Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence - Thursday 7th April 2022 (2/2)
00:00:26 hmm
00:00:31 the gross little pickles come back in please
00:00:37 [Music]
00:00:48 good afternoon good afternoon are you ready to carry on the pickles of course thank you very much yes mr miller yes thank you mr chairman and lord pickles can we please have up on the screen uh clg
00:00:59 clg 3036387 page 32 again um we were looking at this before the break
00:01:05 break okay in particular page 32 we were looking at paragraph 95 yes and i've already asked you some questions about it and my my question is can you explain why the department is able or was able in december last year
00:01:18 able or was able in december last year during
00:01:19 during the process of making submissions to this inquiry to say what you see is said at paragraph 95
00:01:25 95 but um you as a secretary of state could not see that at the time when you signed the letter well a lot of things have happened since then i think
00:01:36 have happened since then i think in particular uh the follow through on the uh firm commitment i made to uh the coroner
00:01:49 to uh the coroner uh that they would be a review of um of approved documents be and i
00:02:00 and i would have hoped and would have anticipated given that the research um for that uh that would have enabled that to start arrived though i wasn't
00:02:11 that to start arrived though i wasn't aware of the time in february that actually we could really get moving on that and uh
00:02:19 uh um
00:02:21 um been secretary of state that would have been a very high priority to have done but
00:02:29 but but because i i've deliberately kept away from what happened after i left and have not really watched the sessions
00:02:37 sessions i don't really know what did happen no i'm not asking you about anything happened after the 20th of may when you signed the letter you can see from the submission here
00:02:49 you can see from the submission here that the department is of the view that its response to recommendation for was not well structured and it and is unclear and difficult to follow when read against the text of the recommendations
00:03:00 recommendations so it's just comparing your response to the coroner's recommendations with the recommendations themselves and my question again is why wasn't it clear to you when you
00:03:11 why wasn't it clear to you when you signed the letter responding to the recommendations that it that your letter was not well structured as the department now says and was unclear and difficult to follow when read against
00:03:22 difficult to follow when read against the text of the recommendations you make an extremely reasonable point and i thought you made the point extraordinarily well yesterday if you forgive me i will repeat what i said
00:03:33 repeat what i said um i i asked that the department do a thorough job on this i asked uh that my permanent secretary should check the
00:03:44 permanent secretary should check the letter
00:03:45 letter um
00:03:46 um i then received no indication uh in the usual challenge that you would receive an indication that something was wrong which
00:03:57 which would would have been there would have been some community worry about it they would have been worried by members of parliament questions would have been tabled it
00:04:08 questions would have been tabled it would have been subject to review so
00:04:13 so what with with the greatest possible respect
00:04:17 respect might be considered ambiguous
00:04:21 ambiguous after a crash after a catastrophic failure by government wasn't apparent to me that then i thought i i thought i'd genuinely cover some
00:04:33 cover some and
00:04:35 and the inquiry can form its own opinions to my character but i regard myself to be a diligent person
00:04:42 person i thought i'd followed due diligence before i signed the letter and
00:04:49 and i believe i did but i think it's the circumstances that
00:04:54 that followed in in the uh in the years that followed their uh my signing
00:05:02 signing that has largely framed [Music]
00:05:05 [Music] the view and i can see that and i can see that this is not an unreasonable view for the
00:05:14 for the department to take
00:05:17 to take given
00:05:17 given that a series of things i expected to do which is not unreasonable the following of the
00:05:23 of the coroner's recommendation was
00:05:27 was doesn't seem to have been followed through
00:05:29 through for the reasons i had done so sorry sorry sorry no michael i overspoke now if you look at paragraph 96 okay it's the version of adb relevant to
00:05:40 okay it's the version of adb relevant to the lack of housing quest was published in 2000 a new edition of adb which had been published in 2006 included a number of changes to the guidance concerning external
00:05:51 to the guidance concerning external envelopes and external spread of fire including routes to compliance officials agreed that further general improvements could be made to the clarity and presentation of adb and the document had already been earmarked for redrafting in
00:06:03 already been earmarked for redrafting in accordance with the department's new style guide but they did not agree that it's in its 2006 iteration it was so inaccessible that a competent professional for whom the document was produced would not be able to understand
00:06:14 produced would not be able to understand the guidance it provided and then it says this and i want to focus your attention on this next sentence okay this led officials to conclude that there was nothing about recommendation
00:06:25 there was nothing about recommendation for
00:06:26 for that's the building regulations recommendation that was safety critical given that the work required to implement the agreed changes would take time and require significant consultation the decision was taken to
00:06:38 consultation the decision was taken to roll this clarification exercise into an ongoing wider review of adb explained below with the proposed timeline of 2016-17 for completion now my question having read you that paragraph in particular the paragraph
00:06:50 paragraph in particular the paragraph which is the sentence which i drew your attention in the middle did your officials tell you that there was nothing in recommendation for that was safety critical
00:07:02 critical i think
00:07:03 i think i think i've actually answered that and i think i've given evidence to suggest that is it precisely what they there they said um
00:07:13 um you know matters were clouded because of the
00:07:17 the um
00:07:18 um uncertainty of the expert witness uh that gave evidence um the fact that mr martin said it was necessary to go into the witness box if that's the right expression in order to
00:07:31 that's the right expression in order to sort out that clarification
00:07:34 the assurances that i received from senior professionals to say the team's view is this isn't quite as complicated as they sound i think he's wholly consistent
00:07:46 consistent with that
00:07:48 with that and if they're um
00:07:51 you know it was kind of a kind of assumption we will be able to pick up all
00:07:57 all what the
00:07:58 what the um
00:07:59 um coroners asked for in the review will do but i shouldn't worry because there wasn't a um uh
00:08:07 uh well pretty much what it says in in there i thought i think it's consistent with the evidence that i've already given
00:08:14 did you ask your officials and how it could be the case that there was nothing in recommendation four that was safety critical given that it was in a recommendation after an inquest into six deaths including the
00:08:26 inquest into six deaths including the deaths of three children uh believe me
00:08:31 you know the fate of those children in particular uh
00:08:37 uh michelle
00:08:38 michelle undocumented
00:08:43 central but the argument was and i think i've said this was it was difficult to read but most but people understand what it meant and that it wasn't to
00:08:55 what it meant and that it wasn't to create that it wasn't a critical issue
00:08:58 issue um i was told that this was a a very rare event but that it would be that it would be dealt with and it would be dealt with um in a reasonable way
00:09:11 and i have to say that seem proportionate again i have to say that if there had been a consensus that i'd been reckless or wrong
00:09:22 reckless or wrong the system itself would have put those things up
00:09:26 things up i'm sure the um the coroner would have um
00:09:29 um would have pulled me back and asked me to
00:09:32 to uh to reconsider i'm sure the house
00:09:36 the house the opposition would have challenged me but there was there was nothing that would make the the normal alarm bells ring within the
00:09:47 the normal alarm bells ring within the system
00:09:48 system that is a kind of extraordinary thing now given
00:09:51 now given say for example this given this enormous important now of cladding if you look at the period from 2010 to 2015
00:10:02 2015 it's not a single parliamentary question about it this there's just nothing there nobody raise it with me you know when i was uh i learned the news um
00:10:13 news um uh in uh
00:10:15 uh in uh in the early hours of the morning i was actually in luxembourg's house an hour ahead of everybody so i kind of got it earlier than most people did i wasn't sat there thinking oh well that's a cladding problem
00:10:26 that's a cladding problem i was
00:10:29 i was amazed that a block of flats could go up like that and i just couldn't understand how how he could have spread because everything i understood
00:10:41 i understood from officials and from those concerned in fire everything was about containment uh and uh ensuring that you know if there was a fire it wouldn't breach
00:10:52 if there was a fire it wouldn't breach the boundaries and the how quickly it fired i mean i i was listening to radio five and while i was on radio five they were describing how quickly it was spreading
00:11:03 how quickly it was spreading and i was
00:11:04 and i was i remember i was absolutely amazed now i know what what has happened i just i found the whole thing totally extraordinary
00:11:21 uh looking at paragraph 97 and 98. could it be moved up a little for me please
00:11:30 yes in paragraph 97 it says this the advice that was sent to ministers and the secretary of state subsequent response to the coroner failed to articulate clearly that the work was not considered to be safety
00:11:42 work was not considered to be safety critical or to explain how and why this view had been reached without this information the response to the coroner was ambiguous as to whether the recommendation was accepted in full safety critical and this may have been
00:11:54 safety critical and this may have been the reason why in turn the coroner did not challenge or seek to correct any misunderstanding in the department's response
00:12:00 response and then in 98 as the work was not considered to be safety critical it was not accorded the priority that it should have had within the department although the work was consistently progressed it became subject to delays
00:12:11 progressed it became subject to delays over time the link between this work and the lack of house coroner's recommendation was lost and consequently the work was not a ministerial priority now um
00:12:22 now um making allowances for the fact that of course you left office in may 2015. um
00:12:28 um my first question focusing on um paragraph 97 there do you agree with what is written there namely from in the middle of the
00:12:39 there namely from in the middle of the paragraph
00:12:41 paragraph that the response to the coroner was ambiguous as to whether the recommendation was accepted in full and safety critical the advice i received is that's the question you're asking isn't
00:12:52 that's the question you're asking isn't it it's
00:12:53 it it's it's not about the letters about the advice i received no it's about the letter you wrote well i think i've covered that point um and i think i i've kind of made it very clear yesterday that i accepted all
00:13:04 very clear yesterday that i accepted all the
00:13:04 the recommendations and there was nothing in that um
00:13:13 in the process of the kurdistan society that suggested either in the immediate or in the uh the period fairly soon afterwards that it was
00:13:24 it was um ambiguous and i think he only became ambiguous because the work that i had um
00:13:33 had um authorized was not carried through i'm obviously very sorry that uh the fate of um those uh
00:13:43 those uh the two families that were deserted and the lone
00:13:48 the lone woman so
00:13:50 woman so was
00:13:51 was the link was forgotten by the department can you explain why your response to the coroner did not articulate in clear terms that the the work the coroner had recommended be done was not considered
00:14:02 recommended be done was not considered by you to be safety critical because of the advice that i received and because of all the fail-safe that would indicate that i've
00:14:14 fail-safe that would indicate that i've made a bad decision was entirely absent from the scene if you make a decision like this which was
00:14:25 was a high profile one the very nature of things so that people pull over it and look at it very carefully i've done a search of contemporary reports and newspapers and
00:14:37 contemporary reports and newspapers and i could see no indication of it the labour party didn't realize an objection and i'm not saying this in a a part of political thing but the job of
00:14:48 a part of political thing but the job of the opposition is to challenge the government they want to our system works on on kind of conflict and and justification you know there was no in question there was no request for
00:14:59 was no request for um
00:15:00 um a debate there was uh no uh a german debate there was nothing that would indicate there was that anything was wrong there was actually quite a limited number of of written parliamentary questions
00:15:13 parliamentary questions now if
00:15:15 now if someone was saying well excuse me just hold on a second pickles um have you accepted these three points and i said of course i'll accept these three these three points
00:15:26 three these three points then
00:15:28 then i would have done something to correct it now how would i have corrected i probably would have been forced to make a statement to the house or i might have had to make a written ministerial statement
00:15:41 ministerial statement but
00:15:42 but i was not aware that there was a problem there was no indication within the system that there was a problem
00:15:53 a problem had there been an indication i would have taken action i mean after all i did have a reputation of a secretary of state prepared to take difficult decisions uh willing to put some
00:16:04 uh willing to put some local authorities put commissioners in and remove their democratic control you know i took on the problems of pedophilia in in rotherham where others weren't prepared
00:16:16 rotherham where others weren't prepared to do took control of talamus one of those weren't prepared to do and was used to people coming through my door or sending me a message to say things are not entirely happy
00:16:27 things are not entirely happy um and will you do something again i don't think on any occasion did i ever say
00:16:32 say go away this is too difficult or i'll leave it for the next person to deal with
00:16:38 with um you know you can tell occasionally i get a bit uh hung up on duty but being a secretary of state is immensely important
00:16:46 important you're there on a summer's lease you said the service of the um of the prime minister will the prime minister so you've got to leave every day as though it's your last on duty and
00:16:59 day as though it's your last on duty and you want to make sure you're moving things forward it's not meant to as a rhetorical question but why wouldn't i why would i ignore it what would be the point of ignoring it
00:17:10 ignoring it it wouldn't make any sense that accepted the
00:17:13 the uh
00:17:14 uh the the recommendations i put trust in the uh a bunch of officers are regarded to be fine to do it and i and i expected it to be done and i also and i think this is an
00:17:26 and i also and i think this is an important caveat i expected them to come and tell me that things weren't going right that either we needed more resources or we needed more clarification
00:17:37 we needed more clarification as they did in countless other occasions i mean the job of a secretary is set is is to deal with i think um
00:17:48 with i think um as harold
00:17:50 as harold macmillan described as the events dear boy
00:17:53 boy there's nothing certain you know when you get up in the morning and wander into the office it's not like a nine-to-five job this always something
00:18:04 [Music]
00:18:12 whose job was it
00:18:16 to make sure that the letter which left your desk on the 20th of may 2013 with your signature was
00:18:24 was at that moment in time free from ambiguity
00:18:28 ambiguity as to whether the recommendations were accepted in full as safety critical well obviously there were a number of officials
00:18:40 there were a number of officials that um put in submissions and the
00:18:46 and the from recollection the letter did not change substantially from the trav letter that came with the submission saving for uh
00:18:58 submission saving for uh i think us for a small typo
00:19:03 so obviously those officials had some responsibility those that advised me that it was that would cover everything bear responsibility
00:19:15 responsibility but it's my firm belief that they acted in good faith
00:19:21 faith i do not believe there was any deception uh in order to try and manipulate it i don't think for one moment that officials were saying well you know
00:19:32 that officials were saying well you know i went to the inquiry and uh they just met but the you know the currents inquire they've met such a mess and they've suggested it's on biggest and i don't think he is an ambitious and i don't think we should do it um well
00:19:43 i don't think we should do it um well let's just palm the secretary of state off i don't i don't believe any of that um i firmly believe that they all acted in good faith
00:19:55 good faith i think we've seen a degree of human error
00:19:58 error i expressed before the luncheon break my real worry now i have full knowledge about the well-being of that department because they do appear to have been in
00:20:10 because they do appear to have been in a bubble of their own unconnected to the uh
00:20:16 uh the political will or any kind of will within the department it's it
00:20:22 you know you've got when you're you're there you've got a responsibility of of well-being and of looking after staff and uh
00:20:35 of looking after staff and uh what i've what i've heard i find deeply worrying
00:20:41 sorry my question i'm so sorry whose job this is this is a this is a who's job question oh sorry this is about identifying people so little because i wonder if you can you can just help me who's okay was it
00:20:53 who's okay was it to make sure that the letter which left your desk on the 20th of may was free from the ambiguity admitted here by the department in this document i'm sorry i thought i'd answer that and perhaps i should have made it clear it's
00:21:04 should have made it clear it's responsibility goes up the chain
00:21:08 people that put in the first draft they have a responsibility people that agree that they have a responsibility uh the people that put it into my box they have a responsibility
00:21:20 they have a responsibility the the permanent secretary has a responsibility because they advise me i have a responsibility to make sure that that letter is unambiguous
00:21:32 letter is unambiguous and
00:21:33 and it never crossed my mind for all the reasons i said that it was um that it could have been constructed as ambiguous i thought it was extraordinary
00:21:44 ambiguous i thought it was extraordinary clear i thought they'd done a good job and i thought that we would deliver for the currently or more particularly i thought we would deliver it um you know to the families of um
00:21:57 um you know to the families of um of those that uh that had died which in my mind without getting terribly sentimental was more important than the coronary you know people died the dead deserve the
00:22:09 know people died the dead deserve the dignity of remembrance that they that the dead deserve the dignity of uh
00:22:17 of uh for us to deal with which caused their untimely death
00:22:23 as secretary of state do you accept that it was your ultimate responsibility to ensure that your department followed through with the response to the coroner
00:22:35 through with the response to the coroner in a timely manner giving them the recommendations the ministerial and departmental priority that they deserved of course it's got to be my responsibility even if i wasn't
00:22:46 be my responsibility even if i wasn't aware
00:22:47 aware even if
00:22:49 even if you know even if people were continuously telling me i'm the secretary of state so ultimately it's it's my responsibility um
00:23:01 um but
00:23:02 but i have to say as a matter of fact there was no indication from anyone that there was a problem and i think that that is critical
00:23:15 and i think that that is critical and i don't think that is about apportioning blames it certainly i think and it's beyond learning lessons
00:23:26 and it's beyond learning lessons there is something that needs to be done within
00:23:29 within that department to ensure that where officials are overworked harassed and
00:23:40 overworked harassed and with respect i think i think it's the neutral world confused it was addressed now
00:23:46 now even under those circumstances i can think of problems that we've had whether we had um with with some some of our press
00:23:57 um with with some some of our press assistants i can remember uh problems that we have with a particular planner things are aware of and and things were done to help them had i known that the
00:24:08 had i known that the that the uh building regulation team were living in a
00:24:13 a almost an isolation bubble i would have addressed it and i would have hoped that mr millet i would have addressed it in a kind way
00:24:23 kind way rather than as a scolding way i would have wanted to uh be alongside them or i would have wanted people to be alongside them because so we get the best out of people
00:24:35 best out of people but
00:24:36 but reading the limited evidence and you've been extraordinarily kind of reading out those things those people don't sound very happy they don't sound like they got up in the morning and came into work and thought
00:24:48 morning and came into work and thought well this is a great place to work they sounded harassed they um they saw problems all around i think the most dispiriting thing uh in the two days that i've been with
00:25:00 uh in the two days that i've been with you uh was a statement and i can't remember which official said it which was
00:25:05 was i didn't think it was worth a fight that is really bad do you accept those things happened on your watch and you are and were accountable for them as the minister of
00:25:16 accountable for them as the minister of state at the time well the secretary of state at the time secretary of state yeah yes of course i mean i've said that with respect to youth
00:25:25 youth now to my
00:25:26 now to my certain noise four times uh and i would repeat it of course you are at the top um but it's not unreasonable to say it wasn't like i was you know
00:25:38 wasn't like i was you know ignoring this or willfully say oh that doesn't matter it wasn't
00:25:44 it wasn't i felt this was important but i felt i'd layered a train in order for it to be um to be pretty to be dealt with and so the risk of repeating all
00:25:57 and so the risk of repeating all the normal the usual uh whistles that would have gone off if there was something wrong with entirely silent it's a big department
00:26:08 it's a big department when i was given uh advice i never run away from a problem i always addressed it
00:26:17 can we then turn to a slightly different topic which is which is tracking the coroner's recommendations now did you know the fact that the department had no
00:26:29 department had no protocol or system in place for how to track and
00:26:32 track and record a coroner's recommendation in order to ensure that the work was carried out to deliver on any commitments made by the department in response
00:26:44 i'm astounded that that would be the case right i would have i would have naturally have assumed that
00:26:52 that they were
00:26:54 they were systems in place to ensure that decisions are followed through that will be the normal business practice in any government department indeed it will be the normal business practice i would
00:27:06 the normal business practice i would think within law firms clearly at a ministerial and top civil service there was a
00:27:17 there was a a tracking system for big decisions but that was really designed for um for legislation and for fixed events
00:27:29 for legislation and for fixed events and
00:27:30 and when the process started of the revision of the um
00:27:37 of the um of approved documents b that particular tracking system would have been okay for part of it but it wouldn't have been in any way adequate uh to
00:27:50 in any way adequate uh to uh to deal with the with the day-to-day nuts and bolts it'd be okay at a strategy we'd kind of know when the consultation was going out we'd know when first traffic would be available we know when we were supposed to do the
00:28:01 know when we were supposed to do the right round we'd do all those kind of things but they wouldn't deal with the normal day-to-day um events
00:28:09 events um
00:28:10 um i never saw any evidence of my uh my um department could not follow through on simple instructions or
00:28:22 simple instructions or various events that would happen i'm not sure they would need a specific um
00:28:29 um i suppose your to-do list would be one of them
00:28:31 of them i'm not sure that we have something that says coroner but the ordinary state of running a sensible department i listened a little bit to the evidence that uh
00:28:44 bit to the evidence that uh miss dawes gave in the system that she set up when she became the permanent secretary uh we shrugged me as being enormously sensible but even that quite
00:28:55 enormously sensible but even that quite of elaborate system didn't pick up the failure
00:29:01 did you ever take steps to satisfy yourself that the lachnal coroner's recommendations and the department's response to them were on a tracker of some kind
00:29:13 were on a tracker of some kind they would have been on [Music]
00:29:15 [Music] the tracker the wednesday tracker as soon as
00:29:19 soon as uh the process of revising uh approved document bb gun for sure but
00:29:28 but the the the department was responsible for the individual portions of the track i mean the tracker wasn't exactly
00:29:37 exactly an unusual device it's the kind of common practice that you would see in most businesses
00:29:46 it's the officials job to run the process efficiently i think if politicians started to meddle in in that process i'm not entirely sure that would uh would work could it
00:29:59 sure that would uh would work could it come out just let me just a very small point a very small point i hadn't
00:30:05 i hadn't the department seemed a very efficient department things generally arrived on time
00:30:09 time and in pretty good order had i
00:30:14 had i seen any evidence that things were a bit slip-shot and you know you'd ask for something and maybe three or four weeks later it turned up in a in an envelope and it wasn't proper then at that point you would say well let me
00:30:26 at that point you would say well let me let me just go and see what's happening but i i i would repeat and it's a very fair question did i see any indication that the way in which the department was
00:30:37 that the way in which the department was being run generally was that there was a a problem of efficiency in the problem of following through
00:30:45 through well no i didn't see any evidence but i would repeat it was a very big department
00:30:53 you referred a moment ago to the wednesday tracker and the amendments to approve document be in response to the lack of coroner's recommendations would have been on it i just want to be
00:31:04 have been on it i just want to be crystal clear with you what that what you're referring to what was the wednesday tracker was it a document it was a spreadsheet i think i mean it's been a frustration to me
00:31:15 i mean it's been a frustration to me that we'll be able to find it but i think that was a problem of search but i believe uh brandon lewis managed to find
00:31:23 to find um a version of the tracker and if you have one
00:31:28 have one i'll happily take you through but you need to bear in mind it's for big issues it's to deal with things
00:31:34 things that would span over several weeks to to do so it would be on but say for example the coroner's letter it wouldn't be on that because of course
00:31:46 it wouldn't be on that because of course the coroner's rec um letter
00:31:49 letter is in itself a tracker because once it arrives the time starts to tick and as you will have noticed uh on all the subs there's a constant
00:32:00 uh on all the subs there's a constant reminder on the subs that things have to be by such and such a day and and trackers aren't really much use on anything relatively small but they would be they would have been quite useful
00:32:12 would have been quite useful uh with regard to um uh the amendment of approved document uh be in fact they were designed it was designed for something like that you could handle a big bill it could handle
00:32:24 could handle a big bill it could handle something as small as a statutory instrument and approved document b would i think fit pretty neatly in between those two extremes did you ever see
00:32:36 extremes did you ever see any of your responses to the coroner's recommendations on [Music]
00:32:41 [Music] this spreadsheet you're referring to um
00:32:45 um no because it wouldn't have been appropriate to put them on the spreadsheet because the time
00:32:52 the time was
00:32:53 was so short
00:32:54 so short where it would have been quite useful would have been the amendment to approve document b which would have landed itself and the reason it would have lent itself is there would have been some
00:33:07 itself is there would have been some some dis
00:33:08 some dis distinct
00:33:09 distinct periods where things had to be done and perhaps it might be helpful to say the main purpose of the tracker which you read from the right to the left is to ensure there's a continuous throw
00:33:20 to ensure there's a continuous throw from the left to the final date it would have been no use for the the secretary of state
00:33:28 of state say uh arriving in office i don't know in may and saying okay well let's just see let's see the document because you know these things need to be gone and if deadlines are mixed
00:33:40 gone and if deadlines are mixed then the right starts to move forward and you don't want the right to move forward the whole purpose of the tracker is to ensure i mean as you might uh
00:33:52 mean as you might uh might see in the textiles so you know you don't want to you don't want to run out of weft and in any way that weaving analogy is right
00:34:01 right because if the weft is broken the whole line is broken and the whole purpose of the tracker would would disappear
00:34:10 um well the weaving analogy may be very helpful if we had a document but my question really is do you ever remember seeing a document which you've described variously as the wednesday tracker or
00:34:21 variously as the wednesday tracker or the tracker which had any of the milestones for delivery of your promises to the
00:34:26 to the latino coroner on them the principle remember this is designed for big projects
00:34:38 big projects so the
00:34:39 so the tracker
00:34:41 tracker would be used for part of the big project
00:34:45 project um
00:34:46 um things like drafting you know uh things like consultation periods and the like and i think the next big milestone the big piece of unfinished business
00:35:00 the big piece of unfinished business uh would have been the uh revision of approved documents uh a bee
00:35:07 uh a bee and i mean given that the research arrived i think in february
00:35:14 15 i would have thought that in itself would have triggered the whole process but
00:35:19 but i understand that that track system was ended and
00:35:23 ended and was replaced with a system that uh that melanie put in place and i don't think we should be tied up to a particular way of doing it it's the result that's
00:35:35 way of doing it it's the result that's happened
00:35:36 happened there's nothing magical about the tracker it's about creating progress and getting things done in the same way the coroner's lesson is a very sensible thing because he actually makes you
00:35:47 thing because he actually makes you make a response within a particular period
00:35:49 period yeah a lot of people forgive me but it it's really a yes or no answer is that did you ever see a document or didn't you and the reason i just want to find out is because we don't want to have missed something given that we haven't
00:36:00 missed something given that we haven't been able to identify or find such a document so i'm forgetting i think it's there
00:36:05 there let me ask the question again because i think we may have got a bit distracted with with weaving but uh did you ever excuse me
00:36:14 did you ever see a tracker with any of the time scales or milestones for delivery of your promises to the latin coroner on it during your time as secretary of
00:36:25 it during your time as secretary of state
00:36:26 state i don't think the tracker that we use would have been useful for that because it's it's putting projects together i mean the short answer and the strictly
00:36:38 i mean the short answer and the strictly accurate answer is yes i did see a lachnal
00:36:43 lachnal coroner's report on but it was placed on the basis of a forthcoming event we thought that the coroner's inquiry will be reporting just
00:36:54 coroner's inquiry will be reporting just slightly earlier when it wasn't it came straight off and there was no point in putting it back on because we very quickly got the letter
00:37:03 letter there was no point in putting the tracker on the um uh
00:37:09 uh no point in putting the letter on the tracker because the letter would have been quicker than the tracker because you know given you've got a limited time speed if
00:37:20 speed if it arrived i don't know on a wednesday i can't remember the day you would have actually lost an entire week if you're going to use the tracker to do anything the letter itself drives progress forward
00:37:32 now can we i think we still have them on the screen excuse me in front of you lord pickles can we please go back in this document to page two paragraph seven
00:37:47 and i'll read that with you reflecting on its role in the issues to be examined in this module the department continues to learn the lessons of the past and is conscientiously explored where its actions contributed to an overarching
00:37:58 actions contributed to an overarching building safety system that has subsequently been shown to be unfit for purpose with catastrophic consequences our work over the past few years has found
00:38:08 found that the department did not have a good understanding of how the regulatory system was working in practice nor of how well it was being enforced there was insufficient oversight of the system by the government and the right assurances
00:38:20 the government and the right assurances were not sought now
00:38:24 now i think the next uh sentence is actually quite important as well very well how the building regulations building standards and statutory guidance been followed and enforced with reasonable diligence a large-scale cladding fire
00:38:35 diligence a large-scale cladding fire could not have happened the department should have done more to take on board the learning and recommendations triggered by other fires including the tragic events at lachnal house
00:38:44 house including exploring whether the system was working as intended similarly correspondents from the all party parliamentary group on fire safety should have been addressed in a timelier manner with more done to prove the issues raised by
00:38:56 issues raised by them
00:38:57 them now what i wanted to focus on was if we go back a page okay
00:39:06 the sentence
00:39:07 sentence six lines down from the start which says there was insufficient and uh do you see that insufficient oversight of the system by government and the right assurances were not sought
00:39:19 were not sought but also the previous sentence i've read to you
00:39:21 to you do you agree uh with the sentence that i've just read to you i'm not sure i think i need to have greater understanding what those meant
00:39:31 meant did it mean that the liaison between the
00:39:36 the department dealing with building regulations and those supervising implementation of building regulations did i
00:39:47 did i was the contact between those two groups of people sufficient
00:39:54 that's what i think it means because of course we're not operational department but we we do organize and we do fund regular peer group uh discussions i mean
00:40:07 regular peer group uh discussions i mean you saw the the list that we had in terms of consultation when we were looking at housing standards that kind of thing would be appropriate so i suppose there
00:40:19 so i suppose there they are saying you know were messages coming up from the industry and were those messages being
00:40:28 being ignored
00:40:29 ignored now
00:40:31 now you know if some i don't know whether you want to talk about the old party group
00:40:36 group but laying aside the question of um of sprinklers they were clearly making a number of important um
00:40:45 um uh
00:40:47 uh expressions of worry that struck me as being entirely legitimate um
00:40:54 um [Music]
00:40:55 [Music] were the
00:40:57 were the was the department ignoring the um the message because i didn't like the messenger and that's something that
00:41:09 messenger and that's something that obviously i thought quite a bit about since i saw those rejection letters uh when i went through the papers and i i think but i don't think unless i've entirely misunderstood
00:41:21 unless i've entirely misunderstood the intentions of the current secretary of state
00:41:24 of state i don't think it's his intention to try and make the department an operational department it has to be about i think the relationship between the sector and
00:41:35 the relationship between the sector and knowing he is i may be wrong but it would require a a considerable change in the nature of the of the department and i can think of
00:41:47 and i can think of different ways in which you might be able to achieve that does that tell us that your understanding of your department during the time you were secretary of state was that
00:41:58 was that regulatory overview did not fall as one as one of its responsibilities no i'm definitely not saying that i am saying exactly that but what i'm
00:42:09 i am saying exactly that but what i'm saying is
00:42:10 saying is that
00:42:11 that in order to have regulatory overview you need to be in touch with the sector you need to kind of understand that what what peop what is i mean
00:42:22 what peop what is i mean this is not meant to flip but folks who are putting on wellington boots and going on site um you know kind of looking at electrical fitting uh making sure things are
00:42:33 sure things are are happening in accordance with the building regulations you need to get some kind of feedback for what the reality is there and that's why you you
00:42:42 you you we saw this morning that very long list of um
00:42:46 of um what sometimes is misleadingly called stake that you need to be in contact with the stakeholding uh a community and i think i have expressed
00:42:58 expressed concerns
00:43:00 concerns real concerns about this strange
00:43:03 strange bubble
00:43:04 bubble that the building um
00:43:08 um you know the building regulation people seem to be in uh so i can kind of understand i think i've got a fair way that they that they were sort of kind of
00:43:19 that they were sort of kind of out of the loop inside the department and not communicating really with the department i'm not entirely sure whether that but with that lack of um
00:43:31 whether that but with that lack of um of communication might have also gone the other way now let me let me try and get this through a slightly different route okay um now melanie dawes told us and that's
00:43:42 um now melanie dawes told us and that's i'll show you the transcript rather than summarizing it day 249 page 26 please 249
00:43:51 249 page 26.
00:43:59 and if you go to line
00:44:05 22 and i'll be clear to show you how to show you the question okay the question is at line 16. going back to what you said a moment ago why do you think building regulations was not a priority area at that time who had decided that
00:44:19 area at that time who had decided that answer i mean it's a question which i've given a lot of thought over the last five years and i'm still not quite sure i know the answer i mean my overall impression here and i'm just i'm sure we'll come on to this is that the department just didn't see
00:44:31 department just didn't see that it had a role of oversight of that system
00:44:35 system it saw that its role was one of writing the rules and it understood that there was a role for local government to do by way of approvals and enforcement but everything else in the middle as you do when you're performing regulatory
00:44:46 when you're performing regulatory oversight and that i do today through ofcom wasn't i believe understood by the department of something that needed to be done or something that needed to be done by the department
00:44:57 done by the department now just that's what she told the inquiry as i've shown you would you agree with that approach or that view i think that's just answered the second part of the question i was
00:45:09 the second part of the question i was asking
00:45:10 asking was this kind of bubble that they were existing
00:45:13 existing were they
00:45:15 were they effectively deciding that the top didn't want to listen to them the department didn't want to listen to them
00:45:21 them was i think what melanie is saying is that they were talking to the sector i'm not sure that's what it means but the normal construction was might suggest that
00:45:33 construction was might suggest that if that is the case that would be worrying
00:45:36 worrying um because how else are we going to know what's happening you you kind of rely on on that kind of information i mean if you
00:45:48 i mean if you it's a long time ago and half of it was under a slightly different system but if i think back to my council uh leaders day you you kind of want to know what was going on in the the footings that was going on
00:46:01 on in the the footings that was going on in in sweats brow war the development was taking place uh uh in parkland you'd want to know those kind of things if there were some kind of
00:46:10 of um of problems we'd been through the problems in new newbies uh square of of things like uh uh
00:46:21 uh uh those bison constructions which is a a kind of a weird kind of prefabrication that just went so directly wrong and got caught up in the polson's scandal see you'd want to know what's
00:46:32 scandal see you'd want to know what's going on
00:46:33 going on i wasn't expecting i wouldn't have normally expected people at that level to be regularly going out on site visits so i wouldn't have objected in order to
00:46:45 i wouldn't have objected in order to kind of understand mysterious shopping that we're doing that but
00:46:50 that but i
00:46:51 i i i i've no idea um uh
00:46:56 um uh what the situation is but i i hope that the current uh permanent secretary well i'm sure they will be will be looking very hard at ensuring that the information
00:47:08 at ensuring that the information flows through the building regulations both ways
00:47:13 both ways because if it doesn't not only are the building regulations the losers of that but the department is the loser of that because it doesn't inform good decisions
00:47:27 because it doesn't inform good decisions well brian martin told the inquiry and just for our references day 253 page 162 lines 4-10 that it wasn't the department's job to police the system that's what he said yeah but that's stop
00:47:38 that's what he said yeah but that's stop do you agree no no no no no no he's probably right they aren't policemen they aren't enforcers of course not but i would have expected and i would have reasonably expected
00:47:50 and i would have reasonably expected them to be interested observers
00:47:56 observers of what's happening on the scene and and again i don't cause anybody anybody any trouble but that just further adds to my view that what we're talking about is
00:48:08 that what we're talking about is a bubble that is almost beginning to invent its own rules
00:48:15 let's get back to the department's opening written submissions to this module please uh okay and now let's go to page three we've just gone into it okay
00:48:27 three we've just gone into it okay and on page three
00:48:36 i need to pick this up with you at the bottom of page two we'd actually read it together but let's go back to the bottom of page two it says in the penultimate line there the department should have done more to take on board the learning and
00:48:47 take on board the learning and recommendations triggered by other fires including the tragic events at latin house including exploring whether the system was working as intended similarly correspondents from the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety
00:48:58 parliamentary group on fire safety should have been addressed in a timelier manner with more done to probe the issues raised by them yeah do you agree oh yeah i do you do oh definitely and do you accept um that the failure to do
00:49:10 you accept um that the failure to do more as set out there was a failing on your part as secretary of state on the basis that i'm responsible for everything um
00:49:21 um the fact that i didn't know about it that no one briefed me and that those letters came as a real shock is no
00:49:30 is no reasonable excuse because ultimately it is always my fault i mean um
00:49:37 um i mean to me i mean david was a
00:49:43 was a very clever very good politician and i say that not for the you know kind of affection someone that knew him through parliament uh he was the same age as me we were the
00:49:54 he was the same age as me we were the young conservatives together i knew him going back nearly 50 years and he really knew how the system worked and uh
00:50:03 and uh i've been kind of heartened when i've seen some of the more dogged letters that he was sending that he was really doing there that he was really doing the business and and making the department uh come to special
00:50:15 making the department uh come to special terms
00:50:16 terms what i didn't like and you said i made a rather i suppose tweedy little reference and not been up to the usual standards but
00:50:26 but what i found slightly offensive is that we had a that the minister allowed themselves to become the the mouthpiece of what was clearly a
00:50:37 the mouthpiece of what was clearly a grudge between um the department or the building section and the um and the old party group and in particular
00:50:48 particular i think the the permanent secretary was somebody with a sprinkler association i think i can't entirely bring his name to mind and that doesn't seem to be uh entirely sensible you shouldn't
00:51:01 uh entirely sensible you shouldn't reject the message because of the messenger
00:51:31 yes thank you very much lord pickles i'm just looking at seeing what's on the rest of my screen but i think those are all the questions i have for you i'm extremely grateful too i'm going to ask the chairman for the usual break
00:51:43 to ask the chairman for the usual break um
00:51:44 um mr chairman perhaps now might be the convenient moment for that break well pickles when uh council gets to the end of his questions as you probably know we have a break to
00:51:55 as you probably know we have a break to give him a chance to check that he's not omitted anything and also to give others who are not here but are following the proceedings a chance to suggest further questions so we'll yeah we'll take that
00:52:06 questions so we'll yeah we'll take that break now
00:52:07 break now um
00:52:08 um mr how long do you think you might need for this purpose uh shall we can i ask for 15 minutes and if we need more um well what i'm going to say then is
00:52:19 um well what i'm going to say then is it's just easier to do it this way it's ten past three okay just over 15 minutes um if more time is required you can let the question
00:52:28 question ask you to come and tell us i'll just emphasize again i'm here for as long as you want me well it's very good thank you very much um well we'll see if we will come back at 10 past three at that point we'll see if there
00:52:39 three at that point we'll see if there are any more questions yeah okay
00:52:43 yeah okay perhaps if you go the usher i will thank you very much very good thank you very much
00:53:03 thank you so much three and if you need more time
00:53:06 more time yes thank you very much
01:11:10 you ask little pickles to come back in please
01:11:16 [Music]
01:11:29 right or pickle 12. let's see if there's any more questions for you all right yes mr millet yes mr chairman just one or two okay um little pickles if the
01:11:39 if the deregulatory policies promulgated by the government in which you served were not intended to affect life safety uh and regulations to
01:11:50 affect life safety uh and regulations to do with life safety particularly fire safety
01:11:53 safety then whose responsibility within government was it to explain and clarify that to junior ministers civil servants uh and spads
01:12:05 uh and spads uh well the spouse would spuds
01:12:08 spuds and the junior ministers would have been involved with the decision the thing that has
01:12:19 the thing that has concerned me as the two years progressed is how effective was
01:12:26 was the civil service at making sure that that message was being heard and again i think the jury's out on that i may say something about this in
01:12:37 that i may say something about this in my closing remarks but increasingly i'm beginning to see this bubble and i'm beginning to think in terms of the
01:12:47 the housing regulations almost becoming they've got themselves into a world that's almost becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy a kind of a parody
01:12:56 parody of of um of what we wanted um but in terms of disseminating the message
01:13:03 message it's my responsibility to disseminate the message among the politicians it's the civil service permanent secretary and the um director generals to ensure that that message is
01:13:15 ensure that that message is discerned among the um among the civil service i'm responsibility for policy um
01:13:24 um uh civil services responsibility for the implementation of policy because the the roles merge you would each of us would kind of take on some of the function of the other and
01:13:35 on some of the function of the other and that's the nature of the job and also if you're in harness with somebody
01:13:41 somebody for five years it's almost like a peculiar marriage you can't you start to be able to finish each other's sentences so yeah to a degree
01:13:53 i'd always consider it to be an extraordinarily well-run um
01:13:58 department i never felt that civil servants has let me down but i have to say my worries are considerable about the
01:14:10 my worries are considerable about the the well-being of the of of the building regulation department
01:14:18 and finally lord pickles um i need to ask you a question which we reserve for particular witnesses in this inquiry uh looking back on your time as secretary of state
01:14:30 your time as secretary of state for the dclg and looking back over the evidence that you and i have traveled through over the last almost two days now is there anything you would have done differently and we traveled through i thought in a
01:14:41 and we traveled through i thought in a very courteous uh courteous way as mr miller my answer what i obviously prepared because i'd i kind of watched you doing
01:14:52 because i'd i kind of watched you doing this and i realized i was going to be honest he's entirely different from the one
01:14:56 one that i'm about to give what i was going to say is maybe i should have put in the letter the simple sentence and i accept the coroner's
01:15:07 and i accept the coroner's recommendations would that have changed things and your diligence
01:15:17 and your choice of examples have made me come to the view i don't think it would have made any difference whatsoever i think there was a
01:15:28 whatsoever i think there was a a kind of mindset that existed in parts of the of the department that just simply ignored
01:15:38 ignored what was happening made a a
01:15:42 made a a a view about what we were and came to it
01:15:50 but we should never lose the site this is not about
01:15:54 deregulation warning one out number of regulations fancy letters from the prime minister this sat on the other it's the fact that uh
01:16:05 it's the fact that uh that michelle odoka
01:16:10 odoka should be 13 now and here we are we're still discussing it it's still not there
01:16:17 there and the
01:16:18 and the conditions existed that there were people putting things in uh
01:16:27 into panels and the light that were combustible the idea to me is
01:16:33 to me is how would anybody ever want to do that how would they ever think it was a good idea um as i said we will see various court cases that will uh that will put it
01:16:44 cases that will uh that will put it together but ultimately comes it comes down to
01:16:49 down to to michelle and to the nameless i think it's 96 people who who would they were killed in in in the greenville fire it's it's then we should think about when we're arguing the top
01:17:01 about when we're arguing the top ultimately it's as i said i think earlier that you know
01:17:06 know the dead um deserve the dignity of being remembered by name the dead deserve the dignity of a solution and i'm sure you will come to that
01:17:14 that um but in conclusion mr milken i thank you um for the professional uh and courteous way in which you've uh sought to get my evidence and can i
01:17:25 uh sought to get my evidence and can i thank the panel uh for the courtesy of hearing me and for the staff for the enormously um helpful way in which i've been that allow me to conduct uh my evidence
01:17:38 uh my evidence yes thank you very much lord pickles thank you
01:17:40 thank you well more people just write that i should thank you on behalf of all the members of the panel it is very helpful to us to hear uh
01:17:48 uh from someone in your position which is perhaps not very usual and we've learned a lot as a result and i'm sorry that it's interfered with your arrangements for today but there were
01:17:59 arrangements for today but there were things we needed to ask you and help you need you to give us so thank you very much indeed uh but that is the end of your evidence and of course you're now free to go i'm very grateful it was it
01:18:10 free to go i'm very grateful it was it was an honor to give evidence thank you very much
01:18:29 thank you very much just a minute now that's
01:18:32 that's uh all we have for today is it uh not quite not quite not quite um mr chairman before we close the evidence for this last part of module 6 formally which i will
01:18:44 part of module 6 formally which i will do in
01:18:45 do in a moment yes i should just read into the record a number of references to further witness statements which should be taken as in the record and a list of those references and the relevant of the correlate statements
01:18:58 relevant of the correlate statements are to be found under one umbrella reference and that is idx0923
01:19:05 with that those statements can be taken as to be read into the record and they will be publicly available on the inquiries website as soon as they can be uploaded but yes mr chairman subject to that
01:19:17 but yes mr chairman subject to that that formally closes uh the evidence for this part of module 6 subject only to closing submissions to be received in due course thank you very much and
01:19:29 thank you very much and the inquiry will sit again on monday of next week to start the next module module four yes well thank you all very much we shall
01:19:40 well thank you all very much we shall break at that point and resume on monday at 10 o'clock when we shall hear opening statements in module 4. thank you very much