph 3.2.3

01:53:47 3.2.3 you

01:53:48 you see that it is recorded there the foot of the page and this is underneath the title building regulations review discussion paper as follows it was confirmed that once the discussion document was published

01:53:59 the discussion document was published and responses start being received brac working groups would be convened to provide advice on the final set of recommendations before presentation to ministers correct and now in your statement at paragraph

01:54:10 and now in your statement at paragraph 142 page 36 no need to look at it unless you want to that had the discussion document been published the normal practice would have been to have set up a formal

01:54:19 a formal part b technical working party to consider the specific issues in the document yes yes yes including a group to look at part b issues yes yes but because the discussion document wasn't

01:54:30 because the discussion document wasn't published that group wasn't set up not at that point in time no but you had i think already had the go-ahead from gavin barwell to engage with brac to establish the relevant working groups haven't you we had

01:54:43 working groups haven't you we had so why didn't you start establishing the working groups at that point september 2016.

01:54:48 2016. well if you recall um there had been a meeting of the of the party of a part b working group earlier that year which had discussed the um emerging findings from the seven work

01:55:01 um emerging findings from the seven work stream reports and that helped us develop

01:55:07 develop issue or

01:55:10 issue or develop questions emerging from those research reports which i think if you track through the documents you will find did find um end up in in the drafts of the

01:55:21 um end up in in the drafts of the discussion documents so the view that i'm i think that we would have taken at that point in time is that we didn't absolutely need to

01:55:31 to have a black working group because brac through that earlier meeting and through the meeting of that working group previously had had sort of got there already if you see what i mean so we

01:55:42 already if you see what i mean so we could have set up a brac working group but in effect it would have discussed the things that have been discussed at the previous meeting so at this point in time perhaps was not the most effective use of

01:55:52 of black resources um having said that of course

01:55:58 of course we would have then um as we always would do once the discussion document had been issued or we definitely had a definite date for discussion we would then have engaged with brac to say can members please

01:56:10 with brac to say can members please identify themselves so that we are ready to go

01:56:12 to go immediately the um the period of you know for responses had closed so that we could um we could utilize their experience in analyzing those responses and developing um the next stages of the

01:56:24 developing um the next stages of the work right

01:56:29 but that didn't happen did it no it didn't happen because the discussion document was not published no and indeed looking ahead a further nine months to june 2017 it's right isn't it that

01:56:38 that as at the date of the grenfell tower fire some four years after lord pickles commitment to the coroner a formal working group to look at part b issues had still not been established well

01:56:49 well i mean i could quibble about that because i think um it could be perfectly legitimate to say that a group had been established because that was the group that met in january 2016.

01:57:01 that met in january 2016. um and it's perfectly legitimate to say well that was he hadn't had he done anything since the answer to that is no for the reasons i gave him my uh last answer

01:57:12 well can you give them again sure so in a in a sentence or two sorry okay so the brac working group established in which met in january or february 2016

01:57:24 in which met in january or february 2016 uh looked at the it was briefed on the research reports helped us identify the issues emerging from those research reports which were then put into the various

01:57:35 which were then put into the various iterations of the discussion or the would be included in the discussion document that was the first stage of the work of that working group at this point they didn't seem the need to reconvene that group

01:57:48 the need to reconvene that group to go over that ground again until the discussion document was published and when the dispute when the decision is that right until the discussion yes exactly sorry if as soon as the discussion document had been this

01:57:59 as the discussion document had been this had been published then i'm absolutely sure that we would have reconvened that group for to meet rapidly thereafter and was this discussion document and the

01:58:10 and was this discussion document and the contemplated working group to be convened or reconvened did that cover just the seven work streams or did it also cover what you've called the simplification

01:58:21 what you've called the simplification exercise

01:58:22 exercise uh

01:58:23 uh of part b arising out of the coroner's recommendations so i think it would have it probably would have done more than that actually so it would have we've used it to help us with the technical review

01:58:34 help us with the technical review technical issues which had emerged from the research reports yes i'm sure that we'd have wanted it to get to help with a quality review of the

01:58:47 to help with a quality review of the revised draft so that um to have a look at it does it makes is it is it doing what we want it to achieve by way of clarification and simplification um and i'm also quite sure and we were i think quite we were expecting this

01:58:59 think quite we were expecting this that um

01:59:02 that um the

01:59:04 the discussion document although it did cover some specific issues um i'm sure that we would have got responses from the industry and other stakeholders which went beyond those issues quite rightly so

01:59:16 issues quite rightly so so i am absolutely sure that as a consequence of that engagement process there probably would have been a number of other things which have been raised in those discussions on which we would have wanted

01:59:27 wanted the brac working group's advice so i think there was there were two definite things and a third third element as well

01:59:41 now i was going to show you annex a which i was unable to put my okay finger on it can we look at it it's a clg 3019367

01:59:54 that is annex a yeah and i put it to you that there was no reference in it to lachen okay well i'll accept exactly it's 45 pages long but that is the document but um

02:00:05 document but um can you confirm that for me um well i think i accept that yes yes yes thank you now um let's move forward in time then to

02:00:14 then to uh well a little bit further forward in time to the middle of october 2016. clg

02:00:20 clg 50707 please this is an email of the 12th of october 2016 third email down on page one from richard harrell and if we could expand that pleased a

02:00:31 and if we could expand that pleased a bit so it's more legible thank you

02:00:33 thank you um i want the one third way third of the way down page one at 1352. it's on your screen to brian martin and you subject reapproved document b

02:00:45 you subject reapproved document b and he says uh in the second paragraph it would be useful to have a recap on commitments made by sos on part b following lachlan house specifically what were the complaints levied and to what extent are

02:00:56 complaints levied and to what extent are we seeking to address them through our proposed review program once a meeting date is arranged we should also set aside 45 minutes for a pre-meet to discuss this now the background to this i should tell

02:01:07 now the background to this i should tell you it was and we could see it from the emails level down in the string but it was agitation i think by the cfoa

02:01:14 cfoa pressing the fire safety team at the home by now i think at the home office

02:01:19 office uh

02:01:20 uh on this topic yeah um it's also right isn't it that richard harrell was the author of the latest submission on uh to the review of adb and the publication of the discussion document

02:01:31 publication of the discussion document yes yes cleared with me get cleared with you did it concern you that he was asking for clarity as to the commitments made to the coroner and the complaints which had been leveled um

02:01:42 um no i think that what he's saying here is that he wanted to uh from from mr martin he wanted to understand exactly what

02:01:51 what issues have been raised by the um

02:01:55 by the um by the stakeholder group via the home office

02:01:58 office so that we could see

02:02:02 see what they were what specifically they were concerned about i think this is just

02:02:06 is just him wanting to refresh you know be be sure about what the grounds were for the complaints as per he said and and therefore to be properly prepared for

02:02:18 therefore to be properly prepared for subsequent discussions i don't see anything more in it than that so

02:02:23 so even making allowances for the context why was it did you think at the time uh useful to have a recap recap on commitments made by the secretary of state on part b following latin house was that not absolutely clear to you

02:02:36 was that not absolutely clear to you um

02:02:40 well it's clear to me it was clear to me i mean this this was um

02:02:45 i just see this as mr harold saying let's just make sure you know let's let's let's take stock of where we have got to

02:02:52 got to uh in the light of the commitments made by um secretary of state lord pickles in the light of um what specific issues are being raised by um by the home

02:03:03 are being raised by um by the home office

02:03:04 office and

02:03:05 and as a basis for having the discussion with the home office i don't read anything more into it than that i mean the question is does his ignorance here apparent ignorance of the commitments made by the secretary of

02:03:16 commitments made by the secretary of state reflect the low priority that those commitments have been given within the no i don't accept either of those premises i'm afraid all right now melanie dawes was permanent secretary of the department wasn't she from march

02:03:27 the department wasn't she from march 2015

02:03:28 2015 correct yes now um she says and i don't think it's necessary to see it uh well let's no i will show it to you on second thoughts can we go to her witness statement please her third

02:03:39 witness statement please her third statement

02:03:40 statement uh at clg three zeros three zero eight three nine i'll show you the first page just to identify the document this is melanie dawes's third witness statement and if we go

02:03:52 and if we go um in it please to page three you can see at paragraph seven

02:03:59 seven that she says this

02:04:02 this um

02:04:03 um and referring to paragraph six she's referring to the morning of the 14th of june and the horrific scenes from grenfell tower and she says at seven that morning was to the best of my recollection the first

02:04:15 to the best of my recollection the first time i had heard of the latino house fire the coroner's recommendations or the commitment to simplify approved document b by 2016 to 2017. isn't that a bit odd

02:04:27 um well i obviously can't comment on um

02:04:32 um the permanent secretary's um sort of recollection of events but if that's how she that's if that's what she said then um i'd have to accept that i would accept that clearly

02:04:44 accept that clearly yeah i mean you've got no reason to disagree with her no no account no on the basis that she's correct my question is was it not a bit odd that the

02:04:54 the permanent secretary had not heard of the latino house fire hadn't heard of the coroner's recommendations hadn't heard of the commitment to simplify approved document b by

02:05:05 simplify approved document b by 17.

02:05:08 well i think all of the substantial documents

02:05:11 documents which we have discussed over the last you know going back to the discuss the documents produced for

02:05:19 for minister wharton as well as those for lord barwell would have been copied to the permanent secretary's office obviously i cannot comment and would not want to comment on how

02:05:30 and would not want to comment on how those documents were handled in that office um

02:05:34 office um clearly i mean the permanent secretary has a very wide portfolio of things to attend to and it would be you know i'm not going to comment past any comment on it

02:05:45 past any comment on it on on how

02:05:47 on on how she or indeed her predecessors would have utilized their their time and what they would have focused on all i can say is that to the best of my recollection all of the key documents were copied to

02:05:58 all of the key documents were copied to her office she also goes on to say uh

02:06:04 uh my predecessor bob kurzlake did not raise the latin house fire or the coroner's recommendations with me during our handover discussions in february 2015.

02:06:13 2015. neither do i recall the ongoing work on the approved documents being discussed during any subsequent consideration of departmental priorities between march 2015 when i became permanent secretary and 14th of june 2017. now from your

02:06:26 and 14th of june 2017. now from your perspective on the basis of what you can recall about the events at the time is she right about that well obviously i cannot comment on discussions she may have had with lord kerr's lake

02:06:40 and if she's right that she can't recall what she says in the following sentence are you able to explain why that is

02:06:50 well as i said the

02:06:52 the key documents would have been copied to her office

02:06:59 there was a process of work planning across the department which happened in the summer of 2015 which involved myself and all of my

02:07:10 which involved myself and all of my colleagues at my level and more senior managers when we discussed the departmental priorities as they had emerged

02:07:19 emerged with the new government and reflecting the

02:07:23 the manifesto commitments of the new government now

02:07:28 now i don't think a programme of review of approved documents was specifically mentioned in that discussion but

02:07:35 the work the fact that there was a building regulations program or there could be a building regulations program of work

02:07:41 of work would have been i would have fed that into that

02:07:44 into that process

02:07:45 process decisions on that process were way above my pay grade

02:07:52 on as a policy professional on what you knew and understood in your experience as a senior civil servant within the department for the many years you were

02:08:03 department for the many years you were what does the fact that she's right in her recollection the fact that melanie dawes

02:08:08 dawes uh had not heard of lachen had not heard of the recommendations had not heard of the commitment to simplify approved document b by the deadline and didn't recall the ongoing work on the approved documents tell you

02:08:21 the approved documents tell you about

02:08:22 about the integrity of communications at the highest level of government so far as this issue is concerned um you're asking me to comment on a very

02:08:33 um you're asking me to comment on a very big issue there let me try it a different way given what she said she didn't know would that have been normal well the permanent secretary is not going to know the detail of all of the

02:08:45 going to know the detail of all of the work programmes across his or her department she would expect that they would be managed appropriately through the relevant hierarchy so she would expect

02:08:57 hierarchy so she would expect me to be managing the program of building regulations work she would expect me to be engaging as necessary with the relevant director in this case um steve quartermaine as we have as we have discussed

02:09:09 have discussed and um i would expect that she would expect between us as senior civil servants we would be managing that programme of work in line with the overall departmental priorities

02:09:21 overall departmental priorities um the stairs that we had had from the relevant ministers be they the junior minister or the secretary of state as the case may be

02:09:30 be to meet any commitments made um and um in the light of resources allocated to that particular area of business right let me try it even more simply i've read your paragraph seven

02:09:42 simply i've read your paragraph seven most of it um are you surprised at what she says there

02:09:51 i'm gonna i'm i'm afraid i have to comment in light of my experience rather than giving an opinion please yes that's what i was trying sorry okay so i think it is certainly true to say that i'm not aware of any feedback

02:10:03 that i'm not aware of any feedback provided by her office

02:10:05 office in relation to any of the documents that we received that would be there would be something on the record to say if the permanent secretary had wanted to have commented

02:10:16 wanted to have commented on any of the documents that we were working on i think that's as much as i would i'm able to say

02:10:27 very well uh let's move into 2017. um the

02:10:32 um the well let's go to clg three zeroes one nine three nine one uh and what i'm showing you here mr ledson is the final draft of the discussion document and the submission seeking approval of the proposed scope

02:10:44 seeking approval of the proposed scope of work contained within it now what we have on the screen here is the discussion paper in draft dated march 2017 yes yes yes yes

02:10:55 march 2017 yes yes yes yes and uh if you go please to clg triple zero 19392 we find uh the submission itself this is the discussion paper and here's

02:11:07 this is the discussion paper and here's the submission which accompanies it yes from richard harrell cleared by you to gavin barwell yeah yes yeah building regulations building regulation discussion document timing routine recommendation that you agree to meet

02:11:19 recommendation that you agree to meet with officials to review content of the discussion document draft a annex a that you clear completed research projects for publication which support the scope of work set out in the discussion document

02:11:31 work set out in the discussion document and which we will need to discuss with industry annex c yes yes now look at the date 23rd of march 2017 yes yes that is just over a week before the expiry of

02:11:43 just over a week before the expiry of the pickles deadline yes

02:11:47 yes now

02:11:50 first given that fact can you explain why the timing is said to be routine well this is in relation to the um [Music]

02:11:59 [Music] the need to the way in which um issues would be put to ministers as to whether this was something pretty much that needed their overnight attention

02:12:10 attention as opposed to something which could be considered at some in in with a with a bit more time so that is why a term like routine is used in a

02:12:21 a term like routine is used in a submission like this so we were saying to the minister or the minister's office because they would obviously

02:12:29 obviously make the necessary arrangements to for example set up meetings would be this is not something that we need to get the minister to turn around um

02:12:38 um tomorrow because it would accomplish a complicate complex document um but we do need to discuss it with the minister so that is what is in meant that's how i that's how i think

02:12:49 in meant that's how i that's how i think it would be generally be taken a reference to routine would be generally be taken to mean by um by officials and indeed by the by the private relevant private secretary uh you would accept i think that there

02:13:01 uh you would accept i think that there was zero chance of the pickles deadline being met at this point of course did that fact go through your head of course it did can you explain why that fact does not

02:13:13 can you explain why that fact does not appear in either in this document or in uh the annex that we've seen the proposed scope of work um

02:13:24 that that was in the mission which shouldn't have happened so and i set responsibility for that omission thank you can you explain it though

02:13:35 i think by this stage personally and i don't know what town mr harold and would feel about this

02:13:46 harold and would feel about this we had got to the position that we were i

02:13:52 we were i was

02:13:57 i was getting to the stage where i wanted to get this discussion document out of the door it had been going on as we've discussed for many many months if not you know well nearly two years i suppose as part

02:14:09 well nearly two years i suppose as part of two years um and

02:14:13 um and in a way it was actually getting this product

02:14:16 product out

02:14:18 out so that at least we saw that we could start a process of engagement with the industry

02:14:24 industry which was i think the thing that was uppermost in my mind so i think i think

02:14:30 i think and obviously you know

02:14:34 it will probably quite rightly point out emissions and so on as a consequence of this i think i probably was

02:14:45 was fixating on the wood i the oval review and regrettably very very regrettably losing sight of some of the trees of which the part b review was obviously

02:14:56 which the part b review was obviously one of the most important trees so if if you can understand that a metaphor which i'm drawing there that that is probably

02:15:07 that is probably even though i'm not sure i would have necessarily articulated in those in that way that was probably what was really going on inside me at the time and um i mean this is difficult because i don't feel

02:15:19 this is difficult because i don't feel i feel that it's um i feel that um we could have been much more clear um in some of this advice and i take responsibility for

02:15:30 responsibility for that

02:15:31 that but i think that was probably what was part of what was going on in my in me

02:15:36 in me at this point in time

02:15:39 now richard harrell says in his statement that you never received a response from gavin barwell to the submission document is that right i think yes that's correct um let's look at clg3034284

02:15:57 this is an email of the 18th of april 2017.

02:16:02 uh okay can you see that yes and and it it it is actually uh the response uh to

02:16:12 uh to can we i'm so sorry can we pan out and see the whole of the first page what i'm going to ask you about is the email at the top but just look at the context yeah at the bottom is the email from richard harrell 23rd of march 2017 i referred to before

02:16:27 excuse me which sent the submission to the office of gavin barwell and the office of javid yes and that's at the bottom which attaches the submission

02:16:38 attaches the submission uh then there's an email the next day from him about an amendment yes vision and at the top of the page it refers this is the 18th of april 2017 email uh from the office of gavin barwell to tim

02:16:50 from the office of gavin barwell to tim lunig yes how you pronounce it yeah gavin was content with the recommendations in this particularly interested in the work in parts b and m any thoughts tim nick question mark

02:17:03 any thoughts tim nick question mark kieran

02:17:04 kieran um

02:17:08 now it looks from mr harrell's statement that he never got that message um can you explain why that might be um well i have to say um i this is the first time i've seen

02:17:21 um i this is the first time i've seen that top email right um so

02:17:24 um so mr lernig was a policy to the secretary of state so he wasn't um

02:17:30 um he wasn't a spad but he was a you know a personal appointment by the secretary of state to advise him on policy matters um so

02:17:39 um so what this email kieran would have been the private secretary

02:17:44 secretary was saying was um to mr learning could mr lernick did mr lernig have any views on what was proposed in the discussion document asking for his advice um

02:17:58 document asking for his advice um yeah so i think the um if i'm sorry i'm scrolling down so i'm just looking at the copy

02:18:03 the copy list to the original submission from mr harold i went to all advisors so that the the submission would have gone to mr learning in the first place but

02:18:11 but as it had gone to lord barwell i'm guessing at this point in time mr lernick may not felt necessarily required to provide a view but what this is saying to me is that

02:18:24 but what this is saying to me is that lord barwell was happy with what was being proposed by officials but he wanted mr lernig as the secretary of state's policy advisor also to provide a view

02:18:35 a view agree disagree or whatever so that the next step which would be to

02:18:41 to seek the secretary of state's agreement on publication and right round collective clearance would it reflect both the views of lord barwell as the responsible minister but

02:18:54 barwell as the responsible minister but also the views of mr lernig as the secretary of state's dedicated policy adviser so mr learning had nothing to do with us he was there to provide an independent view to the secretary of

02:19:05 independent view to the secretary of state on what officials were proposing my question was simply can you explain why this message uh didn't go to richard harrell as it appeared i'm sorry um

02:19:15 sorry um i've missed the point of the question um i can't advise i don't know right now um let's then turn to

02:19:24 to may 2017.

02:19:26 may 2017. in the previous month in april 2017 it's right i think you may recall that the general election was announced to take place on the 8th of june 2017 correct yes can we go then to clg one triple zero

02:19:39 can we go then to clg one triple zero nine zero five one

02:19:45 yeah this is an email from richard harrell to you

02:19:48 you of that date 17th of may 2017 and the subject is building regulations post-election program of work bob we spoke about post-election options i've

02:19:59 spoke about post-election options i've used today to do some thinking on this options include one continue as before launch the discussion document evaluate responses advise ministers on a program of work and implement

02:20:10 of work and implement two force decisions at an earlier stage if we are clear on manifesto implications evaluate how these align with the work we know is necessary and seek minister's early agreement to use the discussion document to state

02:20:22 the discussion document to state direction of travel more positively i.e commit to a part b review part m review rather than just mooting them so we can get on with the necessary work and then three seek early ministerial

02:20:35 and then three seek early ministerial agreement approval to employ consultants to help catch up on more prosaic aspects of reviewing approved documents where dclg resource will otherwise be fully committed yeah and it goes on yep now

02:20:47 and it goes on yep now um do you agree with him that over the past four years you had only been mooting a review of adb rather than forcing a decision to commit to it no i don't agree with that

02:20:58 commit to it no i don't agree with that and i think with respect this is an email sent to me um on the basis of some thinking that mr harold had been doing i do remember these discussions and i'll add

02:21:10 remember these discussions and i'll add something to this discussion as well which is not reflected in the written documentation and in those sorts of emails of course you know things will be put in shorthand

02:21:21 you know things will be put in shorthand and

02:21:22 and we knew perfectly well that there was a commitment to a part b review um what

02:21:29 um what um

02:21:30 um this is saying is basically do we carry on as normal do we try and develop a new plan to actually try and move some stuff more quickly

02:21:41 quickly and then perhaps a more technical thing about whether we can get some external resource to help us with now i i remember distinctly because i was getting very very worried

02:21:55 getting very very worried that i said to mr harold i believe mr martin was part of this conversation look if we are not going to get anywhere with sort of early decisions on the thing as a whole the package as a whole

02:22:06 thing as a whole the package as a whole we're going to take we're going we're going to take part b out of this and give ministers a clear option to to drive that ahead and forget about the rest of it if that is what is slowing down

02:22:17 slowing down the um

02:22:19 the um if that is slowing down the review and and that would have been the approach which i would have recommended to

02:22:25 to new ministers or the options i would have recommended to new ministers if grenfell hadn't happened and of course everything changed now

02:22:35 now looking back on it looking back on all of this and goodness knows i've thought long and hard about this i wish i had reached that view sooner

02:22:43 sooner why didn't you

02:22:48 well at some stage there is um there's there's always an optimism bias i'm afraid into these things about well we can actually we can get this done we can get this done and perhaps there was a failure on my

02:23:01 and perhaps there was a failure on my part to

02:23:02 part to confront early enough well actually are we going to get this done um so

02:23:09 um so that you know that i you know that would have been part of what was going on in my mind

02:23:14 my mind at this point in time um

02:23:18 time um but

02:23:20 but and and then as i said in my previous earlier answer

02:23:25 i was getting to the stage where at least if we can get the discussion document out at least at the very least we've got something that we can talk to people about and we do not have the situation

02:23:34 situation which though i wasn't facing it i know mr martin in particular was facing it and he was absolutely getting very frustrated about this that he was having to deliver holding lines to his stakeholders because he couldn't say the

02:23:45 stakeholders because he couldn't say the government is definitely going to do x y and zed because there hadn't been announcements to that effect now we saw the

02:23:53 the tim learning email saying that gavin had approved gavin barwell had approved the discussion document

02:24:02 uh we saw the email from gavin's private office to tim lernig saying the mystery you're quite right yes yes and that is what i meant and you were absolutely right about that um but was the problem that

02:24:14 um but was the problem that notwithstanding that gavin barwell had expressed through that route approval of the discussion document

02:24:21 document the result of an election would be that you'd have to go back to the new minister or go to the new minister again

02:24:29 again for an earlier group for an earlier agreement to use the discussion document um well assuming you know obviously if it be a completely different government of a different shade then we'd obviously be slightly

02:24:40 shade then we'd obviously be slightly different but assuming um you know in the basis that um

02:24:43 um on the basis of the election result and obviously um

02:24:51 notwithstanding what happened then we would

02:24:53 would it would have been sorry i'll rephrase this

02:24:57 this if uh if if the ministerial team had been the same i and we did have which they have the same

02:25:03 same secretary of state though uh barwell um obviously lost his seat at that election but if if per chance lord barwell had um

02:25:13 um retained his seat and had been appointed in to um

02:25:19 to um to a similar role then we would have just basically said this is where you we we would have reminded him where he got to and hopefully you know we'd have got that yeah get on with him um

02:25:31 with with a new housing minister as we obviously had minister sharma um you know if if if grandma had if we had been in a business as usual um situation then we had obviously

02:25:43 um situation then we had obviously needed to have briefed him on what had happened but on the other hand i think it would have been helpful that for example mr lernik who i think had was whose appointment i believe

02:25:55 had was whose appointment i believe was

02:25:56 was um was was reconfirmed um after the 2017 election then at the very least we would he would have been able to brief the secretary of state to say yes so

02:26:08 the secretary of state to say yes so this is okay secretary of state i think you can give the green light to for for the department to get on with this obviously this is speculation but i think that was that was what i might have expected to have happened

02:26:22 have expected to have happened and finally on this document what did you understand richard harrell to mean

02:26:27 to mean by

02:26:28 by ie commit to a part b review part m review rather than just mooting them what did you understand him to mean there

02:26:39 um well i i i i don't know i mean i think um

02:26:43 think um come into a part b review

02:26:52 i suppose i mean i it may be that he's drawing a distinction between um the sort of full scope of the part b review i set out in the discussion document and all the various elements to the part b review the

02:27:04 elements to the part b review the simplification element the um technical review

02:27:08 review i think that's i i would have i would have read that as that's what he was meaning it was the scope

02:27:14 scope rather than the principle of doing a review in the first place but i accept that that

02:27:19 that that you know he doesn't say that in his email but i can't answer for precisely what he um what he meant but i mean as far as i was concerned it was very clear where we were and what we had to do um

02:27:30 where we were and what we had to do um we and

02:27:31 we and as we've discussed as i've said in my previous answers now i want to turn to a different topic altogether which is the all parliamentary all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group yes you'll

02:27:42 fire safety and rescue group yes you'll remember that that group the appgs or call them raised concerns in respect of fire safety and approved document b many times between 2014 and 2017. yes

02:27:53 many times between 2014 and 2017. yes yes

02:27:54 yes were you aware that from february 2014 to april 2017 the appg sent at least 16 letters to the department well i wouldn't know if it was 16 letters but i certainly would

02:28:05 was 16 letters but i certainly would recognize that there were there were regular letters we so can we take it that you were aware of the appg's main concerns during that period um i was aware of the that the appg were raising concerns yes do you agree i think they

02:28:18 concerns yes do you agree i think they regularly pressed for updates on the adb review and advocated the greater use of sprinklers including retrofitting and sprinklers those as i recall were the two main issues that we that the apg wrote to ministers about can we agree

02:28:30 wrote to ministers about can we agree that they also raised concerns about the use of combustible materials and the lack of adequate guidance on external fire spread uh they raised that issue in general terms i'm not going to go through all the letters with you but we can we can look

02:28:41 letters with you but we can we can look at some of the correspondence can we start please with clg30 is 11291

02:28:49 this is mr williams's reply

02:28:53 uh to appg correspondence uh on the 19th of september 2014 uh from stephen williams mp to the late david amos mp

02:29:03 amos mp david

02:29:04 david he says

02:29:06 he says well first of all just looking at it do you think you saw this at the time

02:29:13 um i'm hesitating a little bit um because

02:29:18 because i'm

02:29:21 i'm well perhaps i should shirt to you and to trigger a recollection no sorry sorry can i because i'm genuinely i don't want to be come across as being sloppy shouldered about this but i'm genuinely did have quite an extensive period of leave in september of that year so i

02:29:35 leave in september of that year so i i think i probably would have almost certainly seen the letter from the appg which led to this response but in my absence i'm not sure that i

02:29:46 but in my absence i'm not sure that i saw this response until after it had been sent

02:29:50 been sent but um i would not want to and that

02:29:54 and that just because i was not around and therefore it would have needed to be dealt with in my absence um but i have you know the the the response would have reflected the general position

02:30:05 general position that um

02:30:07 that um we had a part b review underway um in response with the commitment which i see is referenced here in the response to that silicon let's not get ahead i just wanted to ask didn't know whether you'd seen it at the time

02:30:19 you'd seen it at the time um in the second paragraph it says this i've neither seen or heard anything that would suggest that consideration of these

02:30:26 these specific potential changes is urgent and i'm not willing to disrupt the work of this department by asking that these matters be brought forward however i do acknowledge that the matters to which you refer are worthy of

02:30:37 matters to which you refer are worthy of full consideration and i've asked my officials to ensure that they are included in the ongoing review regards stephen

02:30:44 stephen do you remember did you advise the minister that prioritizing the concerns of the appg would disrupt the work of the department

02:31:02 i think that the um

02:31:06 well i i know um i do not recall called any discussion with the minister about this letter um

02:31:15 and uh but i think that what it that we had obviously just all the advice that would have gone

02:31:21 have gone to minister williams would have described the ongoing programme of work which included the work that we'd had committed to to review approved document b in 2016

02:31:34 to review approved document b in 2016 and 17 and the overall program of work which his predecessors had had agreed and the and the then secretary of state had agreed as in the response to the

02:31:45 had agreed as in the response to the coroner which um encompassed that review of part b

02:31:51 of part b um within that time frame so this letter is reflecting that position or this response is reflecting that position

02:32:02 did you consider the concerns by the appg as expressed there to be potentially disruptive um

02:32:12 well if we had brought forward the work on part b

02:32:17 part b um to a swifter timetable then clearly that would have had an impact on what else was being we were being asked to deliver so the answer is yes

02:32:28 answer is yes well

02:32:30 well that's the word that's used in the that is the word that is used in this

02:32:35 in this letter

02:32:36 letter so the answer is yes well if i may because

02:32:43 the first point is um i would not necessarily have seen all of the drafts of these replies i take full of responsibility for the way that they are drafted

02:32:57 accountable for that because they will come from my team

02:33:01 i do not recall producing this draft if i had i doubt i would have used that word i would have used a word which might have had a similar import i've talked about the impacts

02:33:13 i've talked about the impacts on the program and the effects that would have on other key priorities um

02:33:22 um whether i would have used that word i don't know can we then turn on to

02:33:30 to 2015. clg 3019298

02:33:39 this is a letter again from sir david amos mp

02:33:45 to the department sorry to the minister james wharton and it's stamped at the top minister jw yeah uh and then official is you bob legend yes and then also brian martin

02:33:57 legend yes and then also brian martin as well the date is the 10th of september 2015 and it says dear james you will never be aware that the all-party parliamentary fire and safety and rescue group met with your predecessor during the last parliament in his role as the minister

02:34:09 parliament in his role as the minister with responsibility for the building regulations he acknowledged that important fire safety matters were worthy of full consideration during the review of approved document b to the building regulations which the secretary of state had set out in her letter in

02:34:21 of state had set out in her letter in his letter to her honest francis kirkham cbe assistant deputy coroner following the lack of house inquest the group felt that the three of these matters had significant life safety implications nd

02:34:32 significant life safety implications nd were therefore of sufficient priorities to be dealt with immediately ahead of the review thereafter leading to a publication of a revised document in 2016-17

02:34:41 2016-17 the minister however was not willing to bring the program of work which had already started forward yeah now um let's look at the reply to that

02:34:51 that please that's clg3019454

02:34:58 this letter is undated but we we learn from brian martin in his statement paragraph 174 n at page 65 that it was sent on the 23rd of october 2015. so about a month later

02:35:09 of october 2015. so about a month later yeah if we look at the second paragraph he says this james wharton says this i've yet to agree a detailed work plan for building regulations with my officials i am however aware of the commitments made by eric pickles mp and

02:35:21 commitments made by eric pickles mp and the department has already commissioned its publishers riba enterprises to carry out a usability study with regular users of the approved document i understand that my officials have also been in

02:35:32 that my officials have also been in discussions with representatives of the fire sector federation seeking views on what changes could be made to the guidance to improve its clarity yes

02:35:41 yes yes yes um i really want just to focus on the first sentence about the detailed work plan for the building regulations if we go please next to clg3030840

02:35:54 page seven

02:36:05 i should tell you what this is uh this is a timeline and commentary prepared by simon ridley as who

02:36:14 as who as his as he said there is director was director general decentralization and growth at the dclg and you can see a manuscript it says a few days after the fire yeah yes

02:36:26 few days after the fire yeah yes and it's for melanie dawes the permanent secretary and helen mcnamara the director general housing and planning and he's given us a witness statement yeah to this effect and if you go to the second bullet point

02:36:38 second bullet point on that page there he says this the lack of urgency or reason for the delay is striking most telling is david amos's letter of 10 september 2015 which is the

02:36:49 letter of 10 september 2015 which is the one i've just shown you which explicitly states the appg felt adb issues had significant life safety implications and are of sufficient priority to be dealt with immediately and the minister is said to have been have not been willing

02:37:01 said to have been have not been willing to bring forward james wharton's 13th october letter is a cl is clear a detailed work plan had not been agreed at that point so we look like we have done all but nothing in the first two and a half

02:37:14 nothing in the first two and a half years

02:37:17 uh it's not the trend it's not the 13th of october it's the 23rd of october but never mind do you accept uh that you had done nothing in the first two and a half years in spite of these warnings um no i do not accept

02:37:28 these warnings um no i do not accept that

02:37:29 that um

02:37:31 um i

02:37:32 i was obviously not involved in this piece of work by mr ridley because clearly it was important that it was done completely independently from the line but i was aware that it was underway um i do not know

02:37:45 was underway um i do not know which what documents mr ridley was able to examine so i do not know for example if he was aware of the research work i do not know if he was aware

02:37:56 i do not know if he was aware of the commissioning of the usability study etc

02:38:01 study etc i do not know if he was aware of the general approach that we've been adopting as expressed in the advice given to

02:38:10 given to minister wharton and i think the the timing of the response to the appg falls in that slight period as you'll have no doubt um

02:38:21 have no doubt um identified where we had put the advice up to minister wharton and we were going through that iteration process with him to discuss it etc

02:38:32 process with him to discuss it etc um

02:38:33 um i think

02:38:34 i think certainly my reading of the reply and i think this was the intention of the reply

02:38:39 reply um was that it was the review detailed work plan for the building regulations and that would be the building regulations generally not simply the approved document b

02:38:50 approved document b so no we had not agreed a detailed work plan for the review of building regulations generally because that was still under discussion so that was absolutely a reflection of the position at that point in time now

02:39:02 at that point in time now how far mr ridley um

02:39:05 um had the documentation to hand when he prepared this note

02:39:09 note for the permanent section i don't know and i can't comment on that now uh can we please go to lord wharton's statement this is at clg3030834

02:39:23 page 12 it's his first statement of the inquiry and i want just to show you paragraph 27

02:39:32 final line

02:39:36 he says and this is apropos or in the context of this letter uh in september 2015 he says i recall instructing officials to engage with the appg

02:39:47 appg now um did did

02:39:49 did you receive such an instruction um

02:39:58 i recall there was a sort of a

02:40:03 sort of a note

02:40:04 note prepared after this meeting of the outcome of this meeting um i've got unless i'm confusing it with another discussion which either minister walter or one of the other ministers had

02:40:15 or one of the other ministers had as a consequence of

02:40:18 of meetings with the appg um but i may be misremembering but um

02:40:25 um i think there was a distinction perhaps um

02:40:28 um between

02:40:30 between the appg

02:40:32 the appg as as a group of mps as opposed to the organizations that were

02:40:37 were involved in supporting that group i primarily the the fire safety federation my reading of this is that obviously it's absolutely appropriate for officials to engage with the fsf and mr

02:40:49 officials to engage with the fsf and mr martin had various discussions with the fsf as i'm sure he would have described in his witness statement obviously you'll appreciate it slightly slightly different for officials to engage with mps so

02:41:01 mps so i would have read that and i would have interpreted the instruction as saying

02:41:07 as saying engage with the represent with the relevant in organizations particularly the fsf who have been supporting the appg in this work so i think that's how i

02:41:19 in this work so i think that's how i would have ins interpreted that request

02:41:24 request can we move then to december 2015 clg one triple zero seven eight

02:41:34 this is an email from brian martin to you

02:41:37 you and richard harrell of the 9th of december 2015 and brian martin says this bob i thought it might help to provide some reading material prior to our discussion this afternoon c attached the

02:41:48 discussion this afternoon c attached the first draft of the part b section of the discussion document i can explain the background to the issues it raised if that helps i've also attached the latest missive from the appg and my draft not yet signed reply

02:42:00 yet signed reply now did you open the attached latest missive as it were from the appg um well i thought i would have read it yes it was said to me i don't think i would not have not read it yes

02:42:12 would not have not read it yes did you consider his reference to the latest missive to be an appropriate way in which officials in the department were referring to correspondence from the appg

02:42:21 the appg well i mean we all you know this is an internal email between

02:42:25 between colleagues so you know there are things that are said in internal emails between colleagues which um

02:42:31 um you know

02:42:33 you know reveal the truth no but which

02:42:36 but which uh you know reflects you know the fact this is an internal email between colleagues as opposed to something that actually

02:42:42 actually um

02:42:43 um uh you know is used and informs the way in which

02:42:46 in which correspondence from an organization yes yes and being internal it's obviously something pretty candid isn't it and my question is really did you

02:42:57 question is really did you as a department you particularly mr martin perhaps regard the appg as something of a thorn in your side well

02:43:04 well uh

02:43:08 they were absolutely entitled to press their points

02:43:13 points and in the respect of that you have an organization which is pressing its points hard with the department um

02:43:20 um and uh and with ministers then you could characterize that as a thorn in our side in a good sense i think you're trying you may be implying thorn in our side in a different sense

02:43:31 a different sense um they were clearly absolutely entitled to raise the issues of concern i think that we were also

02:43:41 also entitled subject of course to ministerial agreement as ministers would sign the letters to respond to the appg in respect of this we understand the concerns that you are

02:43:52 understand the concerns that you are raising

02:43:53 raising we have a

02:43:55 we have a uh program of work on approved document b which we wish to continue with um and i mean obviously you know the sprinklers issue is separate because there was a well established policy position which the

02:44:07 established policy position which the government had taken on sprinklers which was not in alignment with the um the appg's position which is just a genuine genuine difference of policy let's look at the missive clg one triple

02:44:19 let's look at the missive clg one triple zero seven eight six zero please

02:44:25 this is a letter from sir david amos to james wharton first of december 2015.

02:44:31 as you can see appg heading uh and uh if you look at the first paragraph he refers to an informal lunch yes where there was a constructive exchange of views between yourself and

02:44:42 exchange of views between yourself and those present uh and then in the next paragraph he says this

02:44:47 says this uh

02:44:49 uh over the past two years of correspondence between your predecessor stephen williams and myself the group has felt continuous frustration over dismissive responses to its well-founded and justifiable concerns whereas

02:45:01 and justifiable concerns whereas yesterday we did find a more considerate tone to the discussions which was welcomed by all i'm sure you received a strong message from yesterday's meeting that the existing guidance and approved document be to the building regulations

02:45:13 document be to the building regulations last updated in 2006 is badly in need of revision or as the group suggested replacing it with something else that is all-encompassing given that the original building regulations were introduced in

02:45:24 building regulations were introduced in the 1960s having developed from a series of bylaws based upon national models with regional variations the origins of some of these requirements can be traced back to the redevelopment of london following the great fire in 1966

02:45:40 now if you go to the top of page two he says this today's buildings have a much higher content of readily available combustible material examples are timber and polystyrene mixes in structure cladding

02:45:53 polystyrene mixes in structure cladding and insulation with internal fire protection usually afforded by layers of plasterboard and use of fire stopping padding a plasterboard compartment is often incomplete above full ceilings and becomes imperfect over time through diy

02:46:05 becomes imperfect over time through diy and wear and tear this fire hazard results in many fires because in that because adequate recommendations to developers simply do not exist there is little or no requirement to mitigate external fire spread

02:46:19 additional points were made that in facing an aging population with more emphasis on living at home the documents need reviewing as the single family dwelling becomes the sheltered home of the future the risk profile is changing

02:46:31 the future the risk profile is changing and therefore the control measures need to keep pace

02:46:36 did you read that at the time um well as i said if the letter was copied to me then i expected i would have read it at the time now

02:46:45 now he also sent you a a draft of part b of the discussion document let's look at it clg one triple zero seven eight six one please

02:46:54 please let's go to that

02:47:03 uh now it's yeah it's it's a three-page document so it's easy to scan but looking at the top it says part b fire safety

02:47:13 safety and then it says the last major review of part b of the regulations was completed in 2006 and was published in two volumes one dealing with dwelling houses and the other dealing with all other types of building since then the

02:47:24 other types of building since then the approved documents have been amended in 2010 and 2013. the reduction in the number of fires and associated deaths and injuries means we have a continuing success story on fire safety

02:47:36 in the past decade the number of fires attended in homes has fallen by 64 and accidental fire deaths have decreased by 36 percent for that the government fire and rescue services and

02:47:47 government fire and rescue services and the wider fire industry must take credit and then he goes on to say however despite the progress made we must not become complacent fire safety must remain a priority as part of that the government is committed to ensuring we

02:47:59 government is committed to ensuring we have the right frameworks and regulations in place to continue fire safety successes and it goes on to say we will look to simplify the guidance and consider its format and structure

02:48:10 format and structure and then goes on under heading property protection um to

02:48:15 um to discuss

02:48:17 discuss various things specialized housing is on page two yeah smoke alarms at the bottom of page two basements on page three uh and also links with page three links

02:48:29 uh and also links with page three links with the fire safety order as well and that's where it ends yes now we've been through this document very quickly together you and i yes but um the inquiry is ready at slightly greater of

02:48:40 inquiry is ready at slightly greater of course leisure um there's no reference in it to combustible materials not a new technology in construction nor to external fire spreads nor to cladding did you ask brian martin why there was

02:48:51 did you ask brian martin why there was no such reference given the matters raised in david amos's letter we've just looked at

02:48:56 looked at so

02:48:57 so um the first point i would make is that this as i think the email says is a first draft so this was a long way from any finished product um second point is i think the what mr

02:49:10 um second point is i think the what mr martin was doing here was particularly drawing on the

02:49:15 the information that was starting to emerge or had emerged from the research reports a number of these topics as you will know relate back to the work streams that we have discussed

02:49:26 discussed so

02:49:27 so as i discussed with you previously um

02:49:32 um the issues around section 12 obviously were of a different nature either we we didn't feel that

02:49:40 we hadn't commissioned research into that matter so

02:49:46 so over time

02:49:48 over time then this would have evolved into a document which also encompassed the alarm i would expected this document to have involved into a document which encompassed

02:49:59 encompassed all of those other aspects um including the the simplification review so the so so no of course the document that you've shown me the draft doesn't refer

02:50:10 refer to the points which were made about um

02:50:14 about um combustible materials um

02:50:17 um if you may could i could could i see the the letter again please yes uh well would you like to see the letter from sir david amos to james wharton certainly yes please yes sorry clg one

02:50:29 certainly yes please yes sorry clg one triple zero seven eight six zero and in particular the paragraph that referred specifically to combustible material yes uh page two please toffee thank you

02:50:40 so

02:50:46 i'm slightly surprised that this letter does not acknowledge um what is an approved document be 2006

02:51:01 i mean this would i presume would have been drafted for david um

02:51:06 um i'm slightly surprised that

02:51:10 that in particular i mean i'm saying this with hindsight because i probably wouldn't have picked this up at the time

02:51:18 there is no reference for example to the um

02:51:21 um option b as we've discussed with previous witnesses in terms of the compliance routes reproved document b because

02:51:28 because the where

02:51:31 the where as you well know there might be a combustible material being proposed to be used in an external wall system it has to it can be so if this whole system

02:51:43 it can be so if this whole system meets the br 135 criteria as demonstrated in the appropriate and relevant bs-8414 i'm going to cut you off i'm afraid i'm sorry my question was was a simple

02:51:55 was was a simple factual one did you ask brian martin why there was no reference to the matters i've just i referred to combustible materials new technology and construction external fast spread or cladding

02:52:07 fast spread or cladding in his document given the matters raised in the paragraph here on the screen that was the question did you ask him i don't recall asking right now similarly there's no reference to

02:52:18 now similarly there's no reference to any of those matters so

02:52:22 so combustible materials new technology and construction external fire spread cladding in the final version of the discussion document we saw sent to gavin barwell's office

02:52:33 barwell's office some two years later march 17. and again at that stage did you ask brian martin why not um

02:52:45 i'm not sure if you were able to help me whether there was reference in the discussion document or issues associated with modern methods of construction because that certainly would have encompassed some of

02:52:57 certainly would have encompassed some of the issues as a as a in a generic sense um some of the issues which are being referred to in the um in the first paragraph there now i accept entirely that it didn't go

02:53:11 now i accept entirely that it didn't go into specifics the drafts of the discussion document didn't go into the specifics around issues associated with with section 12. as i said as i hope i've said and my

02:53:23 as i said as i hope i've said and my belief it would have been that the issues around section 12 were about

02:53:30 about clarity of the guidance as recommended by the coroner rather than a fundamental issue about the dimension the ways compliance could

02:53:41 the dimension the ways compliance could be demonstrated in principle um

02:53:45 um so um again if you can forgive me i think there is a an important distinction to be drawn between those two

02:53:54 two things and um

02:53:59 adb as previous witnesses have talked to you of in the 2006 version introduced new approaches for the demonstration of compliance in terms of the principles and substance

02:54:10 the principles and substance the

02:54:12 the clarification of the guidance obviously is something that would be looked at in the

02:54:16 the in the simplified version of approved document b

02:54:25 these matters were never in fact just considered by your division were they

02:54:32 were they i don't accept that you're just even the discussion document didn't get into the question of modern methods of construction combustible material uh and the uh requirement to mitigate external fire

02:54:44 uh requirement to mitigate external fire spread

02:54:45 spread because as i've described to you there are two elements to this i'm

02:54:51 one of the work streams uh

02:54:56 is explicitly about modern methods of construction to my recollection perhaps we could confirm that or you could confirm that with me if i'm misremembered i would want to be advised of that

02:55:06 of that i had thought that

02:55:10 that we had addressed that in the discussion document and i'm sure

02:55:15 sure that some of the drafts of some of the documents did refer did did cover that as an issue but again i'm happy to be corrected well the seven work streams we went through yesterday yes i can enumerate

02:55:26 through yesterday yes i can enumerate them again for you if you like please right one periods of fire resistance yes yes two maximum fire compartment compartment sizes three roof voids cavity barriers and smoke fire smoke dampers four fire

02:55:38 smoke fire smoke dampers four fire protections of basements and car parks five sprinkler provisions six space separation and seven means of escape for disabled people not nothing there about external fire spread cladding insulation

02:55:49 external fire spread cladding insulation use of combustible material timber polystyrene anything like that so we're outside the scope of the work stream yes seven work streams

02:56:01 to be able to help the inquiry with this i would find it very useful if i had the opportunity to see some summaries of what

02:56:12 some summaries of what those work streams reported on because i am absolutely convinced though i accept that although um the titles as you've described them the headings do not cover

02:56:23 described them the headings do not cover modern methods construction and therefore my memory is wrong i'm

02:56:29 i'm sure that there was some discussion under some of those headings that these were issues which had evolved i mean it may be that as you said one of those headings the the topic under consideration um sparked that as part of

02:56:41 consideration um sparked that as part of the research project but obviously i can't

02:56:44 can't i can't recall the detail of that right but i will come back to the point that i think that this is a we were looking at this in a in a different sense we were looking at this in a sense that

02:56:56 looking at this in a sense that the issue of section 12 is about improving the drafting of section 12. i mean of course we knew that there was an issue about combustible materials otherwise why you when you've heard from

02:57:08 otherwise why you when you've heard from previous

02:57:10 previous previous witnesses about that so you don't want me to repeat that and adb

02:57:16 and adb 2006

02:57:17 2006 had introduced particularly the second option the r135 bs8414

02:57:24 bs8414 in recognition that there were methods of construction which may involve the use of combustible materials in some way and that needs to be properly controlled so i don't accept that we were

02:57:35 so i don't accept that we were completely ignoring the issue but i

02:57:40 but i at this point in time

02:57:44 the issue for us would have been okay let's look at the guidance as expressed in section 12 not about that there is a fundamentally

02:57:55 not about that there is a fundamentally new risk here which we do not know anything about or we're completely ignoring i would not accept that characterization of where we were

02:58:04 can we go please to clg three zeroes three four two eight nine now what i'm showing you mr nedson is james wharton's second

02:58:13 second witness statement to the inquiry page ten please paragraph 24 and he says uh here

02:58:23 uh here uh

02:58:24 uh this

02:58:25 this so david amos's letter of first december 2015 went on to state and equates from it today's buildings have a much higher content of readily available combustible material he gave examples of timber and

02:58:37 material he gave examples of timber and polystyrene mixes in structure cladding and insulation though i understood his point to be a general one not limited to these examples i recall accepting that that statement is likely to be accurate i very vaguely remember raising the

02:58:49 i very vaguely remember raising the flammability of materials with the buildings regulate building regulations team

02:58:53 team that this would not have been a technical discussion but rather along the lines of me asking whether it was a problem and how they intended to address it as previously stated i recall being told that these issues would be considered as part of the review

02:59:06 considered as part of the review first do you remember that discussion um i don't remember that discussion i i believe mr martin accompanied mr minister wharton to that meeting so i am

02:59:17 meeting so i am it would infer that it was a discussion that he would have had with mr martin indeed if he had wanted to discuss these matters in detail i would have recommended to his office that he did discuss discussion with mr martin as the

02:59:28 discuss discussion with mr martin as the expert

02:59:29 expert now he recalls as we can see that he was told that those issues would be considered as part of the review was that your recollection well as i say i was not party to that discussion so i can't recall what mr

02:59:42 discussion so i can't recall what mr minister wharton recalls he was told by um by by a member of my team right now i was going to put to you that these issues were never in fact considered by your division but i think

02:59:53 your division but i think i'm going to i'm sorry i cannot accept that um i you know for the reasons i gave previously and the reasons you gave previously to say we've got them clearly are that there was discussion about it in the course of considering one of the seven work streams

03:00:05 seven work streams well i'm you know i that is my recollection and i would obviously welcome the opportunity to confirm that because i don't want to give misleading evidence right no indeed um but it does leave us in something of a

03:00:17 but it does leave us in something of a quandary as to what to make of where the the analysis that changes the um examination of any need for change to section 12 of adb actually sat in the

03:00:29 section 12 of adb actually sat in the wider review did it sit in the work streams or did it sit in the simplification simplification or was it a muddled mixture of the both or somewhere else altogether no the prime driver as i tried to explain

03:00:42 the prime driver as i tried to explain was that for section 12 it was an issue of clarification as i said

03:00:52 if there had been issues and as i said based on

03:00:57 based on the principles already espoused in the 2006 version of approved document b

03:01:07 b and in particular the explicit two routes to compliance um set out in section 12 paragraphs 12.5 to 12.7 etc which you've discussed with

03:01:19 to 12.7 etc which you've discussed with previous witnesses so

03:01:22 so there was nothing to me or i was advised on that suggested other than the clarifying the guidance that there was something fundamentally wrong with the principles of that approach

03:01:34 with the principles of that approach right that as i've tried to explain to my mind was a different

03:01:42 the nature of that issue was different from those being addressed in the work streams where as i said we probably were asking we're not quite sure what the question is let alone what the answers might be

03:01:54 is let alone what the answers might be and the absolute part purpose of that research was to enable us to much better understand what the problems were what the issues were so that we could take sensible steps as necessary

03:02:06 sensible steps as necessary to

03:02:08 to update or change the guidance to respond to those so i'm sorry if i've not made myself clear but i see a clear distinction between those two strands of work now

03:02:20 those two strands of work now it may well be though

03:02:22 though um

03:02:24 um well it may well have been that as part of the process of certainly taking the discussion document out to a wider stakeholder audience things may have come through from that

03:02:36 things may have come through from that which actually were on top of it you know were

03:02:39 know were not covered by the work streams but which were of a technical nature which needed meant that we needed to revisit other parts of approved document b from a technical perspective which perhaps we didn't think we needed to

03:02:51 perhaps we didn't think we needed to just on the basis of the

03:02:53 of the findings of the approved of the of the seven work streams that was part of the purpose of the discussion document to generate that wider engagement

03:03:04 generate that wider engagement mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is we'll stop there mr ledson

03:03:10 ledson get some lunch and we'll resume these at two o'clock and again please don't discuss your evidence while you're awake in the room right thank you very much

03:03:28 thank you mr millet two o'clock please

03:03:47 you