Afternoon session of Lord Barwell's evidence examining delays to fire safety reviews, deregulation policy, and ministerial engagement with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety
00:00:22 would you like a little barbell to come back in please thank you
00:00:36 all right little bubble ready to carry on you and you are good thank you very much
00:00:40 much yes mr strange are you ready yes thank you yes good afternoon lord barwell um just some short follow-up questions on deregulation first before we go back to that stuck in private office email chain
00:00:51 that stuck in private office email chain um
00:00:52 um in your evidence this morning you explained that there'd been a change in emphasis on deregulation as between the cameron and the may governments yes that's my perspective yes
00:01:03 that's my perspective yes and you weren't sure whether one in one out was in effect under the the may government i think it was one in three out you you were putting to me yeah yes now let's have a look at the uh conservative party
00:01:14 have a look at the uh conservative party manifesto for 2017. this is idx0922
00:01:21 here we have it it's the conservative and unionist party manifesto 2017 and then if we go within this document to
00:01:31 to page 17.
00:01:45 just wait for the document to come up for the page to come up
00:02:05 seems to be a problem uh here we go so here we have page 17 within that manifesto and if you look at the bottom of that page can you see the heading effective regulation and it says in that first paragraph
00:02:17 and it says in that first paragraph regulation is necessary for the proper ordering of any economy and to show that people and their investments are protected
00:02:22 protected however poor and excessive government regulation limits growth for no good reason so we will continue to regulate more efficiently saving nine billion pounds through the red tape challenge
00:02:33 pounds through the red tape challenge and the one in two out rule do you see that i do so it certainly does appear that one in two out was part of that manifesto pledge and presumably that was also
00:02:45 presumably that was also uh part of of your
00:02:48 of your operating it it certainly sounds like that it's i mean i i didn't know the detail of the manifesto outside of the housing area but it sounds to me like the one in three out policy was ditched but the one in two out one was continued
00:03:00 but the one in two out one was continued from what you've just presented yes so we can see a clear manifesto commitment to continuing those deregulatory policies well stepping back from the one in three out but continuing one in two out yes yes
00:03:11 out yes yes now even if you felt there was a change in emphasis personally given this commitment how were officials in your department supposed to have divine that there had been a change of emphasis other than what you've already explained
00:03:22 other than what you've already explained in the housing white paper yeah i think i think you can see a change of emphasis in the documents that i referred to but clearly the policy for deregulation from what you've just showed me continued albeit in a slightly
00:03:33 showed me continued albeit in a slightly altered form yes now going back to the topic we were on before we broke off which was about research reports getting stuck um so just to go back over the history
00:03:44 um so just to go back over the history what we can see is in december 2015 a submission is put up to james wharton to clear those seven work streams reports and then there are a series of chases
00:03:55 and then there are a series of chases now many of those chases are before your time but there are a number of chases that occur after you've come into office including in august october november december 2016 and january march 2017.
00:04:08 december 2016 and january march 2017. now
00:04:09 now as far as we can work out from the documents if we go back to mr ledson's email we were looking at clg 3019376
00:04:22 if you look within this email on the 13th of october 2016 to ps we assume that's private secretary gavin barwell that's that's an email address
00:04:33 barwell that's that's an email address that all three of my private secretaries would have been able to access to clarify yes and it looks like it was ed neve that he was addressed to addressed it too and that he was an assistant private secretary yes so you're the
00:04:44 private secretary yes so you're the number two private secretary yes in your office yes yes and i did read this paragraph out to you but i just want to go back to it underneath the bullet points on this screen we see an explanation of the
00:04:57 screen we see an explanation of the background to this and it said it says these are all reports dating back to projects commissioned under the coalition government in line with a commitment in a pq of summer 2015 to publish them all by the
00:05:09 summer 2015 to publish them all by the end of the year the original submission and reports went up last december so that was last december 2015 to james wharton
00:05:18 wharton and then it says this eventually we had agreement from previous spads that they could be published immediately after the referendum so now just to be clear we don't have the
00:05:29 now just to be clear we don't have the correspondence we've checked from those previous spads that wasn't part of the disclosure that we requested um but so what we've got to go on is what mr ledsim is saying in this email
00:05:41 what mr ledsim is saying in this email and if he's right what he's saying is the previous spads to james wharton had agreed these reports and that they could be published immediately after the referendum
00:05:52 immediately after the referendum then what we see in this series of emails october 2016 is your assistant private secretary corresponding with mr ledson
00:06:00 ledson about matters stuck in private office now um just help us with this if they've been cleared by the previous spads would
00:06:09 would additional spads spads to the the secretary of state sadie david now also need to clear these i suspect so right
00:06:18 right i don't know because i don't know exactly how the spads would have worked but i think given that it was effectively a new government officials would probably have felt that they needed to get approval from new
00:06:30 they needed to get approval from new ministers and use pads and they couldn't take a previous decision uh as
00:06:37 uh as binding in terms of publication yes i'm just that's my educated guesswork to be clear because the emails don't say they're stuck with the new spads they seem to be emails suggesting they're
00:06:48 seem to be emails suggesting they're stuck in your private office that's how we'd read this so um well look there are a number of things i wanted to say about this yeah the first and the most important thing is i just want to repeat what i said earlier this is appalling
00:07:00 earlier this is appalling that these document that these that it took so long for this research were whoever's to blame whatever the mistake was it's totally unacceptable that public money was spent on this research and it took this long to publish it now
00:07:12 and it took this long to publish it now i i am
00:07:14 i i am skeptical that they were stuck in my office and i want to give you the two reasons why but i can't prove it to you and it in a way it almost doesn't matter where there was a fault and these things should have been published but if you could go on to the top of the next page
00:07:26 could go on to the top of the next page there's an exchange and it's the it's not the bottom email from ed i want but it's the one further up the column so there was an email thread at the beginning slow down a second sorry because again i think we've got to try and help the
00:07:37 we've got to try and help the transcriber apologies okay let's first go to page two
00:07:44 okay so you can see at the
00:07:47 at the scroll up a bit there so that's it that's it yes so there's an email that is the 13th of october 1552 where ed is saying to bob thanks bob
00:07:59 where ed is saying to bob thanks bob would you mind just letting us know which ones are with spads in the meantime
00:08:02 meantime which is clearly implying that at least some of the submissions and the submissions that ed is talking about to be clear are not just building regulation submissions he's trying to do an overall exercise to see what's stuck
00:08:14 an overall exercise to see what's stuck in private office yes but he's saying he's clearly implying here that some of these things are stuck with spads not in my office or other minister's offices yes the second reason i would give to
00:08:25 yes the second reason i would give to you for saying that i don't believe these were stuck in my office and i just want to maybe add a bit more detail chairman to what i had to say this morning
00:08:33 morning is to
00:08:34 is to describe to you the way my office worked so i've already intimated to you that the volume of paperwork that was coming in was was very significant and a combination of me myself claire
00:08:47 and a combination of me myself claire brunson who was my principal private secretary and certain senior officials operated a sort of almost constant triage system to try and escalate the submissions that were the most important and i would say
00:08:59 were the most important and i would say of all of the officials concerned steve quartermaine played an absolutely crucial role in that because a significant proportion of the submissions fell within his area because they were planning case work submissions
00:09:12 they were planning case work submissions so i would say it would be a regular occurrence maybe once a week or once a fortnight that steve and i would discuss what i had outstanding that in his opinion was urgent and needed a decision
00:09:24 opinion was urgent and needed a decision and i would then prioritize those to the top of my entree and make sure that i got them dealt with yeah so i can't prove it to you but all i can say to you is i find the idea that steve if these this is clearly so
00:09:37 that steve if these this is clearly so wrong that they have been waiting that long
00:09:39 long that the idea that steve would not have come to me and said gavin you've been these are not just you've been sitting them for ages but they've been waiting for ages before you were ever appointed please get them dealt with
00:09:51 please get them dealt with so
00:09:52 so i can't really add any more to you than that i just i don't believe these ones were stuck in my i'm perfectly happy to say on the record that there were other research reports that took me a while to clear but they all did get cleared
00:10:03 clear but they all did get cleared whether they were stuck with spads or stuck in your office equally bad it's unacceptable isn't it it's equally bad but you did put to me that you thought it was likely to be in my office that was our reading because it was edge neve i just want to
00:10:15 neve i just want to say to you why i don't believe that was the case but i i did say and i'm happy to repeat for you wherever the fault lay it's completely unacceptable it's appalling that it took that long and just help us with this which spads would they have been stuck with the secretary
00:10:26 they have been stuck with the secretary of state spanish they are the only spats right i see i think i'm right in saying the way
00:10:35 the way uh the the special advisers sat in one office
00:10:38 office and there was a civil servant private secretary for this bad team collectively so there was there was an official whose job was to filter the papers in and out of the specialized office so is it that
00:10:49 of the specialized office so is it that official that should have been contacted if they were stuck with the spads and said
00:10:55 said yeah for good to say this has been going on for too long now we've been chasing get these spads to look at this is that what should have happened so so i suspect what ed is trying to get here is which are the subs that are not on my
00:11:08 which are the subs that are not on my minister's desk but elsewhere let me know about them so i can then go and have that conversation and to give you to my i don't want to sound too defensive but to give you an illustration of the situation
00:11:19 illustration of the situation i think if you look at the email chain for the approval of the september 2016 iteration of the discussion document you will see that that waited in span's office for over a month after i had
00:11:31 office for over a month after i had signed off yes and i didn't know that yes one of the things when i get the document bundle for this inquiry i was amazed that i after i the minister had approved something officials had to wait a further month
00:11:43 officials had to wait a further month because yeah because of that so it definitely was possible i can't get any stronger now just to complete this story a little bit if we look at the submission you were sent on the 23rd of march 2017 at clg
00:11:55 march 2017 at clg nine three nine two now we'll come back to this this is the submission with the final version of the discussion document yes you're also being asked at this point see item four under recommendations here that you clear the
00:12:07 recommendations here that you clear the completed research projects for publication which support the scope of work set out in the discussion document and which we need to discuss with industry yes you see that i do and in annex c if we go to
00:12:18 see that i do and in annex c if we go to page 10
00:12:21 we get a list of those discussion reports right at the bottom of page 10 that's the seven work streams fire compartment sizes and investigation of real fires do you see that i do
00:12:32 real fires do you see that i do so
00:12:32 so you are being sent this in march 2017 after quite a lot of chasing for either spad approval or your office approval
00:12:42 approval um
00:12:43 um and so we can see the delay that's been caused here do you see that i do see that and i approve this but i presume what you're now going to tell me is that because the election was called my approval didn't count and they had to
00:12:54 my approval didn't count and they had to go right back round the circle again with the next minister well that appears to be the case can you shed any light on that that's only my educated guesswork but there is in the document pile there is an email again i don't have all my
00:13:05 is an email again i don't have all my papers in front of me obviously but there is an email from my private secretary kieran giving my feedback on this submission we've seen that now saying that i accept i approve the recommendations i think it says i had a particular interest and
00:13:16 says i had a particular interest and wish to be kept updated on the ones on part b and part m in terms of the first recommendation about the discussion document but i i approve this sub i think it's the 18th of uh i'm
00:13:27 i think it's the 18th of uh i'm relying on memory but i think it's the 18th
00:13:29 18th i'll take you back to that um and we'll look at that mr martin told us in his evidence it's in his witness statement that without the publication of the seven works work
00:13:40 the publication of the seven works work streams report enabling the industry to consider them we were not able to progress the discussion document needed to inform a full technical review and that was initially mr harrell's evidence as well although in his oral
00:13:52 evidence as well although in his oral evidence he accepted that the discussion document could have been taken forward without publication of the reports now were you ever told that they were being held up with getting on with a discussion document
00:14:04 getting on with a discussion document because these seven work streams reports had not been approved so no and i wasn't aware that the work stream reports hadn't been approved could you could you go forward you showed me first of all the covering page
00:14:16 showed me first of all the covering page of this
00:14:17 of this submission with the two recommendations could you take me back to that screen do you think yes page one yes first page you showed me yeah
00:14:26 yeah there's the the first page so i mean i would just make two points to you about paragraph four the recommendation that you drew my attention to yes first of
00:14:37 you drew my attention to yes first of all it doesn't say that that's necessary in order to publish the discussion document it says it supports the work in the discussion document yes and secondly it certainly doesn't make any reference that these have been outstanding for a long time or
00:14:49 have been outstanding for a long time or are urgent which clearly they were i'm not disputing that for a second but it doesn't
00:14:54 doesn't it's interesting that it doesn't make that point but no the answer to your question is no i wasn't i wasn't told that although i did approve the submission right now in the next part of my question i'm going to be looking in more detail at that discussion paper and
00:15:07 more detail at that discussion paper and what you knew about it and the evolution of it
00:15:10 of it were you aware that the discussion document was originally due to be published at the end of 2015 then that was pushed forward to early 2016
00:15:19 2016 and then publication was expected in the autumn of 2016. did anyone ever tell you that
00:15:25 that uh no apart from the last bit of what you've said so i i know it now because i've
00:15:30 i've heard minister walton's evidence and and but i obviously did know from the evidence i gave before lunch that it was originally due for publication in the autumn of 2016 because the september
00:15:43 autumn of 2016 because the september version of this submission used the phrase publication after conference so i i knew that i didn't know that it had been delayed several times before my arrival if
00:15:54 several times before my arrival if that's helpful yes that's helpful
00:16:00 now um i want to turn to a letter that you received in august 2016 just in this context it's at hom three zeros three three three seven seven
00:16:15 now this is quite a long letter so i can't we don't have time to go through it all it's from the british sprinkler alliance sorry the business sprinkler alliance and it's sent to you in august 2016
00:16:27 2016 so very shortly after your appointment and um i just want to focus on the final paragraph on page one that runs into page two
00:16:38 runs into page two so they say here we understand that one of your first tasks will be to consider the status of the fire safety provisions of the building regulations which are detailed in approved document b this document was last reviewed 10 years
00:16:50 this document was last reviewed 10 years ago
00:16:51 ago a new review is therefore long overdue and your predecessor has indicated in written responses to parliamentary questions that a review is under consideration he also indicated that one
00:17:02 consideration he also indicated that one approach to the review may be to simplify the adb guidance document to reduce red tape for business the bsa agrees that the document needs to be simplified to make it more
00:17:13 to be simplified to make it more user-friendly we also in principle welcome an objective to reduce red tape however the review does also need to be thorough because building materials and construction techniques have changed
00:17:24 construction techniques have changed significantly over the last 10 years and use patterns of industrial and commercial buildings have evolved these changes need to be reflected in adb for example and a number of bullet points then
00:17:36 and a number of bullet points then appear and in the first one it says there has been an increase in the use of insulation systems to achieve ever better energy efficiency ratings in the event of a fire these systems can impact
00:17:47 event of a fire these systems can impact combustibility and the spread of the fire and can increase fire temperatures this needs to be considered in the overall design of the building notably the fire resistance of the structure as
00:17:59 the fire resistance of the structure as well as the surrounding materials and then the letter ends on page four with an offer to meet in the very last paragraph the bsa would be
00:18:10 the bsa would be pleased to help you realize this outcome and we appreciate an opportunity to meet to do so now um do you remember this letter
00:18:17 letter i don't now we're covering it in the in the pack of documents that was released to me so i haven't seen it before today okay we're coming to some emails in a moment that suggests that you may well have seen it
00:18:29 have seen it um
00:18:30 um now it tells you what we know that you already told in the briefing document in october 2016 that uh
00:18:38 that uh approved document b had not been formally reviewed since 2016 yes sorry 2006 yes yes now did you know were you ever told that
00:18:49 now did you know were you ever told that the department had moved away from there being a regular cycle of periodic review of the approved documents at particular time intervals did you were you ever told that
00:19:02 i'm thinking because i i think what i was told was that the department wanted to move to having a regular cycle which certainly would acknowledge that there wasn't a regular cycle at that point in
00:19:13 wasn't a regular cycle at that point in time i don't think i was ever told that there used to be a regular cycle is that is that clear yes it is now presumably if you can't recall whether you saw this document or can't
00:19:25 whether you saw this document or can't recall reading it um
00:19:27 um you can't help us as to whether you asked any of your officials to take any of these concerns in this letter into account when working on adb no i can't i mean did i reply to this
00:19:38 no i can't i mean did i reply to this letter so let's look because it's not in my bundle i don't i'm not i'm not familiar with it and obviously the number of letters that you saw as a minister it's very hard to remember one letter from from six years ago of course let's try
00:19:50 from six years ago of course let's try and help if we go to clg one three zeroes eight four three four
00:19:57 and we look at the top email in the chain
00:20:00 chain it's um it appears to be from the office of gavin barwell sent on the 15th of august 2016 to gavin barwell do you see that yes so i think i can now explain what's happened here
00:20:11 can now explain what's happened here review
00:20:12 review well hang on a minute let's just look at it first subject review of approved document b attachments business sprinkler alliance letter on the view of approved document b of the building regulations pdf and
00:20:24 b of the building regulations pdf and then it says hi please see attached letter to be assigned to bob bledsoe as an msu please this has been sent for advice as an invitation officials advised to decline
00:20:35 invitation officials advised to decline and gavin agrees that he would not like to meet
00:20:39 to meet please therefore arrange for a line to be included to refuse their invitation to meet at the present time do you see that i do
00:20:46 that i do now what is an msu uh i don't know but i suspect it's an official reply to the letter rather than the minister replying would be my guess yes can we agree that it would appear
00:20:57 yes can we agree that it would appear from this email that you did see this letter no
00:21:00 letter no i think probably not from what you've just showed me because so leticia was my diary secretary so there's obviously a very large number of invitations that come into a
00:21:11 number of invitations that come into a minister to meet and what she would do is she would print off these
00:21:16 off these invitations bundle them together and she would get advice from officials about whether they thought i should accept the meeting or not and
00:21:24 and she would just come to me and say what do you think so i probably haven't read the whole letter i suspect what happened is that she said to me this is from the business sprinklers alliance
00:21:34 alliance officials revise a meeting not appropriate do you want to overrule and i would have said no i probably haven't read the whole letter and the fact that it says to be assigned to bob ledson as
00:21:45 it says to be assigned to bob ledson as an msu
00:21:46 an msu means that officials are saying that a civil servant should reply to the letter not a minister if i were replying to the letter i would have read the letter sorry i'm jumping ahead here but
00:21:57 sorry i'm jumping ahead here but when there's ministerial correspondence you generally don't see the letter until someone's drafted the reply and my practice would have been to read the letter at that point before then deciding if i was happy with the reply
00:22:08 deciding if i was happy with the reply that officials had drafted so
00:22:11 so the way this is worded my assumption would be i didn't read the letter i was simply asked whether i wanted to meet them and the official's advice was that i didn't need to at this stage right but you were a new housing
00:22:23 stage right but you were a new housing minister with no background in fire safety matters wouldn't it have actually been quite useful to meet with organizations like this i can assure you i could have filled my time five
00:22:34 i could have filled my time five six-fold with with meetings that would have been useful so you have to prioritize uh who you're going to meet with either were definitely occasions when officials would advise i shouldn't meet with
00:22:45 would advise i shouldn't meet with someone and i overruled it um but i didn't do so on on this occasion so right you certainly shouldn't take that as an indication that the meeting would have been of no use i'm sure it would have been useful but you asked me a question about
00:22:57 but you asked me a question about whether i read the letter and i think given the evidence that you've now shown me which i hadn't seen before i think that is suggesting that i would not have seen the letter i see i mean had you actually seen the letter and and
00:23:10 had you actually seen the letter and and been told that adb was last reviewed ten years ago there have been significant changes in techniques since that time and this use of insulation to give better energy efficiency ratings which impact on
00:23:22 efficiency ratings which impact on combustibility um
00:23:26 um would that have changed your mind in terms of whether you'd have met these people so i'd like to say yes because obviously i'm answering the question now knowing what i know about what happened subsequently
00:23:37 what happened subsequently but if i'm being honest with you i can't guarantee that if i'd read the whole letter i would have said yes because of the huge pressures on time when you're a minister initially what i might have said is
00:23:48 said is once we've got through the initial run of of the urgent stuff that i've got to do straight away could we put something in the diary down the line yes i see
00:23:57 yes i see so when it says there gavin agrees all you've done is accept the advice not to meet on this occasion not to meet and you know as i said sorry sorry let me finish
00:24:07 finish not to me but not having read the letter so not knowing what the concerns were that were being raised with you i would have i would not have read the entire letter i would have seen who the organization were and made a decision
00:24:19 organization were and made a decision based on that and without in any way diminishing the importance of the business sprinkler alliance i would have i would have had as i said five or six times more invitations to
00:24:30 five or six times more invitations to things than it was feasibly possible to take up and so you had to prioritize right
00:24:36 right now if we look at the the first submission you got specifically about the discussion document and adb this is at clg
00:24:44 at clg three six 3019368
00:24:47 this is a submission from richard harrell
00:24:50 harrell to you and sadie javid do you see that i do
00:24:54 do and
00:24:55 and we
00:24:56 we you tell us at paragraph 16 of your first witness statement on page seven that you were sent this submission on the 15th of september 2016. so that that should help you
00:25:07 so that that should help you and we can see from the first paragraph that this submission seeks agreement to progress
00:25:12 progress publication of a discussion document setting out this potential scope of future work to simplify building regulations and strengthen the building control system yes yes
00:25:23 control system yes yes and then on page one we see the recommendations below that that you agree that officials should continue to develop the building regulations discussion document with a view to publication in the autumn so
00:25:34 view to publication in the autumn so that would be the autumn of 2016 yes yes and i think if you look at paragraph two it's a little bit more explicit that it's after party conference which would take place in early october right
00:25:46 take place in early october right and you can we can see at paragraph four the recommendation is you agree that it's circulated at official level to other government departments for discussion prior to formal right around and then five that you agree officials
00:25:58 and then five that you agree officials can start engagement with brac the building regulations advisory committee to establish relevant working groups so that we can progress engagement with industry immediately after the discussion document it's published and
00:26:09 discussion document it's published and then if we could look at paragraph six on page two it says previous ministers agreed that officials should work with brac the statutory industry committee charged
00:26:21 statutory industry committee charged with advising ministers on building regulations matters to develop proposals for a discussion document setting out the broad scope of review and reform of the building regulations and building control system over this parliament
00:26:37 and again so did you read this parliament to mean your current parliament rather than anything earlier yes and then um if we go to page four there's a list of annexes at the bottom
00:26:48 there's a list of annexes at the bottom of the page and annex a was a draft discussion document so you were actually sent a draft of that document yes although i haven't seen that in the document pack that i had i just had the
00:26:59 document pack that i had i just had the submission that's fine um do you remember actually reading the draft discussion document when you received this submission in september 2016 i don't remember reading it but i'm absolutely sure i will have done right
00:27:12 absolutely sure i will have done right um
00:27:13 um if we just pull it up it says clg three zeros one nine three six seven there we have it that's the draft you were sent and the part b section
00:27:24 you were sent and the part b section begins at the bottom of page 25. there we go part b fire safety and you can take it from me i don't think we need to go through it but the headings below that include two
00:27:35 headings below that include two different types of property protection specialized housing smoke alarms basements means of escape for the disabled and links with the fire safety order those are the topics
00:27:46 order those are the topics now
00:27:47 now did you notice at the time that there was nothing in that document about increased use of combustible insulation materials on the exterior of buildings due to the driving energy efficiency
00:27:58 due to the driving energy efficiency uh i i can't remember but i can't see why that would have been something particularly memorable to me because i wasn't aware of that issue well had you read the british sprinkler association letter
00:28:10 association letter you would have been aware of that issue but i think your evidence now is that you're unlikely to have read that in detail is that correct uh yeah and with respect even if i'd read the british sprinkler letter given the numbers of pieces of correspondence you were
00:28:21 pieces of correspondence you were reading i'm not sure if it's necessarily the case i would have remembered that a month or so later yes now thinking back to the submission you can take it from me that the submission does not mention the lack on the house inquest the rule
00:28:33 the lack on the house inquest the rule 43 letter or the commitment made by eric pickles yes i think i made that point myself this morning yeah and the submission does not give any sense of urgency about these steps
00:28:44 urgency about these steps no to the country i think from memory there was something in there about the time scale which suggested this was you just quoted it to me that it was a program of work during the rest of this parliament so by definition yes it
00:28:55 parliament so by definition yes it wasn't urgent it was a medium to long-term program of work yes did you inquire at this point about how long this work had been in progress uh no i didn't know
00:29:06 uh no i didn't know help us with this why were officials asking you if they could continue to develop a discussion document cutting to the chase didn't you want to see a final version of the discussion
00:29:18 a final version of the discussion document and then agree it for publication what is the point of this submission just to ask you if they can continue developing it i suspect the main point uh if we could
00:29:29 i suspect the main point uh if we could maybe go back to the yes let's go back to the civilizations so clg three zeros one nine three six eight
00:29:39 i suspect it's probably uh the latter two recommendations of the crucial ones here i have much the same reaction as you to the first recommendation which is you don't really need our permission to
00:29:50 you don't really need our permission to continue working on something uh the real moment of which ministers would be interested is in signing off the document i guess they might have thought that it was a chance to offer up any particular
00:30:01 was a chance to offer up any particular comments but probably the two key recommendations here is that officials felt that they needed permission to engage with officials outside of our department and also permission to engage
00:30:13 department and also permission to engage externally beyond the government with the building regulations advisory committee right i see why that's just educated guesswork on my part yeah i see well i'm not going to see that anymore um
00:30:24 um so
00:30:25 so if we now look at a document that follows this clg one three zeros eight six two four
00:30:45 clg one three zeros eight six two four
00:30:54 we're just waiting for that document to come up okay
00:31:09 yes so here we have um and we if we focus on this top email in the chain an email chain from your office office of gavin barwell
00:31:20 of gavin barwell to richard harrell on the september the 29th 2016
00:31:26 29th 2016 sent at 3 47 and we can see a number of other advisers and officers are copied in and the subject is submission gb building regulations discussion document
00:31:37 regulations discussion document and it says hi richard and all thank you for your submission gavin has seen it and agrees with the recommendations to continue development of the building regulations discussion document and to
00:31:48 regulations discussion document and to circulate at official level for discussion prior to formal right round for publishing he agrees that officials can begin engagement with brac to establish relevant working groups
00:31:59 relevant working groups gavin has asked you to consider tim lunic's comments attached in moving forward with the review do you see that i do
00:32:07 i do and you tell us that paragraph 21 of your second statement at page nine that you understood that the review would be carried out officials including richard harrell and bob ledson with appropriate external engagement from brac yes
00:32:20 external engagement from brac yes yes that was my understanding and you don't mention brian martin there did you have any understanding at this point about what his role would be in the process i recognize
00:32:32 i recognize brian's name so i suspect he was in some of the meetings with me but the two officials where i can sort of definitively say that i engaged with regularly would have been brian ledson and richard harrell
00:32:44 and richard harrell yes so i can't i can't sorry bob listen and richard harrell i can't definitively say to you about brian yes
00:32:52 brian yes now can we agree that setting up the part b working party could have happened concurrently with work on the discussion document
00:32:59 document do you agree with that uh it will do it depends what you wanted that part b working party to do so if what you're saying is the
00:33:11 so if what you're saying is the simplification point that we were touching on earlier that definitely could have been done as a separate work stream from this wider piece of work i think it's a it's at least i'm not a specialist but i think it's at least theoretically possible that you could
00:33:22 theoretically possible that you could have
00:33:23 have reviewed
00:33:25 reviewed approved document b separately from the rest of the building regulations work if that's what you're asking me yes do you know why efforts to establish the working groups didn't start in september 2016 once you've confirmed that you'd
00:33:37 2016 once you've confirmed that you'd agreed with that engagement were you ever given a reason why that didn't happen
00:33:43 when you say to establish the working groups what do you mean sorry yes well the the brac relevant to start the discussions yeah look it says third line down engagement with brac to
00:33:55 third line down engagement with brac to establish relevant working groups so uh i don't know i it is possible that that work was put on hold when we delayed the discussion document until after the white paper but i can't
00:34:07 after the white paper but i can't definitively tell you what the reason was by the date of the grenfell tower fire four years after lord pickles's commitment a formal working group to look at part b fire safety issues had still not been established were you
00:34:19 still not been established were you aware of that when you when you left office um i'd have to look again at the the march
00:34:26 the march submission i think it does hint that some work had started but whether that was work with brac or whether that was just work internally in the department i don't know you can't help us with that i'm not without looking at the document
00:34:37 i'm not without looking at the document i couldn't my memory is not good enough to tell you i know that it referenced we have already started work on this but i can't remember whether that was work externally with brac or just work internally within the department yeah
00:34:49 internally within the department yeah now i want to look now at a letter from the appg the all party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group which is dated the 12th of september 2016
00:35:00 dated the 12th of september 2016 and which was then re-sent on the 17th of october 2016. now before we look at this letter itself i i just want to briefly look at paragraph 27 page 11 of your first
00:35:12 paragraph 27 page 11 of your first witness statement
00:35:15 you tell us this you say on the 12th of september 2016 david amos sent a letter to me referring to james wharton's promise to make an announcement about the review
00:35:27 to make an announcement about the review of approved document b this letter never arrived at the department and was resent on the 17th of october 2016. i was aware from this letter that the appg had been in correspondence with my
00:35:38 appg had been in correspondence with my predecessor which would not have been uncommon but i was not aware that the chain of correspondence between ministers and the appg had been going on for what i now understand to be a period
00:35:49 for what i now understand to be a period of years
00:35:50 of years so that's what you tell us in your statement
00:35:53 statement did you ever discuss the appg correspondence directly with bob ledson richard harrell or brian martin
00:36:06 i'm not sure if i did directly i i amended one of the reply letters which we'll come on to i'm sure as we run through the appg correspondence but whether the conversation
00:36:18 but whether the conversation was between my private office and the building was team or whether they came into the office and i discussed it directly i don't know yes i will take you to the letter i think it's april 2017
00:36:30 april 2017 that you said you amended because you didn't like the tone of the it was more than that i was i mean we're jumping ahead in the story but
00:36:39 but i had delayed the meeting i did i responded to this first letter turning down an initial meeting the delay turned out to be longer than expected because the white paper took longer than expected then another letter went
00:36:51 expected then another letter went missing so by the time i finally get i think it's the february letter to my desk in early april i was mortified at how long the delay had been so i completely rewrote the letter giving
00:37:02 completely rewrote the letter giving david the direct number of my private office so that we could meet as quickly as possible but i don't know whether my private office would just have informed the building rig's team that's what we were going to do or whether they came up from eating i can't i'm afraid
00:37:14 came up from eating i can't i'm afraid recall that but um i don't know did you ever get a sense of what your official's attitude was towards the appg and its correspondence no other other
00:37:26 and its correspondence no other other than
00:37:27 than implicitly from the fact that the advice on the initial letter and the second letter was to turn it down which implicitly suggests that officials didn't think it was a priority for a meeting but no one
00:37:39 was a priority for a meeting but no one ever said anything in a submission or in a meeting with me which uh if you like was pejorative and gave it gave a view of the appg and what did you understand the appd's
00:37:50 and what did you understand the appd's main concerns to be
00:37:54 so it's a difficult question to answer now because obviously i've read the entire back chain of correspondence so i know what the concerns are now which i at the time uh i hadn't
00:38:05 now which i at the time uh i hadn't um but
00:38:06 um but i don't know if you can call up the first letter i'm about to go to it let's go to it it's at clg three zeros one nine three nine eight and it starts uh on page
00:38:19 and it starts uh on page well you can see here the letters being resent as i explained earlier on the 17th of october 2016. uh sir david sent you the enclosed letter on the 12th of september but we
00:38:30 letter on the 12th of september but we do not seem to have received a response and then if you go over the page you can see the september letter absolutely lovely thank you
00:38:38 yeah so i think that the key well sorry sorry i thought i'm going to ask you the questions and then and then you'll answer um in the second paragraph i i want to pick
00:38:49 in the second paragraph i i want to pick it up
00:38:50 it up they say the previous postholder with the building regulations responsibility was james wharton mp who met with the group as long ago wasn't as 26th of november 2015 when he promised
00:39:02 26th of november 2015 when he promised to make an announcement shortly about the review of approved document b guidance fire safety to the regulations where a great deal of preparatory work had already been done but with some
00:39:14 had already been done but with some serious outstanding issues still needing to be addressed regrettably we have yet to receive any announcement on this which is of such importance to the fire and construction sectors
00:39:26 and construction sectors and then it goes on i recall that you did speak at a parliamentary fire seminar in westminster following the riots in croydon in 2013 so you already have an understanding of the need for effective fire safety in the built environment with increased use of modern
00:39:39 environment with increased use of modern materials in methods and methods of construction and then over the page the group comprising a few of its members would very much appreciate an early informal meeting with you possibly
00:39:51 early informal meeting with you possibly over lunch when parliament returns in october following recess to discuss some of the issues which remain a cause for concern to the group there will be no minutes taken but just general exchange of thoughts as to where
00:40:02 general exchange of thoughts as to where we both see the current issues and what priorities there are for the built environment i look forward to receiving a positive response to this invitation to meet with a few members of the group at your earliest convenience meanwhile
00:40:13 at your earliest convenience meanwhile i'm attaching a copy of my last letter to james dated the 20th of june 2016 with enclosures also attached to which i have yet to receive a response or acknowledgement exclamation mark it
00:40:24 acknowledgement exclamation mark it would be helpful if you were able to clarify the position in order that i can also write again to the secretary of the balmoral residents association in relation to a tower block fire in west cliff on c essex in which a pregnant
00:40:37 cliff on c essex in which a pregnant woman died and seven people were reportedly taken to hospital to date i've only acknowledged the letter and referred it to james exclamation mark exclamation mark many thanks in anticipation of your kind assistance
00:40:48 anticipation of your kind assistance with this so that's the letter now prior to receiving this letter were you made aware that an announcement on the review of adb had been promised for short
00:40:59 short shortly after the meeting with james wharton in november 2015. no
00:41:05 no were you concerned about the apparent delay when you read this letter i can't remember exactly what my sense was uh when i saw it but i obviously knew
00:41:16 uh when i saw it but i obviously knew david
00:41:18 david very very well um i accepted the advice not to offer a meeting at this point because at the point of which we are looking at this we were still expecting i think
00:41:28 i think to publish the discussion document shortly and it seemed more sensible to have the meeting once that document was in the public domain and then the meeting would be more
00:41:38 more productive what was your understanding about the serious outstanding issues which the appg considered still needed to be addressed back in 2015 did you have any
00:41:49 addressed back in 2015 did you have any understanding of what those were no other than if we could if we could maybe go back to the to the first page of the letter yes there is a reference there to modern
00:41:58 modern oh sorry no sorry it's page it's on page two
00:42:01 two there is a letter there there's a reference there to the increased use of modern materials and methods of construction so it's not clear if that if that latter point in the third paragraph are the serious outstanding issues that david's
00:42:12 outstanding issues that david's referring to it's not entirely clear but that i would have i would have flagged that as a possible thing did you ask any of your officials within the department to explain to you when you received this letter
00:42:23 letter what the main concerns had been that had been raised by this group previously no because at this point my expectation was that i was going to meet them fairly shortly and i would be able to have that conversation directly with them
00:42:34 conversation directly with them in mentioning the tower black fire in essex in which the pregnant woman died and seven people were reportedly taken to hospital did you appreciate that this review was something which was becoming urgent
00:42:46 something which was becoming urgent so i
00:42:48 so i took and i still take the reference to the tower box slightly differently to the construction that you've just put on it so
00:42:54 it so the way i read this letter is that the three paragraphs you see there and then if we could go on to the last
00:43:01 last page again um are
00:43:05 um are in relation to the appg's concerns and then i assumed the last couple of paragraphs are a constituency issue where david is asking for a reply in order that he can go back
00:43:18 for a reply in order that he can go back to his constituent so i maybe i'm wrong but i didn't take that reference to that particular fire as being
00:43:26 as being core to the appg's concerns it was another issue that david had asked for a response for james on so that he could go but i presume david was an essex mp i presume west clifton c is in his constituency and he
00:43:38 clifton c is in his constituency and he was looking to reply to a constituent when you first saw this correspondence with the appg did you ask to see at least some of the historic correspondence with the group so that you could see the context
00:43:50 so that you could see the context because
00:43:51 because it's plain to isn't it from what they've said in this letter including the penultimate main paragraph that there's a history here they're frustrated they're frustrated that promises have been made and have been broken
00:44:03 been made and have been broken and and they're getting agitated about that didn't that call for you to at least be aware of what the previous correspondence showed well as i said at this point i was anticipating
00:44:15 said at this point i was anticipating meeting them fairly soon and therefore that i could discuss that with them in person
00:44:19 person in hindsight your point is very well made
00:44:23 made and now
00:44:24 and now having read the previous correspondence one of the things that struck me when i saw it is that the warnings to james in some of the early letters are much more punchy if i can put it that way
00:44:37 punchy if i can put it that way much more stark is probably a better word
00:44:39 word than than the warning in this page on the first letter uh on the first page of this letter yeah so with hindsight clearly it would have been better had i done that i would have had a much
00:44:50 done that i would have had a much quicker appreciation of the magnitude of their concerns but at the moment in time when i accepted the advice not to have the meeting straight away my assumption was that meeting was going to come fairly soon and i could discuss that with them
00:45:02 soon and i could discuss that with them in person yes can we agree that officials really ought to have at least gisted for you that previous correspondence so you had some idea of the substance of their
00:45:13 some idea of the substance of their concerns and the gravity of what they'd raised previously can we agree that that ought to have happened if if so i want to i want to be clear here it's possible that that back corresponds was behind the pile and i didn't look at it i don't
00:45:25 the pile and i didn't look at it i don't think it was that didn't normally happen but it is possible but if that if that wasn't the case it would have been useful to have that context absolutely yes
00:45:33 yes because
00:45:34 because what appears to happen is every time we get a new minister there's no corporate memory being carried over so each minister kind of starts again and doesn't appreciate that there's a
00:45:45 and doesn't appreciate that there's a whole history of of actually pretty concerning correspondence with this group
00:45:51 group can you explain how officials are effectively uh one reading of it is they're kind of playing ministers by deliberately making sure they're not aware of the background
00:46:03 aware of the background and and so you start again and the cycle begins again what's your response to that i'm not sure why officials would want to do that unless you're suggesting that the officials thought that the
00:46:14 that the officials thought that the concerns that were being raised were groundless and it was all a waste of ministers time i do think your point about lack of handover is very well made i said in my evidence this morning
00:46:26 i said in my evidence this morning that brandon and i arranged that between ourselves and i should have done it with james as well but i do think more generally it would be very good practice for ministers to have a proper handover with whoever has done
00:46:37 done their job
00:46:39 their job for them
00:46:40 for them i mean obviously very tragically david is no longer with us but one of the things that i think is is probably worth saying just to help the chair and the panel in appreciating this
00:46:51 chair and the panel in appreciating this appg corresponds which i think is a very important
00:46:54 important kind of a warning that was missed in this process there were clearly problems with the way with with the department system for handling correspondence i think the apg rights ppg writes to me a
00:47:06 think the apg rights ppg writes to me a total of seven times and i only ever see three of those letters so four of them just go missing um
00:47:15 um so there's a there's a sort of issue there
00:47:20 there in my experience many mps knew that government correspondence took time at best and could sometimes just disappear so if it's useful context to you
00:47:33 so if it's useful context to you it was quite common that an mp would approach me in the division lobbies when we were voting in the evening and say to me i've written this letter to your department just in case it gets lost or
00:47:44 lost or buried in the official system i want to give you a paper copy i'm really worried about this i want you to personally see it
00:47:50 it um
00:47:52 um one of
00:47:53 one of one of the strange things about this is that david didn't speak to me and indeed without jumping ahead even when i gave him the phone number of my private office he didn't phone the private office to
00:48:04 he didn't phone the private office to ask for a meeting he wrote another letter this is a quite old-school traditional way of uh doing business but
00:48:12 it's a long it's a long answer to your question which i hope provides some useful context but i think in summary what i would say your point is very well made about handover i i don't understand what the
00:48:23 handover i i don't understand what the incentive on the officials would be to sort of gain this correspondence unless unless you believed that they thought the whole thing was
00:48:31 thing was exaggerated and not a good use of ministers time yes well i mean separate views can be taken about that now we see from the documents that it was brian martin that drafted a response
00:48:43 was brian martin that drafted a response for you to this letter and that response is at clg three zeros one nine three nine nine
00:48:54 it's dated here we can see the 14th of november 2016. you'd see that from the date stamp at the top
00:49:03 the top and it's from you to sir david amis and he you say dear david thank you for your letter the 17th of october on behalf of the all party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group
00:49:14 fire safety and rescue group i'm sorry that your original letter of 12 september does not appear to arrive in this office with respect to your concerns relating to the fire safety aspects of building regulations my department has been
00:49:26 regulations my department has been looking at a range of issues relating to the regulations many of which are interrelated and our intention is to make a statement in due course in your original letter you kindly
00:49:37 in your original letter you kindly offered to meet over lunch to discuss the issues that you have raised i know that you had a similar meeting with my predecessor and the views of your group are being given proper consideration as such i think it will be better and
00:49:49 as such i think it will be better and more constructive to wait until after this statement has been made so that our conversation can be in context and he says your original letter also seeks a response to your letter of 20th
00:50:00 seeks a response to your letter of 20th of june to james wharton i assume you received a response but if you haven't then please resend it and i'll endeavor to respond in good time now going back to the second paragraph um what was the statement which you were
00:50:12 um what was the statement which you were anticipating making at this time uh this i think refers to the publication of the discussion document i think we would have made we would obviously had to make a statement to parliament at that point either a
00:50:23 parliament at that point either a written statement or possibly an oral statement setting out what the department was doing and at this point so this is the 14th of november 2016 when did you anticipate that such a statement would be made
00:50:35 statement would be made so i can't give you any exact date but at this point we were hoping for publication of the white paper i guess sort of late november and then we would move on to the discussion document from that so it was probably
00:50:46 document from that so it was probably either just before christmas or early in the new year right why not give some kind of time frame so the appg would know how long they would have to wait for another meeting with a minister
00:50:57 wait for another meeting with a minister um i don't know the answer to that question i suppose officials may have been wary of doing that given that the timetable had just shifted
00:51:06 shifted an experience may have taught them that maya and the secretary of state's optimism about how quickly we could get the white paper cleared was misplaced i don't know right what were the views looking at the third paragraph and the third line
00:51:19 paragraph and the third line it says there and the views of your group are being given proper consideration and what basis was that put into the letter
00:51:28 letter i when i signed it and obviously i didn't write this draft but when i signed it i took that to mean that the officials who had drafted the response had attended the meeting that james had with the appg and therefore had a record
00:51:41 with the appg and therefore had a record of the views that they had raised at that meeting
00:51:47 that's how i read that sentence right so you just took it at face value did you
00:51:54 did you that the views of the group were being given proper consideration by officials within the building regulations division yeah sorry the letter was drafted by somebody in
00:52:05 the letter was drafted by somebody in the building regulations team so i took that as saying that one of the team had gone with james to the meeting with the group which is what i would have expected to have happened and that therefore the views of the group were being considered as the team we're
00:52:18 being considered as the team we're drafting the discussion document yes help us with this couldn't the apbg's concerns have informed any such discussion document or statement well that's what i assumed was
00:52:29 statement well that's what i assumed was happening
00:52:31 happening if
00:52:32 if i think i'm right in saying i didn't know this at the time i think i'm right in saying that an official did go with james to the meeting and therefore that they the official had taken a note of
00:52:43 taken a note of the concerns that the appg had raised and therefore my assumption was those points were being fed into the drafting of the discussion document i see
00:52:55 but why help us with this why is a minister with no background in building regulations or fire did you decide that it wasn't helpful or necessary to meet with this group in october when parliament returned
00:53:08 october when parliament returned as they had suggested wouldn't that have been
00:53:10 been not just a useful meeting but actually quite an important meeting for you with no background in this area to have attended so it would definitely have been useful to meet the appg and it was absolutely my intention to do so i
00:53:23 absolutely my intention to do so i accepted the advice of officials and i think if you put me back in the same situation again without knowing what i know i would have done so again that it was
00:53:34 that it was better to have the meeting once the discussion document was there and we used the meeting to explore the issues in the discussion now what then happens is two two very important things
00:53:45 very important things one
00:53:46 one the timetable for the publication of the white paper slips
00:53:50 slips so the timetable for the publication of the discussion document slips and secondly
00:53:55 secondly david's response to this letter which you're about to come on to goes missing so
00:54:01 so a meeting that should have happened before christmas ends up never actually happening before the election is called but actually i don't think at this moment in time when i write this letter
00:54:14 moment in time when i write this letter the decision i've taken is unreasonable to wait if i think the discussion document is coming pretty shortly to have the meeting once that document is there and we can have an informed discussion based on what's in that discussion document i think makes sense
00:54:27 discussion document i think makes sense i see but just to be absolutely clear that was on the assumption was it that the appg's concerns as previously raised had already been absorbed and digested
00:54:39 had already been absorbed and digested as part of the discussion yes we've captured the concerns and then once the document was out you could have a meeting to get their response to the document and and see what their views were about how best to take things forward that was
00:54:50 how best to take things forward that was exactly the assumption yes yes um
00:54:54 um now as at the date of responding to the appg that's 14th of november 2016 you had already approved a finance submission from andrew newton
00:55:05 submission from andrew newton in september 2016 which confirmed that the research stage for reviewing approved document b would not be completed until 2019. now you can take that from me but i can i can show you the submission and i can
00:55:17 i can show you the submission and i can show you the the um annexes to it which show that timeline
00:55:22 timeline now were you aware of that when you responded that in fact you had already approved a timeline which showed that the research stage would not be completed until 2019
00:55:34 would not be completed until 2019 well i'm surprised at it now and therefore i'm i probably wasn't aware of at the time my recollection although i'm probably thinking about the march uh 2017 submission
00:55:47 uh 2017 submission is the the the work on approved document b could be done on a faster time scale during 2018. so so what you've said is a bit of a surprise to me but uh let's look at that currently quoting to me what i've got in
00:55:58 currently quoting to me what i've got in front of you so yeah let's go to clg clg3019370
00:56:04 this was another submission that you got in september 2016
00:56:10 which is about agreement to procure research contracts and on page one we can see the purpose this submission seeks ministers agreement to procure research to support simplification and deregulation of the
00:56:22 simplification and deregulation of the building regulations as well as addressing some priority technical issues and eu requirements and then if you turn on onto page nine there's a timetable set for delivery
00:56:36 and um we can see that the timetable ends in may 2019. do you see that i do does it say anywhere in the submission that this research is critical for the
00:56:48 that this research is critical for the work on approved document b well it's analytical and economic support to develop the evidence base to support policy on the building regulations simplification so it seems to cover the whole suite of
00:57:01 so it seems to cover the whole suite of approved documents and building regulations it doesn't break it down into approved document b specifically okay
00:57:08 okay but it sounds like you didn't have that in mind when you were going back to the appg is that fair it is fair but also whoever drafted the reply presumably didn't have that in mind necessarily no and it doesn't fit
00:57:20 mind necessarily no and it doesn't fit the timetable in the march uh 2017 document either so i i struggled to explain that yes so you can't help as to why
00:57:28 to why you don't come straight with the appg and tell them that you are still significantly off being able to produce a revised version of the approved documents
00:57:39 documents i don't think at the point um
00:57:43 um at which i'm doing that i'm aware of the timetable for producing that because i don't think until the march sub i know that timetable right so i don't think it's a question of not being straight with them
00:57:52 with them david was a friend and a colleague and i wouldn't ever have deliberately misled him about a timetable i don't think i knew what the timetable was then for the approved document until the march submission
00:58:05 what was your awareness of the timetable for the discussion document at this point so
00:58:11 point so that we should proceed with it as quickly as possible after the white paper and as i said i was we were hoping sorry i'm going too fast again we were hoping that the white paper would be produced end of
00:58:22 white paper would be produced end of november early december at that point and then the discussion document follow as quickly as possible afterwards yes
00:58:29 yes now you say in your second statement this is page 13 paragraph 32 with hindsight i should have taken a meeting with the appg in the autumn i think you
00:58:40 with the appg in the autumn i think you mean the autumn of 2016. what do you know now uh that you didn't know then in terms of why a meeting with the appg was an important thing to do
00:58:52 important thing to do so i tried to explain that a couple of minutes ago i think that the two things that changed significantly that i didn't know if you like were first that the timing of the
00:59:03 were first that the timing of the publication of the white paper was going to slip because it proved very problematic to get cross-government agreement to the text of that white paper so that delayed the work on the publication on the
00:59:15 the work on the publication on the discussion document and then and you're going to come onto this i'm sure in a second david writes a response letter to the letter that we've just been discussing my reply to him
00:59:27 discussing my reply to him and that letter is problematic in two regards one it flags up to me much more bluntly the sort of chain of pushback he's been
00:59:38 the sort of chain of pushback he's been getting from the department but second the letter never comes to me i never receive it so it's not till he chases in the new year um that i become aware of that and as a result a meeting that i intended to take
00:59:51 result a meeting that i intended to take place in december or early january doesn't actually get to take place before the election is called yes so that's when i say with hindsight that's what
00:59:59 what i didn't know at the time i accepted the advice not to do the meeting straight away
01:00:04 away now um
01:00:06 now um in november 2016 you also have some correspondence with brandon lewis let's look at that this is at clg three zeros one nine three eight zero
01:00:19 this is a letter uh from brandon lewis mp we can see in the top right hand corner that by this time he's the minister of state for policing and the fire service it's dated the 15th of november 2016.
01:00:32 it's dated the 15th of november 2016. and if we go on the first page it reads dear gavin i'm writing to you about the department's long-standing commitment to review approved document b which provides advice on the measures that are
01:00:43 provides advice on the measures that are needed to meet the functional requirements of the fire safety provisions of the building regulations although the guidance includes amendments from 2010 and 2013 it has not been formally reviewed since 2006
01:00:55 been formally reviewed since 2006 despite the commitment of the right honourable eric pickles in his 2013 response to the coroner who led the inquest into the cause of fatalities in the 2009 lacking house fire
01:01:06 the 2009 lacking house fire as minister with responsibility for the fire service i recognise the role that building regulations have played in reducing the number of fire-related deaths a figure that has recently reached historically low levels however
01:01:17 reached historically low levels however the slight increase in the 2015-16 fire statistics has reminded us should one be necessary of the need to not become complacent and to explore how we can
01:01:28 complacent and to explore how we can better protect people from fire and then he goes on my officials met recently with representatives from the fire sector federation who highlighted the following areas are
01:01:39 highlighted the following areas are causing concern within the fire sector and we can see it one the need to simplify the language used in the statutory guidance two
01:01:50 two changes in construction technology in particular increased use of combustible materials
01:01:56 materials and three mitigating the risks associated with an increasingly aging population and fire safety and specialized housing statistics show there's a disproportionate number of casualties in these facilities
01:02:08 these facilities and then reviewing the case for fire suppression in systems in residential and commercial buildings then five whether there's a case for extending the scope of the current regulatory framework to incorporate
01:02:21 regulatory framework to incorporate incorporate property protection now do you remember receiving this letter from brandon lewis i don't remember receiving it but i definitely did and
01:02:33 and were you aware that bob ledson and one of the home office's directors dan greaves had met and had decided together to try and progress the review of the approved
01:02:44 progress the review of the approved document in this way by raising it with their respective ministers were you ever told that background at the time yes at the time were you told that i know it i know it now but at the time no
01:02:57 know it i know it now but at the time no so did this letter just come out of the blue yes you yes and
01:03:02 yes and i i know that brandon in his um written evidence says that he doesn't even remember this correspondence um so
01:03:12 um so i read this as
01:03:15 as that he had met with the fire sector federation and wanted to pass on the feedback that they had given to make sure that informed the work that he knew was going on
01:03:28 right or his officials rather have met with representatives in the fight federation but in terms of your reading of it again the delay in reviewing approved document b despite the commitment following the lack of inquest
01:03:39 commitment following the lack of inquest is being flagged this time from one of your fellow ministers yes
01:03:46 so i think if if brandon had been unhappy with the reply that i sent him to this which i presume we'll come on to in a second he would have come and spoke to me personally we knew each other very well so i i read this as a
01:03:59 so i i read this as a fairly standard piece of interdepartmental correspondence where his officials have had a meeting they've been given some feedback which if anything reinforced the point that the issues
01:04:11 reinforced the point that the issues here were not just about simplification of approved document b but there were some underlying technical issues that needed to be looked at as well and that these need to be fit into the review and then my reply basically i
01:04:22 review and then my reply basically i think says thank you and we will make sure these things are considered alongside it what i didn't know as per your question just now is that
01:04:33 is that bob and his equivalent in the home office had sort of arranged this correspondence which
01:04:39 which now that i do know that is a quite worrying sign of dysfunction that they felt it necessary to do that yes
01:04:47 yes um but but looking at what you are being told here about the dates it's not been adb's not been formally reviewed since 2006 despite the commitment from eric pickles in 2013.
01:04:59 pickles in 2013. now did you think to ask for an explanation for the delay and the steps which were in place to speed up this review
01:05:06 review no because i knew at this point that the work was ongoing and i was expecting the discussion document to be published imminently right
01:05:14 right we see here concerns being raised about changes in construction technology and that's been raised with you previously including by the sprinkler association
01:05:25 association did you notice that pattern of concern about changes in construction technology i'm not sure if i noticed the pattern but i certainly would have picked up the points that are referenced here in in
01:05:37 points that are referenced here in in the letter and wanted and would have wanted to make sure that the discussion document was addressing these issues what did you understand the reference to combustible materials to mean did you
01:05:48 combustible materials to mean did you know what products that was referring to uh no i suspect probably i would have assumed it was increasing use of timber in buildings right so you didn't seek to understand
01:05:59 right so you didn't seek to understand from your officials what might be me meant by combustible materials other than timber i don't think i needed to do that in in order to respond to this letter the point at which i needed to understand those issues was
01:06:10 understand those issues was the discussion document and then the response to it in terms of the policy changes
01:06:15 changes did you seek to understand the types of buildings which were seeing an increase in combustible materials being used
01:06:23 no again this to me was a piece of interdepartmental correspondence where
01:06:30 where home office officials are trying to make sure that clg officials are taking into account the issues that have been raised with them by the fire sector federation so
01:06:39 so when the draft reply came to me i didn't see it as something that i needed to look into at that point in time
01:06:45 time well i saw it as just wanting to check that our officials were responding positively that these issues would be considered as part of the review and did you get a commitment from your officials that the issues raised in this letter
01:06:57 that the issues raised in this letter would be reflected in the discussion document i think that my reply basically says that but i don't have it in front of me well let's look at your reply it's clg 3014819
01:07:12 here's your response it's dated the 28th of november 2016. and you say dear brandon thank you for your letter of the 15th of november in which you asked me about our
01:07:23 november in which you asked me about our plans to review the fire safety aspects of building regulations and where you reiterated some of the concerns that have been raised with you by the fire sector federation i am aware of the commitment that the
01:07:34 i am aware of the commitment that the right honourable eric pickles made in 2013 to look at the guidance that supports these requirements with the intention of making it easier to use and understand now pausing there you'd never
01:07:45 understand now pausing there you'd never actually seen a copy of the commitment eric pickles had made had you no but i'm not saying that i'm saying i'm aware of it
01:07:51 it yes but you haven't actually seen the text of it and then it goes on however this is one of many pressures on the building regulations in the building control system and we have been considering all
01:08:02 system and we have been considering all of these pressures in the round before making a statement on our next steps we are currently proposing to produce a discussion paper which will set out the policy background the drivers for change
01:08:13 policy background the drivers for change and our current thinking whilst it will not include any firm proposals it will give people an opportunity to comment on emerging ideas and priorities for our program of work my officials have been in discussion with yours on the content of the
01:08:24 with yours on the content of the discussion paper the draft now also includes reference to the potential for them to work together to streamline the guidance that supports the regulatory reform fire safety order which is around also around 10 years old i hope to write
01:08:37 also around 10 years old i hope to write around soon seeking collective agreement for publishing the discussion paper so that was the response so
01:08:44 so i think you said earlier this was a draft that was prepared for you by officials yes and that you approved yeah i don't know if i made any small amendments but yes obviously i wouldn't have just written this from scratch it would have come up
01:08:56 this from scratch it would have come up with a draft reply and in terms of specific work on the approved documents did you understand that only to consist of work on the discussion document at this time yes
01:09:09 you say there that making the guidance easier to use and understand was one of many pressures on the building regulations and the building control system
01:09:17 system and in your first witness statement you explain that those other pressures including disability accessibility and environmental performance is that correct yeah and also um there were issues that i've referred
01:09:29 um there were issues that i've referred to earlier in my evidence today about competition in building control and concerns about compliance so there were a whole suite of issues here that we were trying to look at in the round
01:09:41 why did you not assure mr lewis that the five concerns he had raised would be considered in the next review of the building regulations i well i took that to be implicit in the first sentence of the last paragraph
01:09:53 first sentence of the last paragraph that
01:09:54 that the draft has come up from my officials saying that they're talking to the home office officials about the content of the discussion paper right so i i assumed implicitly that meant the message received and we are engaging on
01:10:05 message received and we are engaging on that work okay well we'll look at that when we see the final draft of the discussion document and why was it that the discussion paper was not going to include any firm proposals as you mentioned here in the
01:10:16 proposals as you mentioned here in the penultimate paragraph did you understand why that was yes
01:10:20 yes my understanding was that the whole purpose of a discussion document was to flag up the range of issues and try and get feedback on where priorities fraction
01:10:31 fraction uh were so the march submission goes into more detail about the steps that you would then need to go through once you've got the response to that discussion document and thinking about the timeline at this stage when did you understand
01:10:43 at this stage when did you understand that the department would be making firm proposals in contrast to just putting out a discussion document uh i hadn't i hadn't got absolute clarity about that at this point but i was assuming it was
01:10:56 at this point but i was assuming it was some months after the publication of the discussion document the march submission when we come on to that gives a clear timeline
01:11:03 timeline now if we look at paragraph 14 of your first witness statement on page four
01:11:11 and i want to pick it up in the second line second sentence uh where you're dealing with this correspondence you say officials in the department will have drafted this
01:11:22 department will have drafted this response for me to sign off reflecting on my response now i recall
01:11:28 i recall that by the time of these exchanges i'd already had an initial policy discussion with my officials and had accepted that the response to the coroner's outstanding recommendation would be taken forward as part of the broader
01:11:40 taken forward as part of the broader review
01:11:42 review now um just help us when you say the part of the broader review part of what broader review of the of the whole system that what the discussion document was was covering so
01:11:55 discussion document was was covering so the building regulations the building control system all of that yeah yes i see and who had you spoken to about that so i i don't know that i i think i touched on this in
01:12:07 touched on this in the evidence this morning i think probably the decision was taken in relation to the september submission that you questioned me about earlier uh where it wasn't actually that we
01:12:18 uh where it wasn't actually that we decided to wrap it in that it was almost the previous ministers had taken that decision and we endorsed it i think would be a more accurate statement than the way maybe i phrased it in this witness statement but i think probably
01:12:29 witness statement but i think probably it was that september submission that confirmed that i see
01:12:34 i see well our response to that september submission and was there any pressure to do that to further the government's deregulatory agenda no
01:12:43 no i don't think the submission was suggesting that that was the rationale for it it was saying previous ministers have decided to look at this issue in the round the mistake i think which we touched on earlier on
01:12:55 which we touched on earlier on was the assumption that there wasn't anything sort of safety critical in the commitments that had been made in relation to the coroner and therefore you could fold it into a wider longer term program of work that clearly was a
01:13:07 term program of work that clearly was a mistake
01:13:09 mistake yes
01:13:11 yes and and then in this last the last part of this paragraph you say and again you touched on it earlier and i want to ask you about you say brandon lewis was my predecessor in the ministerial role and
01:13:22 predecessor in the ministerial role and i was confident that he would have raised any concerns about this approach to building regulations with me he did not raise any further concerns now can we agree that mr lewis
01:13:34 concerns now can we agree that mr lewis did not in fact have the same suite of ministerial responsibilities as you as we looked at this earlier this morning he was responsible for housing and planning but not the building regulations yes we can definitely agree that but he
01:13:46 yes we can definitely agree that but he was the previous housing minister he was a close personal friend he was now the fire minister i mean the thing the thing that is curious about this now knowing what we know now
01:13:58 knowing what we know now is that if um bob lydson wanted to raise the profile of this work on approved document b why didn't a submission come up to me saying we think we should separate this
01:14:10 saying we think we should separate this off and get on with this rather than wrapping it into the rest of the program which i would have i'm sure agreed with rather than go through this rather bizarre process of
01:14:21 bizarre process of working with a home office official to send a letter between brandon and i which didn't then actually have the desired effect because his own team when they drafted the response
01:14:33 they drafted the response drafted the response that we've just been discussing it is a slightly dysfunctional odd way to go about these things like which i would have lost to explain yes but your predecessor who'd had
01:14:45 but your predecessor who'd had responsibility for the building regulations as we know was james wharton did you discuss with james wharton and check what he thought and whether this was a sensible approach because you said oh brandon lewis could be expected to
01:14:57 oh brandon lewis could be expected to raise it but he didn't have the building regulations in his portfolio but he was the fire minister so if he felt that my response to the letter or his officials felt that my response to the letter was inadequate i would have
01:15:08 the letter was inadequate i would have absolutely expected him to speak to me about it ministers do that all the time if they if there's some correspondence and you get a letter from a fellow minister that you think has completely missed the point you were trying to make you don't
01:15:19 point you were trying to make you don't write to them again you go and speak to them and say look i think you've missed the point here can you go back and push your officials on this
01:15:26 this in terms of james as i said i should have had a handover with him i acknowledged that earlier on when you were questioning me but he was obviously happy with this approach because he was one of the people that had made the decision to
01:15:38 people that had made the decision to wrap
01:15:39 wrap the work into this wider review right mr chairman i think that's a good moment for our afternoon break that's okay because i'm about to go on to a separate subject yes all right well um
01:15:54 i think that probably is a good time no bar we'll have a break at this point we'll come back 25 to 4 please and
01:16:01 and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room of course all right thanks we'd like to give the usher then please
01:16:18 thank you 25 to 4 limbs thank you
01:31:38 would you like a little bowl to come back in please thank you
01:31:53 right little bubble ready to carry on ready to carry on very good thank you very much yes it's strange yes i i want to go forward now to march 2017 when you saw the final draft of the discussion document if we can go to clg 3019392
01:32:11 we can see here that on the 23rd of march 2017 there's a submission to you from richard harrell cleared by bob ledson and it's to you and the secretary of state sadie javid
01:32:22 javid about the building regulations and the discussion document and it says under purpose paragraph 1 ministers previously approved development of a discussion document
01:32:32 document setting out the potential scope of work on building regulations policy over coming years this submission seeks ministers agreement on the proposed scope as set out in the final draft discussion document at annex a
01:32:44 document at annex a and then we can see that paragraph two it says timing routine yes yes
01:32:52 yes and then if we turn to the bottom of page three
01:32:57 we see under the first uh sorry there's a heading at the bottom of that page key risks and issues and paragraph 13 says changes to building regulations whether new regulation or deregulation have
01:33:09 regulation or deregulation have significant consequences for society and business a summary is provided at annex b
01:33:14 b issues likely to be of most interest of which ministers should be aware include and then there is a bullet point saying the 2013 coroner's report on the fire at lacanal house fire
01:33:25 lacanal house fire criticized the clarity of the guidance on part b fire safety and in response to this
01:33:31 this the then secretary of state eric pickles committed to review it we have started work on a redraft as recommended by the coroner but we will need to work with industry to take this further there are regular calls on the government to set
01:33:43 regular calls on the government to set out when and how this work will be taken forward
01:33:46 forward we have constrained the proposed scope of the review of part b to areas of highest priority but the fire lobby is powerful and there will be pressure to do more yes
01:33:57 yes yes now
01:33:58 yes now did you notice that this submission referred to the coroner having asked having criticized the clarity of the guidance in approved document b not just asking for simplification
01:34:09 asking for simplification you could back a page and look i don't know whether i noticed that at the time i noticed it when you just read it then i'm not sure if i really see a huge difference between clarity and simplification personally but
01:34:20 simplification personally but i accept what you say how did you understand the proposed scope of the review had been constrained to areas of highest priority that's what it says
01:34:31 that's what it says over the page uh in the rest of that bullet point i've tried to avoid using this phrase but at this point in time i can't recall what was said in the meeting about what were the areas that hadn't been included
01:34:43 were the areas that hadn't been included now on page the whole sorry just to finish the answer the whole document um
01:34:48 um there were some constraints on scope because i think if you go a bit further down the submission it lists other areas of the building regulations that they choke that we chose not to include right as a discussion now going back to page one and paragraph
01:35:00 now going back to page one and paragraph uh three
01:35:02 uh three we see that mr harrell recommended that you meet with officials to review the content of the discussion document did you actually do that i don't think we did have a meeting there's not a record of it in the bundle but i would find it
01:35:13 of it in the bundle but i would find it very surprising if there wasn't a discussion either at one of the monday meetings or a specific meeting but i can't find a reference to a meeting uh in any of the papers that have been
01:35:24 uh in any of the papers that have been provided to me before this appearance before the inquiry the reason i think it would be surprising uh if there wasn't a meeting is that when you become a minister
01:35:36 is that when you become a minister almost the first thing that happens is your private sector phones you up and asks you
01:35:40 asks you how you want your office to run which i found a rather strange question because i didn't know what the available options were but i discovered that i liked to make decisions
01:35:51 i liked to make decisions if it was an important matter through discussion at a meeting rather than just reading a note in my box if it was a fairly routine submission where the department was saying we'd like to commission this piece of
01:36:02 we'd like to commission this piece of research that's important i was always happy to look at that as box paperwork but if it was something more important my preference was always to discuss it so i'm afraid i can't answer your question
01:36:13 i'm afraid i can't answer your question definitively my view is i would have probably had a discussion but the the feedback from my private sector doesn't refer to a meeting and i couldn't find any evidence of a meeting in the papers that were provided to me
01:36:25 in the papers that were provided to me now did you read the final version of the discussion document carefully at this stage i'm sure i will have read it but i haven't reread it because it wasn't provided to me in the bundle of papers okay
01:36:37 papers okay we'll look at it in a moment but first let's look at an email that's sent after this clg 3030961
01:36:46 and we look at the top email in the chain it's an email from office of gavin barwell
01:36:53 barwell to tim lunig do you see that there yes i can see it together with all advisors on the building regulations discussion document dated the 18th of april 2017 at 9 52
01:37:05 dated the 18th of april 2017 at 9 52 and it said gavin was content with the recommendations in this sub particularly interested in the work in parts b and m any thought tim
01:37:16 any thought tim nick question mark kyran do you see that i do now um do you remember why you were particularly interested in the work on part b on fire safety yes i do uh so
01:37:28 part b on fire safety yes i do uh so it comes back to a question you asked me quite near the start of these proceedings um when you were probing me on the role of ministers to apply judgment to the advice that comes from officials
01:37:39 from officials so these were the two areas of the building regulations where i'd received some pressure from parliamentary colleagues and others the work was required part b for the obvious reasons that
01:37:50 reasons that you know only too well particularly the appg correspondence yeah and part m uh i think i had taken part in a i think it was the women in equality select committee had done a hearing on
01:38:02 select committee had done a hearing on accessible housing and pushed quite hard that the standards in part m needed improvement so
01:38:09 so the reason that my private sector is kieran my private secretary who's replying to this the reason he's flagged up those two is because i've given him a clear steer that those are the two areas where i feel
01:38:20 where i feel politically there's significant pressure to move rapidly right do you know whether your private office ever communicated to mr ledson and mr harold your approval of this submission
01:38:31 harold your approval of this submission to officials so i'd be amazed if they didn't but there's no record of it in the document bundle no there's no record of you having done so and richard harrell told us in his witness statement that he never had a response from you to
01:38:44 that he never had a response from you to this submission so it's very difficult to explain why that would be true because you can see from this email that i have read it and given feedback to my private secretary and was happy with it
01:38:57 yes well we put this to mr harold we showed it him but he said well that's not the same as giving approval to us that's him saying to other advisers what do you think you
01:39:08 to other advisers what do you think you know i'm content with it but what do you think so
01:39:11 think so um i mean is it possible there was a problem with your private office communicating your agreement to this it's very difficult for me to answer that question it's possible that private office wanted to get
01:39:22 that private office wanted to get feedback from the advisors before giving the response to the department but it's not a question i can answer all i know is that i had given feedback to my private office saying that i was content with the recommendations and wanted to
01:39:33 with the recommendations and wanted to proceed i was well aware that this was late
01:39:36 late our original intention as i said to you earlier original attention had been published after conference and then i've been hoping to do it around the new year so this was late and i wanted to get on with it and i don't understand
01:39:48 with it and i don't understand if there if there generally wasn't any feedback and i trust richard if that's what he's told you in his evidence i have no explanation as to why that feedback wasn't given to the relevant officials yeah certainly wasn't
01:39:59 relevant officials yeah certainly wasn't in my direction i wanted to get on with it
01:40:02 it yes well can we have a look at the evidence the oral evidence of richard harrell this is day 244 i want to go to page 19.
01:40:22 and i want to pick it up around line 20
01:40:26 line 20 um and he says this he says um that's all we cared about at the time but we had been ready to put this up in september 2016 pretty much so he's talking about the
01:40:38 pretty much so he's talking about the discussion document submission and it had been delayed there's a submission to gavin barwell in september so maybe early october 2016 we were probably ready to go with this but we were i was told that the minister
01:40:51 but we were i was told that the minister wouldn't be looking at anything other than the highest priority submissions until the housing and planning white paper was published that was originally scheduled to be published in late october early november
01:41:02 published in late october early november and so you go right okay that's another three or four weeks we will live with that if that's the decision but actually it wasn't until the middle of february that it was then
01:41:13 the middle of february that it was then published and it was a constant process in that period of it will be next week another week you know so you're constantly saying well okay we can wait another week it will take us much longer
01:41:24 another week it will take us much longer to try and look at doing this another way so what i'm trying to say is that at least probably five months of the delay is down to decisions made in mr barwell's private office
01:41:36 barwell's private office do you see that i do and then below that um
01:41:39 um i say right and then he says and it would not be appropriate to actually start it wouldn't just not be appropriate it would be quite destructive to our relationship with that private office if we start pointing
01:41:51 that private office if we start pointing fingers and saying this is delayed because of the decisions of your private office do you see that i do so this is where we were questioning him about why he didn't escalate these submissions
01:42:03 he didn't escalate these submissions and get them into your private office with some urgency and that's the explanation he gave so effectively he's saying your private office wasn't going to be looking at anything that wasn't a priority and that priority was the
01:42:15 priority and that priority was the planning and housing white paper is that fair
01:42:18 fair so i think there's two different bits to what you've just put to me the first bit is basically fair other than it wasn't just my private office it was the secretary of state's private office as well we had taken a collective
01:42:29 office as well we had taken a collective decision
01:42:31 decision to prioritize uh the housing white paper now there's some i haven't seen this piece of evidence until you've just showed it in me to me there's something there which is of interest to me which is the
01:42:42 which is of interest to me which is the the reasoning we had been given for why to delay the discussion document was that the department couldn't proceed with both at once but he appears to be saying in his evidence that actually this was ready
01:42:53 evidence that actually this was ready yes um so that's news to me but anyway the first section that you put to me i think is basically fair other than that it was a collective decision of the secretary of state and
01:43:04 decision of the secretary of state and myself i don't blamed just on the officials in my private office we had decided to prioritize the white paper first that is true the second bit from line 17 to 22
01:43:17 the second bit from line 17 to 22 um
01:43:19 um surprises me a little bit i mean i suppose it speaks to the culture within the department that
01:43:25 that he didn't feel able to come and say this delay is a problem and i'd like to at least sit down with the minister and see if we can unpick the decision on timing because it's causing us a problem
01:43:37 us a problem from my point of view i would have i would have hoped that my professor private office would allow him to do that
01:43:43 that if he was you know it sounds like he was concerned about the escalating delay i was too i didn't know that the document was ready so if it was really just a question of the sexual estate and myself finding time to read it
01:43:55 finding time to read it that's a different matter from the department having capacity to do it yeah so i can't really explain that second bit but the first bit is basically fair other than that it was a collective decision not just the officials in my
01:44:06 decision not just the officials in my private office yes well it appears for both parts that there's a total failure of communication doesn't there in that he he says it's ready and it's going up and he's talking to your private office but he's being kicked back
01:44:18 but he's being kicked back your understanding was we'd all agreed it wasn't going to come up until later whatever
01:44:23 whatever whatever the truth of that there does seem to have been a total breakdown in communication between that department and your private office yes yeah but not just not just in the way that you're
01:44:34 just not just in the way that you're suggesting i think a little bit wider because i would have also been expecting him to be having this conversation with steve carter maine and with helen mcnamara um so the same problem it wouldn't just
01:44:45 um so the same problem it wouldn't just be a question of coming to my private office because if he'd if richard had gone to bob and then bob to stephen to helen and they agreed actually that the timetable should be changed helen or steve would have come to talk to me
01:44:56 steve would have come to talk to me about it so it speaks to me about communication problems wider than just richard to my private office yes now help us with this the housing white paper was published on the 7th of february 2017
01:45:09 the 7th of february 2017 why was the discussion document not published either at that point or very shortly thereafter so i we've lost the the sub that we were looking at i think from memory the date of the submission coming up to me of the
01:45:21 of the submission coming up to me of the final discussion document is 23rd march if my memory is not playing that tricks correct it is so i have no explanation to you as to why if this document was ready
01:45:30 ready it didn't come up on the 8th of february as soon as the white paper was out the way i have no explanation to you as to why that delay has come about because i wanted to get on with it because it
01:45:41 i wanted to get on with it because it was
01:45:42 was it you know the first part of what you've put to me is true we had delayed it because of the white paper yes can we agree this is wholly unsatisfactory yes yes now we don't need to go to it but at
01:45:54 now we don't need to go to it but at paragraph 18 of your first statement you say that on the same day that this the email that we looked at that tim lunig sent 18th of april 2017 on that same day where he said you were broadly
01:46:05 same day where he said you were broadly content but you were asking others what they thought the prime minister announced she would call a parliamentary vote to hold an early general election yes
01:46:15 yes yes and you go on to explain that the purdue period began on the 22nd of april 2017 and thereafter only urgent work routinely came to you for a response so the discussion document could not be
01:46:26 the discussion document could not be published during the the election campaign yes that is if that's the way i've phrased it i'm slightly conflating two things um so the the purder period
01:46:37 um so the the purder period basically stops the government making significant announcements and the reason for that is obvious if you're in the middle of an election campaign you don't want to give an unfair advantage to the government where it could do a budget or announce some other
01:46:50 could do a budget or announce some other very attractive policy to try and get people to vote for it in the election so the purdue period prevents government from making significant policy announcements and then on top of that obviously i as
01:47:01 and then on top of that obviously i as an mp in a marginal seat was campaigning in my constituency so i was only dealing with urgent correspondence of that period but right the per in terms of this document that you're asking me about it's the purdue
01:47:12 you're asking me about it's the purdue period that's the key thing and do we take it that nobody ever considered that this discussion document had become urgent by that point so so urgent doesn't include a sort of major policy document like
01:47:23 a sort of major policy document like this discussion document you there's no way you would be allowed to publish that by cabinet office during the general election campaign now the discussion document itself the final version that you saw is that clg can we bring it up clg three zeros one
01:47:35 can we bring it up clg three zeros one nine three nine one
01:47:40 now at the time of the grenfell tower fire on the 14th of june 2017 this document remained unpublished but i nevertheless want to ask you about what you thought when you saw it
01:47:51 you thought when you saw it now the section in relation to part b starts on page 24 and it covers around three and a half pages of this discussion document on fire safety and we can see that the priorities for
01:48:03 and we can see that the priorities for potential review of the technical requirements and the approved documents are set out and paragraph 81 reads this given the potentially significant extent of simplification of the approved
01:48:14 of simplification of the approved documents in this parliament it is thought best to limit any changes to technical requirements only to those areas which support simplification or deregulation
01:48:25 or deregulation or where a compelling case is made that current requirements need to be amended i.e are no longer fit for purpose a longer-term program of review could then be developed for each of the approved
01:48:36 be developed for each of the approved documents
01:48:38 documents now
01:48:39 now having read that is it fair to say that this meant that the department was only really considering making changes if it meant simplification or deregulation or where there was a compelling case
01:48:51 or where there was a compelling case for
01:48:51 for no fitness for a purpose is that is that fair yes in terms of the immediate changes so you need to refer back to the march submission but i think what was said in
01:49:02 submission but i think what was said in the in the covering submission to the paper
01:49:05 paper is they were trying to look for an approach where you could do something on approved document b relatively quickly still not quick enough given what we now know about the urgency of the issue and then also work on some further
01:49:17 and then also work on some further longer term changes down the line yes now the section dealing with part b begins at the bottom of this page and if we scroll through the headings um i covered them some of
01:49:30 the headings um i covered them some of them with you earlier in relation to the draft of this document but if we go over on the next page we can see there's headings about property protection for different types of buildings specialized housing at the bottom of that page
01:49:43 housing at the bottom of that page then if we go over the next page smoke alarms over the next page basements
01:49:51 basements means of escape for disabled people and links with the fire safety order those are the topics and then if we go over the next page we can see that's the totality of what's covered under part b
01:50:02 totality of what's covered under part b now i want yes or no answers to these can we agree that there is no reference in this document to combustible uh well
01:50:11 uh well i'll i'll say yes i'll have to take your word for it this document wasn't shared with me before i came and gave evidence today would have been much helpful if i ever had the opportunity to read it before being asked questions about it because you've just gone through three or four pages very
01:50:22 gone through three or four pages very quickly there yes well there's no reference either to new technology in construction um either way that we can see i can't answer your questions i understand so i'm sure you're honestly telling me
01:50:34 i'm sure you're honestly telling me you've read the document i haven't i'm not going to dispute what you're saying but i haven't had the opportunity to read this document now you told us earlier in relation to the brandon lewis correspondence from november 2016 that
01:50:45 correspondence from november 2016 that you had understood that your officials were going to take forward the matters he'd raised in bullet points in that letter into this discussion document yes yes can you help us why we don't see
01:50:56 yes can you help us why we don't see that here we don't see changes in construction technology and we don't see the increased use of combustible materials being addressed at all so i can only assume that the home office had changed its view on that because this
01:51:08 changed its view on that because this document wouldn't be published unless it had right round approval from the home office
01:51:12 office so i can't explain to you why they're absent and i can't remember a discussion about that but in order for this document to be published it would need right round approval so it would have to go to the home office so
01:51:24 home office so it may be that the home office were happy to deal with those issues as part of the longer term bit of work that you were just asking me about rather than the immediate one i don't know yes did you um take the the brandon
01:51:35 yes did you um take the the brandon lewis correspondence while you were reading this discussion document and just check for yourself that the matters that he'd raised with you that were of concern to the far sector federation were reflected in this discussion
01:51:46 were reflected in this discussion document i think i would have assumed that that work had gone on between officials
01:51:50 officials did you
01:51:51 did you really why to be honest with you i may not have even remembered the fact that that correspondence had happened given the volume of letters that i was signing i would have remembered the appg correspondence because
01:52:02 because that
01:52:03 that had been a chain of letters that had embarrassed me because we missed so many of the letters and failed to have the meeting but i can't guarantee you the point i read this document i would have necessarily had in my mind the brandon
01:52:15 necessarily had in my mind the brandon lewis correspondents did you um check with officials that the key concerns that had been raised historically by the appg including about
01:52:26 historically by the appg including about approved document b were reflected in this discussion document um i i can't remember that because i can't remember if we had a meeting to discuss it but you don't have any recollection of checking those things i don't have a
01:52:37 checking those things i don't have a recollection of the discussion
01:52:41 and we don't have a record of whether there was a meeting in the document bundle
01:52:47 i would be amazed if i didn't ask about that because the appg thing was very much in my mind yes and if we look at paragraph 85 on page 24 back to that
01:53:01 there's more information here about statistical deaths from fire and it says the reduction in the number of fires and associated deaths and injuries
01:53:12 associated deaths and injuries means we have a continuing success story on fire safety in the past decade the number of fires attended in homes has fallen by 64 and accidental fire deaths have decreased by 36 percent however despite
01:53:24 decreased by 36 percent however despite the progress made we must not be complacent now um
01:53:29 now um if we turn to clg one three zeros eight five six six
01:53:41 um here we've got an email at the top of this from um tim leunig on the 19th of september 2016 he emails your private secretary and
01:53:53 he emails your private secretary and sadie javid's private secretary and claire brunton copying in all advisors the title is the discussion document so this will be in relation to the previous draft of the discussion document
01:54:05 draft of the discussion document and in the fourth paragraph he says fw iw for what it's worth do we know whether the falls in fire deaths are anything to do with building
01:54:16 deaths are anything to do with building fire standards or are they caused by furniture standards changing or falls in the number of people smoking at home having open chip pans question mark presumably if the number of debt in
01:54:27 presumably if the number of debt in older houses has gone down at the same rate it's nothing in capitals to do with building safety standards in which case the regs have achieved nothing do we have data on this could we have it
01:54:38 have data on this could we have it even a postcode proxy would be useful now do you remember this discussion ever going on in your presence about whether these statistics told you anything no and this email is
01:54:49 told you anything no and this email is addressed to my private secretary but i don't recall seeing it and then if we go to a different email chain clg 1308570
01:55:00 there's an email from bob ledson at the bottom of page one
01:55:06 dated the 27th of september at 14 28 and we see he copies and pastes the paragraph we've just looked at and he sends it to brian martin copied to richard
01:55:17 richard and and asks does our data allow us to answer these questions and then if we go to the next email up in the chain we see that mr martin responds
01:55:28 that mr martin responds and he says as discussed some words on this if you need them and then he goes on as you suggest the reduction the total number of reported fires is mostly attributable to a number
01:55:39 fires is mostly attributable to a number of factors not related to building standards do you see that i do and then he goes on we don't need the detail of that
01:55:46 that now were you ever told that the reduction in the total number of reported fires had nothing to do with building standards at the time you considered the
01:55:57 standards at the time you considered the discussion document either in september 16 or in march 17. was i ever told that yes no sorry i'm just trying to read the email again this is another document that i
01:56:08 again this is another document that i haven't been provided with yes no i mean we we wanted to know whether the statistics that appear in the discussion document were ever contextualized given it was dealing with
01:56:19 contextualized given it was dealing with approved document b and the building regulations and it doesn't sound like they were is that fair that yes that is failure
01:56:31 did you ever consider whether the guidance in approved document b took account of the risks posed by modern methods of construction and provide adequate life safety protection where such methods were used
01:56:46 no because no submissions ever came to me on that issue
01:56:50 now we've seen from the documents and you've referred to some of it and i can't take you to all of it because we don't have time that there was more correspondence from the appg in the autumn of 2016 and in february
01:57:03 in the autumn of 2016 and in february 2017
01:57:04 2017 including more requests to meet you yes and i just want to pick this up again a bit later in april 2017 and i want to go to a letter of response that you write on the 5th of april 2017.
01:57:17 that you write on the 5th of april 2017. it's at clg 3019428
01:57:26 so here um you say
01:57:31 dear david so it's back to david amos thank you for your letter of 20th of february on behalf of the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group i'm sorry you've not received a reply to your letters of the 7th and the 22nd of
01:57:43 letters of the 7th and the 22nd of november my officials have investigated and found that we have no record of them and then you say this you say i'm most concerned that on two separate occasions a letter from your office to mine
01:57:54 a letter from your office to mine regarding the concerns of the balmoral residents association seems to have been lost in transit this is clearly unacceptable and i wonder if you could arrange to either email the letter or have it delivered by hand so i can
01:58:05 have it delivered by hand so i can respond without further delay and then in the next paragraph you go on i'm not sure i accept your view that the comments in my previous letter to you and subsequently in the house are inconsistent
01:58:16 inconsistent they'd accused you of being inconsistent in terms of what you'd said in october 16 and what you'd said in one of your previous letters and you go on however i do acknowledge that producing a statement on building
01:58:27 that producing a statement on building regulations has taken longer than i envisaged
01:58:30 envisaged as such i think it would be appropriate to meet with the all party group at the next opportunity i would be grateful if you could call my office on and you give the number of your office to make the necessary
01:58:41 your office to make the necessary arrangements in your letter you also bring my attention to your correspondence with the chancellor of the exchequer acting firm i've concede i've seen the original correspondence now tell us this why
01:58:52 now tell us this why once you knew that the housing white paper was delayed and so the promised meeting with the appg was
01:58:59 appg was also going to be delayed why didn't you update them yourself in the autumn or in early 2017 explain the position and say actually why don't we have a
01:59:10 and say actually why don't we have a meeting now why didn't you do that so i think at that point i'd only had one letter from the appg that i'd seen and the commitment i'd made to meet them probably wasn't front of my mind
01:59:21 probably wasn't front of my mind if you look at the two if you look at this letter the 7th of november letter is a little bit of a
01:59:26 bit of a misnomer because that was a it was another chase for the original response that crossed with my original response yes it was all right but the 22nd of november letter is very significant because if you if you were to put that
01:59:38 because if you if you were to put that up on screen you would see that david expresses real frustration with my response and um
01:59:45 um vents a little bit that this is a pattern of behavior he's had from successive housing ministers had i seen that correspondence i think that would have led to what i've done when i finally get
01:59:58 to what i've done when i finally get when i finally get to respond to the lecture of 20th of february so for the benefit of the inquiry the third paragraph of this letter and in particular the last bit of it is me crossing out the advice
02:00:11 it is me crossing out the advice officials gave me which was not it was to delay a meeting again and saying to him here's the phone number phone up let's arrange a meeting yes and that was out of a mixture of
02:00:22 yes and that was out of a mixture of embarrassment at the number of letters that had gone missing but also real concern at what he'd said in that letter of 22nd november copied on
02:00:33 november copied on 20th of february yes um so i have intervened here and changed and gone against the advice i was given by officials in order to try and arrange this meeting
02:00:45 this meeting yes
02:00:48 um you tell us in your first statement um that you had to as you've just explained re-draft this letter as initially drafted by officials because you were so embarrassed
02:01:00 embarrassed um does it follow that your officials weren't embarrassed about those matters that it took you to have to change that letter
02:01:09 letter i'm not sure if i ever had the discussion directly with officials or not we touched on this earlier in the earlier in the evidence session but i think it probably does follow that the officials
02:01:22 does follow that the officials didn't think the concerns the appg were raising were particularly well founded that's the only explanation i can think of
02:01:30 of of why
02:01:31 of why they were still putting back the meeting yes it may be helpful to the inquiry to understand how i approach this issue before i was appointed
02:01:40 appointed housing and planning minister i've been a government whip and
02:01:45 and i'd say those are those are ministers but they're not policy ministers they're responsible for basically getting government business through parliament and i'd seen in that role what a difference it makes to the government
02:01:57 difference it makes to the government when policy ministers engage with mps with parliament always the best thing is to treat people with respect and actually you get a long way then whereas if you cold shoulder people they quickly
02:02:08 if you cold shoulder people they quickly get very annoyed so i think at the point i saw this i already regretted not having said yes to the original request and and felt this meeting needed to take place as a matter of urgency hence the
02:02:20 place as a matter of urgency hence the very unusual step of giving out the phone number of a minister's private office which is not standard practice at all yes i'll take you in a moment to that 22nd of november letter that you were just referring to where you say had
02:02:31 were just referring to where you say had you seen it you you may have done something earlier but just sticking with this for a moment um did you ever get a satisfactory explanation about why so many of the appg's letters appeared to go missing
02:02:43 appg's letters appeared to go missing no i didn't i didn't try and raise that this this letter i think is already i'm just trying to think of how the timing of this interface is with the election but i didn't i didn't get to
02:02:54 election but i didn't i didn't get to follow that up with officials no let's look at that letter just for completeness you've referred to it it's rki 6089
02:03:07 so it's got an rki um beginning to this document because i think it was mr ronnie king that provided this to us right and it's dated the 22nd of november 2016
02:03:18 the 22nd of november 2016 and he says dear gavin thank you for your letter of 14th november uh in reply to my letter of the 17th of october last i've since written to you on the 7th of november copy attached
02:03:29 on the 7th of november copy attached which you may not have yet seen however it refers to apply which you've recently given to a question on the review of building regulations fire safety approved document b hansard refers and then he sets out what was said
02:03:42 and then he sets out what was said and then if we go over the page he says this appears to be the first positive response from a minister response responsible for building regulations since before the general election in 2015 and doesn't seem to
02:03:54 election in 2015 and doesn't seem to have been mirrored in your response to myself where you say that your intention is to make a statement in due course exclamation mark we've received similar statements previously from james wharton since may
02:04:05 previously from james wharton since may 2015 with promises about an announcement in the new year but that was the last new year
02:04:11 new year so you can understand the frustration which the fire and construction sector has over this matter and an early an announcement from the department to continue with the already commenced review of approved document b to the building regulations would be most
02:04:23 building regulations would be most welcome by all concerned and of course in line with your handsaw response to steve mccabe mp turning now to the previous correspondence with james over the tablock fire and then he goes on
02:04:35 tablock fire and then he goes on i confirm i've not received a departmental response and then he goes on in summary the group would urge you to make an early statement on the review of a predominantly and thereafter to meet with you to discuss this in context as
02:04:46 with you to discuss this in context as you suggest and he says at the bottom i'm copying with this letter previous and relevant correspondence for your information but i think what you're telling us is you never got to see this letter i did
02:04:57 you never got to see this letter i did get to see it but not until about the 5th of april right right so this one went missing and then i think it's the 20th of february or something he resends it yeah and obviously that doesn't work its way
02:05:08 and obviously that doesn't work its way one i'm sure other witnesses have said this to
02:05:11 this to to you but um when someone writes to you as a minister you don't get the letter until the reply comes up so it's not till the reply comes up to me and i see that in early april that i see this letter
02:05:23 early april that i see this letter and obviously in one sense at that point i know the discussion i think i have signed off the discussion document although you're telling me that that feedback wasn't given to officials necessarily
02:05:34 necessarily so i know there's a good answer coming to him on the substance but i'm mortified
02:05:39 mortified that it's taken this long to answer this and
02:05:43 and i'm also concerned because he's now set out clearly his previous experience with the previous minister and that this has been dragging on for a long time so for both that for both of those reasons
02:05:54 both that for both of those reasons i wanted to see them as quickly yes i mean the problem is this all comes too late to your attention and that's one of the key problems yes yes but had you met with them earlier
02:06:05 yes but had you met with them earlier they could have filled you in on all of this couldn't they yes let's go and just complete the picture on the appg to clg one three zeros 902
02:06:19 this is an email chain between uh ronnie king of the appg and your private secretary if we look at the second email in the chain in the middle of page one
02:06:30 in the chain in the middle of page one it's not very clear but there's an email that's better yes there's an email on the 19th of april 2017 to
02:06:37 to ps gavin barwell subject building regs part b and picking it up in the second paragraph ronnie king says the minister said five months ago that his intention
02:06:48 said five months ago that his intention was to make a statement in due course he suggested that it will be better and more constructive to wait until after this statement has been made before meeting so that our conversation can be in context however he has now agreed to meet and no
02:07:02 however he has now agreed to meet and no statement has yet been issued other than that contained in answer to the pq on the 24th of october 2017. the group was therefore anticipating a statement and i wondered if the minister
02:07:14 statement and i wondered if the minister was able to make it before meeting the group especially given the likely purder period about to be imposed as a result of the general election kind regards ronnie so he is clearly holding you to your word and saying where's the
02:07:26 your word and saying where's the statement
02:07:27 statement which you said was going to be important before we met yes
02:07:32 yes yes i mean it's it's slightly ironic that they're now taking the same line that officials were taking of saying better to have the statement before we meet well it's ironic but but maybe it's understandable maybe they're taking you
02:07:45 understandable maybe they're taking you out your word i mean i've never seen this email either at the time or in the document pack right if i'd seen it i would have said i mean by this point it's too late anyway but i i would have
02:07:57 it's too late anyway but i i would have said to my privates get them in right now and stop this exchange of emails and letters yeah the purpose of giving them the phone number was to try and meet with them immediately yes well if we go up to the top and the
02:08:08 well if we go up to the top and the email in the chain we can see that your private secretary responds to mr king that same day the 19th of april 2017 at 2 24 p.m
02:08:17 2 24 p.m and he says hi ronnie i'm afraid that events have overtaken the possibility of preparing and issuing a statement before preda begins i would advise getting in touch after the election and in the meantime i'll ensure our officials are
02:08:28 meantime i'll ensure our officials are aware best wishes ed do you see that i do yeah now uh sounds like you didn't discuss that response with your private secretary before it was sent is that right
02:08:37 right that's right but i mean what he's saying is true we've reached a point where we couldn't issue the statement anymore right
02:08:45 right so perda wasn't a convenient excuse to brush off the given that you had no plans to make any statement anytime soon no with respect i wasn't trying to brush off the appg i
02:08:56 i wasn't trying to brush off the appg i just given them the number of my private office because i wanted to meet with them yes so no i would emphatically refute that but i mean can we agree looking at the
02:09:07 but i mean can we agree looking at the correspondence and the series of events that um
02:09:10 that um it's pretty unfortunate isn't it how the app was dealt with during your time as minister
02:09:16 minister not just during not just during my time over a long period of time yes uh and as i said to you in in the evidence i gave earlier i
02:09:23 earlier i deeply regret that i didn't overall official advice the first time i received the letter but i did do it the second time i saw it and i did everything i could to try and get that meeting to happen as quickly as possible
02:09:34 meeting to happen as quickly as possible and if it hadn't been for the general election it would have happened yes
02:09:37 yes and i think as you've mentioned in your time as minister for housing it appears that the appg wrote seven letters to you raising a number of substantive concerns and you wrote three retires back two of which came several
02:09:49 retires back two of which came several months
02:09:50 months after the appg correspondence was first sent
02:09:53 sent can we agree that we can but it's a slightly if i if i may say to council it's a slightly pejorative way of putting it because it misses out the fact that some of those letters never came to me and where they were delayed it was
02:10:04 and where they were delayed it was because there was a delay in the system in them coming to me so i'm very happy to take responsibility for a
02:10:11 for a bad decision not to meet with them when i got the original letter
02:10:16 letter but i think after that i've responded in the right way i've overruled official advice i've tried to expedite the meeting as quickly as i can but can we agree that none of the correspondents that went back to the appg substantively addressed the
02:10:28 appg substantively addressed the concerns about fire safety which the appg had raised now although to be fair council the apg what the fbg wanted was to sit down and meet with me to discuss those concerns it wasn't asking for a
02:10:40 those concerns it wasn't asking for a detailed policy response what david had wanted all along was to sit down and have a discussion with me and officials about those issues which is what i wanted to do but i think can we agree that historically had you seen the appg
02:10:51 that historically had you seen the appg correspondence you would have been aware that there were some pretty substantive issues they were raising that they wanted action on this wasn't just meeting for meetings sake they had real concerns
02:11:02 concerns including about combustible materials and their use on high-rise buildings that had never substantively been addressed either by your predecessors or by you
02:11:11 by you is that fair that is fair and i i've said to you repeatedly today that i should have granted the original meeting let's look at another letter that you received albeit quite late in the day clg one
02:11:22 clg one three zeros 9016.
02:11:27 this is danny constance letter is it yes so we have a letter dated the third of april from danny cotton the london fire commissioner to you and we can see from the first paragraph
02:11:38 and we can see from the first paragraph that she's introducing herself as the london fire commissioner having taken up her appointment in january 2017 and she also requests that paragraph two
02:11:49 and she also requests that paragraph two a meeting with you to discuss a number of issues around london's housing stock and the programme for building new properties in the capital yes is this a letter that you've um re-familiarized yourself with recently
02:12:01 re-familiarized yourself with recently yeah well not re-familiarize myself i never saw it but i am now familiar with it yes
02:12:07 it yes let's just look at a little bit of what she says
02:12:10 she says um i'm not going to read all of it but she's basically saying there's a real concern about the quality of construction in schools hospitals and other
02:12:19 other residential buildings including in blocks of flats you can see that in the third paragraph and if we then pick it up in the paragraph at the bottom of that page she says this he says when
02:12:30 she says this he says when compartmentation is missing or incorrectly installed it can potentially place residents at significant risk with the lack of house fire in 2009 in which six people died there were compartmentation breaches which allowed
02:12:42 compartmentation breaches which allowed fire and smoke to spread through the building contrary to the functional requirements of the building regulations and in direct conflict with the evacuation strategies for the building we are deeply concerned that since the
02:12:53 we are deeply concerned that since the beginning of 2017 lfb has identified on average at least one residential property or development in london with significant compartmentation deficiencies per month
02:13:04 compartmentation deficiencies per month these usually come to our attention after a fire or by a person responsible for the property seeking our advice it is safe to assume that there are many other cases that do not come to our
02:13:15 other cases that do not come to our attention yet are placing the residents of those properties in significant risk from fire spreading within the building and then she goes on over the page to say that she's very keen to discuss
02:13:28 to say that she's very keen to discuss wider issues in relation to the quality of housing including building regulations that have been put in place to ensure that buildings are built safely
02:13:38 safely and she raises a concern about the enforcement powers that for example the labc has to take action
02:13:46 action and then at the end of that uh substantive paragraph there she says in the last sentence we are also concerned about contractor competency and how this influences compartmentation deficiencies
02:13:59 influences compartmentation deficiencies and therefore occupants safety in respect of fire and then she says whilst raised in respect in context of flats the issues above also occur in a variety of building types and occupancies such as
02:14:11 building types and occupancies such as schools and hospitals now um
02:14:16 now um i think you've already told us but um do you ever remember receiving this letter or it being brought to your attention i think i'm certain that i didn't receive this letter i think it in the pack that i got there is an
02:14:27 pack that i got there is an acknowledgement letter from my private office so it didn't come to me and i in in all of the um
02:14:37 um all of the material that was provided to me
02:14:39 me to study before this appearance today i found this the most distressing letter because if it arrived earlier and i had seen it i think the commissioner you're on the second page now but i
02:14:51 you're on the second page now but i think the commissioner says on the first page i had a close relationship with the borough commander of the london fire brigade in croydon where i was a constituent cnp yes whatever the official advice had
02:15:02 yes whatever the official advice had been
02:15:03 been if the commissioner of the london fire brigade writes in these terms listing multiple problems with the system i would have taken the meeting as a matter of urgency i would have assumed that these problems were not unique to london
02:15:15 were not unique to london but if they were being seen across london boroughs were probably a fundamental problem with the system nationwide can you explain how this letter never came to your attention uh because the election had been called
02:15:26 election had been called uh and i was in the constituency and the private office was only referring the most urgent correspondence to me and they obviously decided this was a meeting that could be taken immediately after the election right but um is the
02:15:37 after the election right but um is the only explanation i can offer you how can you read this letter and not think that it's raising the most urgent of issues but it's it's it's the only explanation i can offer to you well it's not a satisfaction no it's not i wish i had seen it and i wish it would
02:15:49 i wish i had seen it and i wish it would have come earlier yeah it's it's far and away the most in my judgment it's far and away the most powerful piece of correspondence in the pack because it's referring to multiple issues
02:16:00 to multiple issues not just in blocks of flats but in other buildings as well yes and contractor competency yes which we know it hasn't been raised elsewhere but you know from the evidence that you've heard that's clearly yes we've seen we don't i
02:16:11 that's clearly yes we've seen we don't i don't need to take you to it there's an internal lfb email lfb00120767
02:16:18 from the 24th of april 2017 saying we've had a reply from the minister's diary manager to say that he's now unavailable to meet during due to the general election which was obviously called after we wrote
02:16:29 wrote but that we are welcome to request a meeting after the election so exactly as you say there seems to have been a response but nobody considered this correspondence to be urgent enough to require any form of action before
02:16:41 to require any form of action before that point and even if the department i think probably it's difficult for me i can't answer for something that i wasn't consulted on but i suspect what's happened here is that the private
02:16:52 what's happened here is that the private office were aware that my seat was a highly marginal seat and were therefore applying quite a high filter of what they sent to me but even if that were the case and i and i would still have wanted this to come to me
02:17:04 still have wanted this to come to me given the seriousness of it but even if that was the case departments had a have a laws minister um
02:17:11 um so even if they didn't want to come to me there was another minister who wasn't responsible that could have met urgently to if you like to discuss these issues and then
02:17:20 and then escalate them to myself and the secretary of state so i completely agree with you the fact that this wasn't it's both distressing to me that it didn't come a bit earlier and i would have seen it and also the way it was then handled yes
02:17:33 also the way it was then handled yes um
02:17:35 um yes thank you um
02:17:40 can we now look at an email chain at clg409421
02:17:47 this is an email um
02:17:51 um this is an email from mr quartermaine at the top of the page to helen mcnamara it's after the grenfell tower fire it's dated the 19th of june 2017 at 10
02:18:02 it's dated the 19th of june 2017 at 10 07 p.m
02:18:04 07 p.m and and just to give you the context here basically mr quartermaine is raising some concerns in this email about restructuring uh that was being
02:18:15 about restructuring uh that was being proposed including in relation to his department and what work his department would be taking forward after the grenfell fire and he's expressing some frustration about decisions that have been taken
02:18:27 about decisions that have been taken about that but the part i want to ask you about is at the very end of that first long paragraph um
02:18:34 um he says this he says it picking up three lines from the end it was only after my appointment as director in charge of the building regulations and energy performance division brep
02:18:46 division brep that i recognize the delay in this area and i can evidence how i got a grip and pushed this forward i even had a one-to-one with gavin to tell him to pay more attention
02:18:58 tell him to pay more attention to the brep subs do you see that i do now
02:19:04 now in relation to this email at paragraph 40 of his witness statement on page 16 that's clg 3030866 mr quartermaine explains that he can't
02:19:15 mr quartermaine explains that he can't recall the exact date of the meeting but he says he recalls lingering around at the end of a casework meeting to mention to you that there were building regulation submissions which required your attention
02:19:26 your attention and he says that you told him that you would deal with them so that's what we've got from mr quartermaine now do you recall having this conversation with mr quartermaine yeah i've talked about it during my evidence
02:19:38 i've talked about it during my evidence session already so steve and i would regularly have con conversations where we triaged the the work that was on my desk often in relation to the planning case work but i think i said to you earlier
02:19:50 work but i think i said to you earlier on in the evidence session there was definitely one conversation my recollection is that they were about research on research on either publishing or approving research work in relation to the
02:20:01 research work in relation to the building regulations where he said to me this stuff is urgent this stuff has been sitting in your inbox too long and you need to look at it and that's exactly what i did yes could that be the push to get something called the usability study
02:20:12 get something called the usability study out possibly right i don't recall what the specific conversation was about but what he is saying here in this uh email and what he said i've read his written evidence as well is entirely
02:20:23 written evidence as well is entirely accurate he and i had a very good working relationship and it was a sort of ongoing dialogue between us to manage the large volume of work and prioritize it so what he's saying to you here is
02:20:34 it so what he's saying to you here is entirely fair and did he put it just like that did he say come on gavin pay more attention to the building regulation submissions i don't think he used that phrase i think that phrase is a slightly unfair phrase because that slightly implies that i was
02:20:46 because that slightly implies that i was reading them but not paying attention to them which is not true i think what he said was
02:20:51 said was you've got a couple of things which the office have been saying to you are not so high priority but they need dealing with now and you need to give them your attention that's that's my memory of how the conversation happened
02:21:02 and following that conversation did you did you in fact pay more attention to the building regulations submissions well i've just i've just explained to you that i think that phrase is an unfair phrase but i dealt with the
02:21:14 unfair phrase but i dealt with the submissions that he was uh referring to in the conversation yes and as i said to you these conversations between us i suspect it was more than one conversation nearly every week we would have a
02:21:25 nearly every week we would have a conversation about the outstanding mixture of subs and casework in his area um and he would give me very helpful stairs about what he wanted me to prioritize at any point in time and as i
02:21:36 prioritize at any point in time and as i said from my point of view it was a very good relationship where i got clear feedback from him about what he needed were you ever made aware of the sense of
02:21:47 were you ever made aware of the sense of frustration which members of the building regulations division were experiencing during your time in office as well as others due to being a low priority as mr harold put it
02:21:59 a low priority as mr harold put it always being at the back of the queue no i wasn't and i wish i had been aware of that i think there's a fray i didn't i didn't wasn't aware of mr harold's comment but um in mr quartermaine's
02:22:10 comment but um in mr quartermaine's written evidence there's a quote where he i think he's saying he was doing a performance review with bob ledson and he said something like we reflected on what it was like working in an area that wasn't in the sun or some phrase like
02:22:21 wasn't in the sun or some phrase like that he uses so i wasn't aware that's how it felt to members of that team and it was distressing to hear that that that was their experience that
02:22:32 that that was their experience that certainly would never have been my intention i can see why they felt it because clearly there was a period where the secretary of state and i were prioritizing the policy work for the housing white paper so i can completely understand during
02:22:44 so i can completely understand during that period where they felt it i hope they wouldn't have felt it so much during the rest of my time right so you can understand why they felt that frustration during that housing white paper period absolutely and that would
02:22:56 paper period absolutely and that would have run through october 2016.
02:22:59 2016. well it was what wasn't published till february 17 is that financial fifth of february i think so there's about a four month period i would say during october november december january were you ever made aware that the
02:23:10 were you ever made aware that the anxiety and frustration within that team was having the effect of making some members of south so stressed to the point of being ill no but obviously if i had been made aware of that i would have wanted to take action to address that
02:23:23 wanted to take action to address that and i think some of the other evidence you've had has been very kind about my work with the department so it's very distressing to hear that that's how some officials felt
02:23:34 officials felt were you ever uh consulted about a cut in funding to the investigation of real fires fires contract in order to fill a black hole in the planning budget not to my
02:23:46 in the planning budget not to my knowledge no richard harrell said he was very dismayed to learn from bob ledson that there was going to be a cut in the funding in relation to that contract to fill a planning budget problem so in all
02:23:59 fill a planning budget problem so in all of the paperwork that's been supplied to me before the before this appearance i haven't seen any evidence of that you've clearly
02:24:07 clearly got access to a wider set of documents than i've got because you've showed me some things today that i haven't seen so i don't know if you have any document that demonstrates that with a ministerial decision but i have no recollection of it at all
02:24:18 recollection of it at all were you aware that the building regulations division was working on what was called a or term by mr harold a less than bare bones capacity no again if that was the case i
02:24:29 capacity no again if that was the case i would have wanted to get some additional resources i think i say in my one of my two witness statements i can't remember which that i was conscious that the resources in the department were stretched the head count
02:24:40 head count had reduced over the preceding few years and the secretary of state and i had talked about that and were looking in the next spending review to try and get some additional resource into the department given
02:24:51 resource into the department given that the new prime minister had clearly made housing a more high-profile political issue it seemed to us it was only right that that was matched with with better resourcing for the department so i was aware of a problem in the department in
02:25:03 aware of a problem in the department in generality but in terms of the specific issue in the team that you've just referred to no right mr chairman i'm aware of the time i just have another five minutes worth of questions that i'd like to put into far well i think i'll
02:25:15 like to put into far well i think i'll probably cope with another five minutes or so i'm happy to stay and answer questions as long as there are questions that's very good well yes you carry on yes yes thank you um can we agree that in your time as housing minister no
02:25:27 in your time as housing minister no positive steps were taken to advance matters of fire safety i don't think that is a fair thing to say we clearly had worked on the discussion document and we made internal progress that the
02:25:38 and we made internal progress that the calling of the election stopped that work coming into the public domain and there were also some changes to the building regulations that i've referred to in my earlier evidence that were in the housing white paper so i certainly
02:25:50 the housing white paper so i certainly accept
02:25:51 accept that we didn't make the progress that we should have made but i think the way you phrased it is unfair do you consider that you allocated sufficient time to understanding the issues underlying the lack of fire and
02:26:03 issues underlying the lack of fire and the wider problems underlying approved document b including on external fire spread
02:26:08 spread i think some of those issues it was reasonable of me to wait until the discussion document was out and look at the responses but i've already acknowledged in under questioning earlier today that i should have taken
02:26:19 earlier today that i should have taken the time to actually see the coroner's letter and the secretary of state's response to that so partially accept the point you're making yes i mean throughout your evidence we've seen that neither you nor your private office appeared
02:26:31 private office appeared to notice that the delay that there had been in addressing the coroner's recommendations now i appreciate you saying you weren't aware of the specific time frame but
02:26:41 but you've accepted you knew it was in 2013 that the coroner made some recommendations can we agree that we don't see evidence of you or your private office
02:26:52 of you or your private office noticing or holding officials to account for that ongoing delay so that that's true although i think i would say pretty strongly there that had i been given the accurate information about the commitment the secretary of
02:27:03 about the commitment the secretary of state had made that would have resulted in very different decisions so i think on that issue i was entitled as minister to be aware of the time scale that the sector then secretary of state had set for that work
02:27:15 secretary of state had set for that work and if i had been aware of that time scale and known that it was really only a matter of months to implement the decision then my actions would have been very different to what they were we've also seen that your private office
02:27:27 we've also seen that your private office contributed to perhaps some of the delay by failing to prioritize submissions from the building regulations team do you accept that uh again to a degree um we talked about
02:27:38 uh again to a degree um we talked about this these appalling delays that occurred to this particular package of research and for the reasons i explained to you i don't believe that that was my private office that was the cause there but it's certainly true that some of the
02:27:50 but it's certainly true that some of the submissions took longer to deal with than they should have when that was raised with me by steve quartermaine i addressed it we've also seen that fire safety matters were raised with you or with your office
02:28:01 were raised with you or with your office by the appg the british sprinkler association the london fire commissioner and the fire sector federation through the letter from brandon lewis and yet can we agree that those concerns
02:28:13 and yet can we agree that those concerns that were raised in those letters were never substantively addressed nor were their concerns reflected in the discussion document that was produced in march 2017 i mean we've sort of gone
02:28:24 march 2017 i mean we've sort of gone through each of them in turn i don't want to repeat the evidence but i've explained to you why i took the decision not to meet with the sprinklers association with the appg i've been very clear that i should have
02:28:35 i've been very clear that i should have met
02:28:36 met with i should have responded to the original letter and accepted the meeting the next time i had the opportunity the next time i saw a letter i did act to try and get a meeting um and i've the other two letters you referred to were
02:28:47 other two letters you referred to were branded into the commissioner so with the commissioner i think i was i couldn't have been clearer in my evidence that if i'd seen that letter i would have treated that with the utmost senior seriousness whereas up to
02:28:59 utmost senior seriousness whereas up to me
02:29:00 me the brandon letter is in a very different class it felt and it still feels to me today as a letter from one minister to another saying here are some issues that our officials are concerned about we'd like your officials to take into account so
02:29:13 your officials to take into account so if you
02:29:13 if you if you take those three pieces of correspondence i think there is a clear hierarchy in terms of the seriousness of the concerns that they were raising which i would put the commissioner's letter right at the top by some clear distance
02:29:26 right at the top by some clear distance okay then the appg and the sprinklers association and then brandon's letter beneath that okay can we agree that the government's housing supply agenda really dominated your time in the
02:29:37 really dominated your time in the department and overshadowed other core work
02:29:40 work including to revise approved document be some of which was life safety critical so i i absolutely accept that with a couple of important caveats one is of course that the problem as the
02:29:51 course that the problem as the department acknowledges in his own opening statement is that it didn't recognize this work was life safety critical and therefore i wasn't told that and secondly and i just want to i want
02:30:02 and secondly and i just want to i want to put this very gently because it is absolutely right that the inquiry holds the government to a much higher standard than anybody else because it's the government that ultimately has the responsibility for taking decisions in
02:30:13 responsibility for taking decisions in the public interest but that context that i mentioned earlier on in terms of the level of scrutiny the level the extent to which parliamentarians select committee the media others were raising these issues
02:30:26 media others were raising these issues i think his relevant relevant context in terms of how this issue was dealt with it wasn't just the government that was underestimating the degree to which the system was
02:30:37 the degree to which the system was failing
02:30:38 failing okay mr chairman thank you i've come to the end of my prepared questions if you have the usual break yes um and then we can sweep up any final points yes well well when council gets to the end of her
02:30:51 well when council gets to the end of her questions we have to have a short break because uh she needs a certain amount of time just to check that nothing's gone adrift and we have to allow for other people who are following the proceedings to make suggestions for further questions
02:31:03 make suggestions for further questions that perhaps we ought to put to you so we'll stop now um how long do you think you need this grange would quarter to five be long enough um
02:31:12 um yes i think so well if it's not you can always tell us and we'll give you a bit more time but i think that ought to do um so we'll break now we'll we'll come back please of course to five and at that point we'll see if
02:31:23 to five and at that point we'll see if there are any more questions for you okay thank you very much all right thank you very much you'd like to give the usher please thank you
02:31:36 well we'll say quarter to five disgrace but if it turns out that you need more time thank you that's right and tell us thank you very much thank you very much
02:42:13 would you ask a little bobble to come back in please thank you
02:42:27 right little barber well we'll see if there are any more questions for you miss grant yes yes just a couple of questions um so we've looked at a number of pieces of correspondence where warnings were raised about fire safety
02:42:38 warnings were raised about fire safety just help us with this general question how should the department ensure that matters of life safety are proper reacted properly reacted to and not lost in the system
02:42:51 so that's a question sort of about the management of the department i think the unknowable question here is if the department hadn't made the error that i think it
02:43:02 hadn't made the error that i think it acknowledges it made which was not to see
02:43:05 see that the coroner was about life safety would it have got lost in the same way i strongly suspect that it wouldn't that it would have been prioritized in a
02:43:16 that it would have been prioritized in a completely different way than it was so the question kind of assumes that there's a fundamental problem with how the department deals with issues of that importance
02:43:28 deals with issues of that importance whereas my senses it's really ultimately a judgment for you to
02:43:33 you to reach
02:43:34 reach is that this issue wasn't flagged as an issue of life safety in terms of the coroner's report that's why it went missing in the way that it did right and had it been more clearly flagged to you as an issue of life
02:43:45 flagged to you as an issue of life safety in the submissions is it your evidence that you would have responded very differently to absolutely absolutely but and i want to since we're nearing the end of my appearance here i want to
02:43:56 want to stress this i don't want to come here today and say therefore it's all the fault of officials that they didn't say that to me ministers also not just myself but a succession of ministers have to take responsibility that maybe
02:44:07 have to take responsibility that maybe there were opportunities where we could have
02:44:09 have asked questions or done something differently that would have allowed us to identify that mistake had been made but absolutely had i realized that i would have acted differently and um as i said to you
02:44:20 differently and um as i said to you earlier
02:44:21 earlier when you were asking me about it to me the most distressing thing in the whole pack when i read it was that was the commissioner's letter yeah and how was with this what would you have done differently looking back on what we've
02:44:32 differently looking back on what we've done what we've gone through today if you had the chance again so i think i've tried to touch on some of that as i've been giving evidence to you but maybe to draw it together there are three clear things that
02:44:45 are three clear things that i believe
02:44:46 i believe and i think your questioning has demonstrated the first is that i should have had a handover meeting with james as well as brandon and i think it would be
02:44:54 be very good practice for ministers generally to ensure that proper handovers occur even when ministers are of different political persuasions there are still important issues that won't be issues of political
02:45:06 issues that won't be issues of political divide where a handover would be very beneficial the second issue is in relation to the handling of the appg correspondence i think i got it right the second time around
02:45:17 around the second time a letter actually arrived on my desk i intervene changed the official advice but i should have done that the first time around and
02:45:25 and probably i fear it wouldn't have changed the tragic events
02:45:30 events that your inquiry is looking at because at that point the refurbishment of grenfell tower had already happened and any changes that were made subsequently wouldn't have necessarily impacted that but it would at least have put the issue
02:45:41 but it would at least have put the issue clearly on the agenda potentially if the if the evidence of the appg had been compelling and then the third issue would be uh that i think that
02:45:52 uh that i think that i shouldn't have waited until the discussion document was out there to get hold of the coroner's letter and the secret then secretary of state's response to i should have shown more curiosity to see that
02:46:03 more curiosity to see that at the time and that probably i think would have raised in my mind a concern about what is exactly that we've committed to here that i would have wanted to uh to bottom out so
02:46:14 uh to bottom out so those are the three things that come to my mind if that's your last question may i add just one more yes of course at the end
02:46:21 end which is to say obviously i'm here today in my capacity as housing minister during the period in which council has asked me questions but after doing that job i was the chief of staff
02:46:30 of staff to the prime minister and in that context played a small role in the establishment of this inquiry and what i've tried to do today i hope that you all feel that is to answer the questions to the best
02:46:42 is to answer the questions to the best of my ability uh to do everything that i can to help you get to the truth of what happened uh in the interests both of those who lost people lost loved ones suffered trauma themselves and of the future of policy in this area
02:46:55 and of the future of policy in this area thank you thank you thank you lord farwell and and thank you very much for attending and giving us your evidence it's very much appreciated my pleasure and lord is right that i should add my thanks to you on behalf of
02:47:06 should add my thanks to you on behalf of all members of the panel it's always very interesting to us as well as being very helpful to learn more about how things work on the inside of the department and the relationship between ministers and their
02:47:19 relationship between ministers and their private offices and the rest of the department and of course you've shed a lot of light on
02:47:24 on how things developed in the period during which you were the housing minister so we're very grateful to you for coming along to give us your evidence and we've learned a lot as a result so
02:47:35 and we've learned a lot as a result so thank you very much indeed and of course you're now free to go thank you
02:47:49 well thank you very much ms grange um that must be it for today but we have another witness coming tomorrow yes right sure pickles and mr millet will be cross-examining him right thank you very
02:48:00 cross-examining him right thank you very much so we break there and we should resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning thank you very much