Evidence from Lord Barwell, junior housing minister July 2016-June 2017, on building regulations, deregulation agenda, response to Lakanal House coroner's recommendations, and why critical fire safety work was deprioritized behind the housing white paper.
00:00:36 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:39 hearing today we're going to hear evidence from lord barwell who at one time was a junior minister in the department for communities and local government yes ms grange yes could we have lord barwell please
00:01:00 good morning lord balwell i understand you're going to affirm yes well the words should be there in front of you on the screen would you read them out please i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the
00:01:11 truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much would you care to sit down and make yourself comfortable please
00:01:26 all right yes thank you yes it's strange yes thank you yes lord can i just start by thanking you very much for attending this public inquiry today to give your evidence it's very much appreciated
00:01:38 evidence it's very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions that i'm going to ask you please just say so and i'll either repeat the question or i'll put the point in a different way um and the other thing i'd ask you to do is keep your voice up and keep your
00:01:50 is keep your voice up and keep your voice not too fast so that the transcriber who's sitting to your right can take a nice clean note of your evidence
00:01:57 evidence now you provided the inquiry with two witness statements the first is at clg3030960
00:02:05 there we have it and if we look on page 15
00:02:09 15 we can see it's dated the 22nd of april and is that your signature there my electronic one yes thank you and have you read that witness statement recently i have and are the contents of
00:02:20 recently i have and are the contents of it true they are thank you and you also made a second witness statement for the inquiry that's at clg three zeros three four two eight three
00:02:33 three zeros three four two eight three there we have that on the screen now i understand you've got a clarification to make to paragraph 19 on page eight of that is that right we could just go to page eight yes so i'm happy that the the answer is
00:02:45 so i'm happy that the the answer is correct but i think i could have provided a more helpful and a bit more detail to the answer so i thought it might help you with your questions to say this at the outset yes so i say here that my knowledge and understanding of
00:02:56 that my knowledge and understanding of the review and what it was to encompass developed over time i then leap right to the end uh to to march of 2018 and i think i could have inserted a couple of sentences there
00:03:08 inserted a couple of sentences there referencing the initial submission that i suspect you're going to ask me about that came in september 2016. yes and then the speech i gave to the local authority building control conference there's probably just a
00:03:19 conference there's probably just a couple of things i could have added there to explain that context of how that understanding developed over time that's very helpful thank you very much now if we look at page 13 of this statement
00:03:31 statement there we can see it's dated the 5th of july 2021 and again is that your electronic signature it is and subject to the additions that you've just gone through
00:03:40 through um
00:03:41 um is that that statement true yes thank you very much and have you discussed the evidence are you going to give today with anyone before coming here no i am as i think she alluded to in her own evidence to you melanie dawes and i had
00:03:54 evidence to you melanie dawes and i had a discussion well before uh i'd even been asked to give evidence but in terms of the two statements and what i'm going to say today no thank you now i just want to start by asking you some questions about your background now
00:04:06 some questions about your background now first of all what qualifications do you hold
00:04:09 hold so i don't have any professional qualifications just educational ones and undergraduate degree yes what was your degree in it was in natural sciences uh physics was that was the main area of speciality
00:04:21 that was the main area of speciality and then if we go to paragraph two of your first witness statement you tell us there that you were the member of parliament for central croydon between may 2010 and june 2017. is that
00:04:32 between may 2010 and june 2017. is that correct that's correct yes and just briefly what was your career history before you were an mp so i had i had worked essentially in politics i did a sort of traditional post-university job as a researcher for
00:04:44 post-university job as a researcher for the conservative party i became a special advisor in in what was effectively the predecessor department to clg what was then known as the department of environment and i then moved over into working for
00:04:56 and i then moved over into working for the conservative party not on policy but on
00:04:58 on uh on winning elections and ending up being
00:05:01 being uh the chief operating officer effectively of the party uh so running it as an organization and then was elected to parliament in in may 2010 as i said in the statement here yes thank you so and is it right that
00:05:12 yes thank you so and is it right that you said you worked at conservative party headquarters from 1993 until your election as an mp in 2010 yes i had a brief period where i was a sort of consultant not working in central office but it was still working in politics so
00:05:23 but it was still working in politics so effectively what you've said is is as a symbolization it's true yeah yes thanks and um you were the conservative party's chief operating officer between 2003 and
00:05:34 chief operating officer between 2003 and 2006 is that correct that's correct and so we know that in july 2016 you became the junior minister of state for housing and planning in the ministry for housing communities
00:05:45 in the ministry for housing communities and local government which we know as mhclg we'll be referring to that department here and after as the department just to be clear now and in that role you were part of theresa may's first ministry yes correct
00:05:57 theresa may's first ministry yes correct thank you
00:05:58 thank you let's look at an organogram which is very helpful on this it's at clg three zeros one nine four six two
00:06:10 this is an organogram that's helpfully been provided to the inquiry that shows the department starting with the secretary of state at the very top and then moving down into the respective
00:06:21 and then moving down into the respective ministers the permanent secretary and then various directors at the bottom and i want to focus with you it's the top right hand corner where we see your name and what we can see from this looking
00:06:33 and what we can see from this looking two or three lines down in the second line down and the third line down
00:06:38 line down is that you took over from brandon lewis as the minister with responsibilities for housing in july 16 yes correct and you also took over from james wharton as
00:06:50 you also took over from james wharton as the minister with responsibilities for building regulations do you see that that's correct although i wasn't so clear about that at the moment of my appointment but it became clear when i had a con i had a handover conversation with brandon right i see yes and that's
00:07:03 with brandon right i see yes and that's why we see your name in two of the boxes and then you were succeeded by alex sharma in both of those roles thereafter yes i believe so yes yes
00:07:14 and we can see that you reported to sadie javid as the secretary of state for communities and local government at the time do you see that there yes we were both appointed uh in the same reshuffle yes thank you
00:07:26 reshuffle yes thank you and you served until the general election on the 8th of june 2017 when you lost your seat yes that's true yes um and is it right that you were also a minister for london between july 16 and
00:07:39 minister for london between july 16 and june 17.
00:07:42 june 17. i can't remember if the minister for london appointment happened at the same time as the minister for housing appointment or whether it came subsequently but it's certainly true that for a significant chunk of that period i was minister for london as well
00:07:53 period i was minister for london as well as mister housing yes right thank you and then uh on the 10th of june 2017 you were then appointed downing street chief of staff and you held that post until
00:08:05 of staff and you held that post until july 2019 following the departure of theresa may as prime minister yes that's correct and you were made a life pier in october 2019 yes uh yeah i don't know the date but
00:08:17 uh yeah i don't know the date but shortly after my departure from number 10 yes thank you now during your tenure as minister of state for housing the permanent secretary was melanie dawes that's right that's correct
00:08:28 that's correct and if we look at uh paragraph eight of your first witness statement on page two you tell us there that you were supported by a director general and a team of senior directors within the
00:08:40 team of senior directors within the department as well as my ministerial private office and you tell us that the director general post was vacant when you joined and was then filled by helen mcnamara yes
00:08:51 yes that's great yes i think it i think you it was on the previous spreadsheet i think it was peter schofield who had that job and he'd just been appointed as the permanent secretary i think at dwp so the the post was vacant when i
00:09:02 dwp so the the post was vacant when i came into office and then helen was appointed a couple of months later i think yes that's right let's go back to the organogram because it's very helpful to be able to see the timeline yeah so um we can see uh it's one two three four
00:09:14 um we can see uh it's one two three four five lines down that helen mcnamara just comes in in september 2016 shortly after your appointment in july 2016 and as you say she replaced peter schofield yes and we can also see from
00:09:26 schofield yes and we can also see from that organogram that the director with responsibility for the building regulations during your time was steve quartermaine that's right he's been in there from april 2016 and he was there until like
00:09:39 april 2016 and he was there until like yourself june 2017 yes and he had a wider responsibility for the planning system but building regulations as part of that yes yes thank you and also throughout your tenno ten ten years we'll see at the very bottom of
00:09:51 years we'll see at the very bottom of that uh organogram uh that bob ledson was the deputy director with responsibility for the building regulations so i wouldn't have known that his uh rank as it were grade
00:10:03 known that his uh rank as it were grade was deputy director but i sir if you'd asked me who was the official who was leading under steve on building regulations i would have said bob bledsoe yes great that's helpful thank you
00:10:11 you now in paragraph eight of your first statement we were just looking at it we don't need to go back to it you tell us that you didn't have a special advisor but you work closely with the secretary of state's special advisors is that
00:10:23 of state's special advisors is that right yes so the general protocol is that ministers who are either cabinet ministers or who attend cabinet have their own special advisors but if you're a minister of state who doesn't attend
00:10:34 a minister of state who doesn't attend cabinet
00:10:35 cabinet then you don't have your own special advisors and you work with the relevant secretary of state special advisors yes thank you and the special advisers to the secretary of state which you worked with you tell us i think in your second
00:10:46 with you tell us i think in your second statement where nick king salma shah and later carrie simons yes that's correct yeah just help us what is the role of a special adviser or shortened to a spad
00:10:57 special adviser or shortened to a spad as briefly as you can how would you describe that role so they're there to provide
00:11:03 provide party political advice to their secretary of state they normally come i would say in in two variants there are some who specialize on policy work so nick would very much have been
00:11:15 so nick would very much have been in that category and there are others who support their secretary of state in terms of their communications right and so salma and then carrie when she came in would have been more in that category there's sometimes they
00:11:27 that category there's sometimes they will overlap a bit um because obviously it's very difficult to do the communications job unless you understand the policy context but those are those the two main types i would say certainly if you're talking about
00:11:38 certainly if you're talking about special advisors in lead departments rather than in number 10 where there's a there's a larger number and a wider variety of roles yes thank you
00:11:47 thank you now did any of those special advisors have any specific interest or expertise in building regulation matters so they certainly wouldn't have had specific expertise um because their
00:11:58 specific expertise um because their their background was essentially as was the political yeah experts uh in terms of interest i wouldn't say particularly i think i say in my witness statement that nick had a particular interest in lease old reform
00:12:10 particular interest in lease old reform and that was nick king the king yes that was the main issue that i remember him focusing on from a policy point of view but they would have uh there's definitely in the in the documents uh that have been supplied to the
00:12:22 uh that have been supplied to the inquiry uh i i don't have them in front of me but there's definitely one minute where i've approved something and my private secretary is saying the political advisors will need to approve
00:12:33 political advisors will need to approve this too before it's published so they would have had a role but if your question was did they have any sort of specific interest in in that issue i wouldn't say that they did yeah or what about fire safety did any of them have any particular interest in fire safety
00:12:45 any particular interest in fire safety or indeed any expertise no so i think as i said nick was the policy specialist and if you were asking me which issue did he have a particular passion for it would have been leasehold reform yeah
00:12:56 reform yeah now if we look at paragraph three on page two of your witness statement you also tell us that you work closely with a chap called tim leunig uh put this up on the screen ms grinch
00:13:08 uh put this up on the screen ms grinch yes we can have it up there yeah i've got it i've got it thank you so you tell us in the very last sentence there in the interest of openness i also work closely with tim lunig is that the way to pronounce it look i think it's
00:13:19 to pronounce it look i think it's loining
00:13:20 loining i think thank you who was a policy adviser to the secretary of state not a special adviser now just help us briefly with this can you just explain the difference between a special advisor and a policy advisor
00:13:32 a special advisor and a policy advisor to the secretary of state so i think the explanation would be that he was employed as a civil servant not as a special adviser but on a limited term contract whereas most civil
00:13:43 term contract whereas most civil servants would be on would be permanent members of the payroll and so tim provided very wide ranging uh policy advice both to the secretary of state and myself he's
00:13:55 of state and myself he's i think he's currently working at the treasury but he's an incredibly intelligent man who who provides really useful challenge uh so he's one of these people that generates lots of ideas uh you wouldn't adopt them all but it
00:14:07 uh you wouldn't adopt them all but it was it was all he was one of these people that was invaluable and always had always providing an alternative perspective and challenging orthodox thinking yeah and i valued his input very very highly as i think did
00:14:18 input very very highly as i think did the secretary of state yeah and did he have any particular background or interest in building regulations or fire safety matters i i would say his main focus probably reflecting what i say in
00:14:29 focus probably reflecting what i say in my witness statement in terms of my focus and the secretary of state's focus on housing was on the housing supply crisis that was the issue the prime minister charged us with trying to address so most of the interaction i had
00:14:40 address so most of the interaction i had with him was on that issue yes thank you now if we look now at paragraph seven on page two of your first statement
00:14:52 so yes thank you you give us an explanation here of your the breadth of your portfolio as minister of state for housing and you tell us you say there
00:15:03 housing and you tell us you say there that it included housing supply policy home ownership policy planning policy planning casework oversight homes and community communities agency sponsorship
00:15:16 community communities agency sponsorship estates regeneration the thames gateway building regulations private rented sector regulation and the neighborhood planning bill yes yes uh so i think that
00:15:28 planning bill yes yes uh so i think that has probably been lifted from a departmental website or press release i think that was the original description that the department gave of my portfolio yes
00:15:35 yes and should we add anything else to that portfolio for example we talked about you being minister for london was that also part of your portfolio that was a sort of separate role so i think the way i've described it here is that was my portfolio as minister of
00:15:47 that was my portfolio as minister of state for housing whereas minister for state for london was a job if you like that was trying to work not just within the department but across government coordinating the work that different ministers were doing and liaising with
00:15:59 ministers were doing and liaising with the mayor of london and trying to ensure that there was a better relationship between the government and the mayor so that's probably why that's been that's been left off that description yes and just in general terms what proportion of your time was
00:16:10 terms what proportion of your time was spent doing housing matters versus london matters 90 95 housing 5 to 10 london right thank you now how did you ensure that you were
00:16:21 now how did you ensure that you were able to provide leadership across these substantial and varying work streams that are described here that's a that's a difficult question to answer and mainly by hard work by trying
00:16:32 answer and mainly by hard work by trying to read as much um it may be useful context for the inquiry this role
00:16:39 this role combining housing policy and planning uh
00:16:43 uh was a huge amount of incoming paper every day into the office because you didn't only have the policy submissions which i'm sure you're going to come on and ask about and correspondence but there was a huge volume of planning
00:16:55 but there was a huge volume of planning casework
00:16:56 casework where the minister unlike most decisions that a minister takes that that are policy decisions you were taking quasi-judicial decisions about where where applications have been referred up to the secretary of state or
00:17:08 referred up to the secretary of state or whether to intervene in a local authority's development of its local plan so just one of those decisions might have a bundle of papers about that thick
00:17:17 thick that was coming in so there was a huge volume of work and obviously ministers are not technical experts they're not policy specialists i was i was probably relatively lucky in that
00:17:28 i was probably relatively lucky in that i was appointed to a job that i had some familiarity with because i'd been a local counselor and i'd been a special advisor in this department a number of years before but mainly i tried
00:17:40 years before but mainly i tried by a huge amount of reading to get on top of
00:17:42 top of as much of that policy detail as possible in order that i could provide the political leadership that was my role
00:17:49 role yes and where you say there that you'd been a special adviser in this department a number of years before um
00:17:56 um when was that that was between 1995 and 1997 so david curry was the minister for housing and local government and i advised him across those two portfolio areas yes and did you have any dealings
00:18:09 areas yes and did you have any dealings at all as when you were that special advisor in building regulation matters building control matters i don't recall it being i'm sure i would have had some involvement but i don't recall it being there was the main piece
00:18:21 recall it being there was the main piece of work on housing at that time was i think it was the housing act 1996. yeah but forgive me i haven't prepped that period before coming here today and that really is a long time ago yeah but i think that was the main focus
00:18:32 yeah but i think that was the main focus piece of legislation uh that the department was taking through parliament at that time yes now as we've seen from the organogram you took over in part from brandon lewis who'd been the minister of state for
00:18:43 who'd been the minister of state for housing and planning before you now if we just look at his witness statement if we could go to clg three zeroes three one one two one and i want to look at page four paragraph twelve
00:18:56 to look at page four paragraph twelve [Music]
00:19:02 so um he if we pick it up four lines down
00:19:06 down uh in the middle there's a a sentence beginning the central theme yes and he says the central theme of my brief was to introduce policies and ideas to enable more houses to be built for this
00:19:18 enable more houses to be built for this reason at the suggestion of the secretary of state and sheridan westlake i did not have responsibility for the building regulations as it was thought that it would be counterproductive
00:19:29 that it would be counterproductive to have those differing responsibilities in one ministerial portfolio now um were you aware of that that there'd been a conscious decision that brandon lewis would not have the
00:19:42 that brandon lewis would not have the building regulations as part of his portfolio because it was thought counterproductive given that he also had housing and planning so i
00:19:51 so i had a handover meeting with brandon shortly after i was appointed and it was at that point that i realized that there was this difference in our responsibilities our job titles were the same
00:20:01 same but it wasn't an exact mirroring
00:20:04 mirroring i wasn't aware uh if you like that there was a there was a rationale behind that difference what tends to happen is that when the prime minister appoints you to a junior ministerial job
00:20:16 you to a junior ministerial job you get given the overall job title minister for housing say and then the secretary of state will divide if you go back to the previous paragraph you had with that list of eight or nine things that i was
00:20:28 eight or nine things that i was responsible for yeah the secretary of state will do that kind of subdivision yeah so i
00:20:32 yeah so i presumed that the difference was purely because to balance out the work between the ministers in the previous iteration of the department i it's difficult not
00:20:43 the department i it's difficult not being able to talk to brandon and understand what that sentence means but i find it slightly surprising right because if it's suggesting some kind of tension
00:20:53 tension between having building more homes and the building regulations in the same portfolio i personally don't agree with that for two reasons
00:21:04 two reasons one is
00:21:05 one is there's clearly there's clearly a link between getting the regulations right in terms of
00:21:10 terms of supply
00:21:12 supply but secondly one of the things that the secretary of state and i were very passionate about was that the debate was sometimes too focused purely on numbers of homes you were being built and quality was also an
00:21:23 were being built and quality was also an important consideration and clearly the regulations are critical in terms of the the safety the access standards the environmental performance of the homes that we build in this
00:21:34 of the homes that we build in this country so it's difficult for me to answer your question because brandon isn't here to give me the yeah other point of view but i find that sentence slightly surprising did you yourself ever have any discussions with others perhaps
00:21:45 discussions with others perhaps including the secretary of state about whether you should in fact have responsibility for housing planning and housing supply policy as well as the building regulations was that ever discussed at all no the the i was given
00:21:57 discussed at all no the the i was given the portfolio i was given and there wasn't any um review at any point as it were and were you ever aware of any any potential i i appreciate you've said you didn't think it was a problem when you've given those reasons were you ever
00:22:09 you've given those reasons were you ever aware of any potential conflict between having both of those as part of your portfolio no i didn't feel that there was a conflict uh the challenge i had was was the volume of the work
00:22:21 was was the volume of the work the breadth of the portfolio but i didn't if you're asking me did i feel that there was some intrinsic problem with having those two things
00:22:29 things within my portfolio no i didn't feel that yeah looking back on it now do you think you were able to give all of these areas the attention that they really needed and deserved during this time
00:22:41 needed and deserved during this time so
00:22:42 so i might just try and clarify what you mean by the question so i i definitely felt at the time that i was able to do that yeah knowing what i know now with hindsight you know clearly i well i'm sure we'll
00:22:54 you know clearly i well i'm sure we'll come on to this but the uh the briefing that i was given initially by bob led some about the building regulations uh i think gave an impression that the system was working far better
00:23:06 that the system was working far better than we now know it actually was yes and therefore in that first few months in the job
00:23:12 the job i didn't give that area of the portfolio the same priority as the housing supply questions because the prime minister had uh had asked me to focus on that critical issue so if you're asking me knowing what i know now do i think i
00:23:24 knowing what i know now do i think i gave enough attention to the building regulations issues in those first few months no i don't but if you're asking me did i if you'd asked me when i left the job in june of 2016 did i feel i'd been able to cope with the breadth of
00:23:36 been able to cope with the breadth of what i had i would have said just about i mean i was i was coming in very early and i was working until very late but i felt and i i hope you'll have obviously taken evidence from some of the officials i worked with i hope that they
00:23:48 officials i worked with i hope that they would feel that i was a very conscientious minister that tried to deal with the volume of work that that was coming onto my desk yeah but it sounds from your answer is this fair
00:23:59 sounds from your answer is this fair that by the end of your time in the department so let's take the last few months of 20 you know where you were there in 2017 so february march april 2017 it sounds like maybe you were
00:24:10 2017 it sounds like maybe you were feeling like the portfolio was was rather large and difficult to keep on top of is that fair rather large is fair unmanageable would not be fair okay i think it was manageable but it was
00:24:21 think it was manageable but it was demanding we we had one fewer junior ministers in the department than at some previous periods they had had and i think i'm right in saying that i was the only
00:24:32 was the only minister of state so for the inquiry's benefit there are there are two gradations of junior minister ministers of state
00:24:38 of state and parliamentary under secretary of state and i was the only minister of state so it meant that not only did i have the portfolio that you've asked me about in your questions
00:24:49 you've asked me about in your questions but if the secretary of state was absent for example i was the person that would that would deputize for him um so
00:24:56 um so definitely fair if you're saying to me was it was it a rather large portfolio that was demanding yes i wouldn't have said it was unmanageable okay thank you now can we agree that your function uh
00:25:07 now can we agree that your function uh as minister was included acting as decision maker on any issue concerning the building regulations would depend upon uh the scale of the decision uh there would be some decisions that
00:25:19 uh there would be some decisions that would just be taken by me as minister of state
00:25:21 state but there will be some issues uh if they were significant that would go to me first and then to the secretary of state so you'll come on i'm sure to ask you about the two submissions in september
00:25:33 september 2016 and march 2017 about the discussion document yes both of them if you look at them both are addressed gavin barwell secretary of state yes one two yeah so some things go on some
00:25:45 two yeah so some things go on some things are more minor decisions that just come to you as as the junior minister yes but inherent in the function that you had was the obligation to challenge or question the advice of officials yes yes and
00:25:57 officials yes yes and i think i i've seen this asked of previous witnesses so it may be helpful if i just explain a little bit about how i saw that role yes briefly yes um so a minister whose default setting is
00:26:08 so a minister whose default setting is not to believe anything that the officials say to them that's not going to make for a happy working relationship so i think what you mean when you ask me that question is my job was to provide some political judgment over the
00:26:20 provide some political judgment over the official advice and some intellectual challenge to what the department was proposing to do yes and the way that i tended to do that was to look for other sources of information so if
00:26:32 for other sources of information so if the department was telling me x were the opposition or some newspapers or the select committee or back bench mps telling me the opposite and giving me reason to
00:26:43 the opposite and giving me reason to think that maybe what i'm being told by the officials isn't right so that's how i approached that that question but if you're saying to me my job was to provide a degree of intellectual challenge i agree yes thank you
00:26:55 challenge i agree yes thank you now how frequently would you meet with helen mcnamara the director general
00:27:02 my so i i will try when i answer your questions to tell you where i'm certain and where i'm sort of making a best estimate and so this is definitely in the best estimate category i think
00:27:13 i think and the department may be able to confirm this in writing afterwards i think there was a monday housing and planning catch up which helen and and all her directors would come to so we had a scheduled regularly
00:27:25 come to so we had a scheduled regularly regular weekly meeting but there might be
00:27:28 be a number of other meetings during the week that she would choose to attend where some of her team were coming to me about specific policy submissions yes definitely and i would
00:27:39 submissions yes definitely and i would also probably see her once a week there was a sort of meeting between all ministers and the most senior officials in the department which i think from memory was on a wednesday so there'll be two
00:27:50 two formal meetings where i would expect to see her every week but there might be other meetings that she would choose to attend yes now what about the director with responsibility for building regulations as we know that was steve quartermaine
00:28:02 as we know that was steve quartermaine would he come to those monday meetings yes
00:28:05 yes yeah and i would also have fairly regular meetings with steve so
00:28:09 so i
00:28:10 i you you've correctly identified that he was the director responsible for building regulations yes but he was also responsible for all of the planning case work so if if the department were taking planning decisions or
00:28:21 planning decisions or intervening in the plan making process of a local authority and there was a significant volume of that work
00:28:28 that work i think it would be fair to say that the department struggled to deliver that work within the time scales required given the resourcing it had and so he and i would talk regularly
00:28:40 and so he and i would talk regularly about managing that work because what he didn't want was me if he was near a deadline on a decision when it came to me he wanted me to take a quick decision so that they didn't they met the target for the percentage
00:28:52 they met the target for the percentage that were being taken in time so i would say steve was one of the officials i dealt with most regularly both in a formal setting him at meetings talking about policy things but also helping me working
00:29:04 things but also helping me working together to try and make sure we got through
00:29:06 through this huge volume of work against the targets that we were setting ourselves yes and what work was it that the department was struggling to deliver in the time scale so this was so that i can't remember the exact target but
00:29:17 can't remember the exact target but there was a there was a target to determine a certain percentage of the planning applications that we had called in within a certain time scale yes and
00:29:27 and the officials would have to do a huge amount of work to produce these huge bundles of paper analyzing the application and providing advice to me they were obviously very important decisions because they were quasi-judicial in nature and then i
00:29:40 quasi-judicial in nature and then i would have to consider these submissions sometimes it would be clear to me what the right decision was sometimes you'd want a meeting to probe the advice that you've been received so this was not policy work it
00:29:51 received so this was not policy work it was this this quasi-judicial work on in terms of the planning decisions yes that steve and i would regularly have discussions about which ones to prioritize at any point in time yes and looking back what
00:30:03 time yes and looking back what proportion of your time was actually spent discussing building regulations type matters with steve quartermaine as opposed to the planning casework uh so the planning casework was fairly
00:30:14 the planning casework was fairly constant throughout the entire period as you can imagine there's just a there's a constant pipeline essentially of decisions that are coming your way so that was fairly constant throughout the
00:30:25 throughout the 10 months or so that i was in the job yeah in terms of the building regulations uh i would say it increased over time right um you'll i'm sure you'll have seen
00:30:36 i'm sure you'll have seen steve's written uh submission i don't think he's given all relevance but he gave him written evidence to to the inquiry uh and he says there that there was an occasion where he had to
00:30:47 there was an occasion where he had to prompt me
00:30:48 prompt me um because there were some submissions on i think it was on research that needed publishing uh so this was exactly the kind of conversation we'd have on the planning where he just said to me that these have been in your intro for a bit they're they're important please could
00:31:00 they're they're important please could you look at them and i then dealt with them straight away so initially there was there was the initial briefing with bob ledson there were some submissions relating to research working with this first draft
00:31:11 research working with this first draft of the discussion document and then really we had a period where the prioritization was very heavily on the white paper the housing white paper yes and then after that uh we come back and we start thinking
00:31:22 uh we come back and we start thinking about taking the discussion document forward so i would say it varied on building regulations during the period whereas the planning was more constant throughout yes i'm sorry i hope you'll forgive me but
00:31:33 i'm sorry i hope you'll forgive me but i'm going to ask you just see if you can slow down a little bit because i've had stenographer who's excellent does sometimes find it difficult to keep up you're not the only witness you ask that off
00:31:44 that off i promised before i would try and speak slowly
00:31:47 slowly redouble my efforts thank you very much
00:31:51 yes thank you and and how often did you meet with bob ledson uh that we we know he was the deputy director with responsibility for building regulations you've said he was the go-to person if you were speaking
00:32:02 the go-to person if you were speaking about building regulations how often would you see him and speak to him about building regulations matters so bob would be less frequent than steve because steve would have been coming
00:32:14 because steve would have been coming both to the monday catch up with helen and her directors and he would have been coming to meetings with me both about building regulations and about planning whereas bob would tended to have only come
00:32:26 bob would tended to have only come either if there were building regulations briefing or submissions or if i were answering a parliamentary question yes that related to building
00:32:37 question yes that related to building regulations or if there was a piece of correspondence we wanted to discuss so i would see him fairly regularly but not as regularly as steve quartermaine right thank you do you ever recall meeting with brian martin who was the technical
00:32:48 with brian martin who was the technical policy lead on fire safety within the department i would be amazed if i didn't but i don't i can't recall a specific meeting that i know he was at yeah did you know about the work of the technical policy
00:33:01 about the work of the technical policy leads within the department did you know that they existed and did you know broadly what work they did no i if you're saying to me there was a distinction between policy officials and technical policy experts i wasn't aware
00:33:13 technical policy experts i wasn't aware of that discussion that that distinction at the time i was a minister i've seen discussion of it in the inquiries uh deliberations yeah and was there a formal handover process
00:33:24 formal handover process that start with between you and mr lewis was there any formal handover there i think formal would be putting something too strong on it generally in my experience in politics
00:33:35 generally in my experience in politics it doesn't happen and it should so brandon and i arranged it ourselves he if memory serves he had been appointed as a minister of state in the home office
00:33:46 state in the home office and the home office and clg at that point shared a building so i think we arranged that i just went round to his private office and we sort of did a handover between
00:33:57 and we sort of did a handover between ourselves
00:33:58 ourselves and do you remember any discussion at that point about building regulations matters or fire safety so yes but only in the sense that that was the point when i realized that my portfolio didn't exactly mirror
00:34:11 portfolio didn't exactly mirror brandon's right i see and can you remember what he said to you about building regulations or fire safety matters i think he i think he literally said i wasn't responsible for that yeah
00:34:22 said i wasn't responsible for that yeah and then
00:34:22 and then james wharton who was responsible for that did you have any kind of handover with him i didn't and i should have right did you ever speak to him at all
00:34:33 did you ever speak to him at all no no not that i can not that i can recall um
00:34:37 recall um and i think it's probably a reflection of two things uh i was personally closer to brandon knew he knew him better and then i think
00:34:48 and then i think by the time i had the meeting with brandon i was sort of into the job having the introductory briefing so it didn't feel as urgent as the conversation with brandon did but i should have done so yes
00:34:59 did but i should have done so yes now just some questions now about your knowledge and understanding of the building regulations and the approved documents
00:35:05 documents did you have any particular knowledge of the building regulations when you joined the department you said you served as a councillor before had you ever had to deal with the building regulations before i knew what they were i knew what
00:35:16 before i knew what they were i knew what the local authority building control service was i didn't have any technical expertise in them at all but i was familiar with what building control was yeah but that was it went that was as far as it went
00:35:28 far as it went to what extent during your time as minister did you become familiar with the building regulations and the system for building control in england and wales did you feel like you you gained a familiarity of that yes
00:35:40 you you gained a familiarity of that yes so this sort of touches on the clarification i provided to my second witness statement at the start of uh these proceedings so
00:35:50 so i think it's been shared with the inquiry but i had an initial briefing led by bob ledson i'm coming to that in a moment so that i suppose was the starting point for getting my knowledge up to uh
00:36:00 up to uh to a certain level so i'll leave that if you're coming to it yes uh and then obviously there were a number of submissions in that sort of early autumn period before the housing white paper became
00:36:12 before the housing white paper became the dominant focus and then once the white paper was done early in the new year there were some more submissions there was a speech that i referred to to the local authority building control
00:36:24 to the local authority building control conference and that i found very useful because i spent today i think it was richard harrell was the official um who who went with me to that conference so i got to spend a whole day
00:36:35 conference so i got to spend a whole day with someone that i hadn't known that well until then and focused in on this issue and then obviously towards the end of my time before the election was called we had the submission on the final
00:36:47 we had the submission on the final version of the discussion document yes and finally the other thing i think was probably worth mentioning was a number of engagements with parliament that touched
00:36:58 engagements with parliament that touched on the building regulations in one way shape or form so i would say an initial quick increase in my knowledge from that initial briefing then grew a bit during the autumn then
00:37:09 then grew a bit during the autumn then kind of a pause and then came back to it after the white paint right well let's look at what you did know did you know that the statutory scheme involved the imposition of overarching functional or performance requirements
00:37:21 functional or performance requirements did you know that yes and what did you understand the overarching aim of those functional requirements to be um there's a number of aims of the different
00:37:32 different bits of the building regulation so clearly in relation to fire safety to protect life um but you've also got access to buildings you've got the energy performance of buildings you've got electrical safety so they're they're
00:37:44 electrical safety so they're they're trying to ensure that buildings are safe energy efficient secure places they're trying to do it in a way which is not prescriptive so i think i'm right in saying
00:37:55 right in saying the original version of the building regulations back in the 1960s was prescriptive about exactly what construction techniques should be used and the documents came to therefore be
00:38:07 and the documents came to therefore be very long and there was a change i think in the mid 1980s
00:38:13 1980s to
00:38:14 to to a much shorter set of requirements that were functional as you described backed up by the the statutory guidance in the form of the approved documents yes so did you
00:38:25 the approved documents yes so did you know that those approved documents were for the purpose of providing practical guidance on how to meet those functional performance requirements yes that was i think if we we'll come on to it but that was clearly explained i think in the
00:38:37 was clearly explained i think in the initial briefing yeah by bob lidson yeah did you know anything about the status of those approved documents in terms of what compliance or non-compliance with them might mean
00:38:49 my memory is that
00:38:53 following the approved document did not necessarily guarantee compliance and that there were ways of complying without having to do exactly what was set out in the so the responsibility was on ultimately on the developer to
00:39:05 on ultimately on the developer to to comply with the requirements but that they were guidance about ways in in which that might be gone about yes did you know that in civil or criminal proceedings there might be a presumption
00:39:16 proceedings there might be a presumption in favor of compliance if you had followed the approved document and a presumption the other way if you hadn't did you know about that so i probably wouldn't have been able to phrase it as precisely as you just have but that would have been the sense that was what
00:39:27 would have been the sense that was what i was just trying to communicate to you but i understand if you if you followed the guidance you had a good chance of being able to demonstrate compliance but it wasn't guaranteed yes did you ever have to come to read any of
00:39:38 did you ever have to come to read any of the approved documents i didn't read any of the approved documents i suspect that would have happened
00:39:45 happened um had i stayed in office so obviously we were just about to publish the discussion document yes once we had the feedback from that we would have moved to specific proposals
00:39:56 would have moved to specific proposals to make amendments yes and i suspect at that point i would have been reading the relevant specific documents yeah did you know anything about how the department sought to keep up to date with current practices and trends so as
00:40:08 with current practices and trends so as to be able to give that practical guidance to industry not a great deal so i knew for example that the department was conducting research i was often asked to either
00:40:20 often asked to either sign off funding for research projects or sometimes to give approval for the publication of completed pieces of research yeah and i knew also that there
00:40:32 research yeah and i knew also that there was a building regulations advisory committee that officials used to try and have a good link
00:40:41 good link with those involved in the sector and and hear their expertise and
00:40:46 and in several of the submissions that came to me
00:40:49 to me it was
00:40:50 it was clear that officials felt that making any changes could not be a quick process that they needed to be a deliberative process where they they sought some of that outside expertise before taking final
00:41:02 outside expertise before taking final decisions
00:41:03 decisions but if you're asking me did i know more detail about the how of how they did all of that no i didn't yeah now before the grenfell tower fire were you ever made aware of any systematic problems or failings or any potential
00:41:16 problems or failings or any potential problems or failings within the construction industry or within the system of building regulation and building control so i've obviously before coming to to give this evidence to you this morning i've reviewed all of the documents that
00:41:28 i've reviewed all of the documents that the department supplied to me and i can only really see one concern that was clearly expressed to me
00:41:36 to me which was a concern that competition in building control between local authority building control officers and approved inspectors that there was a concern that maybe that was
00:41:47 there was a concern that maybe that was leading to to some worries about compliance yeah that was in the submissions that i've re-read to prepare for today that seemed to be the main concern that was
00:41:58 concern that was being expressed to me and do you remember being concerned about that at the time that this drive towards competition within building control was perhaps leading to a race to the bottom in terms of standards yes i i so the way
00:42:10 in terms of standards yes i i so the way that the briefings were discussed it didn't seem like an urgent concern but it clearly was something officials were worried about and
00:42:18 and i think my response to it was that there were clear there were some clear some clear benefits to competition but we needed to make sure that it was working in a way that addressed those concerns and i uh i'm sure council will have had
00:42:29 and i uh i'm sure council will have had a chance to review the speech i gave to the local authority building control officers but that touches on exactly that subject now um aside from drafting the building regulations and producing practical
00:42:40 regulations and producing practical guidance to assist industry in complying with the regulations did you understand the department to have any role in reviewing or overseeing how effective that regime was
00:42:52 how effective that regime was so
00:42:53 so my assumption and it's clear from the department's um opening statement that this was a false assumption but my assumption was that the department regarded itself as
00:43:05 department regarded itself as responsible for the integrity of the system so in other words what i mean by that
00:43:09 that is that it wasn't taking the individual building control decisions it it wasn't in charge of resourcing local authority building control departments but if you'd said to me we are responsible for the building
00:43:21 we are responsible for the building regulations and the approved documents i would have assumed we were also responsible for
00:43:27 for being confident that the building control system was working as it should and it's clear from the department's opening statement that it that it acknowledges that it should have thought that way and actually wasn't
00:43:38 wasn't yes um i mean if we look at what melanie dawes told us in her oral evidence can we briefly look at that it was day 249 page 170.
00:43:48 page 170. i want to pick it up at line 23. i don't have that in front of me yet it'll come up
00:43:58 so here is her evidence page 170 and if we look at line 23 um
00:44:06 um so she says you know at the heart of this i think is what i was describing this morning is a complete failure throughout the preceding decades for the department at
00:44:17 department at any level to see that there was a system oversight role that needed to be played let alone that the department was accountable for playing it and so the team were never given any instructions that their role was
00:44:28 instructions that their role was anything more than maintaining documents do you see that i do yes and she goes on later in that answer and says that that's particularly surprising given if you look at line 19 on that page she said these were issues of
00:44:41 page she said these were issues of public safety and there was technical confusion and some of that was in the documents themselves which was the core responsibility of the department so
00:44:50 so you know she was expressing some you know concern retrospectively looking back that the department didn't recognize that particularly when it came to issues of public safety it did have this
00:45:02 of public safety it did have this oversight role it did have this reviewing role and ought to have played at least some part even if not in a formal sense do you agree with that evidence i do agree with her evidence uh and
00:45:14 agree with her evidence uh and i certainly agree that it is particularly important given that given the issues of public safety but perhaps i could give an analogy which is helpful okay the department was also responsible for the planning system
00:45:25 for the planning system and if you look at our housing white paper
00:45:28 paper one of the things it acknowledges there is that local authority planning departments were struggling with resources and so we agreed to increase planning fees
00:45:38 fees in order that local authorities could bring in more resource provided they spent that on increasing the capacity of their planning department and the reason i'm mentioning that to you is that it shows that the planning bit
00:45:50 is that it shows that the planning bit of the department definitely did see it as its responsibility for ensuring that the the system was functioning properly and had the capacity to take good and timely decisions yeah and so it
00:46:01 timely decisions yeah and so it surprises me that if that was the view it would if it was taking of its overall responsibility for the planning system again devolved to local authorities in terms of taking the individual decisions but the
00:46:12 the individual decisions but the department did see it had an overall responsibility for the integrity of the planning system which as melanie identifies in this evidence that you've put before me it clearly mistakenly didn't feel it had in
00:46:24 mistakenly didn't feel it had in relation to building control yes now this may be an unfair question because you were there for less than a year
00:46:32 year um
00:46:33 um immediately before the grenfell fire though um
00:46:36 though um can you help us understand looking back how that might have come about
00:46:42 about what might the reasons be for why that building regulations team did not over many many years and through lots of different changes of of officials and and changes of ministers
00:46:54 officials and and changes of ministers and secretary of state not consider themselves responsible certainly when it came to public safety matters for the effectiveness of the system
00:47:02 system i can't
00:47:04 i can't i'll explain that to you but i think i can just offer one comment which which may be helpful which is i think it's really important the responsibility for that failure doesn't just sit with the members of that team
00:47:15 just sit with the members of that team no
00:47:16 no there must be something wrong in the structure of the department that that failing wasn't identified and ministers including myself have to take some responsibility that we
00:47:27 have to take some responsibility that we didn't pick up that that wasn't happening so i think you know it's not for me to tell the inquiry what its conclusions would be but i feel very strongly that even if there were mistakes in that team it would be wrong for relatively junior
00:47:39 it would be wrong for relatively junior civil servants that to say that well the whole blame sits there that doesn't feel fair to me did you ever detect you obviously had dealings with mr led some and as you've said probably others although you might
00:47:50 said probably others although you might not be able to remember now exactly when and who they were but did you ever detect that they were looking at their role in a very narrow way you know we just set the regulations and we
00:48:01 just set the regulations and we set the approved documents and what happens when this that leaves the building is somebody else's problem did you ever get a flavor of that in your dealings with them i didn't because if i
00:48:12 dealings with them i didn't because if i had
00:48:13 had that would have cued me in to sort of say well hang on surely we're responsible for making sure that the system as a whole is working and to give you one example of something that probably
00:48:23 led to me failing to pick this up the comment that was in my briefing about concern about how competition was working
00:48:31 working implies that they did feel some responsibility for making sure that the system was working okay at least in that regard yes so that probably falsely reassured me yeah that they were thinking about the integrity of the
00:48:42 thinking about the integrity of the system when both in the department's opening statement
00:48:46 statement and and the evidence from melanie that you've put before me yes they clearly acknowledge they weren't yes we're going to come to it later we're going to come to a number of pieces of correspondence from external stakeholders raising concerns with the
00:48:58 stakeholders raising concerns with the team and we'll see what was done or what the response was to that did you ever get the sense that they were
00:49:05 were dismissive of outside feedback on how the system was operating or whether indeed their own documents which they clearly did think they were
00:49:16 which they clearly did think they were responsible for were being effective so i certainly didn't get a sense that their own documents uh weren't being effective
00:49:25 effective other than in one regard which was the correspondence from the appg which i'm sure you're going to yes come on and ask me about
00:49:32 me about um in terms of i think the way you phrased your first question were they sort of dismissive of outside opinion um
00:49:42 um in at the time i think i only once ever got a very slight sense of that there is um and i remember i i've reread it but i remember noticing it at the time when i
00:49:53 remember noticing it at the time when i got the submission in the the march 2018 submission do you mean 2017 2017 sorry okay um which
00:50:04 um which is the one that's asking me to clear the discussion document for publication that never actually got published because the election was called yes there's a reference there to the fire
00:50:15 there's a reference there to the fire lobby
00:50:16 lobby which
00:50:17 which if i had been right it i think it is making a perfectly legitimate point for an official to make but if i had been writing it i might not have phrased it in those
00:50:26 in those terms yes i don't know if you know the reference i know exactly which sentence you're talking about you can't because i haven't got it in front of me i can't give you i'll take you to it yes i will take you to it later yes um i think it's a phrase where it says
00:50:37 um i think it's a phrase where it says the fire lobby is powerful yeah some something like that i can't remember and won't be happy with what we've done or something like that yeah we'll come back to that let's move on now to the building regulations introductory briefing that you had
00:50:50 introductory briefing that you had so if we go to paragraph 10 on page three of your first statement you you tell us this you say after i became a minister in the department i had introductory briefings with each of
00:51:01 had introductory briefings with each of the teams in my policy areas each team would brief me on their work and current issues and challenges in their areas i received an initial briefing from bob ledson
00:51:12 ledson on the work of the building regulations team on the 8th of august so that will be 2016.
00:51:17 be 2016. i remember it specifically as being one of the last introductory briefings i had the order of these briefings was determined by my private office my sense was that it reflected the department's
00:51:28 was that it reflected the department's view of the urgency of the issues different teams were dealing with i've reviewed the slides from the building regulations briefing the slides do not refer to the rule that 43 letter that's the coroner's letter from lacanal or the
00:51:40 coroner's letter from lacanal or the recommendations that she made so that's your
00:51:44 your witness statement there now
00:51:49 how did you get the sense that the order of these briefings reflected the department's view of the urgencies of the issues was that because of the subject matter of what they were dealing with you could tell straight away that
00:52:00 with you could tell straight away that the first briefings were clearly more urgent and were said to be more urgent than the ones you got at the end yes i'm going to speak relatively candidly here so i had inherited
00:52:11 here so i had inherited a number of policies from the previous government previous administration that were extremely problematic so there was a policy to introduce a
00:52:23 so there was a policy to introduce a right to buy for housing association tenants which in itself i think was a good thing but it was to be funded by forcing councils to sell higher value council homes which was incredibly unpopular
00:52:35 homes which was incredibly unpopular there was a policy of rent control on housing associations which was holding back supply there were a number of other issues
00:52:42 issues where starter homes which there was a fear that they were going to
00:52:47 going to prevent affordable homes for rent being built
00:52:50 built so there were a number of these things that i had inherited that being frank now
00:52:55 now were a mess and the department didn't have to pay for them and it felt the policies weren't right and so those issues were the ones that were brought to me first i think because they needed urgent
00:53:07 first i think because they needed urgent resolution whereas
00:53:10 whereas the impression i got and i guess you'll you'll come on to talk about some of the phrases in it from the building regulations briefing was
00:53:17 was there were some issues here that we needed to take forward but there was nothing that was time critical urgent that needed uh action so
00:53:25 action so the sentence i've given you here as i said nobody said this to me explicitly but it is the judgment i formed from the order in which issues were brought before me in those introductory
00:53:37 before me in those introductory briefings yes and you tell us we don't need to go to it i think in your second statement that your private secretary had possibly consulted the department about the order but you you don't know about that is that right i don't know
00:53:48 about that is that right i don't know that certainly i had an outstanding private secretary named claire brunson who was an amazing civil servant and so she did a very effective job of trying to help me
00:53:59 trying to help me organize and cope with the volume of work that was coming across my desk so it's possible the prioritization was purely hers but i would be surprised if she didn't consult with
00:54:11 consult with uh the senior director there was no director general at that moment for the reasons we've discussed yes but the senior directors about what things they needed to bring to me first got you yeah now over what period of time did you
00:54:22 now over what period of time did you have these introductory briefings can you remember was it just over a day or did it last several days it's three or four weeks right so i mean i don't have you you see here that the the building regulations briefing is on
00:54:34 the building regulations briefing is on the 8th of august yes i don't have the earlier text in front of me i think i got appointed in mid-july yes that's right i don't know the exact date yeah um so i would guess it was over a sort of three-week period yeah
00:54:47 over a sort of three-week period yeah and can you remember how long roughly the building regulations team briefing lasted you've told us it's on the 8th of august was it the whole day was it an hour so it certainly wouldn't have been the whole day i suspect it would have
00:54:58 the whole day i suspect it would have been an hour hour and a half maybe yeah but that's uh to be clear that's a that's a guess rather than being able to remember the length of a meeting yeah and what did you understand the perfect purpose of that introductory briefing on
00:55:10 purpose of that introductory briefing on the building regulations to be so
00:55:15 so one of the things that may be helpful to the inquiry to understand is when you become a minister you're obviously not an expert in that area at all and i i've said to you already that i was lucky
00:55:26 said to you already that i was lucky that i was appointed to something that i had some
00:55:29 had some knowledge of but you are immediately expected to be able to do the job actually i was appointed on a sunday and on the monday at 2 30 i was in the house of commons asking answering
00:55:41 house of commons asking answering questions
00:55:42 questions so the first day in the job was literally on the four questions i was going to be asked trying to cram me up to speed on those things so that i could deal with that so i think the
00:55:53 could deal with that so i think the purpose of the introductory briefings is very quickly to try and get ministers
00:55:59 ministers up to speed on what it is that they are responsible for what current policy is
00:56:06 is any immediate decisions that are likely to be coming their way and then maybe what are the longer term challenges that the department is wrestling with
00:56:17 wrestling with that it doesn't have an immediate answer to
00:56:21 to so that those i think would be the things that you would try and cover at one of these discussions that's very helpful so just to be absolutely clear you didn't understand that this was just a briefing about how the building regulations worked in terms of nuts and
00:56:33 regulations worked in terms of nuts and bolts this was also a briefing that was meant to cover uh looking forward as to what challenges were ahead what policy issues needed to be dealt with what immediate issues dealt with yes yes and i i don't have
00:56:46 dealt with yes yes and i i don't have the document in front of me but i think there is a slide that specifically refers to that yeah in the briefing now we'll comment and i'm going to ask you this again later um so we don't need
00:56:58 you this again later um so we don't need to deal with it in in detail now but you tell us in your witness statements that you received a phone call from the prime minister theresa may on the 17th of july 2016 just a few days after taking office
00:57:09 2016 just a few days after taking office in which you say you were given a clear steer
00:57:12 steer that the key priority was addressing the housing supply crisis now just focusing on this question do you think that that might have influenced your thoughts in terms of the priorities of the department at the time
00:57:24 priorities of the department at the time and how you viewed these introductory presentations definitely but i would want to add one important point of context it wasn't just that so
00:57:35 so this inquiry rightly is going to focus on government but i think it is a really important point of context to say that in the 10 months when i was the minister
00:57:44 minister i never got asked a question in parliament about the building regulations i never
00:57:50 i never got asked i did two long interviews with inside housing sort of specialists media not a single question about the building regulations or fire safety so
00:58:02 so clearly from the from the compelling evidence that this inquiry has already received the government had a completely false picture of the level of fire safety but it wasn't just
00:58:13 level of fire safety but it wasn't just the government this wasn't an issue that was being raised by the opposition with the exception of the appg it wasn't being raised by back bench i wasn't being asked about it in parliament i wasn't
00:58:24 asked about it in parliament i wasn't being asked about it by the media so i'm sorry for giving you a longer answer definitely what the prime minister said to me had an effect but there are other things that could have happened that would have made me change that judgment
00:58:36 would have made me change that judgment that didn't happen and i think that's important context now let's look at the briefing slides that you were given there's a clg three zeros one nine three six two
00:58:49 you refer to these in your witness statement so we can see this was the introduction to building regulations and energy performance of buildings july 2016 by bob ledson in the building regulations and energy performance
00:59:00 regulations and energy performance division and if we go to page three
00:59:06 there's a box in the left hand that top left hand corner box we can see in green there's white writing that says we've seen real improvements in fire safety for example and then some
00:59:17 in fire safety for example and then some statistics in 1979 865 people in the uk died from fires in dwellings 30 years later this number had fallen to 353 and you can see that's based on home office
00:59:28 you can see that's based on home office statistics yes yes now do you remember these statistics actually being discussed at the meeting or did they simply appear on the slides do you remember somebody saying to you listen um deaths from fire are falling
00:59:40 listen um deaths from fire are falling and these are the statistics i can't say with certainty but my memory is somebody talked through these slides so it would have been discussed i think yes did mr levson in any way elaborate on
00:59:52 did mr levson in any way elaborate on the real improvements in fire safety that there'd been over and above the statistical data on fatalities i've tried to be as helpful as i can to you so far but i honestly
01:00:03 as i can to you so far but i honestly can't remember that level of what he might have said when talking to this slide i'm afraid yes were you comforted do you remember being comforted by
01:00:14 do you remember being comforted by statistics that were given to you during this uh meeting i mean you say in your statement from my initial briefing with officials i understood that fire safety policy was working that fatalities from fires were
01:00:26 working that fatalities from fires were decreasing is it right that you you gained some comfort from this i think with the clear benefit of hindsight i gained a completely false situational awareness
01:00:36 awareness yes
01:00:38 yes and can we agree that those statistics tell you nothing about the number of fires that have occurred in dwellings in the uk nor anything about the number of people injured as opposed to killed that is a
01:00:49 injured as opposed to killed that is a fair comment to make yes and that they therefore tell a very incomplete picture of fire events in the uk they they don't tell a complete picture that so that's a fair comment to make yes at the time were you aware that
01:01:01 yes at the time were you aware that reliance on statistics can be dangerously misleading as a predictor of catastrophic failure
01:01:12 when you say was i aware of that if you'd if you'd said that to me in a meeting i would have probably reflected on it and thought that there could be some truth in that but was it something i was aware of consciously no or any anyone in the department i i had studied
01:01:25 anyone in the department i i had studied statistics so i you know i i felt comfortable dealing with statistics uh and obviously if the point you're making is that even if even if risk is falling there's still
01:01:36 if even if risk is falling there's still you know the possibility of an event that has multiple fatalities i would have understood that but we didn't that detail wasn't discussed i think at the meeting yes and i think one of the points i'm
01:01:48 yes and i think one of the points i'm making is that even if deaths from fire are falling there may be other information out there that's building that's gathering which might suggest that a catastrophic failure is becoming not only a
01:01:59 failure is becoming not only a possibility but then actually more of a probability and none of that information was shared at the meeting otherwise i would have had a different understanding of the situation yes
01:02:11 yes i think we both need to slow down a bit for the transcriber i'll try and do my bit of that bargain um were you ever made aware that in fact
01:02:23 um were you ever made aware that in fact brian martin who we know was the technical policy lead in the department on fire safety was of the view that the reduction in the total number of fires and deaths was
01:02:34 the total number of fires and deaths was mostly attributable to a number of factors not related to building standards
01:02:40 standards did anyone ever discuss that with you i don't believe so no you're referring to things like fewer people smoking in the home or well we'll come back to that i just want to know whether anyone uh said to you actually
01:02:51 whether anyone uh said to you actually these statistics um and what we see in terms of these falling statistics um are attributable to factors which don't relate to building standards so yes like the introduction of alarms
01:03:03 so yes like the introduction of alarms things like that so
01:03:07 that i don't think that was discussed in the meeting and i would argue that the way that the slide is phrased
01:03:14 um implies that not necessarily about buildings down i certainly think alarms could be covered here if you look at the the visual that's included in that box but if you're talking about things like this being due more to people smoking
01:03:25 this being due more to people smoking less that wasn't touched on at all no yes
01:03:29 yes now
01:03:30 now mr ledsim has said in his witness statement to the inquiry for the transcript this is paragraph 96 page 26 of clg 3019465
01:03:40 that he doesn't recall any fire safety issues being discussed at this meeting uh is that consistent with your recollection i'm not sure what he means by fire
01:03:51 i'm not sure what he means by fire safety issues so it's a difficult question to answer i mean is he saying that he doesn't think that slide was discussed that's all i can put to you which is is that he doesn't recall there being any discussion of fire safety issues
01:04:03 discussion of fire safety issues my recollection is that we talked through these slides so i certainly think we would have covered that slide yeah he may be referring to some of the more detailed points you're talking about in which case he
01:04:14 you're talking about in which case he would be right yes i think he told us that he didn't think he talked through every single slide um so that's why that's a possibility and
01:04:23 and at this time do you remember having any discussion about a discussion document you've referred to it which the department was working on to identify potential areas of work within
01:04:34 identify potential areas of work within the approved document on fire safety i don't recall that being discussed at this briefing but i wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that there's nothing there's
01:04:45 possibility that there's nothing there's no reference it to it in the slides i don't have a memory of it it's possible that someone could have mentioned it and i don't recall that at this
01:04:53 this distance my first from the papers i've read
01:04:56 read the first reference i can see to the discussion document is the submission that comes in september yes which i'm coming to yeah um and what about the fire at la canal house can you recall there being any
01:05:07 can you recall there being any discussion at this stage about the lack of house fire so i've tried to clarify that in my evidence statements i i can't
01:05:16 i i can't i can't absolutely remember it was steve quartermaine he first spoke to me about it and i can't remember absolutely when he spoke to me about it it was informally at the end of a
01:05:27 it was informally at the end of a meeting and i think i say in my first witness statement it could have been at this meeting or it could have been at the briefing meeting for the question that i was thought i was going
01:05:38 question that i was thought i was going to be asked about the building regulations yes in the second witness statement i think i say that i believe it was probably the latter yes it was in
01:05:49 it was probably the latter yes it was in october and just to be clear with the inquiry
01:05:52 inquiry why i believe that it's because the the department subsequently provided me with the detailed briefing notes for that oral question yes that have a reference to it yes exactly and i think
01:06:03 reference to it yes exactly and i think that's what would have prompted steve to say to me
01:06:07 say to me something verbally about it at the end of the meeting yes um so i can't say for certain to you but my belief is that lack of was not mentioned at this briefing
01:06:18 briefing yes now if we look at your second witness statement page three paragraph six
01:06:25 you tell us that uh you say it paragraph six i was aware of the fact there had been a fire at la canal house prior to my appointment as housing minister i remember reading a news article about it
01:06:37 remember reading a news article about it at the time and then you go on so so you obviously had some awareness before this point just in general um what exactly did you know about the lack of house fire before
01:06:50 know about the lack of house fire before taking office can you help us with that very little i think probably if you'd said the word lachenal to me that wouldn't have cubed me in but i remembered there being a bad fire that people had died in i think it was in
01:07:02 people had died in i think it was in southwark yeah so literally
01:07:06 literally just
01:07:07 just awareness in the back of my mind that there had been a serious fire yeah and did you know at that point that there'd been an inquest uh quite an involved inquest into that i didn't know although i obviously
01:07:19 didn't know although i obviously given having had having been a counsellor i would have assumed there would have been one but i didn't i didn't know the detail of what the inquest the coroner's letter any of that no no yeah
01:07:31 um what about the commitment to review approved document b on fire safety do you remember there being any discussion at this introductory briefing about
01:07:42 at this introductory briefing about there having been a commitment to review the approved document um or indeed the time frames for that no and i'm pretty confident that that wasn't discussed at this meeting because
01:07:54 wasn't discussed at this meeting because the the tenor of steve quartermaine's conversation with me when he tells me about it is there's something you should know about you're about to go into the house of commons to answer a question
01:08:05 house of commons to answer a question and there's a thing that you haven't been told about that you need to know about which is this commitment yes so i'm i can't say for you for certainty but i'm pretty confident that was not mentioned at this meeting
01:08:18 yes thank you can we agree now that you should have been given at least some information about the lack of fire and the coroner's recommendations at this introductory
01:08:29 recommendations at this introductory briefing
01:08:31 briefing so the straight answer your question is is yes
01:08:35 is yes but i do want to put on record overall i had the highest regard for the officials that i worked with and i don't want to come here today and and just sort of say well it's it's all the officials fault that i wasn't told
01:08:46 the officials fault that i wasn't told but i i have to answer your question honestly
01:08:49 honestly i wish that i had been aware of it at this point yeah do you think they should have told i think they should so when when i am told about it there are then also and this is probably
01:09:00 there are then also and this is probably i'm going ahead to where council wants to go subsequently but there are two flaws in what i'm then told i'm told the wrong deadline so i'm told the commitment was to do it by the end of this parliament which
01:09:11 by the end of this parliament which would be 2020 and as the department acknowledges in its opening statement i'm not told that the department doesn't think this is a safety critical thing
01:09:22 think this is a safety critical thing um so
01:09:24 um so i can't say anything other to council other than that of course knowing what i know i wish i had been told at the start that there was this commitment that the deadline was very rapidly approaching march 2017 was the deadline as i
01:09:37 march 2017 was the deadline as i understand it secretary state pickles had had given and that i'd understood that this was a safety critical issue because clearly had i known those things my behavior would have been completely different to what it was yes and just to
01:09:49 different to what it was yes and just to be clear i'm sure we'll come to it when we look at what you were told but um when exactly were you told that the commitment was to do it by the end of the parliament which would be 2020. so
01:10:01 the parliament which would be 2020. so i think the document was supplied to the inquiry but there is a uh whenever you answer
01:10:06 answer or questions in the house you'll you'll have five or six questions maybe that you as the minister are responding to
01:10:13 to and what you'll get is you'll get the question that the mp is asking the initial question the answer you're going to read out and then the officials will try to guess the supplementary question that the member of parliament is going
01:10:24 that the member of parliament is going to ask
01:10:25 to ask based on what are the what are the obvious things they could ask about or they might do a bit of research into what does this mp care about and that briefing document um i don't know if it's possible to get
01:10:37 um i don't know if it's possible to get it up on screen but it it has a sentence in it that says
01:10:43 that says after the death of six people in acting house secretary of state pickles made a commitment to simplify approved document b by the end of this parliament or something to that yes we're coming to that yes so that's it was in that
01:10:54 that yes so that's it was in that briefing document so it was at that point and not before that you would hold that yeah in terms of timing yes so when steve quartermaine spoke to me verbally which would have been around the same
01:11:05 which would have been around the same meeting obviously it was it was a conversation as a meeting broke up he didn't mention a deadline simply said you should be aware there was this coroner's letter that made four
01:11:16 coroner's letter that made four recommendations we've dealt with three of them one is outstanding it's around simplification of the document we're going to do it as part of a wider review of the building regulations that was the sort of tenor of what steve said to me
01:11:28 sort of tenor of what steve said to me yes i follow and did anyone ever actually say to you this work following the lack of house fire is not life safety critical did anyone actually say that no no but the
01:11:40 anyone actually say that no no but the the very clear presumption was that it wasn't because we were wrapping it into a wider longer term review that was going to take time thank you that's helpful now if we go back to the slides from the
01:11:52 now if we go back to the slides from the introductory briefing yes and uh on page three the box in the bottom right hand corner has a heading in there the purple blue i
01:12:03 has a heading in there the purple blue i think it's blue actually part it says but there are emerging risks which we need to keep on top of such as dot dot dot and then we have a number of bullet points
01:12:14 bullet points and the bottom bullet point says this it says we need to understand the risks which new methods of construction may bring eg timber frame buildings now
01:12:25 now you may not be able to remember this but i do have to ask you were any other new methods of construction discussed at this point i don't believe so
01:12:37 i don't believe so i i say that because i can't ever recall anybody ever talking to me about cladding
01:12:46 cladding about acm acm with a pe core i've been through all of the documents that have been released to the inquiry and i can't find any reference to any of those things in writing and i don't recall
01:12:57 things in writing and i don't recall everyone anyone ever talking to me about them
01:13:00 them verbally but i do recall i think i recall a little bit of a discussion about that last bull point because one of the things that the department was interested in
01:13:12 that the department was interested in was encouraging modern methods of construction and we were interested in that from a supply point of view because we were trying to significantly increase the number of homes
01:13:23 increase the number of homes that were being built and there were constraints on the labor force
01:13:28 force that actually using new methods of construction might be one way of enabling us to boost the total supply of homes we were getting so i think there was a bit of disc discussion about
01:13:39 there was a bit of disc discussion about that bottom ball point but i your question i think was trying to imply did it go on to other methods of construction i don't think that it did okay thank you was there any discussion about any
01:13:50 was there any discussion about any conflict between the requirements of part l on energy efficiency and fire safety was that general topic ever discussed
01:14:01 i don't think so no
01:14:04 no i do recall
01:14:07 some discussion about the first bull point there in terms of there was a discussion about how the focus had been very much on energy performance and insulation and that
01:14:18 performance and insulation and that actually now there was a rising danger of the opposite problem not homes being too cold and people having to spend too much to heat them but the risk of overheating but i don't recall
01:14:30 overheating but i don't recall any discussion of a conflict between part l and part b yeah is it fair to say that in general modern methods of construction were seen as a positive in terms of helping with the
01:14:41 positive in terms of helping with the housing supply crisis certainly in relation to i'm not sure that's necessary in terms of the cladding issues but if you just said to me the phrase mmc is that a good thing my reaction at the
01:14:52 is that a good thing my reaction at the time would have been yes because it's it's helping us to bring innovation into the industry and to increase supply yeah now if we move on to page six of this document we can see from the main
01:15:03 document we can see from the main heading in the top right hand corner the focus of this slide right at the very top is on deregulation and it says underneath that it says
01:15:14 and it says underneath that it says building regulations and standards have delivered significant deregulation and there is potential for further savings to business do you see that i do yes
01:15:24 yes and then um in the bot the box at the bottom right hand corner we can see a series of bullet points under the heading there is the potential to achieve further savings to business first bullet the government is committed
01:15:35 first bullet the government is committed to further reducing regulatory burdens on business and to reduce the regulatory burden on home builders so identifying ways to deregulate or reduce costs to business will be a fundamental consideration in our future
01:15:47 fundamental consideration in our future reviews of regulations the building control system or statutory guidance included in the approved documents and then it goes on we think that there are opportunities for example to improve the approved documents and make them
01:15:58 the approved documents and make them easier to use do you see that i do now i'm going to come on i think after the break to discuss deregulation with you in a little bit more detail um but focusing on this for the moment
01:16:11 um but focusing on this for the moment what deregulation in broad terms did you understand had already been delivered by the building regulations and standards division did you have any understanding no no i don't if you'd asked me what
01:16:23 no no i don't if you'd asked me what detailed
01:16:24 detailed stat changes to the requirements or secondary legislation last i wouldn't have been able to answer that question yeah
01:16:30 yeah and when you took up your post as minister what did you understand to be the key work streams based on this briefing for the department to be in relation to the building regulations and
01:16:41 relation to the building regulations and the associated guidance so
01:16:44 so this this slide slightly surprised me i may be being i've said that i had a very high regard for the officials that i used to work with but and i may be
01:16:55 i used to work with but and i may be being unfair on them but i might if you'd asked me my starting assumption before i became a policy minister it would be that ministers have to push quite hard the case for deregulation there's a sort
01:17:07 the case for deregulation there's a sort of natural instinct in the machine
01:17:11 machine to build up what we have and so i was quite surprised how strongly the department was playing back to me uh on deregulation i think that that
01:17:22 uh on deregulation i think that that bottom right slide there to my mind at the time and now still conflates
01:17:29 conflates two things which is are you um
01:17:34 um are you simplifying something to make it easier understand which which may well be deregulation it may well be that by simplifying and clarifying language that actually
01:17:45 that actually compliance cost for business is reduced or are you actually changing the technical standards in some way that is that is delivering a saving and the last bullet point i think is clear that it's about simplification and
01:17:57 that it's about simplification and clarification the previous two could be read either way
01:18:01 way so
01:18:04 i think if you're asking me what did i understand the key issues to be going forward
01:18:08 forward definitely something about making these documents easier for people to use yeah i think there was reference at this meeting if not it came quite soon afterwards to a desire to change the format of the
01:18:20 to a desire to change the format of the approved documents to make them much more user-friendly but in terms of specific uh deregulation proposals it wasn't clear from this slide
01:18:31 slide you may want me to return to this later after the break but one of the things that i would say to you about deregulation is that obviously i was appointed as a minister in a new government and it was a
01:18:42 in a new government and it was a government of the same party as the previous government but i think there was a change of emphasis
01:18:48 emphasis and if you look at the language in the housing white paper it's a bit different to this can you just help me with this um presumably the primary function of those who were
01:18:59 primary function of those who were dealing with building regulations was to produce the most effective regulatory regime possible did it surprise or even concern you that when you were being briefed about
01:19:11 when you were being briefed about building regulations such emphasis was given on deregulation so it surprised me a little so i mean i am in favor of but it might suggest i'm sorry to interrupt you but it might
01:19:22 sorry to interrupt you but it might suggest that the deregulatory mindset had become if not uppermost at least very high in in the thoughts of those whose job was not so much to deregulate but to get
01:19:33 was not so much to deregulate but to get the regulations right so
01:19:36 so that's what i was hinting i think by the time you look at the housing white paper and again i haven't got the document in front of me there's a reference to deregulation while maintaining standards and that's an important
01:19:47 and that's an important change of tone to me when the state regulates in any way shape or form you're trying to strike the right balance between the necessary standards and subject to
01:19:58 the necessary standards and subject to that keeping the cost for people to comply with those regulations as low as possible and that is obviously particularly true when you're regulating something that is about fundamental human safety uh essentially so
01:20:09 human safety uh essentially so um
01:20:10 um i was
01:20:12 i was i wouldn't say concerned i was just a bit surprised and maybe this is best left until council asked me about the documents but i i do think this was something that the cameron
01:20:23 this was something that the cameron government and particularly had driven hard on and that the may government if you'd asked the prime minister i'm sure she would have said she was in favor of deregulation but the tone changes
01:20:35 tone changes as you look at the the september 2016 submission the white paper the march
01:20:41 march 2017 submission i think you can see a change in tone in regards to this area all right thank you that's helpful thank you no that's very helpful um i think that would be an appropriate moment for
01:20:52 that would be an appropriate moment for the break because i would come to this topic in more detail immediately after yes right well uh little goal as you probably know we do have a break during each session and this is the time to have the morning break so we'll stop now
01:21:03 have the morning break so we'll stop now we'll resume please at 20 to 12 and as with all the other witnesses i have to ask you please not to talk about your evidence or anything relating to it to anyone when you're out of the room of
01:21:14 to anyone when you're out of the room of course right thank you very much would you go with the usher please i will do thank you
01:21:25 thank you very much 20 to 12. please
01:40:54 would you ask a little bottle to come back in okay
01:41:08 all right little bubble ready ready to carry on i am good thank you very much yes it's strange when you're ready yes thank you now i want to ask you some more detail questions now about deregulation and your understanding of
01:41:19 deregulation and your understanding of the effect that that had on the department and just going over the history we know that the one in one out policy was an administrative policy that was introduced in 2011
01:41:30 was introduced in 2011 and operated within government whereby in theory no new regulation would be introduced without a compensating reduction in regulation being made now was that your understanding
01:41:43 it's my understanding but only only based as someone who was a backbench mp at the time at the time and and read about it in the news i'm not sure if that policy was in effect under the may government or not well did you have any direct experience
01:41:56 well did you have any direct experience of one in one hour and later one in two out which was introduced in 2013 before your time at the department again only by reference to reading that those were
01:42:07 by reference to reading that those were government policies in the media right i was i was a backbench mp and then i was a government whip so i wasn't the policy minister until i was appointed housing and planning minister
01:42:20 yeah and were you aware that in early 2016 so not long before you became junior housing minister and that that had become one in three
01:42:31 and that that had become one in three out
01:42:32 out no
01:42:33 no you weren't aware of that at all no and i'm not sure if that policy was in effect in the period when i was a minister there were never any submissions that i can think of that referenced it
01:42:45 referenced it right
01:42:47 now a paragraph 29a page eight of your um
01:42:53 um your second statement um
01:42:59 um you tell us that uh one in one out was introduced in january 2011. so let's get it up on the page paragraph 29a page 8.
01:43:14 yes you tell us there you say the one in one out rule introduced in january 2011 was extended to one in two out in january 2013 and one in three out on the third of
01:43:26 and one in three out on the third of march 2016. sorry can can i interrupt you did you say this was my step i beg your pardon sorry you're correct this is the statement of mr ledson and he says there in that last sentence
01:43:38 and he says there in that last sentence there was no exemption for building regulations from these rules do you see that i'd see it yes so it sounds like from what you're saying that um you didn't have much awareness during the
01:43:49 didn't have much awareness during the time you were housing minister of this one in three out policy i don't even know if it was still government policy under the new
01:44:00 the new under the may administration and if it was it was certainly never referenced to my knowledge in any submission that came to me
01:44:07 to me right
01:44:10 so you weren't aware that you were actively
01:44:13 actively implementing that policy during your time as housing minister i would put it even more strongly than that i'm not sure if i was actively influencing that policy when i was housing minister if i
01:44:24 policy when i was housing minister if i was i wasn't aware of it right
01:44:27 right and what was your understanding of the red tape challenge had you been aware of the red tape challenge in 2012
01:44:36 again i recognized the phrase i couldn't describe to you in detail it sounds like it was some piece of work that oliver let one was probably leading on trying to identify pieces of legislation that could be
01:44:47 pieces of legislation that could be removed from the statute but but i i wasn't a minister then i don't have any detailed knowledge of it right yes and going back to one in three hour we understand that it came in in march 2016
01:45:01 understand that it came in in march 2016 yes does that help well it says it says here in bob bob's um witness statement third of march 2016. yes but that but that doesn't help in terms of your awareness of it i definitely haven't forgotten him
01:45:13 of it i definitely haven't forgotten him so all i'm saying to you is i don't know whether the policy ceased to apply under the may government or whether it continued to apply and no one drew my attention to it right did you ever discuss the impact of the
01:45:25 did you ever discuss the impact of the deregulatory policies in terms of their historical impact on the department with either of your predecessors either james wharton or brandon lewis definitely not with james because i
01:45:36 definitely not with james because i didn't have a any kind of handover discussion with him i don't recall deregulation coming up in my discussion with brandon i think it was mainly about these difficult issues that i referred
01:45:47 these difficult issues that i referred to in an earlier uh answer in terms of um sale of high value council homes rent control some of those some of those things that were live issues that he was handing on to me yeah
01:46:00 did you ever think about whether it was possible to exempt certain regulations or guidance from it from the one in three out policy did that ever occur to you as something to
01:46:11 ever occur to you as something to to apply your mind to no and again i don't mean to be unhelpful i've tried today to be as helpful as i can answering your questions but because i didn't know that there was a one in three out policy and
01:46:22 there was a one in three out policy and was never told that it was applying that that never occurred to me i think what i can say to you is if officials had come to me and made the case that they thought that
01:46:33 and made the case that they thought that certain things should be exempted from it i would have been very willing to make that case to others in government i think if you look at my record when i was housing minister on things like
01:46:45 on things like sale of high value assets supported housing rent controls i proved that i was willing to push back on policies that the may government had inherited from the cameron government that i didn't think
01:46:57 that i didn't think were good policies right but i can't say to you i considered it because it was never raised with me when you saw and we saw it before the break mention of deregulation in the
01:47:08 break mention of deregulation in the building regulations briefing and given that you say you were not aware of the one in three out policy did you think to ask officials about what was envisaged in terms of
01:47:19 about what was envisaged in terms of deregulation no but um you know i was supportive of deregulation provided we were still maintaining the necessary standards as as i as i said in answer to the chairman
01:47:31 as i as i said in answer to the chairman uh earlier and my assumption was that those discussions would come once we responded to the discussion document the once we had got specific proposals following that consultation
01:47:43 consultation at that point would be the moment to challenge well what are the particular areas where we're looking to to make changes right the the briefing documents up to them had merely referred to deregulation as one of the
01:47:55 referred to deregulation as one of the objectives of policy i didn't disagree with that although i was as i said slightly surprised by the emphasis put on it
01:48:03 on it but no i think the time at which i would have challenged or maybe pushed particular proposals would have been after the response to the discussion document yes if you'd been asked at the time
01:48:15 if you'd been asked at the time what deregulatory policies what specific policies are the officials in the department working to what would your answer have been i wouldn't i wouldn't have known um the
01:48:27 i wouldn't i wouldn't have known um the answer that question because i don't think there were specific measures that were being worked on other than late in my time as housing minister when i became aware
01:48:39 as housing minister when i became aware of the work on approved document b there is a submission that refers to ongoing work simplifying the language and the approved documents so if you'd asked me that question that you just
01:48:50 asked me that question that you just posed
01:48:51 posed in say february or march of 2017
01:48:55 2017 that's what i would probably have referred to in response yeah help us with this how would officials in the department have been made aware that they were no longer to work rigidly
01:49:06 that they were no longer to work rigidly to those deregulatory policies
01:49:10 well the policy the policies weren't coming from i presume in terms of what bob's referring to here the policies weren't coming from the secretary of state they were they were collective policies of the
01:49:21 were collective policies of the government which were being driven from the cabin office so i presume i don't know the answer to this whatever the position was under the may government would have come partly from
01:49:32 government would have come partly from uh right rounds from the minister for the cabinet office and maybe internally to the permanent secretary within the civil service network
01:49:44 right so there should have been some right arounds from the minister for the cabinet office and maybe the perm sec within the civil service network informing civil servants about what
01:49:55 informing civil servants about what deregulatory policies they were or weren't
01:49:58 weren't working to yeah if they were if there were particular targets or policies that superseded these yes yes can you help us with this as well that um
01:50:07 um we've heard considerable evidence from civil servants in the
01:50:13 in the building regulations team about the pressures that they felt under to satisfy the government's deregulatory agenda and the way in practice that really did affect their work they said
01:50:25 really did affect their work they said on a day-to-day basis and yet we've heard from you and we heard from james wharton that the deregulatory agenda wasn't a particular focus
01:50:36 particular focus can you help us understand how we've got two ministers james wharton and now you who are both saying it wasn't a particular focus in fact you know yes deregulation generally
01:50:47 fact you know yes deregulation generally but nothing specific and yet the civil servants at the bottom appear to have been literally crushed if their evidence is accepted by the weight of these deregulatory policies help us
01:50:58 of these deregulatory policies help us with that so i'll try my best to help
01:51:02 to help i can't speak for james obviously but the answers i've tried to give you relate to the period when i was in government so if if the officials are saying that they felt under extreme pressure
01:51:14 that they felt under extreme pressure from me to pursue this deregulatory agenda
01:51:17 agenda in the in the 10 months or so when i'm a minister i'm at a loss to understand how that can be the case and i i would observe to you that if you called up the white paper
01:51:29 that if you called up the white paper which had a number of proposals to strengthen the building regulations in relation to broadband provision in relation to the accessibility of buildings
01:51:40 buildings in relation to the energy performance of buildings
01:51:43 buildings it definitely also had a reference to deregulation but it caveated it clearly with the phrase while maintaining standards
01:51:51 standards so
01:51:52 so i would like to think that if officials were asked about what they got from myself and from the secretary of state certainly there would still be some reference to deregulation but
01:52:02 but caveated and there were definitely areas where we were prepared to proceed with new proposals i don't recall in terms of your reference to one in one out one in two out one and
01:52:14 one in one out one in two out one and three out i don't recall with in the right rounds that we ever came under any other pressure to have to deregulate in other areas in order to put those commitments uh into the white paper and the final thing i would say to you
01:52:27 and the final thing i would say to you is
01:52:28 is as as i hinted at earlier if you compare the september 2016 submission on the discussion document textually with the march 2017 one there is a very significant
01:52:40 one there is a very significant difference of emphasis both on deregulation but also in terms of setting out lots of areas where the technical standards need to be improved um so
01:52:50 um so in summary if that if that feedback that i haven't seen that you're referring to in terms of the evidence that officials given if that relates to my period as minister i'm at a loss to understand it right if
01:53:02 i'm at a loss to understand it right if it relates to the previous period i would certainly say that the cameron government and oliver when i think was the
01:53:08 the minister at the cabin office pushing it there was a very big agenda there so although i wasn't in the department and i can't tell you what it was like at the time as a back bench mp i can
01:53:19 time as a back bench mp i can i can see where that might have come from yeah but in terms of my own period as minister i'm not saying we weren't interested in deregulation at all but i think there was a much more nuanced approach under
01:53:30 was a much more nuanced approach under the may government to that um
01:53:32 um than under the previous government yes you see i'm not aware that um and i'll be corrected from behind if i'm wrong that
01:53:39 that bob ledson or richard harrell drew any distinction between your time and the may government in terms of deregulation and the period before albeit there is an emphasis in
01:53:52 before albeit there is an emphasis in their witness statements about a step change when the coalition government came in
01:53:56 came in that there was very heavy emphasis on deregulation but it appears that they felt all the way through this period and up to the grenfell fire that deregulation was a very pressing part of their agenda
01:54:09 very pressing part of their agenda and something which we've heard definitely influenced for example bryan martin saying he wasn't amending approved document b in part because getting anything changed was difficult
01:54:21 getting anything changed was difficult so so we don't have any distinction drawn between that period of government and your period of government um help me with this how would those officials know
01:54:32 how would those officials know that you had had less emphasis on deregulation were they just meant to work it out by listening to what you know officials were saying or you know ministers or the prime minister was saying or was there
01:54:43 prime minister was saying or was there ever anything that went down to them which said by the way yes deregulation is good but the emphasis is now on quality it's on safety do we ever see that yeah so so i
01:54:55 safety do we ever see that yeah so so i think there are clear policy documents that the government publishes that say that very clearly the tone is very different
01:55:01 different uh in the housing white paper and you will never find at least from the documents that have been shared with me from the department where i'm feeding back on submissions and saying i don't
01:55:12 back on submissions and saying i don't think you've gone far enough on the deregulation front here i want to see more on that that's not the feedback that i was giving the feedback i was giving was particularly on part b and part m i wanted to see them develop the
01:55:23 part m i wanted to see them develop the technical standards further so i i if that's what the witnesses have said to you then that is an important record of how they felt and it's not for me to contradict that but all i can say to you
01:55:36 contradict that but all i can say to you is
01:55:37 is if you look both at the responses from my office when i read submissions or you look at the policy documents that i approved i genuinely think that there is a tonal difference and i think in other areas of policy
01:55:50 and i think in other areas of policy officials in the department would have felt that i had shown a willingness to row back on policies that i had inherited that i didn't think were good policies yes but it sounds of what you said
01:56:01 yes but it sounds of what you said earlier and again is this fair that officials ought to have picked up from the tone of the housing white paper that deregulation was no longer such a
01:56:12 that deregulation was no longer such a pressure is that what you're saying it's not from the tone we we agreed the policy collectively it's the actual policy measures that were in there so it and again i'm not saying that
01:56:23 that the secretary of state and i had given up on deregulation altogether we weren't interested in it of course because we were trying to increase supply of housing we would have wanted to identify any areas where it would be
01:56:34 to identify any areas where it would be possible without cutting standards to reduce the cost to people of building homes because that would enable more homes to be built so it wasn't that we had
01:56:44 had walked away from this agenda altogether but there are specific policies in the white paper if you go if you go back and study it in relation to the energy performance of homes in relation to
01:56:56 performance of homes in relation to access standards in relation to broadband provision which demonstrate not just a change of tone but a clear willingness on behalf of the secretary state and myself to agree
01:57:08 secretary state and myself to agree things that were imposing additional requirements on people building homes where we felt that there was a strong policy justification in terms of the benefits outweighing the costs that that
01:57:19 benefits outweighing the costs that that would be imposed but help me with this how was somebody in the building regulations division like brian martin who was a technical specialist meant to understand from the housing
01:57:31 meant to understand from the housing white paper that deregulation was no longer such a burden for him how was that actually communicated to people like him in the department well he would have been involved i suspect in clearing
01:57:42 have been involved i suspect in clearing the specific wording on those policies it's not that the secretary of state and i wrote the housing white paper off in some ivory tower on ourselves and then published it the wording of the the policy content and
01:57:54 policy content and you can imagine when you're trying to get a white paper approved in government there's continual processes of writing what's called a right round to other departments saying this is what we're thinking of saying on this what do
01:58:07 we're thinking of saying on this what do you think can you get some pushback so i remember particularly on the energy performance standards
01:58:14 standards um we got pushed back from both directions the the business department that was responsible for climate change wanted us to go further uh and the treasury which was always worried about regulatory cost and burden
01:58:26 worried about regulatory cost and burden was nervous and we ended up compromised wording but i can't say to you for absolute certain but some of those officials would have been involved in drafting the language that was in the
01:58:37 drafting the language that was in the white paper it wouldn't have been done uh if you like separate from them and they were just expected to understand that this had happened they would have been intrinsically involved in the process right some of them but but certainly not all of them and and what
01:58:49 certainly not all of them and and what i'm really getting at is how internally within the department was this communicated so that those civil servants knew that they they didn't need to fear
01:59:01 that they they didn't need to fear that a change which protected life safety would be dismissed by ministers simply because it was regulation because that does appear to have been the climate in which they thought they were working in
01:59:12 working in so i would answer your question i think in two ways the first thing is i would be horrified
01:59:21 horrified if any civil servant in that department was ever scared to come to me and say this is what i think
01:59:27 think you should be doing i tried to create a climate with the officials that i worked with where people would be confident to say this is where we believe policy i might
01:59:38 this is where we believe policy i might not always agree with them but i certainly wanted a climate where officials felt comfortable doing that and i tried with limited success this isn't easy
01:59:49 with limited success this isn't easy with the civil service but i tried when we were in private meetings to say to officials you don't all have to agree with each other in this meeting they would you would tend to get a submission where you had the director
02:00:00 submission where you had the director general the director the grade seven and all their names were on submission and i used to say that you can't possibly all have exactly the same opinion on this question this is a when we go out in
02:00:11 question this is a when we go out in public we all have to take the government's line but in a private meeting like this if there are differences of opinion within the team i want to hear them because that's going to help me make a decision so the first
02:00:22 to help me make a decision so the first way i would answer your question is i just want to put on record if it's genuinely true that there were officials in the department that were nervous
02:00:29 nervous about coming to me and saying this is what i think is wrong with policy at the moment i would be horrified to learn that that's not the climate that i tried to create at all but on your specific question
02:00:41 but on your specific question how should they have known i think i would say a some of them were intrinsically involved in the policy development work but obviously i would hope that the the chain of command
02:00:53 hope that the the chain of command within the department those officials like steve cartermain who were spending significant chunks of time with me every week
02:01:00 week would be cascading down to their teams what my
02:01:04 what my reactions to submissions were and what i was saying to them in those meetings yeah
02:01:09 yeah help me with this um did you ever ask any official to filter down a new
02:01:15 a new message a different message a shift in focus away from deregulation to those within people like for example the building regulations division did you ever ask for that to happen
02:01:26 you ever ask for that to happen specifically to that division no but i think i gave a very clear impression that whilst i still wanted to look for opportunities to deregulate i was also prepared to look at opportunities to tighten
02:01:38 to look at opportunities to tighten policy
02:01:40 policy in
02:01:41 in those areas where we could demonstrate that there was a public policy benefit from doing so and i communicated that clearly i think both by words and actions
02:01:56 yes i see i mean richard harrell the head of technical policy told him during that told us that during his time in office that he understood regulation to be
02:02:08 that he understood regulation to be quotes bad and that even where there were regulatory proposals which might be superficially attractive to ministers once it was recognized it was regulation they would pull back from that because
02:02:19 they would pull back from that because it was not the way they wanted to drive change now do you recognize that uh occurring during your time in office no i do not um certainly
02:02:30 certainly i would say unnecessary regulation bad but as i said like i don't want to repeat myself but the white paper clearly demonstrates a willingness to impose new regulation
02:02:42 a willingness to impose new regulation where i didn't think it was bad where i thought that there was a case for making those changes so this isn't just about what i was saying internally in meetings it's what the secretary of state and i
02:02:54 it's what the secretary of state and i were doing and we were battling with other government departments to get collective approval to those positions i can't
02:03:01 can't i don't know when richard said that whether he was talking about the whole period he was doing the job and i can't speak
02:03:07 speak to the period before i became a minister but i've tried to give you an honest account
02:03:12 account of what we tried to do in the period when we were there yes now that does not absolve us of this entirely because we still
02:03:18 still did have a deregulation the white paper still refers to deregulation where possible
02:03:23 possible but it was a different tone and that's an important point that i wanted to make today exactly i mean can you accept that that might be the difficulty here is that you've as you've just told us you did still want to look for opportunities to deregulate and the white paper if
02:03:36 to deregulate and the white paper if people read it still had deregulation as a key focus so the difficulty is that the the the civil servants who've been working under these pressures for a very long time
02:03:47 these pressures for a very long time unless they're given a very clear message that something has changed are aren't they reasonably going to carry on thinking that deregulation needs to be their first priority so
02:03:58 needs to be their first priority so again let me let me just try and answer the question in um
02:04:03 um two parts
02:04:04 two parts i would expect any government of any political complexion at all to still be interested in deregulation to still be trying to identify if there are things that are still on the statute book that are no longer
02:04:16 the statute book that are no longer necessary or if there are things that can be done better in a more cost effective way so i'm not going to apologize for having any kind of reference to deregulation
02:04:27 any kind of reference to deregulation but in terms of how were officials meant to know
02:04:32 all i can say to you is that i think across the board in housing policy the may government changed a whole load of policies um from those that we inherited from the
02:04:43 um from those that we inherited from the cameron government whether it was starter homes whether it was
02:04:48 was in relation to sale of high value council homes or a whole load of areas rent controls where we tried to shift policy and that was recognized in the sector
02:04:59 recognized in the sector so i would hope officials saw the very clear evidence that ministers were willing to re-look at these things but
02:05:07 but if people have told you what you're telling me they've told you that is an important match of record yeah did you know for example that in 2016 and i don't think a specific date in
02:05:18 and i don't think a specific date in 2016 was given the better regulation unit within mhclg effectively told officials within the building regulations division not to propose any new regulation were you
02:05:30 propose any new regulation were you aware of that no
02:05:32 no and their instruction obviously wasn't very effective because in the white paper that was published at the start of 2017 there were areas where we strengthened regulation but i wasn't aware that that instruction was given
02:05:44 was given i don't know whether that happened under my period post post july or not yeah we saw in the briefing that bob levson gave you in august 2016 that there was
02:05:55 gave you in august 2016 that there was clear reference there to deregulation and it being a key priority for that team
02:06:00 team do you remember ever having any other specific conversations with bob ledson about
02:06:06 about deregulation and how much pressure there was to deregulate in terms of his specific work streams no i don't i don't recall any occasion where officials
02:06:18 occasion where officials raised the kinds of concerns that you've identified in in the quotes that you've given to me with me personally at any point we obviously talked about what was in the discussion document but i don't
02:06:29 the discussion document but i don't think that's what you were asking me you were yeah if i understood you right you were trying to ask me did officials ever vocalize to me the pressure that they felt under on the deregulation front that they didn't know did you ever ask officials about how
02:06:42 did you ever ask officials about how much pressure they had felt during previous administrations to deliver that deregulatory agenda did you ever raise that topic yourself with them i i don't know i don't know if i
02:06:53 know i don't know if i i might have commented but very gently on
02:06:57 on along the lines of what i said to the chairman in the first bit of this evidence session that i was surprised at how strong the emphasis was but i can't say for certain that i did that yes melanie dawes when she gave evidence
02:07:10 yes melanie dawes when she gave evidence didn't say to us that she thought the one in three out just didn't apply and wasn't a policy she says she recalls thinking that the department almost certainly wouldn't be able to deliver on it and that she was
02:07:23 able to deliver on it and that she was going to have to have some difficult discussions to push back heavily on it she said it was her evidence that it was an extremely onerous request and lots of the low-hanging fruit had already been
02:07:35 the low-hanging fruit had already been taken but she so she didn't think they were going to be able to deliver and she was going to have to push back on those proposals so it certainly doesn't seem to have been the understanding of your permanent secretary that that policy
02:07:47 permanent secretary that that policy just simply didn't apply at all can you help us with that so i don't know when she's referring to so it's difficult for me to answer that question all i can say to you is i have a very high regard for
02:07:59 you is i have a very high regard for melanie and if she had concluded that she needed to push back and she'd come to talk to me about it i would have been very happy to join in a pushing back i mean
02:08:09 mean when you're a minister you have to publicly uh respect what's called collective responsibility so the idea is i can't as housing minister go and give
02:08:21 i can't as housing minister go and give an interview saying i don't really agree with what the health department is doing here you have to back all government policy but if melanie had talked to me privately
02:08:30 privately my view was that these sort of one in
02:08:33 one in one out or one in two out policies were slightly blunt instruments i could understand what they were trying to achieve in terms of in terms of deregulation but actually
02:08:45 in terms of deregulation but actually it's not really about the number of regulations there are it's about what is the cost that a regulation is imposing and what is the benefit that it's bringing and looking at that cost
02:08:57 it's bringing and looking at that cost benefit analysis that's what should really in my opinion drive decision making on whether a particular regulation is still serving a good purpose or not so if if melanie had come to me and said
02:09:09 come to me and said what she's what you just quoted her as saying i would have been very happy joining her at a political level in pushing back yeah if you'd been told at the time by the way
02:09:21 way officials within this department feel that they're working in a policy environment where regulatory intervention is a last resort what would you have said
02:09:37 i don't think some of the other quotes you have read out to me worry me more than that quote i mean i don't think the government should regulate unless it needs to regulate
02:09:47 regulate i suppose what i would have said if someone had said that exact phrase to me is
02:09:52 is well
02:09:53 well i agree that we shouldn't regulate unless we have to but please don't if that's please don't let that make you feel that you can't come to me if you think there's something where we need to act right okay thank you
02:10:06 right okay thank you um
02:10:07 um i want to turn now to consider the deputy coroner's recommendations following the lack of house inquest and your knowledge and understanding of the work the department was doing in relation to that
02:10:18 relation to that um now
02:10:20 um now we've touched on it before but um when did you first learn about the lack of house fire in any detail you've mentioned the steve quartermaine conversation we'll come back to that but
02:10:31 conversation we'll come back to that but did you ever get any detailed understanding of what the lack of house fire involved or indeed what the coroner had recommended following it no um and obviously
02:10:42 um and obviously in preparing for this inquiry i've now read
02:10:45 read uh the the coroner's letter and i've read
02:10:48 read eric pickles response to it and had i been shown those um which i never was i think i probably would have asked that i probably should have asked for them myself anyway but i would have
02:10:59 for them myself anyway but i would have asked for them at the point of which [Music]
02:11:02 [Music] post the discussion document we had started doing the actual work i think that would have raised some concerns
02:11:08 concerns about
02:11:09 about what exactly it was that the department had committed itself to so does it follow that you weren't ever given any details about uh the potential causes and factors that contributed to
02:11:20 causes and factors that contributed to that fire no did you even know that uh it was at least in part an external cladding fire no
02:11:29 you tell us in your witness statement that you weren't aware this is paragraph 34 page 13 of your first statement that you weren't aware of any other major
02:11:40 other major uh external fire spread incidents such as uh fires in the uae is that correct you weren't aware of any of those i can't see the witness name but that is correct
02:11:51 see the witness name but that is correct yes
02:11:53 yes so you hadn't heard of any fires in the middle east between 2012 and 2015 when you took office no a fire in in france in rue bay in may 2012. no you hadn't heard of that
02:12:05 in may 2012. no you hadn't heard of that or the fire at the lacrosse building in melbourne australia in november 2014 you hadn't heard of that either just to be absolutely clear i hadn't i had an awareness of any other major
02:12:16 had an awareness of any other major external thoughts this time whenever in the world they took place what about in this country were you made aware at any stage of the 1999 fire at garnet court in irvine in scotland
02:12:27 in irvine in scotland which was a 17-story block of facts and resulted in a select committee inquiry and recommendations being made was that ever drawn to your attention uh i'm almost certain the answer to that is no the inquiries obviously had copies of
02:12:39 the inquiries obviously had copies of all of the briefing documents that came to me i don't think there's any reference to it in any of them no
02:12:45 no now going back to the lack of house five we go to paragraph 11 of your first statement on page four
02:12:53 yes you you say this you say um i became aware of the rule 43 letter which i would have understood as a coroner's report and the outstanding recommendation to revise the approved
02:13:05 recommendation to revise the approved document by way of an oral briefing from officials in autumn 2016. i cannot recall exactly how i became aware of it this may have been at the introductory briefing with bob ledson or when i was briefed prior to answering an
02:13:17 when i was briefed prior to answering an oral question in the house of commons about building regulations on the 24th of october 2016. my recollection is that it was steve quartermaine who initially raised this with me
02:13:28 raised this with me now
02:13:29 now in his witness statement to the inquiry steve quartermaine tells us that he was himself unaware of the coroner's rule 43 letter
02:13:38 letter until what he terms the autumn of 2016 when bob ledson raised this with him as part of a one-to-one discussion now for the transcript that's at clg 30308 666
02:13:51 the transcript that's at clg 30308 666 page five paragraph 17. now
02:13:56 now do you accept that given mr quartermaine himself was not aware of these recommendations until the autumn of 2016 it's unlikely that you were made aware of it until that time
02:14:10 if my recollection that it was him that told me is correct yes self-evidently um and it's not i mean from from what i know now having prepared for this
02:14:21 prepared for this appearance it's not just steve it's the permanent secretary helen mcnamara the director general the secretary of state all of them in their witness statements so that they were never aware of this
02:14:33 yes now you told us earlier that it was at the end of a meeting you remember mr quartermaine taking you aside and mentioning the lack of house fire and the coroner's recommendations to you is
02:14:45 the coroner's recommendations to you is that right yes i think the the the what we've got on screen at the moment is my first witness statement i think i clarify it in my second witness statement yes my first one here i'm saying i can't remember which of the two occasions it was
02:14:57 occasions it was and then i think the department shared some extra evidence with me which led me to strongly believe it was it was the latter of the two occasions exactly you think it's certainly by the time you had the
02:15:09 certainly by the time you had the briefing in october 2016 that you'd learnt about those matters i think it was the 18th of october yes now regardless of when it was thinking back to that conversation with steve
02:15:20 back to that conversation with steve quartermaine did you say to him hang on i've been in post for several weeks or months whatever it was at that point um i've been in post for some time now
02:15:32 um i've been in post for some time now why wasn't this part of an initial briefing that i got why am i only being told now about this important matter did you say that to him i didn't and i probably should have um the context is
02:15:44 probably should have um the context is probably
02:15:45 probably helpful
02:15:46 helpful which is that the meeting had broken up it was the end of the briefing and he was literally catching me before the next
02:15:52 next deputation was coming in for the next meeting
02:15:55 meeting so he was basically saying to me look we talked about how to answer this i think it was the labour mp steve mccabe was asking me a question about the building regulations and it actually turned out to be a question about his private member's bill
02:16:07 question about his private member's bill when we when we got to it but we thought it was going to be about the building regulations and steve just caught me at the end of the meeting and said look i want you to understand this there's a thing there's this coroner's
02:16:18 there's a thing there's this coroner's report
02:16:19 report there were four recommendations we've done three of them but there's one outstanding and if you get asked about it the answer is we're going to deal with it as part of the wider review of building regulations now obviously i
02:16:30 building regulations now obviously i knew about that wide review of builder regulations so probably i should have done what you've was suggesting to me but i didn't the next meeting was about to start and i
02:16:42 next meeting was about to start and i was really thinking more about being ready for the for the question time and making sure i had the relevant information yes so can you help us understand why at that point you didn't say to him
02:16:55 that point you didn't say to him hang on
02:16:56 hang on i want a briefing about this this is obviously a major fire there's been recommendations this is the first i've heard of it orally i want some paperwork on this so i can understand what's happened what was
02:17:08 understand what's happened what was recommended where we are in dealing with these recommendations help us understand why you don't ask for that when he mentions this to you as an aside so again just uh the the risk of reputation
02:17:19 again just uh the the risk of reputation repetition i should have done so clearly is the first thing to say secondly i've tried to give you the context it was literally at the end of a meeting that was breaking up but
02:17:29 but that doesn't excuse why i didn't come back at a subsequent moment and say to steve actually can we have a conversation about that um
02:17:36 um i think
02:17:37 i think all i can say to you by way of mitigation is the impression he gave me was there were three kind of serious issues that we've dealt with this was a more minor thing it's just simplifying the document we've got it on hand and i
02:17:48 the document we've got it on hand and i just accepted that on trust which i clearly shouldn't have done yes
02:17:53 yes did mr quartermaine tell you that he had only recently been told about it sorry i'm answering too quickly no he didn't
02:18:09 did it ring any alarm bells for you whatsoever that this hadn't been mentioned to you earlier or more formally
02:18:17 formally i'd like to say yes but clearly it didn't because if it had rung an alarm bell i would have done what you were suggesting i should have done
02:18:25 when you were told about it did you recollect because you tell us you were generally aware of the fire did you recollect that that fire had occurred quite a few years before this point it
02:18:37 quite a few years before this point it occurred in fact in 2009 was that something you remember being aware of simply the passage of time since that fire no not at the time because as i think i said to you when you asked me the question earlier on
02:18:49 you asked me the question earlier on when steve referred to it he referred to it by the name of the building la canal and i didn't link it with the thing right that i knew had sort of heard about in the news before i was ever an mp
02:18:59 mp so i didn't make that connection no
02:19:04 now let's look at this briefing document that you were sent in october 2016. it appears at clg one three zeros eight six five four
02:19:17 here it is it's in relation to oral questions tabled questions by stephen mccabe mp see that at the top yes and you're the minister answering the minister of state for housing planning minister for london
02:19:29 minister for london um
02:19:30 um and then if we go within it to page three
02:19:36 here we have the briefing now just for context you tell us in your second statement
02:19:41 statement this is page four paragraph ten that you were sent this briefing initially on the 18th of october 2016 and then it was redrafted and re-sent to you again on the 20th of october 2016
02:19:52 october 2016 in preparation for answering these oral questions in the house of commons yes yes and this is the final the redrafted version
02:20:01 version and under the heading fire safety in the middle of that page we can see it says this it says bullet one the current fire safety provisions in part b fire safety of the building
02:20:13 in part b fire safety of the building regulations for england were published in 2006
02:20:17 in 2006 with minor amendments in 2007 2010 and 2013.
02:20:22 2013. and then it goes on in 2013 the inquiry into the six deaths in the fire at la canal house recommended that guidance in approved document b should be simplified eric pickles said at the time that
02:20:35 eric pickles said at the time that government would review part b during this parliament and that this would include simplification where this was possible do you see that i do now
02:20:47 now just starting with that first bullet point do you remember noticing at the time that the last major review of part b the fire safety provisions of the approved document had been in 2006.
02:21:00 approved document had been in 2006. did that strike you at all when you read this i i certainly don't remember that striking me and i doubt that it did so you didn't think to yourself well wow that's 10 years ago and they've only
02:21:11 that's 10 years ago and they've only been minor amendments since then that that wasn't a thought that occurred to you no
02:21:20 did you um i mean to be to be fair the regulations themselves for the for the reason that you alluded to right at the start of your questioning because they're functional requirements
02:21:31 because they're functional requirements the actual building rights are relatively short so i'm not sure if it is that surprising that they're not being updated regularly it's it's more the approved documents
02:21:43 approved documents that you would expect to have more regular revision i would suggest but it didn't anyway your question was did it strike me no it didn't yes i mean in fact that's that's slightly misleading that bullet point because it was the
02:21:54 that bullet point because it was the approved document that had been updated and published in 2006 with minor amendments in 2007 2010 and 2013 not the building regulations
02:22:05 regulations but in fairness to you i think what you're saying is you wouldn't have appreciated that at the time i do know that now yeah but i um because i think there was just one change the building regulations in terms of sprinklers at some point
02:22:17 of sprinklers at some point but
02:22:17 but at the time i would have just taken that for what it said literally on the on the page yeah now when you saw this briefing document did you question immediately why you weren't told about the lack of
02:22:28 why you weren't told about the lack of recommendations in your introductory briefing with bob ledson in august 2016 no i didn't and why not
02:22:39 i don't know the answer to that um
02:22:42 um i think probably the wording of this i mean it's worth recording i'm sure everybody in the inquiry knows this but that underlined
02:22:53 statement is critically wrong in terms of the timing of the commitment
02:23:00 so if it had said where pickles actually promised which was that this would be done by 2016 2017 i.e in my mind i would have read that as march 2017
02:23:12 have read that as march 2017 it would have provoked a very different reaction from me because i would have thought well hang on a second that's six months away if we did if we literally do it on the last possible day we've only got six months to do this and we'll have to consult on it so we
02:23:23 and we'll have to consult on it so we should be doing it right now why aren't i seeing this right now but because it said during this parliament which gives me the impression that we've got four and a bit years to
02:23:34 that we've got four and a bit years to do it
02:23:35 do it that both doesn't suggest a time pressure to do it immediately and it also i suspect i don't know this i suspect it made me think this isn't a sort of life safety critical issue because if it was a life safety critical
02:23:47 because if it was a life safety critical issue we wouldn't be waiting for or so years potentially to do it right so i it's difficult this is obviously looking back on
02:23:55 back on something i've read on a particular day in the office six years ago nearly now yes so i can't say to you exactly how i felt but my suspicion would be that that point that inaccuracy on the
02:24:08 that that point that inaccuracy on the timetable of when we had to do this by made a big difference to how i reacted to it right i mean we can see it's eric pickles's commitment so it's the previous secretary of state's commitment
02:24:19 previous secretary of state's commitment and it talks about during this parliament what did you understand that to me during the parliament that was
02:24:25 that was running when eric pickles was the secretary of state because that would be the former parliament this this parliament i would have taken as the 2015 expecting it to run to 2020
02:24:36 as the 2015 expecting it to run to 2020 parliament right so i would have taken that as saying i know i know these things are very these dates are very opaque so the pickles commitment 2016-17 i've seen
02:24:47 pickles commitment 2016-17 i've seen previous evidence where people are interpreting that in different ways to me to anyone in politics 2016-7 17 means financial year 2016-17 so it means
02:24:59 means financial year 2016-17 so it means you have to do that by march 2017. yes and if you say during this parliament it means the parliament i'm in when i'm reading this document which is the parliament that began with the 2015 election and that is going
02:25:11 with the 2015 election and that is going to potentially run for five years to 2020. yes but did you ask yourself the question why would eric pickles be making a commitment that the review would be completed during the next parliament that often
02:25:22 during the next parliament that often happens i didn't ask them myself that question at all and quite often people will make commitments that are reasonably long in the future so that wouldn't have struck me doesn't strike me today as a surprising thing really no
02:25:33 me today as a surprising thing really no not odd that in 2013 i mean you can see what the the commitment is here or at least you can see what it's being represented as should be simplified
02:25:44 should be simplified did did the simple passage of time since 2013 not strike you as odd that why would eric pickles be taking not only the time in his own parliament but the next one
02:25:55 next one to deliver a simplification of a document like the approved document b
02:26:00 b did that occur to you i'm afraid it didn't and i and i don't think that even looking back at it now whereas some of the things you've asked me about looking back on it now i think i should have done x or y i still don't feel that
02:26:12 have done x or y i still don't feel that looking at that now quite often in politics people make commitments that are a long time in the future and if i thought about it i probably would have thought there was an agreed timetable of updating the different
02:26:23 timetable of updating the different documents and he promised to do this within that time scale because that was the timetable they were doing it on so it's one sentence i'm answering six questions each briefing document is probably about 10
02:26:34 briefing document is probably about 10 pages long it's one sentence on one of those pages i've read it and taken it at its word and i i follow that and i i understand that but you're being told
02:26:45 understand that but you're being told that six people have died in this fire isn't that something that might suggest at least a common sense level that this might be time critical to address this
02:26:56 might be time critical to address this when you've had a fire like that that's actually resulted in that number of fatalities so so if if if it was simply in that context alone maybe but obviously i've had the conversation with steve carter maine where he's told me
02:27:08 steve carter maine where he's told me that there were four recommendations three of them were serious and have been dealt with and this one is not time critical and is going to be wrapped into a wider review so
02:27:19 a wider review so it's in the context of that conversation i suspect i because this is the final version of the note my memories i've had the conversation with steve caltermain before i've read this briefing note yes i see now at this point you're being
02:27:30 i see now at this point you're being told about the lack of house via you're being told about recommendations and did you ask to see the rule 43 letter the coroner's recommendations letter so that you could see for
02:27:41 letter so that you could see for yourself
02:27:42 yourself what those recommendations had been i didn't know again i wish that i had done so but i i have accepted steve's advice about what the situation was if i'd read the letters
02:27:53 i'd read the letters i would have had a very different reaction because having now read eric pickles's response to the coroner i think there's a lack of clarity about exactly what the government was committing itself to yes
02:28:04 government was committing itself to yes can we agree now that you really ought to have immediately asked to see at least the coroner's letter and the letter from the department in response so that you had when you were answering questions in parliament on these matters
02:28:17 questions in parliament on these matters so that you had a very clear understanding of exactly what the background was to this um yes but probably not for the reason that you've given
02:28:26 given i think when you're answering questions in parliament it's virtually impossible to read all of the source documents i've taught you already about the volume of work if you if you if you didn't rely on the briefings telling you what the
02:28:38 on the briefings telling you what the commitments that have been made are and said i must read the original letter there because it's written you would quickly be drowning uh now i'm still going to accept the basic premise of your question because i
02:28:50 basic premise of your question because i think i should have not immediately necessarily but i should have as i said to you earlier said actually steve can we go back through this and can i understand it so i accept the premise of your question okay i'm
02:29:01 the premise of your question okay i'm not sure if it was necessary to do it to answer the question in parliament but more to understand what exactly eric pickles had said
02:29:12 okay did you ever see that rule that 43 letter uh by the coroner when when you were housing minister no or the response so even when you were looking at more
02:29:24 so even when you were looking at more detailed submissions about for example the discussion document you never thought to ask to see well what what's generated all of this what's the background and and in
02:29:35 what's the background and and in particular the background to this very fatal fire no uh so the discussion document the march iteration obviously the
02:29:42 the the september iteration of the discussion document has come before i'm even aware of it the march iteration of the discussion document does reference it the the covering submission so i was satisfied
02:29:54 covering submission so i was satisfied that we were progressing the issue in the discussion document the point i think in which i would have looked at the letter and the response as i alluded to you earlier was when we had
02:30:05 i alluded to you earlier was when we had the responses to the discussion document and we decided what are we going to do in relation to approved document b that certainly would have been a point where i wanted to check back precisely but i don't think that was
02:30:16 precisely but i don't think that was necessary for the discussion document what i needed to assure myself of for the discussion document was that it was covering the issue that i had found out about and it was in the march iteration
02:30:33 just for the record obviously that discussion document never gets published because the general election is called yes the day after i approve it we know that yes and we'll come to that you tell
02:30:44 that yes and we'll come to that you tell us in your statement that you as well as receiving this written briefing you had an oral pre-briefing uh around the same time did you raise any of those matters you know the background to lachenal what
02:30:56 know the background to lachenal what were the coroner's recommendations did you ask about any of those things in that oral briefing no and again i'm i'm making i think i make this clear in my second
02:31:07 make this clear in my second witness statement i'm making assumptions here i think what we have on the screen at the moment is the final version of the briefing document yes so either this sentence wasn't in the original version
02:31:19 the original version or i hadn't picked it up because it is after the the briefing meeting that i have the conversation with steve quartermaine so that's the point where i'm first aware of it
02:31:30 point where i'm first aware of it and then i read this sentence in the briefing document after now i can't say for certainty to you and i don't think that you have the original draft to check
02:31:40 to check whether i either just didn't pick it up when i read the skim read it before the briefing meeting or whether it wasn't there in the original draft and was then added subsequent to the conversation steve quartermaine had now if we could just
02:31:52 quartermaine had now if we could just look at page five of this briefing document yes and the penultimate paragraph
02:31:59 paragraph um you can see this is what you referred to earlier that what what your officials do is try and anticipate some of the questions you might get on the back of this
02:32:07 this and then give you draft answers and we've got in the penultimate question when will you start the review of part b so that's part b on fire safety
02:32:17 safety and the answer is we are considering the terms of reference for that review and we'll announce these in due course uh again did it not strike you as odd that the lack of house fire had clearly
02:32:30 that the lack of house fire had clearly occurred some years before and you're told that the recommendations were made in 2013
02:32:35 in 2013 and yet all that's happening at this point is that the department is considering terms of reference for the review did you pick that up no because i think how i would have read this sentence
02:32:49 is that by this point um we decided to wrap well actually we hadn't we were presented almost as a fatal complete the previous ministers had agreed that this would be dealt with
02:33:01 had agreed that this would be dealt with by a wider review so i would have taken that sentence as referring not just to the specific issues
02:33:08 issues in the coroner's letter but the wider review that we were working on there is there is something which it may be helpful to george your attention at this point that i don't have the answer for
02:33:18 for are you going to come on to the september submission yes i'll i'll come on to that oh the submission in terms of the original submission yes the discussion document just very briefly i don't want to spend too much time on if
02:33:29 don't want to spend too much time on if you're going to come on to it but that submission envisages publication of the discussion document after conference after party conference i.e
02:33:38 i.e i would guess late october early november
02:33:41 november by this point that timetable has gone yes
02:33:45 yes and
02:33:46 and the timetable is after the housing white paper so at some point we have decided that we're not going to try and do that discussion document until we've got the white paper done and i remember those discussions
02:33:58 and i remember those discussions one of the curious things is in the document pile that's been released to you and to me there's never a submission where we formally take that decision so i can't tell you quite when that decision was taken but the september submission is
02:34:11 taken but the september submission is clearly saying the discussion document is coming after the conference by the time of this oral questions we've clearly
02:34:18 clearly will announce the timing in due course we've clearly decided the housing white paper comes first and then that's coming but i can't actually identify for you when was the moment that decision was taken because it's not in the document
02:34:29 taken because it's not in the document record right i just thought it's helpful to
02:34:32 to point that out to you yes and to the inquiry now if we just look at um paragraph 12 of your first witness statement on page four yes you give us some more detail about what
02:34:44 you give us some more detail about what you were aware of by this point and and you say paragraph 12 my understanding of the position as explained to me was that there had been a fire at lachen house and that the coroner had made a number of recommendations in response i
02:34:56 of recommendations in response i understood that three of the four recommendations had been progressed by eric pickles but one was outstanding my understanding was that the outstanding issue related to part b of the building regulations and then before i ask you
02:35:08 regulations and then before i ask you questions i want you to also look at what you say at paragraph 11 of your second statement on page five
02:35:18 you say here on the same topic it was my categoric understanding that three out of the four recommendations had been addressed during eric pickles time as secretary of state i understood the
02:35:30 secretary of state i understood the three recommendations that had been addressed were the most urgent and that the one outstanding matter related to the clarity of the approved document which i was told needed
02:35:41 document which i was told needed simplifying now first of all how were you led to believe that the three recommendations that had been addressed were the most urgent and just to help you the other three were firefighting
02:35:52 you the other three were firefighting and search and rescue matters fire risk assessment and the retrofit of sprinklers how are you led to believe that those were the most urgent uh so i think i've answered that already that
02:36:03 think i've answered that already that that was the impression i was given by steve cortman when we spoke right and were you positively led to believe by mr quartermaine that the outstanding matter in relation to adb
02:36:14 in relation to adb was the least urgent did he say that i'm not sure if used the word least but he implied that that was not an urgent issue it was about simplification and hence
02:36:23 and hence clearly if it had been an urgent issue you would not have wrapped it into the discussion document which covered not just part b but other bits of the building regulations and which it was very clear from the
02:36:36 and which it was very clear from the september submission was going to take a year or two to to run through the process in terms of delivering so clearly it was implicit in that decision that this was not urgent but i'm not sure
02:36:47 sure since you since you used a specific phrase i'm not sure if you use the phrase least urgent no okay did you understand that it was urgent at all
02:36:57 all this this remaining recommendation i didn't think it was urgent as i said because otherwise you wouldn't have wrapped it into the wider review because that would mean that you were not going to deliver it in quick time
02:37:08 not going to deliver it in quick time right
02:37:09 right now
02:37:10 now um were you satisfied that simplifying the approved document was the extent of the remaining recommendation so at the time yes because that's what i was told
02:37:21 time yes because that's what i was told and as we've as we've discussed about 10-15 minutes ago i didn't get for myself the coroner's letter and eric pickles response
02:37:31 response even now
02:37:32 even now having read the coroner's letter i think it's not entirely clear i don't know if it's possible to put the coroner's letter on the screen i'm coming to it in just a moment so there are there are three things if i try and do it from memory then don't don't do
02:37:44 do it from memory then don't don't do that better to wait for cancer exactly we don't need to do it from memory and what i'm interested in it is you in this particular paragraph you say in the penultimate three lines the one
02:37:55 in the penultimate three lines the one outstanding matter related to the clarity of the approved document which i was told needed simplifying now did you understand clarity and simplification to be synonymous with one
02:38:07 simplification to be synonymous with one another yes and i broadly still do so this is why it's difficult to answer this question without reference to the the letter my memory is that there are three bits of what the coroner says from having now read it subsequently
02:38:19 having now read it subsequently one was about the clarity of a specific section one was about putting the whole thing into language that was intelligible to the ordinary person rather than a specialist the last bit i think
02:38:32 the last bit i think is not about clarity it is about is more substantive which is saying that the approved document needs to deal not just with new buildings but with the with the refurbishment and retrofit of
02:38:44 with the refurbishment and retrofit of an existing building so
02:38:47 so but i still think if i read the coroner's letter now i would assume points one and two about clarity and simplification are basically linguistic rather than substantive if i can put it
02:38:59 rather than substantive if i can put it that way no i may be wrong but that's how i would have read her letter sure but that that's you reading the letter many subjects yes you didn't see it at the time all i was told was simplification yeah now having read the letter
02:39:11 having read the letter the third thing the coroner asked for is definitely not simplification the first thing
02:39:16 thing is arguable i think it's not clear to my mind did you ever ask yourself this question why is it that simplification is all that's needed following the deaths of six people in this fire didn't
02:39:27 deaths of six people in this fire didn't that that stark fact strike you as a little odd that that's all she would want is a simplification of a document if six people have died if if that had literally been the only
02:39:38 if if that had literally been the only recommendation yes that would have struck me as odd but i had been told that there were three other recommendations which were more serious and about life safety that had been dealt with so that thought didn't strike
02:39:49 dealt with so that thought didn't strike me for that reason but if in a hypothetical where it was just simplification yes that is how i would have reacted let's look briefly then at the rule 43 letter and and what i'm trying to get at most is what
02:40:01 what i'm trying to get at most is what you had been told at the time and understood at the time rather than how you
02:40:05 you after the event are rationalizing that letter
02:40:08 letter um so it's at clg three four zeros 1870 and so this is the letter to uh the right honourable eric pickles dated the 28th of march 2013 and the parts we are
02:40:21 28th of march 2013 and the parts we are concerned with appear on page three
02:40:25 and we can see uh under the heading building regulations and approved document b she says during these inquests we examined approved document b and then she gives the addition that she
02:40:36 and then she gives the addition that she looked at i'm aware that adb has subsequently been amended and believed that a further amendment is due to be published soon the introduction to agb states that it is intended to provide guidance for some of the more common
02:40:48 guidance for some of the more common building situations however adb is a most difficult document to use further it is necessary to refer to additional documents in order to find an answer to relatively straightforward
02:40:59 an answer to relatively straightforward questions concerning the fire protection properties of materials to be incorporated into the fabric of a building and she makes those three recommendations the first is provides clear guidance in relation to
02:41:12 provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4 of the building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether
02:41:23 attention should be paid to whether proposed work might reduce existing fire protection yes yes and then there's a second recommendation is expressed in words and adopts a format which are intelligible to the wide range of people
02:41:35 intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies again engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just to professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control matters
02:41:46 building control matters and then finally provides guidance which is is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock and not only those engaged in design and construction
02:41:58 those engaged in design and construction of new buildings now um just take this in stages were you ever told that in relation to this last recommendation that you understood to be outstanding there were in fact multiple
02:42:10 there were in fact multiple recommendations that lay beneath that that the coroner had made no
02:42:16 and can we agree that this rule 43 letter refers specifically to the need to provide clear guidance relating to external fire spread yes we can but that phrase to my mind
02:42:28 yes we can but that phrase to my mind you're asking me mainly about what i knew at the time but even now looking at this letter to me it is unclear whether that is saying there is guidance at the moment but it
02:42:39 there is guidance at the moment but it isn't clear or there isn't guidance on these important matters in the approved document right now yes but either way that would be a lack of clarity of the guidance either the guidance isn't clear or the guidance has emissions yes but
02:42:51 or the guidance has emissions yes but they are those are important distinctions because if the issue was a lack of clarity in the guidance then to me as i as i tried to say a couple of minutes ago ball points one and two are basically
02:43:03 ball points one and two are basically about are basically linguistic they are about whether the approved document is expressed in a way that makes it easy to use both in terms of its general language and specifically about
02:43:14 specifically about regulation b4 but i would agree with you that the third issue is undeniably not about simplification yeah well can you agree that the officials who were advising
02:43:26 that the officials who were advising relevant ministers at this time would have presumably gone back to the lacanal transcripts and the concerns that were being raised by the coroner at the time and read this letter in its proper context so as to
02:43:38 letter in its proper context so as to understand exactly what she was getting at
02:43:42 at i i would hope so but i obviously don't know the answer to that question yeah i'm just i'm just telling you i'm trying to be helpful and tell you what my reaction if i had done what i should have done and got hold of this letter and read it
02:43:54 letter and read it i would have been clear that this was about more than simplification yes but i would have been a bit unclear about what that first bull point was asking for maybe
02:44:01 maybe you're suggesting to me that if you've got transcripts of the chorus you might there might have been ways of getting clarity well did you know that one of uh your officials in in the department mr
02:44:13 your officials in in the department mr martin had actually given oral evidence at the inquest were you ever made aware of that no were you ever made aware that the rule 43 letter i know you didn't see it but
02:44:24 43 letter i know you didn't see it but did anyone ever say to you by the way it in fact makes no mention of simplification at all were you ever told that no um but
02:44:36 no um but i'm a bit nervous of placing too much weight on that because simplification is my memory of the word that was used to me
02:44:43 me i can't
02:44:44 i can't i couldn't say to you absolutely certain that's the exact word that was used i think it was and i think other people have given evidence that also used that phrase but
02:44:55 evidence that also used that phrase but did you ever come to appreciate that there was no proper record keeping relating to the lateral inquest on the department's part well i have come to appreciate it subsequently listening to the considerations of this inquiry but at
02:45:06 considerations of this inquiry but at the time if that's what you're asking me no no
02:45:09 no no did you know for example there was no proper record of which recommendations have been accepted which rejected and precisely what work the department had committed to do did you know i at the time i didn't i think i made the point
02:45:22 time i didn't i think i made the point in answer to an earlier question that when i read the secretary of state's response i think it is very unclear what it is committing the government to doing hmm
02:45:33 doing hmm did you normally sorry so i apologize for interrupting you normally when the government responds say to a select committee report or or to some other series of recommendation that has been put to
02:45:44 recommendation that has been put to government the response will say recommendation accepted recommendation rejected or recommendation partially accepted and then lay out the rationale for why the government has come to the
02:45:55 for why the government has come to the conclusion it's come to so
02:46:00 so i didn't know that at the time but certainly having read the letter that is my impression yes did you know more generally that the department had no protocol or system in place for how to record and track
02:46:12 place for how to record and track coroner's recommendations and in order to ensure that the work was carried out to deliver on any commitments that had been made in relation to those no i didn't but
02:46:23 but i'm not sure as as ministers you would necessarily get insight into the internal systems of the department in that way i mean it's not just obviously a coroner's recommendation is vitally important because it impacts on
02:46:34 vitally important because it impacts on life safety but more generally the department of war may have made a whole series of commitments to to parliament or maybe internally within the government and there clearly needs to be
02:46:45 government and there clearly needs to be some mechanism for tracking progress on all of those and whose responsibility or that to have been i i would hesitate to name an individual but there will be somewhat there should be someone in the sort of corporate
02:46:57 sort of corporate affairs if you like section of the department that is that is the central bit of the department that is monitoring that
02:47:03 that now we touched on it earlier but let's look at it in your witness statement about the clear steer you'd been given by the prime minister about the key priority or your key priority during
02:47:14 priority or your key priority during your tenure as housing minister if we can look at paragraph 13 on page four of your first statement
02:47:22 yes i can see that in the third sentence
02:47:27 you say uh picking up in the middle of the line given the clear steer i had been given by the prime minister that the key priority was addressing the housing supply crisis i accepted the advice i was given that the the
02:47:39 advice i was given that the the outstanding issue would be dealt with as part of a broader review of building regulations as soon as the housing white paper was published do you see that and you you clarify we don't need to go
02:47:50 and you you clarify we don't need to go to it in your second witness statement this is page 7 paragraph 18 that you were given that steer in a phone call that you received from the prime minister on the 17th of july 2016.
02:48:01 minister on the 17th of july 2016. now help us with this why was the
02:48:05 was the priority the housing supply crisis such that
02:48:09 that other things like this review of the building regulations simply had to wait why was that um just before i directly answer your question uh just as you draw my attention to the
02:48:21 uh just as you draw my attention to the sentence now it's probably worth saying that this should probably say we accepted because this would have been a collective decision of the secretary of state and myself um the submission on the discussion
02:48:32 um the submission on the discussion document in september had come to both of us
02:48:35 of us and certainly the decision of the timing of the white paper and the discussion document would not have been one for me to take on my own so it would have been a collective decision just helpful to say that just explain to us whether it was
02:48:46 that just explain to us whether it was your decision or a collective one why was it decided to prioritize the housing white paper and not be progressing this building regulations review work in
02:48:58 this building regulations review work in parallel my memory was that the department simply didn't have the capacity to do both of those things at the same time the housing white paper was an enormous i mean was an enormous piece of work the department had reduced quite a bit
02:49:11 the department had reduced quite a bit in terms of its head count um during the preceding few years and i think the combination of those two things meant that there wasn't the capacity probably at ministerial level but certainly at official level to try
02:49:22 but certainly at official level to try and do both of those things at the same time
02:49:24 time now
02:49:27 now one of the one of the things that i think is important to point out here is that the delay was longer than anticipated because at the point at which we took the decision our expectation was that the white paper would be published in november
02:49:39 would be published in november because it grew in scope and because it proved so difficult to get collective agreement to it it ended up not being published until january so the delay that we felt that we were imposing when
02:49:51 that we felt that we were imposing when we took this decision turned out to be a longer delay than we had anticipated was it your understanding that the building regulations division so ledson mr harrell and mr martin
02:50:04 so ledson mr harrell and mr martin would be working on that housing white paper and therefore couldn't uh carry on work on this uh building regulation review at the same time so they made some contribution to the white paper and you also would have
02:50:16 the white paper and you also would have wanted steve quartermaine and helen mcnamara who who had overall responsibility above bob and his team to make some contribution into the discussion document so it was a problem i guess both ways
02:50:27 i guess both ways did anyone ask themselves the question well is producing the housing white paper
02:50:33 paper more important to government than ensuring the building regulations and approved document be on fire safety were fit for purpose so they didn't ask that question um and i think probably despite the fact you've
02:50:44 i think probably despite the fact you've asked it you understand the reason why not which is that the department had convinced itself that this wasn't a safety
02:50:49 safety a life safety issue and that wasn't therefore urgent had it had it properly understood what it what was required in the coroner's report i'm sure that question would have been asked but it
02:51:02 question would have been asked but it wasn't for the reasons that i think are already evident from what i've from what i've said i see so is is it fair to say that because it wasn't flagged clearly to you
02:51:13 because it wasn't flagged clearly to you that this was a life urgent life safety issue
02:51:18 issue you never questioned whether or not this work ought to be parked behind the housing white paper so that would be fair but it would only be a partial account of the problem it's not just me
02:51:30 account of the problem it's not just me it's the secretary of state it's the permanent secretary of the department it's the director general for housing and planning none of those people by their own witness statements that they've submitted to the inquiry understood and i think that the
02:51:41 understood and i think that the department's own opening statement is very honest about this that the department had lost sight of
02:51:48 of the urgency of this issue and therefore it wasn't just a decision that i personally took although i'm perfectly prepared to shoulder my share of the responsibility but the secretary of state and the
02:51:59 but the secretary of state and the officials that were making the recommendation to us were doing so on a false premise about how time critical the work on building regulations was right i see
02:52:10 right i see now
02:52:11 now one of the pieces of work which we know we now know was going to feed into the review of approved document b on fire safety was some research by the bre the british research establishment which was commissioned by
02:52:23 establishment which was commissioned by the department in 2012 so in fact before the coroner's recommendations in 2013 and um it was entitled compartment sizes resistance to fire and fire safety
02:52:34 resistance to fire and fire safety project and it's been referred to colloquially as the seven work streams yes
02:52:40 yes now you can take it from me that that research was delivered to the department in march 2015 so it was in the department's hands by march 15
02:52:50 march 15 and permission was initially sought to publish it on the 14th of december 2015 in a ministerial submission to james wharton
02:52:59 wharton yes so that would all happen before just repeat those dates it's a march 25th it was in the department's hands in march 2015
02:53:06 2015 and a submission to publish it was initially sought on the 14th of december 2015 from james wharton
02:53:17 now do you recall ever being made aware of of this research these seven work streams reports and this bre research i don't think are these are these some of the reports that i eventually gave
02:53:28 the reports that i eventually gave agreement to be published well let's let me carry on with my questions um i'm interested to know whether you were ever aware of these bre research reports
02:53:39 ever aware of these bre research reports sorry i'm not trying to be difficult here i don't i don't know how to answer your question i know that i gave approval for some pieces of research work to be published because
02:53:48 because it was a policy of the department that whenever it commissioned research it was important that research was put into the public domain but i i don't recognize the terminology you're using so i'm not sure if the ones i approved are the ones
02:53:59 sure if the ones i approved are the ones you're talking about well let's let's keep going um well do you want to try and approach it from a different slightly different direction well let me go to some documents the documents show us that chasers to
02:54:12 documents show us that chasers to special advisers to ministers to publish this research were made in march may july august october november december 2016
02:54:24 2016 and chases were sent in january and march 2017 that's what the documents show now let's turn to an email exchange this is clg 3-0 can you give me those could
02:54:37 is clg 3-0 can you give me those could you just give me those dates again yes so march may july
02:54:42 july august
02:54:44 august october
02:54:45 october november december 2016 and in january and march 2017
02:54:59 okay can we look at an email exchange this is clg three zeros one nine three seven six this is an email exchange between bob ledson and your uh private sec assistant
02:55:12 ledson and your uh private sec assistant private secretary ed neve is that right yes it was one of my private sectors on the 13th of october 2016. now i want to pick this up at the bottom of page two
02:55:25 and um the subject matter of these emails is things stuck in private office yes
02:55:32 yes and we can see there's an email from ed neve
02:55:35 ed neve to bob ledson dated the 13th of october 2016 at 1424 at the bottom of that page and it states it says hi bob we are looking to compile a list of things that have been stuck in private office for
02:55:47 have been stuck in private office for more than a month i'd be grateful if you could put a list together particularly of those technical reports that are awaiting publication as well as any other subs that you're awaiting feedback on if you could send through a list
02:55:59 on if you could send through a list today that would be really helpful thanks exclamation mark and then if we go up the email chain um 354 1554
02:56:09 354 1554 bob ledson says it so happens that we have assembled a cross-planning directorate list of outstanding subs and publications which i think simon plans to talk through with the minister at their next catch-up bob
02:56:22 their next catch-up bob and then ed neve then responds to that um
02:56:27 um saying thanks bob this is at 1552 would you mind just letting us know which ones are with spads in the meantime we may have an opportunity to go through things if you could send through
02:56:38 if you could send through today and then if we then go to the top email in the chain timed at 1621 we can see that mr ledson responds and he says there are two sets of
02:56:50 he says there are two sets of publications and item one is uh unpublished historical building regulations research report first attachment do you see that
02:57:01 do you see that so just say again so item one that's underlined unpublished historical building regulations research report first attachment title of submission underneath that in
02:57:12 title of submission underneath that in the bullet agreement to publish a number of historical research reports submission and annex attached copies of the sub and the additional information requested by spads in may
02:57:23 spads in may details of recipient minister orr spads both james wharton and mark francois were the original ministers who saw this date sent 14th of december 2015 originally been resubmitted several
02:57:36 originally been resubmitted several times
02:57:37 times these are all reports dating back to projects commissioned under the coalition government in line with a commitment in a pq of some of 2015 to publish them all by the end of the year the original submission and reports went
02:57:49 the original submission and reports went up last december eventually we had agreement from previous spads that they could be published immediately after the referendum reference to the reports appears in the building regulations discussion document that we're looking in
02:58:00 that we're looking in to publish in november this is because they are one of the main source materials for some of the key areas on which we will be seeking views for example sound insulation part b or fire
02:58:12 example sound insulation part b or fire safety part b do you see that i do see it yeah and then if we look at the first attachment that he attached to this email at clg 3019315
02:58:27 we can see the original email from the 14th of december 2015 attaching the submission to james wharton and we can see at the bottom of page one
02:58:38 and we can see at the bottom of page one it's spelt out in this attachment email what these reports relate to
02:58:45 relate to and you can see at the bottom penultimate point c fire compartment sizes a review of technical specific technical issues in the statutory guidance on fire safety approved document b
02:58:56 document b then d investigation of real fires report of lessons learnt from significant fires to feed into statutory guidance on fire safety approved document b and then over the page e the fire safety
02:59:09 and then over the page e the fire safety procedural guide update of user guide on fire safety legislation now just going back a page we know from other documents that item c
02:59:20 other documents that item c was the seven work streams reports now were you ever made aware of this email exchange at the time that bob ledson was corresponding with your
02:59:31 ledson was corresponding with your assistant private secretary over things stuck in private office before i answer your question could you go back to the original document that you had up on screen when you say the original document so
02:59:43 when you say the original document so this is the alex isn't it and you you had a you you yes three zeros one nine three seven six and can you scroll down a little bit yeah so the difficulty i have is that every other document you've asked me
02:59:55 every other document you've asked me questions about so far were in my pack and i had a chance to read and study them before i've never seen this before right so it's obviously harder for me to be helpful to the inquiry so i just want to understand before i try and answer
03:00:07 to understand before i try and answer your questions where these things were stuck
03:00:12 because i know nothing i don't think i know anything about this yes well all we know is it says things stuck in private office and they remain stuck and they were never published are
03:00:23 stuck and they were never published are you suggesting so um these reports were published in february 2019. it's absurd um so
03:00:31 um so well like let me say what i can to be as helpful as i can um so first of all if you're saying that the the reports were given to the department in march 2015 and it took
03:00:42 department in march 2015 and it took until 14th of december 2015 for a sub to come up to ministers that's not good enough yeah and if it took four years for the men to be released that is absurd
03:00:53 absurd um all i can say to you uh and i can only comment on the material that the department has provided with me about my time as a minister there were some research reports that
03:01:05 there were some research reports that came to me for approval and i was a bit slow in approving them i think from memory a bit slow means four or five weeks i remember and i think steve carter maine
03:01:13 maine refers to this in his written evidence that he's given to you
03:01:18 to you that he came and had a word with me and said you've got some bre research reports in that in tray and i need them i need them cleared and i dealt with them straight away when he spoke to me about it and that
03:01:29 and that kind of conversation between me and steve as i was alluding to on the planning earlier was a fairly regular one he helped me manage this huge intro i had by telling me these are the things that we need you to focus on first
03:01:41 that we need you to focus on first so
03:01:43 so if
03:01:44 if where i thought you were going with this question
03:01:46 question was to say to me these research reports came in and you sat on them for a while before you approved them which to which i would have to say guilty as charged but i know i know nothing about these at all i've
03:01:58 i know nothing about these at all i've never seen this email before and to the best of my knowledge there were no reports that i didn't eventually clear when stickers steve and i had these regular triage conversations
03:02:10 i had these regular triage conversations so i can only assume that the phrase stuck in private office does not refer solely to my private office
03:02:18 office and that they were stuck somewhere else in the system but i'm sorry not to be able to give you a more helpful answer on such a critical question because it is clearly appalling
03:02:30 appalling that the public money has been spent on pieces of research that has sat in the department for four years without being published i have no explanation as to how that's happened and i'm appalled by it okay all we can say is that based on
03:02:43 it okay all we can say is that based on our reading the documents it does look like they were stuck in your private office and not anywhere else but i don't see how that is possible because if that had been true steve quartermaine would have escalated to me he did so
03:02:55 have escalated to me he did so on numerous other issues in relation to the planning casework and to
03:03:01 and to individual pieces of individual policy submissions and indeed to a couple of specific submissions about clearing research reports so
03:03:13 yeah i i find it i find that all i can say to you is i find that incredible as an answer that it could have been stuck in my private i certainly would accept if they'd been stuck for a number of weeks and i had taken me time to go get
03:03:24 weeks and i had taken me time to go get to them that is absolutely plausible that that happened but the idea that they would have sat there the whole time as my minister without steve quartermaine coming to me and saying this is unacceptable gavin
03:03:35 and saying this is unacceptable gavin get those reports cleared i find completely incredible you ms strange just help me with this um and perhaps help the witness as well you can see at the top of what's on our
03:03:46 can see at the top of what's on our screens detailed as a recipient are put down as james wharton and mark francois yes and um i have a little bell ringing at the back of my mind that these reports or they were first sent to that
03:03:58 reports or they were first sent to that minister exactly then held up in someone's private office possibly because it was said they had to be cleared by spads who sat on them for quite a long time is is that the
03:04:10 quite a long time is is that the position that appears to be the position but here we've got mr ledson corresponding with mr barwell's assistant private secretary that i understand and then now in his private
03:04:21 understand and then now in his private office yes but they had been part of the delay
03:04:24 delay if one looks from the over the whole picture that's right appears to have been
03:04:29 been there sitting in other private offices is that that's correct that's as out as we understand could you go on to the second page of what we've got on the screen here yes because i suspect it may well be
03:04:40 yes because i suspect it may well be spans
03:04:41 spans so those were the emails i showed you if you go to the bottom of page two so i'm pretty sure that when ed talks about things stuck in private office he's not just talking about my
03:04:52 office he's not just talking about my office and if we scroll up a little bit was there a second ed email yes there's one at the top of this page which i read to you because he's saying which ones are with
03:05:03 because he's saying which ones are with spads in the meantime so it clearly implies that eddie's thinking that some of these are not in my office right mrs
03:05:10 mrs i don't know whether we need to pursue this any further i thought it right just for really for the witnesses benefit to bring out the fact that we weren't saying they'd spent the whole of the time stuck in its private no and that's
03:05:22 time stuck in its private no and that's why i explained that it was originally sent to james wharton in december if we do need to revert to this should we do it after the i was about to suggest that but mr i want to be clear i i i'm grateful for your
03:05:34 i i'm grateful for your clarification but i i just want to be very clear on the record i
03:05:39 i can't prove it to you but i do not believe that these things were stuck for that length of time in my private i don't believe steve would have allowed that to happen he would have come and sat with me with the submissions and made sure i cleared them
03:05:51 submissions and made sure i cleared them if they were in my office all right well don't worry we won't be making any damning findings without checking out the material very thoroughly first it's time we all had a break to get some lunch so we'll stop there we'll resume
03:06:03 lunch so we'll stop there we'll resume please at five past two and as before i have to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the room all right thank you very much would you like to give the usher please
03:06:15 please thank you
03:06:25 all right ms grange i'm sorry to interrupt your because but it seemed to me that the danger of putting a slightly false
03:06:31 false point to witness not your fault at all but it's just because of the way these documents read right we'll break that and resume five past two please thank you
03:06:48 you