Lord Pickles gives evidence about the government's deregulation agenda, building regulations review, and fire safety policy during his time as Secretary of State at DCLG (2010-2015).
00:00:32 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from lord pickles so if you're ready mr millet i'll ask all pickles to come back in yes mr
00:00:44 all pickles to come back in yes mr chairman i am good morning thank you
00:00:58 good morning good morning lord pickles uh all ready to carry on i hope well yes i've turned up so i think very good thank you good start thank you very much yes mr miller yes mr chairman good morning good morning members of the
00:01:10 good morning good morning members of the panel lord pickles good morning good morning smilet now uh before i go back to where i was yesterday i'd like to clarify your evidence if i may that we
00:01:21 clarify your evidence if i may that we heard yesterday on the subject of deregulation okay now can we start with
00:01:28 hom3018307 please
00:01:34 now this is a letter from the then prime minister mr david cameron yes dated the 6th of april 2011 uh and it starts dear colleagues uh and um take it from me that on page
00:01:47 uh and um take it from me that on page three it's addressed to all government ministers
00:01:50 ministers we can come to that later if you need to but uh do you recognize this letter do you remember it maybe you've got lots of these yes they were um i remember
00:02:01 i remember yeah
00:02:02 yeah yes you
00:02:03 yes you it was uh
00:02:04 it was uh certainly the early part of his premiership used to do this a lot right now let's look at the um the key parts of it um
00:02:13 um paragraph one says this in our forward to the coalition program for government the deputy prime minister and i wrote that quote there has been an assumption that central government can only change people's behavior through rules and
00:02:24 people's behavior through rules and regulations our government will be a much smarter one shunning the bureaucratic levers of the past and finding intelligent ways to encourage support and enable people to make better choices for themselves close quotes
00:02:37 choices for themselves close quotes and then the next paragraph is about tackling regulation with vigor both to free businesses to compete and create jobs and to give people greater freedom and personal responsibility
00:02:49 and personal responsibility and then it says of course we need proper standards for example in areas like fire safety and food safety uh and it goes on um touching on issues about ice cream van jingles or bed prices and
00:03:01 ice cream van jingles or bed prices and then then it says this that's why since coming to office the government has pursued an ambitious deregulation agenda this is included one or first bullet point introducing a new one-in-one out rule meaning
00:03:14 new one-in-one out rule meaning ministers have to identify an existing piece of regulation to be scrapped for every new one proposed second bullet point a strengthened role for regular the regulatory policy committee to
00:03:25 the regulatory policy committee to review the costs and benefits of new regulation proposals and third bullet a three-year moratorium on domestic regulation for very small firms and startups
00:03:38 and then if you go please to um page two
00:03:44 uh and look at the uh last two paragraphs on page two you can see the sorry bigger pattern the last two paragraphs
00:03:55 last two paragraphs which starts our starting point you see that yeah
00:03:58 that yeah and it says this our starting point is that a regulation should go or its aim achieved in a different non-government way unless there is a clear and good justification for government being
00:04:09 justification for government being involved and even where there is a good case for this we must sweep away our necessary bureaucracy and complexity end gold plating of eu directives and challenge overzealous administration and
00:04:21 challenge overzealous administration and enforcement this marks a change from the old ways of doing things that its success will depend on you and your department being fully behind this approach so this is not a polite request to quote reduce regulation if
00:04:33 request to quote reduce regulation if you can close quotes it is a change in approach that means ministerial teams should see themselves personally accountable yeah for the number of regulations contained within and coming out of departments and the burden they
00:04:45 out of departments and the burden they impose be in no doubt all those unnecessary rules that place ridiculous burdens on our business and on society they must go once and for all
00:04:56 on society they must go once and for all when you received this letter lord pickles what did you make of the news that you would be held personally accountable for the number of regulations within and coming out of your department i am of course
00:05:09 i am of course we will be uh personally responsible that i had not the slightest um a doubt
00:05:16 a doubt but i think sometimes it's important to pee beneath the veneer of of this kind of letter and
00:05:25 and thanks to your your kindness and the committee's kindness for bringing up new documents love to look we have found
00:05:36 we have found some new documents that peep behind that screen
00:05:39 screen and the
00:05:40 and the two letters that i've produced for you shows exactly the kind of worries that we had with regard to uh regulation and the kind of concerned and uh and if
00:05:53 and the kind of concerned and uh and if you want to refer to them they are quite blunt uh about our about our concerns and i mean sometimes you really do need to
00:06:02 to look behind the message um [Music]
00:06:07 [Music] david cameron was kind of was very supportive and
00:06:11 and shared the concerns that we might be going out on fire regulations i'm making a complete chumps of ourselves on this because as i think i said yesterday in
00:06:22 because as i think i said yesterday in evidence
00:06:23 evidence i never really thought that we would start um
00:06:26 start um you know compromising safety but we would go through the exercise at which lots of people would suggest that we would do so and we'll be in trouble
00:06:38 and we'll be in trouble and in particular contemporary to this and the practices is a very good example we decided that we will consult on statutory duties
00:06:50 statutory duties which exist and we went out i think enormously naively to local authorities and say well you know what statutory duties do you think we should abolish and then suddenly find ourselves in a
00:07:02 and then suddenly find ourselves in a position where we were suggesting we were going to abolish the uh the obligation and local authorities to bury the dead so we had rather been burnt and chased by our naivete so
00:07:16 burnt and chased by our naivete so this is this is all very good and it is absolutely uh correct and this is the kind of thing that you might as a chief executive uh say to your staff and to move things
00:07:28 staff and to move things along but sometimes i don't mean this cynically at all sir sometimes the difference between this kind of offender and the reality
00:07:39 this kind of offender and the reality and i have supplied you with a couple of documents that take us behind the veneer and the real anxious concerns politically that we had with regard to
00:07:50 with regard to both parts both in the fire regulations and in terms of of document
00:07:56 document b are you referring that answer to i think twice to the word or the characterization perhaps of this letter as as veneer
00:08:07 letter as as veneer did you take it seriously or not
00:08:10 or not well i suppose if i was um
00:08:16 was um on the board of any large corporation and the chief executive
00:08:21 executive or the chairman of the board exalted us to do various things i would do so but you need to understand that david cameron and
00:08:32 that david cameron and oliver letwood are people that i worked with
00:08:34 with for decades and knew extraordinarily well
00:08:39 well and
00:08:40 and i
00:08:42 i if this was the only contact i'd had during this period about this yes i think i would have um you know taken it for a season did take it seriously
00:08:53 it seriously but this is not you know
00:08:56 you know something that you would
00:08:59 you would literally say well all the discussions that we've had privately i can i should ignore because suddenly i've got this from from the prime minister um
00:09:09 um it was good that it should exhort but i suspect if you look to occasionally get messages from the present prime minister to to peers which exalt us to do this this kind of
00:09:20 which exalt us to do this this kind of thing it's it's part of the job i'm not diminished in any way but this is actually a statutory instrument well because did you take this letter seriously did you take the prime
00:09:31 seriously did you take the prime minister at his word or did you not um i think i've really answered that i think what i've i've i've tried to say to you is yes of course i take this seriously but it also took seriously the
00:09:44 seriously but it also took seriously the the private discussions that i was having inside government about those concerns and i didn't believe that those private concerns which are evidence in in the documents that we produce
00:09:56 in the documents that we produce were overridden by this
00:10:02 letter so just so i understand your evidence this letter
00:10:09 letter is to be read by the relevant minister against the background of private discussions that he had had over she had had over time with the prime minister
00:10:21 with the prime minister well the key well i wouldn't think if you're lucky enough to have private discussions with the prime minister or with his office or with senior colleagues i can't imagine any of the
00:10:33 colleagues i can't imagine any of the circumstances where you you would ignore them and i don't think this is contrary to what we actually did i think it's entirely
00:10:43 entirely consistent um with what we did but given
00:10:48 but given that at this time could you just show me the date again please yes certainly can we go back to page one please it's the sixth of it well given at this time um the department had a reputation
00:11:00 the department had a reputation um
00:11:01 um for um for deregulation and others had been perhaps not as as
00:11:08 as embraced the concept as much as we had i didn't feel that it was particularly being directed to me i thought that others were being were being urged and you can see it's a generic letter uh uh
00:11:21 you can see it's a generic letter uh uh to dear colleagues and um i i'm i'm not sure what i don't think this was to cabinet ministers but exclusively i think this was to all
00:11:32 exclusively i think this was to all um ministerial ranks and possibly including
00:11:35 including um
00:11:37 um private
00:11:38 private parliamentary private secretaries so it's a it's a thing that is that you would get in politics and i don't think there is any inconsistency with anything um that i've said
00:11:50 with anything um that i've said but
00:11:51 but but sir by all means if you're not happy with what i've replied to ask another question what did you instruct your officials
00:12:03 that they should make of this letter did you tell them to follow it or did you tell them
00:12:08 tell them not to follow it or did you tell them something between the two well with the passage of time and given that um prime minister
00:12:19 this would not be unusual to get a dear kind of colleague letter this is this is a dear colleague letter you would get
00:12:29 maybe four or five dear colleague letters a week
00:12:33 week i currently get just as a member of the house of lords
00:12:40 six or seven dear colleague letters um a week
00:12:45 um a week they don't have a particular status they're there to kind of encourage you to uh to do things and i can't remember forgive me out because i want to answer your point youtube
00:12:56 your point youtube i'm not
00:12:57 i'm not i have no recollection of talking uh to staff about it and given the regularity of dear colleague letters
00:13:09 of dear colleague letters i think they might have felt i was a little eccentric in waving this in front of their eyes and i don't mean that sir in any way rudely i think you're given an importance of their colleague letters
00:13:22 importance of their colleague letters that they don't really have even though the prime minister and obviously one would want to um recognize that importance but i got two dear cody classes last
00:13:33 but i got two dear cody classes last night when i got back to the to the lots
00:13:39 did the contents of this letter
00:13:43 form the basis of any instruction uh or advice if you might put it that way to
00:13:51 way to your officials through your pps or ps's
00:13:57 i cannot say for certain because it's a long time ago however
00:14:04 however given the frequency of dear colleague letters which is generally to explain government policy and and to kind of offer uh
00:14:13 uh briefings as i said last night i received some a dear colleague letter which would have gone to all peers um relating to to the ukraine and refugee status it's generally there
00:14:26 refugee status it's generally there to um to rather the troops get a sense of focus
00:14:30 of focus but this is not um an official instruction if the prime minister was going to make an official instruction i would get a minute instruction
00:14:42 i would get a minute instruction um and if you get a minute instructions you can then start counting your days as to when you're likely to believe in government it's a
00:14:53 government it's a it's a fairly extreme thing to do but
00:14:56 but forgive me for saying to us i think you are given an importance to a dear colleague letters that
00:15:05 that is
00:15:06 is there as part of the common practice of government that you're given an importance that this is not something special
00:15:14 does does the fact that you say it's not something special mean that you didn't use it as the basis of ensuring that your department
00:15:25 department held to what it was the prime minister wanted
00:15:28 wanted i'm not sure what i did uh with the um uh with the letter sir i think i did sorry mr miller i think i have explained to you
00:15:39 i think i have explained to you i think uh almost the point of exhaustion that a dear colleague letter in the rank of of things that you'd receive in terms of instructions was
00:15:51 receive in terms of instructions was very much at the lower end of things this is not an important and i have to say when the prime minister would have written it he wouldn't have thought well the job's
00:16:02 he wouldn't have thought well the job's done now obviously this is not an edict that you would get from say a medieval monarch
00:16:09 monarch this is an encouragement and um
00:16:13 and um that would have been part of a number of dear colleague letters that i would have received and members of the government received during the week obviously from the prime minister
00:16:25 obviously from the prime minister and uh if i'd looked at it i would have thought well um
00:16:30 um prime minister's encouraging people to deregulate and it's it's very um sensible i think looking back i might have given him the line on
00:16:41 line on on ice cream van jingles i think it's what one i can recall a press release using ice cream jingles is the kind of thing you do but
00:16:50 but this is not an instructions this is not something that i would gather my senior team around and
00:16:59 and it's not something i would have brought up a prayers because it would have been regarded as perhaps
00:17:05 perhaps a little strange well in the light of all that evidence let's perhaps page three okay i look forward to welcoming rapid progress on this agenda in the months ahead make no
00:17:17 agenda in the months ahead make no mistake this is essential work it will help us build a more dynamic economy and it will help to build a stronger society yeah above all it will help rebuild our in our country the sense of responsibility that is so vital
00:17:29 sense of responsibility that is so vital and which has been so undermined by years of over-regulation i'm copying this letter to all government ministers and sergus o'donnell is today writing personally to all his permanent secretary counterparts
00:17:40 all his permanent secretary counterparts committing the civil service to making tackling unnecessary regulation a key priority for the whole of government now in the light of those two paragraphs how could you not take what the prime
00:17:51 how could you not take what the prime minister was saying seriously
00:17:54 seriously i i don't think at any time during the discussions that we've had and the various ways in which you've essentially asked the same question six or seven times i
00:18:06 the same question six or seven times i have said anything that suggests i didn't take it seriously but there was a but you see in the answer that you've been giving us which is yeah and i think but i think i have an obligation
00:18:18 obligation to tell the truth and to give a a rounded view on things i fully appreciate sir this is not a criticism you're not familiar with the way government works and i think you're
00:18:30 way government works and i think you're giving an importance to this document that if we were if the prime minister would give the former prime minister would give an ambulance even he would be surprising
00:18:41 ambulance even he would be surprising these these expressions about well i'm that gus is going to be writing uh to is ca uh to uh to the permanent secretary this is not an unusual phrase
00:18:52 secretary this is not an unusual phrase this is not anything strange it's not that anybody's going to ignore it
00:18:59 ignore it it's it's it's part of a a wider sphere of the management of government but i don't think i would have felt given
00:19:09 given the status of my pharma department in terms of
00:19:13 terms of a recognition of deregulation that
00:19:19 that it was particularly directed to me this kind of coincide where uh the chancellor and the prime minister were making uh various
00:19:30 uh various public statements about the um
00:19:36 you know the my ability to kind of deregulate but
00:19:41 but it
00:19:42 it i mean unless you're about to play a conference speech from the prime minister what it would say something like that but it has the same the same stages as uh as that kind of
00:19:54 the same stages as uh as that kind of thing but um
00:19:57 i'm i'm genuinely sorry that you don't get it
00:20:01 it did you have a discussion with your permanent secretary about the contents of this letter
00:20:12 i have no recollection whether i had or not do you what but let me finish the answer but what i am certain about
00:20:23 but what i am certain about what i am 100 certain about that if i had talked to sir bob about this letter it'd be slightly worried about my sense of
00:20:34 of balance and proportion we had important matters to discuss and this obviously is an exaltation to the prime minister you can kind of tell it is a dear
00:20:45 you can kind of tell it is a dear colleague letter because it signed david you know if if it wasn't an official one the prime minister would not have would not have signed we would have been a more official kind of thing
00:20:57 more official kind of thing this is
00:20:59 this is the co this is a very common thing that occurs in politics uh in terms in terms of government a dear colleague later is important actually probably what i should say is
00:21:11 actually probably what i should say is there are probably there are two kinds of dear colleague letters they're they're colleague letters that go to your own party and your own party and peace but also there are dear colleague letters that go to everybody
00:21:22 colleague letters that go to everybody they go to all peers and all members of parliament the look of this is it looks like it was directed towards um uh uh ministers which would include even
00:21:34 uh uh ministers which would include even junior ministers and including even uh private parliamentary uh uh secretaries which is the very lowest end and are unpaired
00:21:50 let's um go to clg one triple zero four eight two six please okay
00:22:01 now this is an email dated the 24th of june 2011. so about uh
00:22:08 uh two and a half months after the letter that we've just seen from the prime minister and it's from jane houghton uh in your department uh now you may not know who she is do
00:22:19 uh now you may not know who she is do you know who she is i've i think i maybe do
00:22:22 do who was she can you help us not really but i think i don't know what her official talks about he vaguely remember right meeting uh someone called jane right uh and it's to bob ledson and
00:22:34 right uh and it's to bob ledson and a host of other uh officials including stephen aldridge whose name will become relevant shortly uh and it's still stephen aldridge's
00:22:45 uh and it's still stephen aldridge's about the documents that i've uh i found for for you yes so of course it's familiar
00:22:51 familiar yeah so
00:22:52 yeah so yes
00:22:53 yes and uh the subject is the department to regulation and growth communications and it reads as follows dear all we were recently commissioned by the secretary of state to identify a series
00:23:04 secretary of state to identify a series of stories that will help to advance our growth agenda one of the areas we're looking at is deregulation i had a chat with andrea lee who informed me about some of the work going on in the department and i'm now keen to get some
00:23:16 department and i'm now keen to get some more detail on some of the specifics and the sense of when we might be able to say something publicly
00:23:25 and then if you read
00:23:27 read down
00:23:28 down after the signature jane in the middle of your screen now towards the top of your screen there for the first bullet point says this pickles introduces new red tape test for department
00:23:40 department and then it goes on all future policy at dclg will be subject to new bureaucracy busting tests as ministers introduce new red tape challenges to policies i understand that ministers are interested
00:23:51 understand that ministers are interested in taking greater involvement in challenging policy development to ensure that regulation and road tape is kept to a minimum
00:23:58 a minimum and then underneath that it says underlined is this the case how will this work in practice how close are we to setting up whatever the process is will it just be ministers will we use the new neds will there be external
00:24:11 the new neds will there be external challenge
00:24:12 challenge and then there's another bullet point um that goes on two out one in ministers increase efforts to cut bureaucracy is this where we are moving to is it for the whole department or are we
00:24:23 is it for the whole department or are we starting with one specific area of policy when will we have some evidence for this
00:24:28 for this is this piece of work the same as the housing regulation project that the department is working on as part of the red tape challenge or something more ambitious
00:24:38 and then it says underneath that cutting down red tape regulation for the construction industry
00:24:47 and then it says the british chambers of commerce burdens barometer found that building regulations have placed more burdens on industry than any other dclg policy area based on analysis on impact
00:24:58 policy area based on analysis on impact assessments conducted between 1998 and 2010 we are conducting a 2013 building regulations review of building standards and the building control system to ensure they are fit for purpose and to
00:25:09 ensure they are fit for purpose and to identify opportunities to deregulate where possible and then if we go over the page i just want to show you what is said there we are
00:25:20 show you what is said there we are interested in seeing if we can develop stories linked to and then there are four bullet points quantifying some of those burdens giving a heads up on the kinds of regulations we might be looking at
00:25:31 regulations we might be looking at looking to get rid of eg five key areas for consideration publish a set of criteria straight tests against which regulations will be assessed building industry roundtable to discuss the dclg commitment to reducing burdens
00:25:43 the dclg commitment to reducing burdens and wider support for the industry measures post nppf appointing an external figurehead to a help advised government on this issue and then there's a request for feedback the first bullet point of which
00:25:54 feedback the first bullet point of which says
00:25:55 says authorizing more competent persons schemes for new building work removing the need for building control inspection what is this is this different from the building rigs reviewer above what do we have to say on it what can we say on it
00:26:07 have to say on it what can we say on it and the last paragraph deals with the lga local stance and local standards framework how does it fit and you can see that there now
00:26:17 now and would you agree that this shows quite some zeal on your part not only for the regulatory agenda in general but to place the building
00:26:28 general but to place the building regulations firmly within it well um i'm going to congratulate you managed to find a document with even less statement status than
00:26:39 with even less statement status than the the prime minister's dear colleague letter
00:26:42 letter jane was a middle-ranking press officer this is someone who is seeking information to do a press uh to do a series of press articles press articles do not form part of
00:26:53 press articles do not form part of government policy this seems to me to be a fishing expedition for somebody who's wanting to put together a series of press releases
00:27:04 press releases i didn't recognize her name initially i do recognize janet's name now she was a very competent and very clever um uh press officer who later left the department and went
00:27:15 who later left the department and went on to the private sector and his father now are doing extremely well but this has
00:27:23 no status no official status it does not relate to policy and frankly we don't do um
00:27:34 we don't do um a policy or government by process of press release not least of which we don't do government by um a process of somebody going on a fishing
00:27:46 a process of somebody going on a fishing exposition for stories she was very good um
00:27:50 um but she wouldn't necessarily have had the technical expertise to have understood the full weight of the various things that she's asking she's asking questions and she was very good
00:28:07 let's just take it in stages um after the jane
00:28:10 the jane go back to page one please lord pickles it says bullet point pickles introduces new red tape test for department was that true or was that false oh no
00:28:22 was that true or was that false oh no this is
00:28:24 oh just um i'm sorry i'm i mustn't i'm this is press releases this is a practice cut this is not
00:28:36 this is a practice cut this is not a um
00:28:38 a um this is not policy this is this is puff this is how can we get the secretary of state some more coverage in the press let me let me no i'm trying to by all
00:28:50 let me let me no i'm trying to by all means
00:28:51 means sir
00:28:52 sir was it true or was it not true that you had introduced a new red tape test for the department um
00:29:05 given that we were doing all kinds of things with regard to the red tape challenge and given that some because i i think i explained to you the localism uh built
00:29:18 the localism uh built and
00:29:19 and the general power of competence we actually had quite a stack of things that would qualify for for deregulation but i really think it is massively
00:29:30 but i really think it is massively important
00:29:31 important sir for you to grasp this is not a policy document this is not something i would have would have seen this is not something that i would have regarded as even
00:29:42 that i would have regarded as even vaguely
00:29:43 vaguely important
00:29:45 important this
00:29:45 this is a very diligent very clever very creative press officer who is seeking information and
00:29:56 who is seeking information and as you can see from the bits that are underlined under the pickles introduces red tape these are just she's kind of just trying out ideas and what she's trying to do is is to generate is to
00:30:08 trying to do is is to generate is to generate ideas um from from others and we employed rather a lot of um of press officers she actually was
00:30:19 she actually was one of the better ones she's probably trying to could we just have a look at the list where it went to yes certainly yeah page one please subscribe
00:30:29 subscribe bob ledstone is the first recipient yeah you'll see he's just showing up
00:30:35 andrea indeed kevin copies
00:30:40 copies kirsty weatherspoon yeah she's she's seeking stories i mean she's even coppered in david uh uh uh rossington for uh for ideas and it is
00:30:53 uh rossington for uh for ideas and it is it's a time when uh we had that daft uh bsi
00:30:57 bsi uh bit in our um in our um email attract which which fellas notice i think we dropped yes yes 24th of june yeah and also the the day is kind of
00:31:10 yeah and also the the day is kind of familiar this important because we're coming towards the end of the parliamentary session so i suspect this was to try and find stories during the long recess
00:31:21 stories during the long recess uh right now underneath the words pickles introduces new red tape tests for department it says this all future policy at dclg will be subject to new bureaucracy busting tests as ministers
00:31:32 bureaucracy busting tests as ministers introduced new red tape challenge to policies
00:31:36 policies was that true or was that not true this sir is very thin gruel this is a press officer trying to find stories this has no status in terms of our
00:31:47 this has no status in terms of our policy
00:31:48 policy this is a press officer doing a job very diligently to try and generate stories the way in which stories are generated is
00:31:58 is you do have to well i remember jane explained to me you have to she said you have to shape the christmas tree in order to get people's attention but this has no status
00:32:09 attention but this has no status it's not religion forgive me it does not relate to policy this is a press officer diligently trying to drum up stories during the long recess to keep the
00:32:22 during the long recess to keep the the number of press releases and the coverage for the department to be there during the long recess which traditionally starts towards the middle of july and works her way through
00:32:34 and works her way through and it would have been designed so towards the middle of july she would have presented a grid which said we will do this in in week one of recess and it would have been plotted all the way
00:32:46 would have been plotted all the way through
00:32:47 through to uh if included the conservative party conference but this is not policy this has no status
00:32:57 status she wouldn't have talked very much to me about it
00:32:59 about it she wouldn't have sat down and said well you know i want this to reflect exactly what you're doing i'm going to say pickles reintroduce it red tape challenge just tell me what it is no this is these are ideas yes
00:33:12 no this is these are ideas yes lord pickles um i understand what you say about the status of the document and its purpose and its context i just want to understand your evidence about the facts was it a fact
00:33:24 about the facts was it a fact or was it not a fact just help help us that all future policy at dclg will be subject to new bureaucracy busting tests as ministers introduce new red tape
00:33:36 as ministers introduce new red tape challenges to policies i think this is a suggestion of a line that might be appropriate to um for her to get a headline uh in the newspaper for me in the middle
00:33:47 uh in the newspaper for me in the middle of acquire august very well i'm really sorry i i'm i feel like i'm being a little difficult with you but i'm not um but if you genuinely thought this had
00:33:58 um but if you genuinely thought this had any status i'm i'm sorry to say it doesn't right so
00:34:05 right so is it your evidence that there was no future policy at all within your department that would be subject to any as it said new bureaucracy busting tests and that you
00:34:16 bureaucracy busting tests and that you weren't seeking to introduce red tape challenges to policies i'm not saying that i'm not saying anything close to that i know you don't mean to do that but
00:34:27 i know you don't mean to do that but that is quite close to putting words into my mouth so i wish to be absolutely clear this is a document of which i have
00:34:38 of which i have never seen wouldn't imagine i would ever seen by a middle-ranking press officer trying to produce stories during the
00:34:49 trying to produce stories during the long recess to ensure that they and she's testing out ideas and headlines and i think to rely on this has ever of getting into the corporate
00:35:03 has ever of getting into the corporate mind
00:35:04 mind of what i was seeking to do is wholly wrong
00:35:09 wrong and if i could say this and this is not meant to be rude given that i have managed to find two documents that take us into the corporate mind of what we were doing round about this
00:35:20 of what we were doing round about this period
00:35:21 period it would seem that it will be well it's up to you what you do but that would at least give the inquiry an idea of what we were were thinking rather than what a middle-ranking press officer was
00:35:33 middle-ranking press officer was thinking about doing a job but by all means uh spend as long time as you want on this on this document little because i can assure you we will look um that's good at the documents you
00:35:46 look um that's good at the documents you very helpfully produced to us thank you we certainly will in their chronological order
00:35:51 order um i'm just focusing on uh this document at this time just to see to what extent you and i can agree that it reflects or doesn't reflect policy let's look at two
00:36:02 doesn't reflect policy let's look at two in one out underneath that ministers increase efforts to cut bureaucracy was it the case that ministers were seeking to increase efforts to cut bureaucracy or was it not
00:36:15 efforts to cut bureaucracy or was it not um
00:36:16 um i'm not sure you've entirely grasped what i'm saying these are suggestions for headlines in the uh in a newspaper during august
00:36:27 in the uh in a newspaper during august it's pretty clear to this this is not a reflection of the mind of the
00:36:33 of the department this has no status this is not even reflected this is a this is a good piece of work by a very competent um uh um
00:36:44 uh um press officer used to be a former journalist and he's doing very well now in the private sector to kind of shoot some ideas out that's all it is it's nothing more than that
00:36:56 nothing more than that and it's you know it is pretty thin
00:37:01 i mean i don't want to be flippant this is a serious mata but this is very much if you forgive me a dead cat bounce
00:37:11 let's look at the last paragraph which is headed cutting down red tape regulation for the construction industry and i read this to you
00:37:20 there's no need to repeat it it's very firm in my mind it's looking look and i'll just read it to you and the panel and say that everybody else listening can be clear about what i'm asking you but it
00:37:31 clear about what i'm asking you but it says in the last sentence there we're conducting a 2013 building regulations review of building standards and build the building control system that they're just pausing there
00:37:42 just pausing there was that true i think well what you need to understand is that this is a junior press officer who is not aware
00:37:53 who is not aware of the discussions that that are taking place
00:37:56 place between um my office
00:37:59 my office and the um the
00:38:02 the minister for um for government policy and
00:38:09 and on the and the cabinet office and the like
00:38:12 like nor would she she's a civil servant and she would not be party to those kind of discussions and indeed it would be i think improper for us to do
00:38:23 would be i think improper for us to do so
00:38:24 so this is a middle ranking
00:38:27 ranking official
00:38:29 official who is trying to generate a series of stories during august there is nothing wrong with this but to think for one moment that this represents the
00:38:43 for one moment that this represents the mind of the department uh is
00:38:49 uh is as far from reality as you could um imagine as again i do appreciate that not everybody has a kind of an understanding
00:39:00 understanding of
00:39:02 of the workings of government but a middle-ranking
00:39:08 press officer trying to generate sa statements using in a phrase i remember are using to me shaking the chick the the christmas tree to see what baubles fall out
00:39:20 to see what baubles fall out this has no status none
00:39:25 right let's look at the second part of the sentence okay pickles i'll read the whole thing to you otherwise it won't make sense we are conducting a 2013 building regulations
00:39:36 conducting a 2013 building regulations review of building standards and the building control system to ensure that they are fit for purpose and to identify opportunities to deregulate where possible was it the case
00:39:49 was it the case as a matter of fact that your department was conducting a 2013 building regulations review of building standards in the building control system
00:40:00 control system both to ensure fitness for purpose and quotes to identify opportunities to deregulate where possible close quotes was that a fact you have in your hands
00:40:12 in your hands a document which shows us how we're going to approach that it goes into some detail it also opens up the collective mind
00:40:23 it also opens up the collective mind of the anxiety and concerns we had with regard to that review but if you prefer to ask me questions about a about a junior press officer
00:40:35 about a about a junior press officer seeking to obtain information in order to ensure
00:40:42 that in august
00:40:45 in august she can produce a series of press releases that keep the agenda going and make the prime minister happy demonstrates a number of press releases feel free to answer this question but
00:40:57 feel free to answer this question but there is nothing to mine here there is nothing in this document it is it was not approved by me and
00:41:06 and a reference to any building regulations this would be about something she's been told
00:41:12 told and and she wouldn't have been told because the worship would say sit down jane these are the things we're doing you must know these things these are really important because this is what we're going these are things he's just trying to put together but by all means
00:41:24 trying to put together but by all means sir
00:41:25 sir feel free to ask me as many questions as you like
00:41:29 you like but could i respectfully remind you that you did promise that we will be away this morning and i have changed my schedules to to fit this in i do have an
00:41:40 schedules to to fit this in i do have an extremely busy day meeting people but this is more important than anything but i would urge you to use your time wisely
00:41:51 right may i please have an answer to my question it's a it's a question of i have answered it i have answered it to the point of exhaustion
00:42:03 exhaustion this document has no status the information that she has is second hand she's seeking information she's not
00:42:15 she's not declaring it this is a document that relates to a very dedicated very good middle ranking press officer who is trying to be helpful to put together a series of
00:42:28 helpful to put together a series of press releases to take place in the long recess
00:42:31 recess and um and i'm sure she did an enormously uh good job but i'm not going to answer a question that suggests for one moment that this document represents
00:42:42 one moment that this document represents government policy or represents anything other than press releases no pickles let me see if i can oh i'm sorry sir no no i don't i don't i don't want to appear
00:42:53 don't i don't i don't want to appear i wasn't going to suggest that you were all i was going to suggest i mean i i can understand your obvious frustration of being asked so many questions about a document which you if i think if i've understood you
00:43:04 if i think if i've understood you correctly
00:43:06 correctly amounts a little more than froth the press office looking for something to say you tell us over a long summer recess but i think what mr milit would like a simple answer to is whether as far as
00:43:19 simple answer to is whether as far as you can recall at this time the department was conducting a review of building regulations to see whether there are opportunities for deregulation
00:43:30 there are opportunities for deregulation now you may or may not remember but if you do can you tell me i don't remember but i'm aware that mr millet has some documents and you'll come to those in a moment yeah okay but but would it tell us exactly what we were thinking of
00:43:41 us exactly what we were thinking of doing
00:43:42 doing yeah
00:43:44 yeah well if you don't remember no i don't remember i don't remember i wouldn't have seen this document and i wouldn't regard it as being important and i apologize if i've been if in any way i've not answered fully that's right
00:43:55 way i've not answered fully that's right thank you well i must admit i wonder whether we've exhausted this document i suspect we probably have now let's go to another
00:44:07 now let's go to another three document is one four four six two please uh this is
00:44:14 a letter uh and i'll show you the last page of it first just just to show you that it was from you page four
00:44:25 show you that it was from you page four please
00:44:29 yes that's my electronic signature yes
00:44:35 and it's to we go back to page one it's to nick clegg
00:44:40 clegg uh george osborne and vince cable yeah dear nick george vince
00:44:47 uh no i mean i don't know whether you remember this letter just looking at the first page if you don't then please tell us and i can help you with it well i'm not sure there is just something slightly strange about it
00:44:59 about it well there's two things strange it was normally my habit i would have topped and tailed this
00:45:05 this and i wouldn't have you wouldn't do a colleague of signed eric pickles order assigned eric but it may be that i just wasn't available but i'm sure this is a a letter
00:45:17 a letter um
00:45:18 um if
00:45:19 if i'm sure it was simple i i can assure you
00:45:22 you i haven't read that letter since christmas
00:45:25 christmas 2011.
00:45:26 2011. but very well but by almost bring things together yes but i noticed the micro businesses which again is part of the documents that i provided to the found for the inquiry
00:45:38 provided to the found for the inquiry yes thank you now let's go to the first paragraph to set it in its full context it says it says this this letter seeks agreement from home affairs committee to consult on changes to the building regulations regime in england which will
00:45:50 regulations regime in england which will be introduced over the next two years including support to the green deal this letter also seeks agreement from economic affairs and reducing regulation committees for a waiver from the moratorium on new domestic regulation
00:46:02 moratorium on new domestic regulation for micro businesses and startups finally this letter also seeks clearance to take forward a repeal of local fire acts yeah now uh um if we go then please to the third paragraph under the word
00:46:15 to the third paragraph under the word approach it says this the proposed changes to the building regulations regime have been designed to balance the commitment to deliver sorry where is this partner
00:46:26 where is this partner i'm so sorry lord pickles it's the middle of your screen under the word approach okay okay the proposed changes to the building regulations regime have been designed to balance the commitment to deliver better regulation and to secure growth and
00:46:38 regulation and to secure growth and employment the package has been designed and developed through extensive engagement with external partners and across white hall i'm grateful for the support that your departments have provided to my officials in recent
00:46:50 provided to my officials in recent months
00:46:52 months and
00:46:53 and then it goes on uh and i better read the next paragraph to you before we get to the third one okay in light of current economic conditions we've reflected upon the package and undertaken a critical assessment of each
00:47:05 undertaken a critical assessment of each proposal as a result we have made a number of adjustments to the overall package of reform i've set out some of the key changes in this letter in particular the energy efficiency proposals will send a continuing strong
00:47:16 proposals will send a continuing strong signal of our commitment to be the greenest government ever whilst regulating proportionately to avoid imposing unnecessary costs the package is deregulatory and barrier
00:47:27 the package is deregulatory and barrier busting in quotes with 63.6 million pounds of regulatory quotes outs close quotes the energy efficiency proposals will help businesses and consumers by
00:47:38 will help businesses and consumers by reducing fuel bills and will help reduce fuel poverty in the future they will also help build demand for the green deal to give industry the certainty it needs to invest in new products so supporting jobs and growth
00:47:51 products so supporting jobs and growth and then it says in bold we propose to introduce the deregulatory measures in spring 2013 but given the economic circumstances delay introducing other changes until autumn 2013 and spring 2014 to give industry more time to
00:48:03 2014 to give industry more time to adjust copies of the impact assessments and the opinions of the regulatory policy committee rpc accompany this letter the rpc has provided green or amber ratings for all of the impact
00:48:15 amber ratings for all of the impact assessments and then
00:48:18 and then if we go down further on page two uh to the paragraph just above towards the bottom of your screen just above the heading to regulatory consultation proposals it says this
00:48:29 consultation proposals it says this do you see it says my department is taking
00:48:34 do you see that oh yes i'm also yes of course i do yes yes my department is taking the necessary steps to balance this in with other regulatory outs there are some small scale outs in the package itself
00:48:46 small scale outs in the package itself my department has also secured other outs already for example abolishing home information packs confirmed now that the localism act is law yep my department will continue
00:48:57 will continue working to find further outs for example those flowing from the housing strategy and planning reforms so that we will be in a position to cover the ins of course i will not bring forward the final proposals without confirmation that we
00:49:08 proposals without confirmation that we will be able to meet these commitments the table at annex one summarizes the regulatory ins and outs and if we go down to page five okay
00:49:18 okay we can see uh a table there which is headed annex one overview of regulatory ins and outs and uh if we just take this slowly you can see in the left-hand column the
00:49:30 can see in the left-hand column the relevant parts of the building regulations and other things yeah so part p electrical rationalization of parts m k and n access statements and part l conservation of fuel and power
00:49:42 part l conservation of fuel and power and underneath that part b fire safety yes
00:49:45 yes yes i can see rb yeah and then working across the columns it says overall regulatory out uh and then overall regulatory in and then housing regulatory out and regulatory in
00:49:57 regulatory in expressed in millions of pounds per year and if you look at part l and cast your eye across the column you see that you obtain a regulatory housing in
00:50:07 in of 43 million pounds with a total at the bottom of that column of 43 million pound and a half million pounds of uh uh ins
00:50:18 of uh uh ins for housing uh but if you then look at the outs for overall regulatory under part b um you can see that it's 25.4 million pounds
00:50:28 pounds when which when added to things like uh part b electrical access statements and building control systems adds up to a total of 63.6 million pounds yes
00:50:48 yes yes what sorry are you with me so far yes i'm following sorry
00:50:54 sorry yes okay good now did you read this table uh at the time you sent your letter i don't think i would have sent it off without approving it um
00:51:03 um [Music]
00:51:04 [Music] after all this time i couldn't tell you the details always made up the individual columns but this is part of a kind of a preliminary to a general right round you
00:51:15 preliminary to a general right round you would want to ensure that uh business department and uh and the treasure will happen um
00:51:25 i wouldn't wish to mislead them i think one of these quite a lot of these savings are our projections and this will be uh preliminary but yes
00:51:36 uh preliminary but yes when you sent this letter containing this annex can we take it that you were aware that these figures were being measured and calculated by your officials in your department
00:51:47 your officials in your department yes but i think when they were being calculated i think i would have accepted that these will be preliminary figures projected figures
00:51:56 figures not things that we would have we've already achieved that will be part of the normal process of
00:52:05 of of working towards any particular policy we can can we see that from this letter and i would suggest you that we can that
00:52:15 that part b
00:52:16 part b of approved document of the approved documents and part b of the therefore of the building regulations was subject to the one in one out or two in one into our
00:52:27 our policy
00:52:28 policy and that is why we have an out of projected 25.4 million pounds would you agree with that um
00:52:37 um i think if i said that i'd be misleading the
00:52:42 inquiry because i know that in the subsequent documents that went to various people we kind of pulled back from that when we
00:52:53 we kind of pulled back from that when we fully understood the impact that it would have in doing
00:52:58 in doing that to uh part b
00:53:03 if you permit me by i could just give you a little bit of uh of background uh
00:53:09 uh around about this time we were immensely naive um
00:53:12 naive um we put out a a um
00:53:17 a um a consultation document to local authorities about statutory duties and
00:53:22 and we said what statutory duties do you think we should abolish we thought the local government would welcome this it was exactly the opposite we were suddenly flooded
00:53:33 we were suddenly flooded with suggestions that we would remove the obligation to bury the dead so
00:53:39 so this was prior that this reflects this but you have in your possession two documents a letter come from my department saying
00:53:50 department saying we really don't think it's sensible uh just doing fireworks we need to we need to include the other we then have a letter back from the center saying that um
00:54:00 um we agree
00:54:01 we agree but we're we're going to hold you to it and in long term there must be review should we say that it will be in the long term or should we say we're going to do it in 10 years time and i've also supplied a
00:54:14 years time and i've also supplied a document which demonstrates that which relates to housing standards where the
00:54:20 where the housing minister says that we will ensure that the safety is protected but as
00:54:28 but as a snapshot of what we were thinking at that time this is entirely accurate as a snapshot in terms of what was being projected is entirely accurate
00:54:40 entirely accurate but it is not accurate with regard to what we actually did
00:54:46 well can we does this document tell us and it is under your hand of course so we know it came from you but the
00:54:54 the at this time late 2011 part b
00:54:58 part b of the building regulations was subject in full to the one in one out policy i think this what uh this under my electronic signature i
00:55:09 this under my electronic signature i think it works it shows that the more you do a job the more experience you get and maybe in the first flush of um of being a secretary of state
00:55:21 of being a secretary of state that you are capable of doing
00:55:25 doing silly things and i think you should see it in in those terms you know i regale from that fairly soon when the full impact of what
00:55:36 of what of what would be what was being implied
00:55:40 implied and i'm not entirely sure that the recipients either vince cable or george osborne would be that familiar with part b um a fire safety
00:55:53 um a fire safety and i don't think the appropriate alarm bells would have been wrong however the appropriate
00:56:00 alarm bells so would have been wrong within weeks or months of this particular letter but i think as a snapshot
00:56:08 snapshot of naivete i would accept that so is it your evidence that the inclusion of part b in this one in one out exercise uh was
00:56:20 in one out exercise uh was a
00:56:20 a mistake born of personal naivety on your part oh yeah absolutely right i think i said that right so so i just want to understand the naivety help me is it that you um had
00:56:33 help me is it that you um had what is it that you had not understood that meant that you did treat part b as subject to the one in one out policy in december 2011. well as i said you have documents
00:56:44 as i said you have documents uh within your possession uh that will demonstrate that beyond per adventure
00:56:51 adventure my mind at that time uh you can have a snapshot in terms of what i was actually thinking and what those documents show is that we recognize that
00:57:03 that we recognize that many of it will be um much of this will be misrepresented it will be a politically difficult problem and we also said that um by not including uh b would rather
00:57:15 by not including uh b would rather undermine the um the commitments that we were making to fire
00:57:20 to fire uh but those but but i do concede this is a much more important uh document than the last two that you've shown me this is this is something of substance and this is but this
00:57:31 this in fairness um is
00:57:34 um is an indication of where i was thinking but it isn't an intention of where i ended up
00:57:42 well as at the end of 2011 at the very least can we leave it like this naive or not this was the policy the one in one out
00:57:53 this was the policy the one in one out being applied to part b which your department was uh adopting and following i'm pretty soon after that the department realized what a
00:58:06 department realized what a lot of
00:58:07 lot of what water
00:58:09 that that that policy lacked cohesion and um
00:58:15 and um as the
00:58:16 as the new year dawned um
00:58:20 um both george osborne and vince cable um began to realize what was necessary that something was needed to be changed and it was a major worry
00:58:33 and it was a major worry by the coalition a thing of constant worry that um that had we
00:58:39 had we moved forward on what they were saying at palm beach that it would not have been a happy outcome
00:58:46 outcome for me personally or for the department or for the service and it would have rather underlined one part of the strategy
00:58:56 yes i mean if anybody goes into public life and feels that every single decision you make is is rational and sensible
00:59:07 make is is rational and sensible i think what separates um people who are good at this kind of job whether it's an official or it's um or it's a minister is you've got to learn
00:59:18 it's a minister is you've got to learn by your mistakes and this was something this was a mistake unfortunately we learned from it very quickly and this is the important point
00:59:30 and this is the important point did not
00:59:32 did not implement it
00:59:39 can we then move
00:59:42 a little back in time but to one of the documents i think you uh
00:59:48 uh identified overnight uh or rather very early this morning and clg three zeros one eight six three nine
01:00:01 now this is a letter yeah yeah this is uh this is to will countless sure from stephen aldridge yes and uh we know from the response and you may know this too that um it's dated although it doesn't
01:00:12 that um it's dated although it doesn't bear a date uh it was written on the 30th of november 2011. yeah
01:00:20 and uh it's it says red tape challenge and fire safety regulations uh i'll because you've produced it i probably ought to read it all and say
01:00:31 probably ought to read it all and say that we have the full context lord pickles for some questions i've got about it but okay in june this year our minister bob neal wrote to oliver lewin expressing concern over the inclusion of the fire safety
01:00:42 over the inclusion of the fire safety regulations in the health and safety theme of red tape challenge and requested that these regulations all of which have only recently been introduced
01:00:53 which have only recently been introduced be removed from the red tape challenge altogether my minister's concern was that the inclusion of these regulations could lead to negative or deliberately misleading press coverage which would inflict significant
01:01:05 which would inflict significant reputational harm on the government and could be presented as removing important public safety protections after discussion between our ministers a compromise was agreed allowing the fire
01:01:16 compromise was agreed allowing the fire safety regulations to be withdrawn from the health and safety theme and considered as part of the wider dclg-led housing construction and planning hcp theme
01:01:28 theme in august this year dclg embarked on an ambitious and rigorous program of internal challenge to prepare for the hcp theme yeah yeah policy teams developed in-depth business cases which
01:01:39 developed in-depth business cases which set out the pros and cons of deregulation options and detailed where alternatives to regulation would be appropriate these business cases provided the basis for a red team versus blue team
01:01:50 for a red team versus blue team challenge in which officials from director general dan participated as well as others from other government departments having reviewed the fire regulations through the internal challenge and in preparation for the hcp theme going live
01:02:02 preparation for the hcp theme going live bob neal remains firmly of the view that the fire regulations should be removed from the rtc and has asked me to write at official level to highlight these concerns bob neal is concerned that any benefits
01:02:14 bob neal is concerned that any benefits arising from continuing to include the fire safety regulations in the rtc which promotes a presumption in favor of deregulation would soon be negated by
01:02:25 deregulation would soon be negated by those who could accuse the government of actively seeking to remove or water down the existing fire safety protections that exist for both the benefit of both employees and the wider public
01:02:36 employees and the wider public this concern is particularly evident in relation to the inclusion of the 2009 fire precautions subsurface railway station's england regulations within the hcp theme as discussed in his letter of
01:02:47 hcp theme as discussed in his letter of 15th june these tragic events of the 1989 king's crossfire and the most report which i think say most recent report into 7-7 yeah mean that these regulations are likely to resonate
01:02:58 regulations are likely to resonate deeply with both the public as well as the employee representative organizations and then over the page our minister considers there is significant scope for our intentions to be misrepresented
01:03:10 our intentions to be misrepresented damaging the confidence of the traveling public both at home and in view of the olympics reliance on public transport abroad impacting adversely on the currently sensitive industrial relations with the rmt and others given the potential for
01:03:22 and others given the potential for mischievous and misleading negative publicity on this our ministers feel that the government's reputation could be irrevocably damaged if we were if it would if it were perceived to be weakening its commitment to public safety
01:03:34 to public safety this letter should not be taken to imply that we are not taking the issue of enforcement very seriously indeed and looking closely at how we can when necessary improve the experience of those who feel it's undertaken in a heavy-handed and disproportionate manner
01:03:47 heavy-handed and disproportionate manner we recognize from the comments made by small
01:03:49 small accommodation providers that came through the recent dcms led hospitality theme that there are some concerns with this specific sector that the audit approach being adopted by some fire
01:04:00 approach being adopted by some fire safety officers may be overzealous or disproportionate however these concerns focus on the enforcement of the regulations rather than their application per se and it's clear from the majority of comments that made in both the hospitality theme the public
01:04:11 both the hospitality theme the public clearly understand and support the need for there to be an appropriate regulatory framework in place to provide public safety assurance as you're aware the dclg is fast approaching the launch of the hcp theme
01:04:22 approaching the launch of the hcp theme it will therefore be important for us to resolve this issue for the theme launches to avoid creating any public anxiety and sending mixed messages about this government's approach to public safety it would be helpful to have your
01:04:33 safety it would be helpful to have your response to these concerns as soon as possible i look forward to hearing from you you'll see yours sincerely stephen now i've read that all to you it's a letter from
01:04:44 it's a letter from stephen aldridge who was at uh he was a director for analysis and innovation and sro for deregulation to will cavendish in the cabinet office
01:04:55 to will cavendish in the cabinet office did you read it at the time um
01:05:00 no i think i might have instructed it but
01:05:03 but given that i found this document i clearly read it last night and read in conjunction with the reply and a further document relating to um
01:05:16 relating to um don foster's response i have to say when i originally were giving evidence yesterday i had conflated the two documents into one and i have mistaken the liberal
01:05:28 and i have mistaken the liberal democrats
01:05:30 democrats which i can only apologize and put down to a adult
01:05:37 when i was first reading the document so but basically what i was referring to yesterday
01:05:42 yesterday that one document is those two documents combined uh plus the response uh from a statement by don foster with regard to setting up a panel to look at uh
01:05:55 setting up a panel to look at uh at bureaucracy in house building which which shows exactly that we were protecting and ensuring that safety was um i think essential
01:06:06 that safety was um i think essential like a user was essential right now um just looking at this uh
01:06:13 uh i think the answer to my question was you didn't see it at the time but you oh no
01:06:16 no i don't think so but i would know it was going right would you know did you know thinking back on it at the time what fire safety safety regulations was
01:06:27 what fire safety safety regulations was intended to cover what phrase fire safety regulations or fire safety or fire regulations was intended to cover well given
01:06:39 given that what we went through in great detail yesterday we realized that unless you included b it was pointless you were just going to face the same the same problems
01:06:51 the same problems but in a more intense way and as you will see from the reply it's pretty clear that we were talking about b and as you will see from don foster's statement at the
01:07:04 from don foster's statement at the launch of the panel it's pretty clear we're talking about b well let's look at the reply since uh that was i think another of the three documents you produced to us today
01:07:15 three documents you produced to us today yeah clg three zeros one eight eight nine five
01:07:18 nine five yeah i i'm going to emphasize these were already in the bundle i haven't i haven't sort of brought these out of the ether these are already there in plain sight yes indeed and they've been disclosed and everybody
01:07:30 and they've been disclosed and everybody everybody has that already seen them
01:07:34 so this is the response yeah and it's from will cavendish to stephen aldridge
01:07:43 aldridge uh and
01:07:47 i think the date of it although i don't think we can see it on this document is the 12th of january 2012. yeah um so we're getting a pretty quick response uh yes it says thank you stephen thank you for your letter of 30th of november
01:07:59 you for your letter of 30th of november detailing concerns raised by your minister bob neal about the inclusion of fire safety regulations within the housing construction and planning administration theme i've now had the opportunity to discuss these concerns with the minister for government policy
01:08:11 with the minister for government policy and the minister for business and enterprise after lengthy consideration they've agreed to remove the fire safety regulations from the housing construction and planning administration theme prior to launch on 12th january
01:08:22 theme prior to launch on 12th january however whilst they understand your minister's concerns that the inclusion of fire safety regulations on the website may be misrepresented by the media they're not content they're not content
01:08:33 they're not content to remove the fire safety regulations entirely from the red tape challenge process
01:08:38 process the prime minister has publicly committed the government to challenging all regulations on the statute book with set exclusions only for those relating to tax on national security
01:08:49 relating to tax on national security to this end previous themes have included very sensitive policy areas on the website for comment for example all aspects of the equalities act in the equalities theme and all and regulations relating to environmental protection for
01:09:01 relating to environmental protection for habitats and species in the environment theme
01:09:04 theme ministers believe that permanently ruling out the fire regulations from the red tape challenge would send the wrong signal yes they would therefore request that dclg commits to including the fire safety regulations in the red tape
01:09:15 safety regulations in the red tape challenge at some point in the future yet to be identified yes additionally as you note in your letter 30th of november it's important that we address the concerns raised by micro businesses yes
01:09:26 concerns raised by micro businesses yes uh and it goes on about that for a bit and then it goes in the last sentence it says to ensure we do so ministers have asked that we hold an internal star chamber on fire safety regulations as part of the housing construction and planning administration challenge
01:09:37 planning administration challenge process in spring with dcms ministers invited to reflect the views of the hospitality sector now
01:09:45 now looking at that letter where do we see any reference to the building regulations themselves or approved document b dealing with fire safety in particular
01:09:56 safety in particular well there are things going on discussions the government policies worked out just by an exchange of letters they knew what we wanted to do it's there
01:10:07 it's there there is as you seen in the bundle a further discussion about at what point do we do a review and the two choices
01:10:19 and the two choices uh were offered whether or not it should be at an indeterminal period or whether we should commit to 20
01:10:29 20 60 which would have been 10 years from where when the original [Music]
01:10:38 [Music] changes were brought in by the labor government and we actually decided that we'd probably go for a more fuzzy option at some time in the future but in terms of what does this mean
01:10:50 but in terms of what does this mean we don't need to try and deconstruct the
01:10:57 the the individual meaning of individual words because as i said yesterday when
01:11:06 when a government was essentially doing in practice quite a u-turn these things need to be financed that
01:11:15 that things need to be blurred but if
01:11:19 but if if you want you went on to the further document i found in which we announced the panel we're going to look at
01:11:28 at at burdens in house building you will see that don foster was explicit
01:11:35 explicit about the essential nature of um
01:11:39 of um of of ensuring uh that matters relating to safety was explicitly there um
01:11:48 um so this is this is a this is a document that smooths away for that uh that transition
01:11:59 you see you told us a few moments ago in your
01:12:04 in your answer to an earlier question as as we could see from the reply you said it's pretty clear we were talking about b
01:12:13 um can you just point out to us where in this letter which is the reply we can see any reference to b that is to say approve document b or part b
01:12:24 say approve document b or part b of the building regulations little pickles i think reading those two together
01:12:29 together it's really clear there is a request if
01:12:35 if if they're not responding to that the request which is pretty explicit in the in the first um uh letter that came from uh from stephen
01:12:46 letter that came from uh from stephen and the one that came then eventually from will
01:12:50 from will but i think the difficulty is
01:12:54 is that government policy this was this was not a thing that was just being politely discussed
01:13:01 discussed between two officials in an exchange of letter this was something that was actively being discussed between politicians
01:13:12 politicians in meetings and in the lobby it was something that was beginning to cause concern in government um given that we've been through the
01:13:25 um given that we've been through the the embarrassment that i talked to further and
01:13:29 and it's lacking everything in order to put it together you need to demonstrate the proof that that happened and if you feel inclined uh to put up which was the
01:13:41 was the the start of the um the panel the announcing its terms of reference that might be a good indication i mean
01:13:51 i mean i recall um you're saying well you know we haven't seen this we haven't seen that but if something happened is it reasonably determined that that was the case and i think if you look at actions you can see
01:14:03 think if you look at actions you can see it was there
01:14:06 well we saw the letter to which this was a response which didn't refer to the approved document b or part b of the building regulations it did refer to the 2009 if i can call
01:14:18 it did refer to the 2009 if i can call them this way the king's cross regulations and yeah regulations impacting uh uh affecting hospital the hospitality sector yeah not the construction industry uh and the words will phrase
01:14:30 industry uh and the words will phrase fire safety regulations or fire requirements are used in a broad sense but to cover those specific matters oh yes and that's why the the
01:14:39 the document which i'm sure you'll show in a moment will be helpful because it does relate to the construction industry right
01:14:45 right let's take it in stages but i'm just okay just looking at these documents do you accept looking at the documents and given that you didn't see them at the time that there's nothing in this exchange the aldridge cavendish
01:14:57 this exchange the aldridge cavendish exchange
01:14:58 exchange in late 2011 early 12 that indicates that the building regulations and in particular the fire safety aspect of the building building regulations was going
01:15:09 building building regulations was going to be exempted from the red tape challenge
01:15:14 but why would that letter be written we'd already established a an exemption this is actually saying whoa just hold on a minute this is half
01:15:25 whoa just hold on a minute this is half the job done this is things we need to take place and
01:15:30 and again i have to emphasize this was a live and important political issue that i was worried about the ministerial team was worried about we were we felt
01:15:41 team was worried about we were we felt there was a warning taking place i hinted to you yesterday that there was a
01:15:47 a a major a political exercise taking place
01:15:51 place in which involved the liberal democrat side of the coalition the conservative side of the of the coalition and also in civil servants time if you want i will be
01:16:04 servants time if you want i will be explicit in terms of what was happening uh but it's entirely up to you i i'm keen to answer your questions but i'm keen for the inquiry to understand what's happening
01:16:16 inquiry to understand what's happening i think sometimes this is not so much about a memory test you need to understand what was happening but it's entirely up to you if you want me to explain i will if you want us to
01:16:27 me to explain i will if you want us to dissect the text i'm equally happy lord pickle just help me with this is it your evidence that the rather broad phrase fire safety
01:16:40 the rather broad phrase fire safety regulations or fire regulation was deliberately vague so that it could accommodate yeah um a range of matters not yet defined is
01:16:51 a range of matters not yet defined is that what you're telling us exactly exactly
01:16:55 exactly the the nature of the thing you know this the red tech challenge is really a big deal
01:16:59 big deal and if um
01:17:01 and if um we got what we eventually got the kind of deal was don't make a big thing about it because if you make a big thing about it then all the things are happening in other departments will say well look pickles
01:17:12 departments will say well look pickles got things off the hook why would we ever expect to do this so these things need to be kind of finessed
01:17:19 finessed um
01:17:20 um while this was happening i would be talking to the prime minister's chief of staff and saying our word i was i'd be talking to
01:17:31 saying our word i was i'd be talking to the chief whip to say i've got to tell you that pretty soon there's going to be all kinds of problems here you think you've got problems with backbenchers now it's nothing what's going to happen if they real if they think we're going
01:17:42 if they real if they think we're going to be
01:17:42 to be messing around with with fire regulations um
01:17:47 um i i i'll be talking to the leader of um of of the house of commons talking about what will be necessary to uh to do these kind of things that kind of problem i went to see the party chairman to say
01:17:59 went to see the party chairman to say there'll be a lot of problem in the uh in the associations the permanent secretary would inform the cabinet secretary that were all kinds of concerns were taking place um either don foster or um andrew stone
01:18:12 um either don foster or um andrew stone will be talking to nick clegg so this was a alive and uh as an important issue and you've got to understand we're politicians
01:18:23 we're politicians we aren't dealing with the precision of um that you would and say well it's kind of article b i mean you see it's it's it's
01:18:34 it's it's approved document b we're trying to make it clear to the people making the decision what this is is about but there's clear evidence because in
01:18:45 but there's clear evidence because in the
01:18:46 the next document that uh mr millet will undoubtedly be showing um in a very important paragraph uh don foster makes that clear yeah all right thank you is that a convenient moment
01:18:58 thank you is that a convenient moment yes i think it is mr miller thank you i think lord pickles we ought to take the morning break at this point so we'll come back please uh 25 to and as before please don't discuss your
01:19:10 and as before please don't discuss your evidence
01:19:11 evidence oh yeah okay all right because i just have one point i am at your disposal i will be here as long as you are
01:19:19 you are but i've got a number of international guests coming in to see me if you think i'm going to go into the afternoon session i would like to do this to start counselling yes
01:19:29 yes should i start counseling well i can't tell you that because only mr millett knows how long he thinks he might take with his questions but what i shall do is to
01:19:40 what i shall do is to ask him
01:19:42 ask him over the break to see how things are going
01:19:45 going and if he thinks that we may need you over in the afternoon then i'll ask him to let your counsel and solicitors know that
01:19:56 and solicitors know that and they are able to tell you if you need or at least a discussion whether you need to start counseling yeah i like as much as possible because people have troubled they have the religious crimes from
01:20:07 they have the religious crimes from other countries to talk to me so i need to
01:20:10 to well i'll ask mr millet um to let your lawyers know before the end of the break how he's
01:20:19 all right thank you very much would you go to the usher then please
01:38:52 would you ask little pickles to come back in please
01:38:58 [Music]
01:39:08 all right little pickles yes so can i just i'd like to apologize uh to you and off particularly to mr uh mr malifa anyway i seem discourteous
01:39:20 uh mr malifa anyway i seem discourteous as soon as i left the room i took the decision to cancel everything and uh this is more important than anything i'm doing and i apologize particularly to you mr miller in fact anyway i seem to say it's being
01:39:32 anyway i seem to say it's being discourteous i fully understand that you're doing a proper job well thank you very much indeed i'm sorry that we're going to interfere with your program for the afternoon and um
01:39:43 program for the afternoon and um we'll just go on and shall we yeah right thank you very much yes thank you mr pickles yes now let's um let's go then to a document in january 2012 which is at clg three zero is one
01:39:54 2012 which is at clg three zero is one eight six three eight
01:40:00 now um this is a
01:40:05 policy development document from louise upton in the fire safety policy team to bob neal in january 2012. now i'm going to assume unless you tell me otherwise um lord pickles that you didn't see this either at the time or perhaps until you
01:40:17 either at the time or perhaps until you got your evidence pack for the inquiry yeah that will be a reasonable assumption and it says red tape challenge fire safety regulations and i'll just read the rel the relevant
01:40:28 and i'll just read the rel the relevant parts to it although there are other parts
01:40:30 parts linked to it um which we may or may not need to go to paragraph one under summary the cabinet office and bis have agreed that the fire safety regulations need not be included
01:40:41 safety regulations need not be included in the dclg led red tape challenge theme of housing construction and planning administration which goes live on 12th january annex a however because of the government commitment to review all regulations they do not want to exclude
01:40:52 they do not want to exclude consideration of these regulations altogether and have asked for them to be reviewed in an rtc themed yet to be identified at some point in the future cabinet office have also planned gut minister's intention of holding an
01:41:04 minister's intention of holding an internal star chamber challenge process in the spring focused specifically on the concerns of the fire safety order and its enforcement that have been raised by micro businesses offering accommodation as part of the dcms led
01:41:15 accommodation as part of the dcms led hospitality theme this submission offers advice on taking this forward a draft letter to cabinet office annex b and lines to take if necessary on the exclusion of the fire safety regulations from the dclg led
01:41:27 safety regulations from the dclg led theme which goes live on 12th january timing urgent and you can see why that is and then underneath that it says this under recommendation three that you first bullet confirm that you are content to
01:41:39 confirm that you are content to undertake a formal review of the fire safety regulations notably the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 and the fire precautions subsurface railway stations england regulations 2009 at some point
01:41:52 england regulations 2009 at some point in the future potentially around 2016 at the 10-year anniversary two agree
01:41:58 two agree two second bullet point agree the draft eclg responds to the cabinet office nxb and three third bullet agree reactive lines for the press office to take in response to the exclusion of the fire safety regulations from the dc lg led
01:42:12 safety regulations from the dc lg led theme and if we go over the page to background yeah um there's quite a bit of this yeah but you can see there that the it's about exemption from the red tape
01:42:24 it's about exemption from the red tape challenge for the fire safety regulation and uh it continues in that in that vein yeah uh and uh if you go then down please to paragraph
01:42:35 if you go then down please to paragraph seven towards the foot of page two
01:42:38 page two yeah it says we reckon however we recognize
01:42:41 recognize that a review of fire safety regulations is a significant task with associated resource consequences for fred and dclg with this in mind we're reluctant at this stage to commit to a specific time
01:42:52 this stage to commit to a specific time frame for a full-scale legislative review without further detailed consideration of the necessary work program that said the fire safety order will have been in place for for b 10 years by i think by 10 years
01:43:05 b 10 years by i think by 10 years i don't know but by 2016 10 years seems a reasonable period for the provisions to embed with those to whom it applies and would allow for the outcome of the work on which we are currently engaged with ogd partners and others to have
01:43:17 with ogd partners and others to have made an impact a review in 2016 or thereabouts would also enable dclg to maximize the synergy with any review of the fire safety provisions of the part b of the building regulations which apply to buildings under construction and
01:43:29 to buildings under construction and therefore which underpins and informs the fire safety risk assessment that's carried out and kept under review and occupation if you agree that the earliest we should consider undertaking a formal review of the fire safety order and the subsurface
01:43:42 the fire safety order and the subsurface railway station regulations would be 2016 we propose to send the draft letter nxb to will cavendish yeah and that's the letter we saw that's right at the cabinet office which includes offer plays line to take in response to
01:43:54 offer plays line to take in response to any queries in relation to the exemption of the fire safety regulations from the dclg led rtc theme uh now i'm reading that in at length to you because um would we be right in
01:44:05 you because um would we be right in thinking that the policy proposal at the time
01:44:08 time um was to exempt from the rt from the red tape challenge the rtc uh the fso the 2005 regulatory reform fire safety order and the 2009
01:44:21 and the 2009 uh regulations uh fire precautions subsurface railway stations england regulations but not approve document b or part b of the regulation building regulations themselves no if
01:44:33 themselves no if would you mind there's a phrase just a little higher i think you're on the um the page slightly above right at the beginning which explain could you just
01:44:44 beginning which explain could you just yes scroll up to page the top of page yeah
01:44:47 yeah three is that where you i think that's the top of the page would you like the box could you could you go to the the next one
01:44:53 next one there's a phrase there about it being deliberately ambiguous um
01:44:58 um i think he might be slightly ahead of that i i saw it as it just flickered by i thought it was actually quite important could you just go to the next page oh yes that's right five considerations the cabinet office
01:45:10 considerations the cabinet office response is ambiguous given the clear public commitment they do not want to be seen to exempt any of the current stock of regulations and red tape challenge and they recognize that fire safety is
01:45:23 and they recognize that fire safety is just one of a number of areas that which may become controversial however they do not press in specific terms for a commitment the language is at some point in the future
01:45:35 language is at some point in the future in a theme yet to be identified suggests that there will be little pressure for a public red tape challenge style process if an acceptable alternative can be identified i think um i i try to
01:45:49 identified i think um i i try to explain that slightly before the the break
01:45:52 break these things are in the nature of things you're dealing with politicians it's a process of being ambiguous
01:46:02 ambiguous and
01:46:03 and i'm sure you'll come on to the the um
01:46:07 the um don foster in due course but
01:46:11 but you you need to understand you know
01:46:16 you know we are organizing a essentially a u-turn five explains of course it's ambiguous it also explains the worries about about seeing the change
01:46:29 about seeing the change but the the other document that you've seen a few moments explicitly refers to
01:46:37 those conditions when we're actually putting up the people who are going to sit on the panel um
01:46:43 um i hope that is is helpful and forgive me sir i've forgotten the question you asked me well the question was whether or not looking at the document which i think you have accepted you didn't see at the
01:46:54 you have accepted you didn't see at the time
01:46:56 time your understanding
01:46:59 was
01:47:09 well i'm not sure i actually got to ask you a question but let me let me let me ask it again okay was it your understanding at this time early 2012 um that all fire regulations would be
01:47:20 um that all fire regulations would be the subject of exemption from the red tape challenge henceforth or that only the fso and the
01:47:28 and the 2009 subsurface regulations or
01:47:32 or not really sure some are in the middle um
01:47:36 um the purpose of what we were doing was to ensure
01:47:41 ensure that
01:47:42 that what we'd um achieved wasn't replicated with a controversy in b and
01:47:52 what this was was constructive ambiguity um
01:47:57 um it's a it is as simple as art
01:48:02 what yep no no sorry sir go on constructive ambiguity uh now
01:48:09 uh now did you
01:48:10 did you so far as you are aware and can recall tell
01:48:15 tell anybody to whom you wanted to pass a message
01:48:19 message that your officials should understand that when it came to safety and particularly fire safety in the context of the building regulations they should operate in an atmosphere of constructive ambiguity
01:48:32 atmosphere of constructive ambiguity my
01:48:33 my no the constructive ambiguities is to give um
01:48:38 give um the politicians some leeway to organize the u-turn without causing enormous
01:48:45 enormous embarrassment
01:48:47 the process of the um the whole exercise the whole exchange of letters
01:48:54 letters wasn't was not to repeat the mistake we want to ensure that we had um
01:49:01 had um exempted one set affected uh fire
01:49:05 uh fire and not the other and that's why it was left deliberately open
01:49:12 open as to when we would look at these things again and in truth if we had decided to do
01:49:17 do something in 2016 wouldn't have been wholly unreasonable but it would have been wholly unreasonable to do to sort of been doing it then when you know the system was
01:49:28 you know the system was just settling down i'm going to put it to you that the documents we've seen thus far
01:49:33 thus far uh the aldridge cavendish exchange and this policy submission uh deal
01:49:40 uh deal and deal exclusively with the potential for exempting the 2005 safety order and the 2009 subsurface regulations from the red tape challenge and nothing else and
01:49:53 red tape challenge and nothing else and it is in that context that one should understand the words fire safety regulations no i i would reject that i don't think we would have
01:50:02 been involved in such a major political undertaking that would have involved the permanent secretary both sides of the coalition
01:50:13 coalition just to achieve this this was a major consideration and will be evidenced in a few moments when we look at the
01:50:25 when we look at the panel that's being set up to
01:50:29 to actually start to look at those regulations and the terms of reference that that
01:50:35 that that press release contains right um before i move to the next document then
01:50:41 then can you tell us what was your understanding at the start of 2012 about whether your officials were or were not applying
01:50:52 your officials were or were not applying the deregulatory policies in the one in one out
01:50:55 one out uh or red tape challenge to the building regulations i think
01:51:00 i think at the beginning of this this is like this is july this is january isn't it january 2012 yes i think it was an enormous feeling of relief that we weren't going to have to
01:51:11 relief that we weren't going to have to do that um but i also i think i would also respectfully remind you of my evidence that i gave earlier that given that we were a deregulatory
01:51:25 department that we did have sufficient headroom to be able to put in many regulations without it really of affecting our numbers and um
01:51:37 numbers and um i know i was rather rude about that um thing produced by matt hancock but i mean they did indication there that you know there was a movement backwards and forwards
01:51:48 a movement backwards and forwards even though i would
01:51:50 i would cast out on the individual veracity of the figures nevertheless it had shown some movement that we were we were regulating as well
01:52:02 were regulating as well let's go now to clg one triple zero five two two three this is slightly later in 2012 now okay
01:52:12 uh and uh this i'll read this to you um this is annex b to a submission sent to your um your
01:52:24 your private secretary on the 3rd of may 2012 and i can
01:52:30 and i can i can show you the email and the full submission if you like but um this is the short point in it annex b red tape challenge housing and construction response to cabinet office dclg has now had the opportunity to
01:52:42 dclg has now had the opportunity to consider the detailed responses submitted by external partners as part of the red tape challenge process in particular this annex addresses all of the comments that cabinet office said would benefit from a specific response in advance of the star chamber
01:52:55 in advance of the star chamber now if we go please to page two of this document
01:53:03 you can see there's a heading response and underneath that it says maintenance and improvement of the building regulations into into the future will continue to be done in accordance with the government's approach to regulation not least the one
01:53:16 approach to regulation not least the one in one out approach to regulation and the spending review commit sorry the spending review commitment to reduce the burden on house builders by 2015. therefore it will be incumbent on dclg
01:53:27 therefore it will be incumbent on dclg to actively seek out the opportunities to address areas of overlap if it is to continue to be able to deliver future regulatory changes this work will continue to be informed by the building regulations advisory committee who are
01:53:39 regulations advisory committee who are drawn from industry and provide advice to ministers on the proposals for and operation of the regime
01:53:50 now it's obvious in that isn't it i would suggest lord pickles that the building regulations certainly as at may 2012 were receiving no special
01:54:01 may 2012 were receiving no special treatment
01:54:02 treatment uh under the deregulatory policies then in place
01:54:06 in place i'm not sure i would take that
01:54:10 straight from what was said there um
01:54:14 um particularly as we've gone through that process
01:54:18 process and does this refer to the panel of experts that were
01:54:23 that were set up to look at the uh regulation is this what this document is referring to well since you asked me let's see if we can explore it a bit more okay um let's
01:54:34 can explore it a bit more okay um let's go then to the full submission it's at clg one triple zero five two two two
01:54:45 and it's to you as the secretary of state from victoria moyo in the strategic analysis team dated the second of may 2012 you see that
01:54:55 that i do yes and so can we assume you saw it at the time i think
01:55:01 i think it is reasonable to say that i would but for all the reasons that we explained yesterday that might not be the case but this looks to me on the surface like it's an
01:55:12 looks to me on the surface like it's an important document and i know this is a minor point but it's been irritating me a little bit i think i'd like to to clarify the reference to star chamber this is not a sort of thomas uh
01:55:26 chamber this is not a sort of thomas uh um
01:55:28 um you know a big approach in terms of putting screwdriver star chamber court is where oliver let one's office was it's just a reference to the
01:55:36 to the geographical location it's not a reference to any particular rigorous process i just wanted to i just thought we'd look mad with that on i'm sorry sir so no i don't
01:55:47 with that on i'm sorry sir so no i don't think i would entirely uh say that that was uh that was uh uh conclusive because if it is um the uh challenge and we had a panel of experts
01:56:00 and we had a panel of experts when we announced the panel of experts we announced some terms of reference which made very clear uh that safety was a priority we're also concerned
01:56:11 concerned about access for disabled people that we wanted to make sure that that wasn't lost and that's reflected but uh sorry sir it was a long reply well if you look at paragraph eight on
01:56:23 well if you look at paragraph eight on this and this document on this page it says as stated above there will be a focus on building regulations and hmos policy teams have addressed the list of comments on those
01:56:34 addressed the list of comments on those topics from the red tape challenge website the cabinet office has asked for in advance of the star chamber attached to den xb which will inform further which will further inform discussion uh
01:56:46 uh so it looks as if on the face of this document
01:56:50 document that
01:56:51 that the building regulations were absolutely subject to the red tape challenge policy i don't
01:56:58 i don't i think there's a world difference between building regulations and document b i mean
01:57:07 i mean i think i referred to yesterday some concerned with regard to noise insulation and i can recall a a discussion asked the noise insulation in schools or
01:57:19 asked the noise insulation in schools or whether it was appropriate to remain within uh the framework of approved documents or whether or not it might have been better uh to move that across to the the
01:57:31 that across to the the department of of education so i think there is a difference between um approved documents b relating to to fire safety and to the whole planet
01:57:45 to fire safety and to the whole planet of the building regulations
01:57:56 do you accept and i'm sorry to ask my question again lord sorry except on the face of this document that the building regulations were the subjects of the red tape
01:58:07 were the subjects of the red tape challenge
01:58:10 they weren't exempted let me qualify that there's a world of difference between remember we're only seeking to ensure
01:58:18 ensure approved document b uh had a degree of exemption i'm not sure we would apply the same rules to say uh access of moisture
01:58:29 moisture or noise or the various things that are made up and a planet place so i think you're asking me to equate
01:58:40 equate document b with the whole of building regulations which wasn't the intention the intention was
01:58:49 was to ensure that we didn't do something foolish but having gone through all the process of dealing with regard to the other aspects of regulation with regard to fine repeat
01:59:00 of regulation with regard to fine repeat that with regard to approved document b no pickles did you ever see a document which said
01:59:11 which said that a
01:59:14 that a approved document b was going to be exempted from the red tape challenge
01:59:22 i think i can point to actions that indicated that was the case and i think probably one of the most important ways in which that might be signposted
01:59:33 signposted would be the terms of reference to the expert panel that were due to look at burdens upon the construction industry i think that's probably
01:59:45 industry i think that's probably um quite an important document to look at i think that might be in some way conclusive um
01:59:54 um were you aware that
01:59:57 that approved document b was statutory guidance
02:00:00 guidance which
02:00:01 which guided
02:00:02 guided the public or at least the relevant readership of approved document b on how to comply with the requirement functional requirement in regulation b
02:00:15 i don't think i entirely understand the the question uh
02:00:21 uh i've not been observed but i'm not entirely document b is clearly a very important document will it go maybe try but simplify it did you understand at the time that approved document b goes with
02:00:32 time that approved document b goes with regulation b
02:00:36 not explicitly i don't think i would have did you see did you see anything in any document at the time that told you that the policy of excluding regulation b
02:00:50 whether or not together with a proof document be from the scope of the red tape challenge was a policy being pursued by your department i think i can point to evidence that
02:01:03 i think i can point to evidence that when
02:01:04 when in practical matters which was the start of the process of applying the red
02:01:09 red tape challenge at two
02:01:13 at two building regulations that the terms of reference were set out explicitly that related to the importance of safety
02:01:24 of safety and also because they were some residual worries with regard to access for disabled people to various things
02:01:34 things and there was a worry that there was a you know suggestion that people wanted to kind of cut corners on that that we wanted to make it kind of clear that when people were going along but we wouldn't compromise either either safety
02:01:47 wouldn't compromise either either safety or access to buildings the access to building walls quite an expensive burden on
02:01:54 on the building uh construction industry
02:01:58 industry and but nevertheless for social and social cohesion reasons it was important to retain that
02:02:09 now let's go to a an impact assessment which is stated december 2012 and this is at labc309720
02:02:28 now if you've seen this document before then let let me know but it's dated december 2012 as you can see and its title is simplifying the provisions of part b two of the building regulations impact
02:02:40 of the building regulations impact assessment and uh if we you can one can scroll through it but take it from me that it's a very detailed 38-page document
02:02:51 detailed 38-page document take it also from me that beat part b two um of the building regulations is about protecting against internal fire spread okay
02:03:01 okay and i should also just tell you for your benefit that this was one of a large number
02:03:06 number of regulatory impact assessments done in relation to the building regulations by your department yes i'm very confident i would not have seen this right but then help me with it um and your
02:03:18 but then help me with it um and your evidence go to page two please we can see uh i'm sorry page three so sorry page three
02:03:28 three we can see that at the top of the screen title
02:03:31 title simplifying the provisions of part b 2 of the building regulations impact assessment in the right hand column 17th of december 2012 stage final and then underneath that secondary legislation contact for inquiry is brian
02:03:43 legislation contact for inquiry is brian martin
02:03:45 martin and then um you see underneath that summary intervention and options rpc opinion validated by rpc and then underneath that cost of preferred or more likely option and then
02:03:56 preferred or more likely option and then if you look across the great box it says total net present value 399 million pounds
02:04:02 pounds business net present value 452 million pounds net cost of business per year e-n-e-a-n-c-b uh on 2009 prices minus 24.4 million
02:04:13 uh on 2009 prices minus 24.4 million pounds in scope of one in one out yes
02:04:17 yes measure qualifies as out and then if you turn please uh to page
02:04:26 uh page four
02:04:28 page four uh you can see that there is a um
02:04:33 um a paragraph about reading the impact assessment and being satisfied it represents a reasonable view of expectations etc and then there's a signature uh which is don foster's signature date of the 17th of december 2012. yes i recognize don's signature
02:04:45 2012. yes i recognize don's signature now
02:04:46 now uh
02:04:49 uh
02:04:52 given that that is and is only one example
02:04:55 example of
02:04:56 of a regulatory impact assist assessment dealing with changes to the building regulations would you agree that this is completely inconsistent with the idea
02:05:08 inconsistent with the idea that the building regulations or any amendments to them are out with the scope or were out with the scope
02:05:14 the scope of the one in one out policy as at late december will be december 2012.
02:05:20 2012. i think i've explained that the winning worn out because of the because of the changes that um
02:05:29 that um we've made with the localism act and because of the way in which we produce a general power of competence that we as a department
02:05:42 that we as a department never felt any particular pressure on the one in went out and always had a degree of headroom to be able to deal with any
02:05:53 headroom to be able to deal with any problems so it's not a particularly practical problem
02:05:58 problem but forgive me i'm not entirely sure what this
02:06:03 what this impact assessment relates specifically to it may be i don't need to know that but
02:06:11 but if it is important could you tell me yes let's um go back certainly let's get back to page three uh and underneath the ean ncb calculation you can see what's the problem under consideration why is the
02:06:22 problem under consideration why is the government intervention necessary requirement b2 of the building regulations restricts the spread of flame and heat release of the materials used in any lining in lining any partition wall ceiling or other internal
02:06:33 partition wall ceiling or other internal structure the guidance in a proof document b sets reasonable standards but as a result of changes in technology this guidance may be imposing additional costs beyond that necessary to achieve appropriate levels of fire safety wall coverings cut
02:06:45 of fire safety wall coverings cut products
02:06:46 products are currently available on the uk market and certified to british standards will soon have to bear a european standard marking but will not achieve european class b standard as currently required allowing european class c in specific
02:06:58 allowing european class c in specific circumstances will deliver adequate safety levels at lower cost what are the policy objectives and the intended effects the policy objective is to reduce the cost of delivering appropriate standards of fire safety in
02:07:10 appropriate standards of fire safety in buildings
02:07:11 buildings the amendments to approve document b will allow greater use of acrylic materials to be used in lighting installations okay evidence suggests that appropriate safety standards will be maintained and a significant cost saving to industry will result
02:07:23 saving to industry will result etc
02:07:25 etc now does that help you it does i'm certain i didn't see it this is
02:07:30 is something way below what i would normally be expected to to see
02:07:38 but again forgive me is this somewhere reducing the the the standard of safety uh that's available on these wall fittings or is it a um a
02:07:52 on these wall fittings or is it a um a change with regard to new technology i'm not clear and i'm not making a point i just don't understand the point you're making to us are you suggesting that every
02:08:03 are you suggesting that every every any change that was made to adapt to modern circumstances would be wrong and inconsistent with the changes we've agreed i'm just really not clear and i apologize if i seem a little
02:08:16 clear and i apologize if i seem a little dim
02:08:19 now my question is whether you accept that there was within the department a process
02:08:26 process by which your officials
02:08:29 regarded themselves as subject to the one in one out policy when it came to making changes to the building regulations such that they had to justify
02:08:40 to justify changes such as these to the rpc inter in money terms well spherically thank you i genuinely didn't understand what you were asking me
02:08:51 were asking me um i think that i would say is that in terms of the um
02:09:00 challenge that never really represented a
02:09:03 a a serious problem uh to the department because we had such a lot of
02:09:09 a lot of headroom so far as the amount of deregulation that was possible given the two things that were
02:09:16 that were were happening i mean i think again this is not something i i i i have seen i'm not in a position to
02:09:28 to give a considered view to the question that you you that you are asking me and i hope that isn't seen as being difficult
02:09:35 difficult um
02:09:36 um this is not something that i would have seen
02:09:39 seen um
02:09:41 um and
02:09:43 and forgive me i'm not entirely sure it proves the point that you're asking me on but
02:09:48 me on but the answer is i cannot give an answer to that because i i do not fully um understand you know um
02:09:59 you know um the the the point that you're making well lord because i think the point that council is asking you to consider is this the very fact that uh your officials apparently were
02:10:10 that uh your officials apparently were producing for uh mr foster proposals to alter the requirements of the building regulations
02:10:21 the building regulations itself shows that the building regulations were not exempt from the deregulation policy but
02:10:29 but i think the point i tried to make sir and i hope i was clear is i think we would i think there's a little difference between the building regulations and approved document b
02:10:41 regulations and approved document b we are really talking about the uh the fire regulations i don't think it was ever envisaged that we would hold them
02:10:49 hold them in status and we would make no changes whatsoever i don't think it is wholly unreasonable i think it's been suggested here that there are various changes taking
02:11:01 that there are various changes taking place with regards to various
02:11:04 various european standard markets and i don't think it will be unreasonable you know to make changes that took into consideration um
02:11:15 um uh changes uh in new technology and that would seem real that would seem a reasonable thing to do i i i hope i've been clear that thank you
02:11:26 been clear that thank you well mr militz for you yes
02:11:32 just to be clear lord pickles and i appreciate this isn't a document you you saw at the time and you may be seeing it for the first time today but if you go back to the first box i showed you
02:11:42 you when you wanted clarification uh it's it's about requirement b2 for the building regulations then it goes on in the second and third lines the guidance in approved document b sets
02:11:53 guidance in approved document b sets reasonable standards etc
02:11:55 etc and then if you look at the second box down
02:11:59 down it says the policy objective is to reduce the cost of delivering appropriate standards of fire safety in buildings
02:12:05 buildings the amendments to approve document b allow greater use of accredited materials to be used in lighting installations now look
02:12:14 now look does that not tell us and i'm inviting you to agree with what we can both see in the document that here is your department seeking
02:12:23 seeking rpc approval by making a money case on net cost to business of amending approved document b and my question is did you know your
02:12:35 and my question is did you know your officials regarded themselves as under an obligation or at least under a policy to seek rpc approval
02:12:47 to seek rpc approval in relation to amendments to approve document b did you know if i could draw your attention to um the second line
02:12:58 second line starts a new sentence as a guidance approval set reasonable stance but as a result of changes in technology the guidance may be important additional cost because it looks like there's a a different way of being able to do that
02:13:12 a different way of being able to do that and
02:13:13 and i think
02:13:15 i think in reply to the um
02:13:18 um the question that the um the chairman get asked me was um
02:13:27 there is the world of difference between fire
02:13:31 fire and the rest of the building regulations there is a world of difference between
02:13:38 imposing new burdens and recognizing that there is a a change in technology and i feel more comfortable in my reply that i gave to the chairman
02:13:51 in my reply that i gave to the chairman than
02:13:52 than the way in which you're which you're phrasing it because i don't think it is entirely
02:13:57 entirely inconsistent with the all of the evidence that i've given so far uh to the uh inquiry well let me just try one more time that's okay so yeah of course
02:14:09 that's okay so yeah of course if
02:14:09 if as i think you would have it part b of the building regulations and its associate approved document b was not subject to the one in one out policy
02:14:20 subject to the one in one out policy then why was why was this impact assessment being prepared and why was it being signed by your minister uh well
02:14:28 uh well impact assessments had to be signed for uh
02:14:32 uh for this kind of thing i think it was part of
02:14:34 part of the law to be able to do that and i think also to comply with the european directive
02:14:41 directive i think the point i'm making is that we had within this process a certainty that
02:14:49 that safety
02:14:51 safety and
02:14:51 and also access would not be compromised and when we eventually get on to looking at that document you'll see the terms of reference laid out clearly but but this is just part of the normal
02:15:03 but but this is just part of the normal process
02:15:04 process and as i said if it was necessary in order to comply with the
02:15:11 with the red tape challenge to find a another piece of legislation to
02:15:17 to to remove that would not have presented even the slightest problem to the department let's go to the press release which
02:15:29 which you've drawn our attention to it's at clg one
02:15:33 clg one four zeros two seven one
02:15:41 and first i should just ask you is this the document that you've been referring us to on a number of occasions this morning
02:15:46 morning yes it is
02:15:48 yes it is no it's dated as you can see 31st of october 2012. so just for chronology's sake lord pickles it predates by
02:16:01 seven weeks or so the regulatory impact assessment we've just been looking at in relation to a proof document b yeah yes uh it's from the department uh and particularly your minister don foster yeah
02:16:12 yeah uh and it was published under the
02:16:16 the um the kurdish and government yeah uh and because it's not a long document i'll show it to you in its entirety new independent group of building industry experts to simplify
02:16:27 industry experts to simplify the mass of rules imposed on developers and house builders communities minister don foster today launched a new independent group of building industry experts tasked with simplifying the massive rules imposed on
02:16:38 simplifying the massive rules imposed on developers and house builders to make them easier to understand and follow
02:16:45 as part of the government's red tape challenge ministers have made clear they want to do everything possible to remove unnecessary burdens and bureaucracy imposed on developers to get much-needed new hill homes built and support
02:16:56 new hill homes built and support economic growth the current complex system of building regulations and housing standards will be targeted by a new independent challenge panel which will consider how these
02:17:07 which will consider how these requirements work together and what potential there is to free up the system and make it work more efficiently the panel will for the first time bring independent experts together with government and it will report to
02:17:18 government and it will report to ministers in spring 2013. but mr foster also made clear that essential safety and accessibility protections will remain untouched and that homes will always need to be built
02:17:29 that homes will always need to be built to high sustainability and quality standards
02:17:32 standards and then if we turn the page please to page two
02:17:36 page two housing standards review but with the hundreds of standards that can be applied to new build homes some of which duplicate each other a separate group will work alongside the new challenge panel to consider the specific
02:17:47 challenge panel to consider the specific issue of standards applied to house building
02:17:50 building uh and then i think i could probably take the the next part quite quickly although you will note the bullet points relating to conflicting guidance on how to construct safe and
02:18:01 guidance on how to construct safe and accessible stairs and then after the bullet points and if you want me to pick anything up as we go through this little pickles please tell me but it says this new review led by the department for communities and local
02:18:13 the department for communities and local government dclg and to be conducted by a group of industry representatives will look to overlap and duplication in the system helping ensure builders meet the high standards that aspiring homeowners rightly expect
02:18:25 rightly expect don foster said the current array of differing housing standards used in different parts of the country is complex and counterproductive confusing local residents councillors and developers this is why an urgent
02:18:37 and developers this is why an urgent review has now started bringing the government together with house builders planners council and architects to establish what the next unnecessary measures are that we can cut out of the system while ensuring buildings are
02:18:48 system while ensuring buildings are still made to exacting standards i want to see a simpler set of housing standards that people can easily understand and that free up developers and councils to get on with the job of building the high quality new homes we
02:18:59 building the high quality new homes we so badly need to get more first-time buyers and families onto the housing ladder the review was part of the government's housing and growth strategy announced on 6 september 2012 it will result in a clear plan of action by next
02:19:11 result in a clear plan of action by next spring that will be put out to consultation and then under further information you can see
02:19:16 can see the independent challenge panel members are
02:19:20 are and you then see that there are as an architect a building control person a planner and a developer and if you go underneath that at the paragraph two there's the convened group
02:19:32 paragraph two there's the convened group of members from industry bodies and there's a long list underneath that
02:19:40 and
02:19:43 if you follow your eye down over the page to page three and this continues nhbc is there uh
02:19:51 uh the home builders federation the building control alliance the greater london authority the bre they're all there brac is there building regulations advisory
02:20:00 advisory council
02:20:02 council and then uh it says in paragraph four the reviews taking place alongside the review of planning practice guidance announced
02:20:08 announced on 16th october 2012 and both groups were working closely together and then paragraph seven the red tape challenge was was launched by the prime minister in april 2011 and is systematically examining some 6500
02:20:20 systematically examining some 6500 substantive regulations that the government inherited with the aim of scrapping or significantly reducing as many of them as possible it gives business and the public the chance to have their say by theme on the regulations that affect their everyday
02:20:31 regulations that affect their everyday lives the housing and construction red tape challenge was open for comment from the 12th of january till 17th of february 2012. more information can be found on the red tape challenge website
02:20:44 found on the red tape challenge website and then 10th of september 2012 the department for business innovation and skills announced that through the red tape challenge at least 3 000 of the cross-government regulations examined will be scrapped or reduced by scrapped
02:20:55 will be scrapped or reduced by scrapped we mean that regulation is completely removed from the statute book by reduced we mean that regulations are reduced in number eeg a consolidation making the rules simpler to find and follow and or in terms of the burden they impose eg
02:21:07 in terms of the burden they impose eg reducing who is caught by the regulation removing domestic gold plating of eu law active renegotiation of eu law simplifying requirements set by the regulation on relation related guidance
02:21:19 regulation on relation related guidance or reducing the burden of inspection and enforcement arising from the regulation around fifteen hundred of the three thousand changes will have a measurable financial benefit for business this does not include consolidations of regulations without any changes to the
02:21:31 regulations without any changes to the content of those regulations the red tape challenge comprises regulation of uk origin and regulation that transposes eu laws it does not include legislation or regulations falling
02:21:42 legislation or regulations falling within the responsibilities of the devolved administration tax and fees legislation or national security matters i've read that at length to you lord pickles so say that
02:21:54 lord pickles so say that we don't miss anything
02:21:58 uh but uh
02:22:01 uh i i'm going to assume that this is this was not a puff as you would have characterized some of the other documents we've looked at no i mean
02:22:10 mean obviously a um a press release yes and
02:22:17 and i thought it was significant that quite quite high in that press release
02:22:23 release um don foster makes it very clear about essential safety and also about access um that's
02:22:35 um that's something arriving so high uh on a press release is
02:22:40 is an important matter but but you know this is not a um a document if you see that the terms of reference is rapidly it isn't as important as the terms of reference but
02:22:51 important as the terms of reference but yes
02:22:54 yes it's not a puff and
02:23:00 now you told us this morning that your government didn't govern by press release you said that in in your evidence this morning when we looked at the
02:23:11 the email in june 2011 to bob ledson and others in the department what status did this document have the terms of reference had great status
02:23:23 the terms of reference had great status but i
02:23:25 but i wanted to the reason i asked i wanted to kind of demonstrate that a public statement by a a minister of the crown in the announcement of upon experts
02:23:39 announcement of upon experts that the minister went out of the way to demonstrate this is the case i also had the option of producing a number of extracts from
02:23:51 number of extracts from hansard
02:23:52 hansard at which ministers have made the same point with regard to safety but i was given to understand that the inquiry doesn't look at hansard and
02:24:03 and in the limited time that i had available to do the searches late very late last night this seemed to clearly demonstrate the um
02:24:16 clearly demonstrate the um the direction of travel but
02:24:19 but are you saying could we legislate on this or could we produce this in the court of law well no no but but it does at least give a clear indication of what was in the
02:24:30 a clear indication of what was in the mind of ministers right
02:24:33 right um could you identify anywhere in the document for us that i have read to you at length where it says or even suggests that
02:24:44 that fire safety will be excluded from the red tape challenge either in general or specifically in relation to
02:24:55 relation to the
02:24:56 the building regulations
02:24:59 i think within the limitations of a press release a reference to safety would incorporate a incorporate the fire
02:25:11 would incorporate a incorporate the fire safety but i think you would actually go further than fire safety and take that uh provision a little further than the exchange of letters that you said this
02:25:23 exchange of letters that you said this is a
02:25:25 is a a clear
02:25:26 a clear indication to the panel it's a clear indication to the sector who are probably more likely to pay attention to this and then the
02:25:38 pay attention to this and then the public but also those members of the public who might read about this that in the forefront of this this was not a
02:25:48 not a a process of deregulation that would ignore
02:25:55 what was said as a essential safety and also about access
02:26:02 access so to be fair to you let's pick that up then at the bottom of page one where it says in the press release but mr foster also made clear that essential safety and accessibility
02:26:13 essential safety and accessibility protections will remain untouched and that homes will always be need to be built to high sustainability and quality standards is that the part of the press release that you were referring us to this morning
02:26:25 to this morning in your evidence yes i think that's the most important part of the press release in so far
02:26:31 in so far uh it related to your questions as to what the
02:26:37 what the the mind of ministers were now can you identify any instance an occasion or any document after the date of this document after this press release
02:26:49 this press release which told your officials that from then on
02:26:53 on they should regard the building regulations and the associated approved documents so far as they related to fire safety
02:27:01 safety has now excluded from
02:27:05 from the red tape challenge um
02:27:10 i will confess that some i was in the lord still quite late i did the search once i i got home so it was actually in the very early hours of the morning
02:27:22 in the very early hours of the morning so i wouldn't exclude the possibility of being able to find documents that's uh that say something like that i think i would
02:27:33 i think i would really say please do not forget that we have been through this entire exercise those exchange of letters there's some enormous political row that took place in order
02:27:45 political row that took place in order to achieve precisely
02:27:49 precisely that
02:27:52 and also you were kind enough to show me that um uh email from um uh miss upton which talks about the ambiguity and talks
02:28:05 talks about the ambiguity and talks about the kind of options of when we might be able to do uh some kind of review
02:28:10 review and
02:28:11 and i think that's i want to say powerful evidence but i think it does give um
02:28:21 um an understanding and
02:28:24 and we would hardly have gone through such an elaborate process in order then to change our mind and to include um uh fire safety matters
02:28:41 [Applause]
02:28:58 the three officials or four officials who came and gave evidence to this inquiry have told us repeatedly and and in a number of different ways that they
02:29:09 that they were always of the
02:29:12 of the understanding that both the one in one out and later one in two out and one in three are policies
02:29:17 policies and the red tape challenge applied without exception to the building regulations and the approved documents and in particular to the fire safety aspects of
02:29:28 particular to the fire safety aspects of them
02:29:29 them are you able to account for how they were laboring under what as i think you would have it was a misapprehension each of them and for a number of years
02:29:41 and for a number of years i'm i'm
02:29:42 i'm i'm i'm sorry that i didn't have the possibility of of really reading the transcript and watching
02:29:49 watching evidence
02:29:52 i am i have to say very surprised uh that they had that view i um
02:30:04 i remain uh confident that the proper messages will have been passed down the line but these are uh at a level of officials
02:30:15 but these are uh at a level of officials who
02:30:16 who i would never have met other than they might have been occasionally in the room when
02:30:23 when their
02:30:24 their [Music]
02:30:25 [Music] when the director general the directors were speaking to me but
02:30:32 but it would it just seem strange that we would go through this entire process
02:30:40 process which
02:30:41 which i assume they were aware of
02:30:46 aware of and certainly players that miss upton was aware who seems to be in regular correspondence with mr martin
02:30:58 the thing that i find the most surprising is
02:31:03 is the rather casual way in which that assumption was made there's casual discussions with uh with ministers and that seems to me to be given
02:31:15 to be given a um an importance that shouldn't but i would be very keen to see um a sub um that talked about you know
02:31:27 um a sub um that talked about you know stripping away some of the safety that that went to went to ministers
02:31:33 ministers i don't want to add to the burden of those officials
02:31:40 but i have some worries about line management responsibility because they all seem to be at a at a particular level
02:31:51 level and i am now
02:31:54 concerned about
02:31:56 about the level of supervision to important officers but but not of the
02:32:03 of the higher level of um of people involved in in policy let's um let's look first uh at
02:32:14 uh at what mr harold told the inquiry if we can please understand day 243 page 53.
02:32:27 and let's go to uh
02:32:31 line seven which is a question that um this grange queen's council asked mr harold and she says this or asks this at any time between 2014 and 2017 did you or anyone
02:32:44 between 2014 and 2017 did you or anyone else within the department ever consider applying for an exemption for parts of the building regulations from the policy for example those that were connect concerned with life safety no
02:32:55 concerned with life safety no that line at 12 answer no question and why not why no consideration ever to whether there could be an exemption for life safety parts of the building regulations answer
02:33:06 parts of the building regulations answer i think probably 70 percent of the building regulations relate to life safety but and that's true across regulation across a large swathe of the government's stock of regulation as well they relate to safety or health and
02:33:17 they relate to safety or health and safety
02:33:18 safety and i think there was a kind of understanding that part of the reason for introducing these measures was to curtail the growth of kind of or curtail or ensure that there was a robust case for expanding these types of regulations
02:33:31 for expanding these types of regulations and then questioned 25 and then over the page so is what you're saying that actually it was fully envisaged that these deregulatory policies
02:33:40 policies would be impacting on parts of the building regulations which were concerned with life safety answers sorry could you repeat the question
02:33:47 question yes is it fair to say that what was envisaged was that these deregulatory policies would be impacting on parts of the building regulations which were concerned with life safety answer yes
02:33:59 concerned with life safety answer yes now
02:34:01 now would you mind just going uh back a little i didn't follow the line immediately above about extending regulatory uh
02:34:12 above about extending regulatory uh powers could i just see that i think i just misunderstood of course i have to go back a page to page 53.
02:34:31 so it's it's the lines i'm um looking at which is i think 18 down to 19. yes i think there's a kind of understanding that part of the reason
02:34:42 understanding that part of the reason for introducing these measures was to curtail the growth of a kind of curtail or ensure that there was a robust case for expanding
02:34:53 for expanding these types of regulation
02:34:57 i understand it's you know by way of discussion but i don't entirely understand what what they're saying there well um
02:35:05 well um to be fair to the witness um council then sought to clarify that in the exchange that we've just seen over the page let's look at it again okay sorry okay now let's look at it again um
02:35:16 let's look at it again um over the page there and she puts it was it visual that these regulatory policies would be impacting on parts of the building regulations which were concerned with life safety and then the question was repeated and the answer was
02:35:28 question was repeated and the answer was yes
02:35:29 yes so uh that that was his evidence okay let me show you one other passage if we can
02:35:36 if we can um
02:35:37 um and this is in the evidence of brian martin
02:35:41 martin uh who was the g7 uh you may or may not know this who was responsible for the approved document b and the building rate and the building regulations so far as fire was concerned
02:35:52 regulations so far as fire was concerned and if we go to day 255 please page 19
02:36:00 and to give you the full context lord pickles i'm i'm asking him here about um
02:36:07 about um 2016
02:36:08 2016 and why the department had failed to clarify guidance which it was by then aware was ambiguous and misleading according to industry groups
02:36:17 groups um which he says would have banned the use of acm polyethylene core products that's the that's the context now at day 255 at page 19 line 12 let me take take
02:36:28 255 at page 19 line 12 let me take take you through this but before you do can i just has to be noted if it's 2016 had ceased to be secretary of state yes
02:36:39 had ceased to be secretary of state yes that is that is certainly the case uh and and we will bear that in mind in looking at this passage and in my question for you of course but um we the question uh there
02:36:51 but um we the question uh there why not at this stage uh and
02:36:55 uh and that stage was february 2016. um
02:37:00 um go out with a secular or interim measure such as an faq and tell the public particularly the building control public what nick jenkins had told you and clarifying unambiguous terms 12.7
02:37:12 clarifying unambiguous terms 12.7 and his answer at 17 is this yeah i think at this time we really struggled to get anything done within the department it had been difficult you know following the coalition government taking over after the financial crisis
02:37:24 after the financial crisis there was a lot of pressure on the team in relation to deregulation and so on and that had continued to magnify over the following period once we got past the 2015 election we had a combination
02:37:35 the 2015 election we had a combination of an even greater ambition towards deregulation regulation was a dirty word and there was so much political disruption it was very difficult to get any kind of traction and any document that would have gone out from the department would have needed to have
02:37:46 department would have needed to have political approval so i think at that stage it would have been incredibly difficult to do that now the passage i want to just focus your attention on the early part of that which um
02:37:57 which um takes us up to 2015 which was the moment when you ceased to be the secretary of state but uh
02:38:05 but uh if we can go back a page please to page 254
02:38:13 uh in the first few lines of his answer starting at 17 uh he says um there was a lot of after the financial crisis after the turnitin government took over after the financial crisis there was a lot of pressure on
02:38:25 crisis there was a lot of pressure on the team in relation to deregulation and that had continued to magnify over the following period and he's he is just one can read that uh do you accept
02:38:36 do you accept um
02:38:38 um what he's saying there that there was during your time as a secretary of state a lot of pressure on the building regulations team in relation to deregulation
02:38:58 i found this really depressing a um
02:39:03 a um an officer the level of mr martin should not be making the those kind of political assumptions this was something that you would expect somebody
02:39:14 somebody much higher up to make those kind of decisions it almost seems as though they were
02:39:21 were operating um in a um
02:39:25 in a um a a
02:39:26 a a an administrative hall of of their own and i would expect where pressures were felt with um within a department that
02:39:38 within a department that it would be sensible that the director or the director general would bring those uh um uh questions uh uh towards if you read the pressure
02:39:50 uh towards if you read the pressure now i seem to recall from some of the evidence that i saw just while watching the inquiry when you were talking to lord what that there was some attempt to recruit additional people within this
02:40:03 recruit additional people within this department and it would you had difficulty they had difficulty finding it
02:40:08 it um
02:40:09 um i am profoundly uh depressed but with regard to your general question of course there was a lot of economic pressure um which has come out of out of the world banking crisis and
02:40:21 out of the world banking crisis and things were extraordinarily difficult but an officer at mr martin's level would really expect him to be
02:40:32 really expect him to be wholly concerned with technical matters not with
02:40:35 not with um geopolitical sort of analysis i don't mean that in any way rude rudely um the process really should be is that managers should have
02:40:46 managers should have eased that pressure on them and where it was uh well it was difficult should have brought it to the attention of ministers first obviously mr concerned with building regulation
02:40:58 mr concerned with building regulation and if that wasn't unresolved they should have actually escalated up to include the permanent secretary and
02:41:06 and this
02:41:07 this i mean i can recall um i hope this isn't too long i answered but i recall where there were pressures uh in the department it was the kind of thing that the
02:41:19 thing that the permanent secretary would deal with or if they couldn't he would at least advise me there was a problem and i can say that um
02:41:30 i never um
02:41:32 um during my period of those five years had anybody saying to me actually it doesn't look like the building regulation team can really cope and uh i know the process here is a very
02:41:45 and uh i know the process here is a very difficult one but it can be quite uh um
02:41:50 um uh difficult despite the efforts that uh council make to put people at their ease but i have to say i am quite i would have been quite
02:42:01 i am quite i would have been quite worried had i known about the health and general well-being of their working environment which you would always try to create something
02:42:12 would always try to create something where that would encourage people to come forward and say well i'm really sorry but i've got a problem here and it is a matter of some regret that that appears not to have happened
02:42:24 that that appears not to have happened now i'm not critical of the individuals at all i want to emphasize that but i am genuinely worried even after passage of time
02:42:32 time uh about the environment that seems to have been in building ranks
02:42:39 now i've shown you during the course of this morning in particular uh quite a lot of evidence about the relationship between the building regulations
02:42:50 the building regulations and specifically part b fire safety and approved document be on the one hand and the deregulatory policies of your government at the time on the other
02:43:02 could it be the case that you are completely mistaken and that in fact no part of the building regulations or part b
02:43:11 or part b of the building regulations in particular including the approved document b was at any time exempted from the red tape challenge or the one in one out or one in two out policies
02:43:23 out or one in two out policies the answer to the first part of your question is no but i i don't think it is anything inconsistent with my answer to say that
02:43:34 inconsistent with my answer to say that building regulations generally will be subject always to accountable regulatory um assessments i think i would also by way of qualifications say that i don't think
02:43:47 qualifications say that i don't think that would have ever caused a problem because of the leeway that we would have had
02:43:53 had but i would have expected if there was a problem
02:43:57 problem where safety was being compromised even given that we've gone through this entire process to have been informed by the relevant um
02:44:08 by the relevant um uh director general director or more particularly the permanent secretary are you able to account for how it comes about that you didn't know at the time that your officials working your in your
02:44:19 that your officials working your in your department on the building regulations and specifically part b thought they were subject to these regulatory policies when it's your evidence that they
02:44:30 when it's your evidence that they weren't
02:44:31 weren't i find it utterly inexplicable i am
02:44:38 i am genuinely
02:44:39 genuinely amazed
02:44:41 amazed we had gone through a process at which not only the politicians were involved but the very top of the civil service were involved
02:44:52 top of the civil service were involved that's
02:44:53 that's the um the because this had to be agree at a higher level
02:44:58 level uh that various secretaries of state had to be involved that the treasury had to be involved i find it extraordinary that that situation
02:45:09 situation could have existed and that's why i think we have to put it in terms of my genuine worry about the line management and the general well-being
02:45:22 and the general well-being of those employees i took that very seriously it was
02:45:28 it was we went through a process of reducing staffing which we managed to do without compulsory redundancy but i always try to do we always try to do it along with with bob to try and do
02:45:39 do it along with with bob to try and do it in a way where people were not were not frightened that had some idea uncertainty of the future and
02:45:49 without the context of this inquiry i would have been really worried i don't know
02:45:54 know this is not what i would have intended well you say you find it utterly inexplicable let me put an explanation before you see see what you make okay um
02:46:06 before you see see what you make okay um one explanation little pickles is that you are spectacularly out of touch with what was happening in your department i think that would be uncharacteristically
02:46:17 uncharacteristically unjust of you to say that um because i think you need to bear an understanding that this is an enormous department
02:46:28 department and that i am utterly reliant on receiving good intelligence from my permanent secretary my director-generals and levels uh a level even at
02:46:40 and levels uh a level even at directors to have informed me of that
02:46:48 and where there were problems in departments where people were not coping um
02:46:55 people did come forward and tell me and i can i mean i can recall without breaching confidence where we had a number of personnel problems that we were able uh to sort so this
02:47:06 that we were able uh to sort so this wasn't a
02:47:08 wasn't a an unusual thing so i think that would be to take um a very extreme uh extreme view because i did pride myself of trying to ensure that i had a duty
02:47:20 that i had a duty of care with regard to the people that i employed
02:47:25 employed i was not indifferent to their well-being i was not indifferent to ensure that they worked in a an atmosphere in particular if i could remind you of my two
02:47:37 my two requests from staff which was loyalty and to informal when things go badly i needed to create a a place where people could come and tell me bad news and the nature of my job is that you i did
02:47:50 the nature of my job is that you i did gen i did regularly and persistently receive bad news and always i thought addressed it
02:47:58 are you able to offer any kind of explanation about why your officials were laboring under as you would have it here
02:48:09 here a misapprehension about the application of the deregulatory policies to the building regulations i think in a way i attempted to say
02:48:20 and i think this came up yesterday i was quite surprised how political they were they were making assumptions um you're um
02:48:31 um you kindly pointed out that um sub that i got where they they inserted um the phrase you know this would cause damage to the construction industry
02:48:43 damage to the construction industry i thought that was you know really odd these are people that should be involved in technical considerations not seeking to
02:48:50 to press buttons of ministers to get them to do things the sensible thing would have been to put up
02:48:57 put up a sub
02:48:59 a sub to their minister or even within to their director or the director general and just say this is causing us great problem we need these to resolve
02:49:12 and i can think of examples of where that happened in the department and the reason that would be a good way of doing it because the simple thing is that once you're
02:49:24 the simple thing is that once you're told something you can't be untold it's there on record there isn't or audit
02:49:29 audit and
02:49:30 and i was really really really very depressed when people say well i didn't think it was worth the fight that's if that that's a phrase that will that will still
02:49:41 still stay with me um
02:49:44 um and i do feel that line management was not what it should have been which surprises me because my experience of that directorate generally those
02:49:55 of that directorate generally those extremely well run
02:49:58 do you take responsibility ultimate responsibility yes yes of course ultimately everything is done in my name and ultimately
02:50:09 the nature is you can't if you've got full responsibility that can't be qualified the facts that i didn't know the fact that i had no indication the
02:50:22 the fact that i had no indication the fact that i had no opportunity to correct this does not in any way reduce my responsibility there is lord pickles of course another explanation and let me ask you about
02:50:34 explanation and let me ask you about that
02:50:35 that which is that in fact your department was always subject as the documents that we've looked at together might suggest to the deregulatory agenda
02:50:47 deregulatory agenda and you're now seeking to recast that narrative and to underplay what was in truth and enthusiasm by your government for a deregulatory agenda which led to a complete absence of proper checks and
02:50:58 complete absence of proper checks and balances so far as concerns life safety
02:51:02 again i think that will be unkind and again i think he forgive me and again i think he will fly in the evidence that we've you've received you saw the enormous
02:51:14 you've received you saw the enormous pressure we all we were on with regard to fire regulations you know that it was clear that we realized there was a problem you know that we
02:51:24 that we then
02:51:25 then took on
02:51:26 took on um the
02:51:28 um the machinery of government you know also that in the very dying days of the
02:51:36 of the um
02:51:37 um the coalition when we produce the carbon monoxide
02:51:45 alarms and the smoke alarms that the center the regulatory center pushed hard to ensure that we exempt small
02:51:56 small landlords
02:51:57 landlords and you'll understand that we push back if we if um we were
02:52:04 we were the kind of department if i was a kind of department uh had that done that we wouldn't have we wouldn't have done that right at the very end of the of the
02:52:15 right at the very end of the of the coalition
02:52:16 coalition uh so no i think that's an unkind characteristic and i have to say um you know without getting totally emotional
02:52:27 emotional i swore on the bloody butt i swore on the bible i'm a christian i wouldn't come here to make some kind of
02:52:39 make some kind of you know to try and just try and remove responsibility these things are important to me
02:52:48 let's go then to where we left off yesterday
02:52:52 now we've looked at the coroner's recommendations about approved document b
02:52:56 b and we looked at the three bullet points uh at recommendation four of her letter and her two paragraphs in response what i'd like to do now is to go to the written opening submissions of the department which is now called the
02:53:08 the department which is now called the department for leveling up housing and communities which deals with your response to the coroner
02:53:16 law pickles would you would you like an early lunch no i'm i'm completely relaxed right but by all means um no i'm very it's perfectly okay right but then let's make a little bit of
02:53:28 but then let's make a little bit of uh progress before one o'clock um can i take you please to clg3036387
02:53:38 and i'll just show you the first page of that
02:53:41 that this is
02:53:42 this is the
02:53:44 the opening written submissions in this module of this inquiry yeah of the department uh which was shown to us i think first in december yes now and my first question is d did you
02:53:56 now and my first question is d did you uh have you ever seen this document before
02:53:58 before yes i had the courtesy of seeing a an advanced copy of it right did you have any input into his drafting no no no that would have been i thought quite on proper right now let's go please to page 32
02:54:15 excuse me uh and look at page nine paragraph 95 at the top of the screen the department's response to the coroner's letter was drafted by officials and approved by and sent under cover of the
02:54:26 approved by and sent under cover of the secretary of state the department is of the view that its response to recommendation 4 was not well structured and is unclear and difficult to follow when read against the text of the recommendations
02:54:38 recommendations do you agree well that was a point that you reasonably put to me yesterday with regard to the three points that the coroner had said
02:54:49 three points that the coroner had said and i think to repeat what i said was that
02:54:53 that i was clear that i had accepted it i suppose if i continue a secretary of state everything would have been honky dorey um i did speak to the uh current secretary of state as to
02:55:05 secretary of state as to whether what he felt um in any way and um he was kind enough to say that i thought it'd be a throughout quite
02:55:16 i thought it'd be a throughout quite properly
02:55:18 properly sorry
02:55:19 sorry just a second i want to finish what it was going to say but clearly given
02:55:25 given so far as i can see that nothing much seemed to have happened
02:55:29 happened in
02:55:30 in 2015 as i thought it would do as i reasonably anticipated i can't argue with that i mean clearly we seem to have a system it's worse than that
02:55:41 it's worse than that where people were bringing in um
02:55:46 material relating to cladding that was highly combustible with the suggestion that was permittable
02:55:57 permittable and the department appears not to have known about it until you kind of unravel the various points when it could i'm not going to criticize uh
02:56:08 uh uh 95
02:56:10 uh 95 however what i would like to be clear is there was
02:56:16 there was no ambiguity there was no deliberate ambiguity and i had to taken the precaution of asking the permanent secretary
02:56:27 of asking the permanent secretary have we covered everything and
02:56:30 and the assurances that i always received when i answered that simple question have we covered everything the answer was
02:56:38 was of course we have um when um i was asked to appear by the department as a witness that
02:56:49 that assurance was repeated that had done everything that i know that that i needed to have done
02:56:55 done uh but no i'm not gonna i'm not gonna quit with uh with 95. um
02:57:00 um a lot of people died and um i mean obviously there will be court cases with regard to whether or not the um
02:57:08 um building regulations actually permitted this material or not and i'll be tested in due course but i don't think i'd be very confident as a defendant if that was the case i have to say but uh
02:57:19 have to say but uh that's for another time
02:57:26 now um before i move on you you told us a moment ago that you did speak to the current secretary of state as to whether what he felt in any way and he was kind enough to say he thought
02:57:38 and he was kind enough to say he thought i'd appeared throughout quite properly when was that conversation
02:57:46 i can't be soon but given that i was given the
02:57:50 given the uh the courtesy of an advanced copy to say that this was going to be heard it will be relatively soon after that however i have to say that i know uh mr
02:58:03 however i have to say that i know uh mr gove extraordinary well that we see each other on a regular basis
02:58:10 basis and i think it would not be unreasonable for me to ask you know an explanation for these various phrases
02:58:21 an explanation for these various phrases um
02:58:22 um but i want to emphasize at no time did i seek in any way for those words to be changed these are these are views of the secretary said he's entitled uh um
02:58:35 secretary said he's entitled uh um uh to his review those views and i support him in doing so but i couldn't put you down to a precise uh
02:58:43 uh you know we had a chat uh i see him very regularly on another issue
02:58:49 issue um i think we might have also had a telephone call um when it uh further i'd look to see exactly what was being said um but if they're
02:59:00 um but if they're there is absolutely no tension between myself and mr gulf so let me get this right you had a telephone conversation with mr gove when he was as he still is i think secretary of state uh about these submissions
02:59:14 uh about these submissions is that yes i i think it was not unreasonable to it's not a secret i was given an advanced copy i think it's not unreasonable for me to say i've seen this
02:59:25 say i've seen this i particularly did notice um
02:59:29 um 95 it did catch my eye and um
02:59:33 and um it's not unreasonable to to ask him but again for the sake of any um any
02:59:40 any ambiguity it had never crossed my mind for a second that the the view of the department should in any way uh be changed
02:59:51 uh be changed about anything i said and i certainly would not seek to do so i would regard this such action as deeply dishonorable when was this conversation about these submissions
03:00:02 about these submissions i can't be i really can't be certain um
03:00:06 um but i do seem on a regular basis and i didn't
03:00:12 i didn't meet with him specifically to talk about these it was by way of if you like a side meeting after we dealt with matters of importance
03:00:25 matters of importance uh as to what i'm doing i don't think um i don't think i behaved in any way um in an attempt to anywhere dishonorable or any way in which to affect the uh the outcome of
03:00:38 which to affect the uh the outcome of the inquiry here i just it would have been odd not for me not to have asked well did you have an advanced draft or perhaps the final version of this document on the screen in front of you or with you when you had
03:00:49 in front of you or with you when you had this discussion with mr gabe oh god no i didn't walk in and said you know look at this what the heck you doing here why are you saying that no of course not i just said that i'd noted it what did
03:01:00 i just said that i'd noted it what did he think
03:01:01 he think um
03:01:02 um he couldn't quite remember what was in the um the document he said he would have a look and let me know and
03:01:10 and the next time or the time after we met you know
03:01:13 you know it offered me some personal reassurances it expressed um
03:01:20 um views as to what he thought had gone wrong which i hope you won't press me on because i don't want to in any way prejudice your your your your deliberations um
03:01:31 um but it is
03:01:32 but it is my view that um uh he acted uh with with total propriety and talking to me
03:01:42 otherwise why why would i get a courtesy complex
03:01:45 complex so chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much well i think it's time we had a break for lunch
03:01:51 for lunch wow
03:01:52 wow flies yes
03:01:54 flies yes indeed he does so we'll stop there we'll resume at two o'clock please okay and um when you're out of the room please don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone i think i've got the routine by now i'm sure you have
03:02:06 got the routine by now i'm sure you have but if i don't remind you someone will complain that i haven't reminded you oh okay i do it good thank you very much you gave me the usher then okay thank you
03:02:33 thank you mr miller two o'clock please