Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence - Wednesday 16th March 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:27 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing uh today we're going to hear evidence from day melanie dawes who was formerly of the formerly the permanent secretary of the department

00:00:39 secretary of the department for uh local government so ms grange yes can we have dane melanie doors please

00:00:54 good morning dave melanie i understand you wish to affirm yes uh the words should be on the screen in front of you could you read them out please yes i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i

00:01:06 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 please sit down make yourself comfortable

00:01:18 all right thank you very much yes it's great yes thank you yes good morning day melanie and can i start by thanking you for attending this public inquiry to give your evidence today it is very much appreciated

00:01:30 appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions i'm going to ask you just ask me to repeat the question or i'll put the point in a different way if you can also keep your voice up and

00:01:41 if you can also keep your voice up and not speak too fast there's the lady there transcribing all of your evidence sitting to your right so that we can get a nice clear note for the transcript now you've provided three witness

00:01:52 now you've provided three witness statements to the inquiry we'll only be looking at your first and third statements for the purposes of your evidence today you'll be taken to your second statement and

00:02:02 and in detail to your first statement when you return to give evidence in module four which deals with the aftermath of the fire

00:02:09 the fire now if i can ask you to start with looking at your first witness statement it appears at clg 3030653

00:02:19 there there's your first statement and if we look at page 39 of that we can see it's dated the 20th of may 2019

00:02:29 2019 and is that your signature there yes it is and have you read that statement recently yes and are the contents of that true yes thank you and in terms of your third witness statement which is the one we'll we'll

00:02:40 statement which is the one we'll we'll go to quite a few times today that appears at clg 3030839

00:02:48 there we have that if you could look at page 24 of that there we can see it's dated the 20th of april 2021 and is that your electronic

00:02:59 april 2021 and is that your electronic signature this time yes it is thank you and have you read that third witness statement recently yes and are the contents true to the best of your knowledge and belief yes thank you and have you discussed the evidence you're

00:03:11 have you discussed the evidence you're going to give today with anybody before coming here with my legal team obviously yes and inevitably when i was at the department um quite a lot of the time we were talking about these issues yes i understand thank you

00:03:22 understand thank you now i want to start by asking you some questions about your background is it right that you graduated with a bachelor of arts degree from oxford university that's correct and when was that when did you get your degree in

00:03:35 that when did you get your degree in 1987.

00:03:36 1987. and in what subject philosophy politics and economics so ppe yes thank you and you then undertook postgraduate studies in economics at birkbeck college

00:03:48 studies in economics at birkbeck college in london is that correct yes it is and you graduated with a master of science degree from birkbeck yes thank you and is it right that you joined the civil service in 1989

00:03:59 civil service in 1989 that's correct was that your first job or had you done anything else prior to joining the civil service after carrying out your studies it was my first proper job i

00:04:10 studies it was my first proper job i briefly worked for law firms a little bit um and then decided to pursue a career in the civil service as an economist

00:04:18 economist yes

00:04:19 yes yes and coming on to that is it right that you started your career very much as a civil servant as an economist and you worked on public spending tax and tax credit policy macroeconomics

00:04:31 tax credit policy macroeconomics monetary policy and the euro summary

00:04:35 summary yes

00:04:36 yes thank you i was in the treasury for the first

00:04:39 first decade or so of my career yes is it right that you began working in the department of transport for two years yes

00:04:46 yes and then you spent 15 years at hm treasury

00:04:50 treasury yes thank you and is it right that during that time you were the europe director from 2002 to 2006.

00:04:58 to 2006. yes that's correct and then between 2006 and 2011 you work for her majesty's revenue and customs is this right including as one of the department's commissioners

00:05:09 department's commissioners yes

00:05:10 yes and you were the director general for business tax from november 2007 yes that's correct and then between october 2011 and 2015

00:05:21 and then between october 2011 and 2015 you were the director general of the economic and domestic secretariat in the cabinet office yes thank you now you took on the role as permanent secretary for the ministry of housing

00:05:33 secretary for the ministry of housing communities and local government shortened as mhclg in march 2015 is that correct yes it is and you were in that role until february

00:05:44 and you were in that role until february 2020 when you became chief executive of ofcom is that right yes and do you remain chief executive of ofcom today i do thank you now focusing on your role as permanent

00:05:56 now focusing on your role as permanent secretary if we could look at paragraph five page two of your first witness statement

00:06:03 and there you tell us this you say as permanent secretary i am the civil service head of the ministry of housing communities and local government here and after the department

00:06:14 and after the department i took up my role on the 1st of march 2015

00:06:17 2015 with my senior team referred to as the executive team i am responsible for the overall leadership and management of the department our primary aims are to support our ministers in the achievement

00:06:29 support our ministers in the achievement of their objectives and to oversee the effective day-to-day running of the department in addition as principal accounting officer i am responsible to parliament

00:06:40 officer i am responsible to parliament for the effective stewardship of the department's resources and for ensuring value for money as a member of the wider permanent secretary team including the civil service board i'm also part of the

00:06:51 service board i'm also part of the collective leadership of the civil service so obviously when you wrote that statement you were still in in post at that time hence in the present tense and if we can look at paragraph nine of

00:07:02 and if we can look at paragraph nine of this statement as well on page four

00:07:10 you tell us this you say immediately prior to the fire at grenfell tower the department applaud employed 1424 people equivalent to

00:07:21 1424 people equivalent to 1375 on a full-time basis the majority of the department's employees were spread across three broad commands

00:07:29 commands each led by a director general covering housing and planning that was helen mcnamara local government and public services that was joe farah

00:07:40 that was joe farah and local economic growth and devolution simon ridley in addition three director-led commands oversaw corporate activities including finance that was jacinda humphrey human

00:07:52 finance that was jacinda humphrey human resources christine hewitt and strategy lies anne boise the department had five ministers two of whom had been newly appointed following the general election

00:08:03 appointed following the general election of the 8th of june 2017. yes and those two new ministers who had been appointed following the general election were alex sharma and jake perry is that

00:08:14 were alex sharma and jake perry is that correct jake berry yes yes thank you

00:08:19 now as permanent secretary and civil service head of mhclg how did you ensure that you were able to provide leadership to the three main work streams that you divide you

00:08:30 work streams that you divide you described there those three broad commands

00:08:34 commands yes i had um a number of processes and systems in place to uh discharge my um leadership of the department with my team um and if it if it helps i can go i can

00:08:46 um and if it if it helps i can go i can go through it through this now please just summarize those so um i mean the first thing to say is that um when i arrived it was almost the beginning of a new parliament so a lot of what i had to do in the first six to

00:08:57 of what i had to do in the first six to nine months was really make sure we had our priorities set as a department ready for what we thought would be a four or five year parliament although in the end it was a lot shorter than that so the first thing was business planning and we

00:09:08 first thing was business planning and we conducted a pretty exhaustive exercise during the winter of 2015-16 to establish priorities and work out how to meet a reduced budget that we've been given in the spending review and then

00:09:18 and then what i put in place during 2016 and they were in place by the autumn of that year was portfolio boards so that each of the three director-generals uh led a board had a board that met monthly with their

00:09:29 had a board that met monthly with their directors where all of the work that they were supposed to do in their area as identified through our planning exercises and adapted as ministers made different decisions as we went along was overseen by those boards and that was a

00:09:41 overseen by those boards and that was a place that directors and dgs in those areas were discussing with the support of metrics and data and information about everything you know what was on

00:09:52 about everything you know what was on track uh how things were going what risks there were and so on yes and then the executive team met um fortnightly i recall

00:10:03 i recall and the departmental board about once a quarter

00:10:07 quarter um and we met with the non-executives uh separately alongside that as a senior team without ministers as well and that was where we looked at the overview of the department's risks we

00:10:19 overview of the department's risks we particularly focused in the executive team on the corporate side because a lot of the work was being managed via ministers so that was the appropriate way to be escalating and dealing with issues on the policy and delivery side

00:10:30 issues on the policy and delivery side was mainly through ministerial meetings rather than through the executive team yeah but we we nonetheless had an opportunity to bring up anything on the policy side that needed it into those those meetings so that's that's the beginning of a description of some of

00:10:41 beginning of a description of some of the systems i had in in place yeah on the departmental level sorry yes no carry on no that i'd concluded would each director general uh feed back

00:10:52 would each director general uh feed back to you about what their boards were doing on a regular basis yes so um

00:10:58 yes so um when i arrived the the system we had in place in 2015 was very much the end of the parliament so it was very focused at quite a detailed level that i mean the system for the department as a whole

00:11:09 department as a whole on

00:11:10 on uh quite detailed tracking of mostly quite small remaining deliverables over the remaining weeks of the parliament and that was a system that was overseen

00:11:21 and that was a system that was overseen by the secretary of state himself weekly in meetings with the permanent secretary and the senior team and it was very top down i think it was appropriate given where we were and the stage of the parliament but it wasn't very empowering to the rest of the department and it

00:11:33 to the rest of the department and it wasn't to my mind structured enough and devolved enough to allow for proper oversight right down through the line and the proper channels of communication to be going up and down as things change

00:11:44 to be going up and down as things change so the portfolio boards were set up in response to that and then

00:11:48 and then um

00:11:49 um we had a departmental plan um i can't remember when the first one was published there might not have been one in place for 2016-17 but there certainly was in the years after that

00:12:01 in the years after that which set out all the things we were supposed to achieve and i would talk to my director-generals bilaterally at least once a fortnight and we would talk about how things were going what issues there were if any that

00:12:12 going what issues there were if any that they wanted to escalate with me um and

00:12:16 um and uh

00:12:17 uh you know we would take it from there yeah

00:12:20 yeah yeah i understand and was your time split evenly across those three broad commands that you described there or in the time that you were permanent secretary was one or

00:12:31 were permanent secretary was one or other of those more of a priority had more of a heavy workload that demanded more of your time i think my own time was split pretty evenly

00:12:41 evenly um

00:12:41 um [Music]

00:12:43 [Music] i mean i think from the government's point of view housing and planning was where they were expecting to make the most impact in policy terms that's pretty much always the case in

00:12:54 pretty much always the case in what was then mhclg the other big area that was growing at the time was devolution and local growth and in fact i'd set up a new dg command under simon really to deal with that quite early in the new parliament

00:13:06 quite early in the new parliament yeah the local government side is a bit more about system oversight it's less about delivering policy objectives there were some areas in there that were important political priorities as well but it was

00:13:17 priorities as well but it was it was

00:13:18 it was more about risk management and oversight and the delivery of certain programs such as trouble families program yeah and a few others yeah now focusing on housing and planning um you've talked about these fortnightly

00:13:29 um you've talked about these fortnightly meetings with your director-generals um would you meet any more frequently than that with helen mcnamara the director general for housing and planning yes i mean i would see my dgs pretty

00:13:40 yes i mean i would see my dgs pretty much every day and we had a we would start the week on a monday morning with a meeting of the executive team for half an hour just to discuss what was going on

00:13:50 going on that week

00:13:51 that week um and we followed that every week with a meeting of all directors and the executive team where directors would go around the table say what was going on and that was the chance for anything to be raised

00:14:01 be raised every single week um

00:14:03 um i also um

00:14:05 i also um led meetings once a week of the whole of the department senior civil service on a thursday morning that was something my predecessor had introduced i think it was really good practice and that was usually talking about corporate issues but sometimes we touched on

00:14:17 but sometimes we touched on policy issues and again its main purpose was really just to bring everyone together to provide an opportunity for people to

00:14:24 people to have a chat in the corridor pick things up

00:14:27 up tap each other on the shoulder about something they were worried about so there were in any department like that you're relying on systems and processes but you're also relying certainly in my case on my antenna always being out there to talk to people and quite a lot

00:14:38 there to talk to people and quite a lot of of interactions yeah so not not a static kind of method of communication at all yeah and when you said you had these meetings with all of the senior civil servants just helpers what what what qualifies as

00:14:50 just helpers what what what qualifies as a senior civil servant for the purposes of that so that's deputy director and above so uh for example it would include mr ledson who is head of the the building regulations energy performance team yes um and it

00:15:02 team yes um and it uh included at the time um about 70 to 80 people that included all those deputy directors plus about 20 or slightly more directors and then the three director

00:15:14 directors and then the three director generals yeah and me yeah that number grew after the fire but at the time it was a bit smaller yeah so i think you just answered my question in terms of directors it sounds like you did have these regular meetings with for

00:15:26 did have these regular meetings with for example

00:15:28 example uh with the building regulations division which uh became the building regulation and energy performance division we know that sally randall was the director and then steve quartermaine from mid-2016 yes yes

00:15:41 quartermaine from mid-2016 yes yes that's correct and

00:15:44 and in terms of those deputy directors that were part of the senior civil service where you say you did have these meetings with up to 70 to 80 people did you ever meet in smaller groups with the deputy directors

00:15:55 deputy directors and if so in what circumstances so

00:15:58 so um

00:15:59 um i would also have meetings on individual topics very regularly and the choice of those topics would uh be driven in the first instance by what was the

00:16:10 first instance by what was the department's what sorry what were the department's big priorities so what were the big things that were in the manifesto or that were top of the government's list um and on those sorts of issues and there were

00:16:21 on those sorts of issues and there were about 20 or so top priorities that were identified during the first business planning round that i mentioned earlier i had a number of of meetings on those over the first six to nine months and i

00:16:33 over the first six to nine months and i set up an implementation unit to make sure that all of those programs were set up properly to give them support and and those were quite quite detailed meetings with the deputy directors but also very much their team

00:16:45 directors but also very much their team members as well um talking about you know what were they worried about what were they really aiming to achieve what were their risks was there anything i could do to help what were issues with other government departments that might need brokering or pushing

00:16:56 need brokering or pushing so that was on the big priority areas yeah the building regulations wasn't one of those

00:17:03 of those and i don't recall having a meeting with uh mr leadsome and his team um certainly in the first few years before the fire on that work specifically yeah i had a meeting on the red tape challenge but

00:17:14 meeting on the red tape challenge but not on not on the building regulations work not on that and just give us a flavor of what the main areas of work were for the housing and planning department during the period 2015 to 2017 when you

00:17:27 during the period 2015 to 2017 when you were the

00:17:28 were the permanent secretary well in the first year before the brexit referendum when we had effectively a change of government and a new set of priorities in that first year

00:17:39 in that first year we had to take forward some pretty big manifesto commitments there was a housing and planning act that was going through parliament i think it was enacted in may 2016.

00:17:51 i think it was enacted in may 2016. and that included some very ambitious proposals for

00:17:57 for to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants which weren't in the legislation but which being were being dealt with alongside as part of a deal with the sector they were quite challenging and

00:18:08 sector they were quite challenging and they were supposed to be funded by sales of social housing by local authorities and that was provided for in the legislation was was also quite technically difficult and uh operationally would have been very difficult neither of those two have

00:18:19 difficult neither of those two have really been taken forward since so those were really big challenging policies um there were also proposals what was called the pay to stay which

00:18:30 what was called the pay to stay which was to

00:18:34 require tenants of social housing who were on higher incomes to pay more on top of their discounted social rent if they were on those higher incomes that was another government policy at

00:18:45 that was another government policy at the time and then more broadly and this continued throughout and was more the focus of theresa may's administration when she became prime minister there was house building and that was always during my time in the

00:18:56 that was always during my time in the department i think it has been forever and probably always will be house building getting the numbers up reforming the planning system so there were lots of policies there modern methods of construction and the sale of

00:19:07 methods of construction and the sale of public sector land so there were lots of programs that sort of added up towards that overall objective as well yes thank you

00:19:14 you now what about the building regulations division within the housing and planning department were you aware of what their priorities and challenges were in that period 2015 to 2017

00:19:28 in that period 2015 to 2017 so i recall that during the the business planning exercise of the winter of 2015-16 which we started just after the spending review in november 2015

00:19:40 november 2015 and it ran through till about march 2016. i recall then um talking to sally randall about all of the work that she had identified needed to be done by

00:19:51 she had identified needed to be done by her

00:19:52 her directorate and by the teams in her area and what we did was go through um everything i was very concerned to ensure that while we focused and while a

00:20:05 ensure that while we focused and while a lot of my personal effort was focused on mobilizing ministers priorities i was very concerned that we didn't miss things which were below the radar which might be more technical and which might not get the attention they needed so

00:20:17 not get the attention they needed so that's why we did this exercise over several months and it was led by directors

00:20:22 directors and there were multiple spreadsheets mapping all of the different areas of the department's work for whatever reason and what we had to decide because we had a 25 budget cut to meet was where we were maintaining or increasing

00:20:34 we were maintaining or increasing resources which was largely only on big new government priorities where we were stopping work in order to free up time and where we were maintaining uh the work but gonna have

00:20:46 maintaining uh the work but gonna have to do it with fewer people and perhaps that meant scaling back some of the work as well and my recollection talking to sally was that we talked about the building regulations in that latter category the work needs to continue but

00:20:57 category the work needs to continue but we're going to have to scale some of it back and we didn't go into any particular detail on it um and in fact i recall the conversation being as much about energy performance and that being one of the priorities

00:21:09 and that being one of the priorities and of course the whole thing was done in the context of the red tape challenge as well but i don't remember any discussion about about the work on approved document be as i said in my witness statement yes no i understand that

00:21:19 that um

00:21:20 um in terms of your effective day-to-day running of the department did that include ensuring public commitments made by the department were delivered within the time scales that had been promised yes

00:21:31 yes and

00:21:34 it should have done um and you know

00:21:38 you know i i'm still surprised i didn't know about the lachenal house fire or the coroner's recommendations and there was no system to flag those kinds of recommendations in the department and

00:21:49 and i think every department should have one of those systems there was one for recommendations from the public accounts committee called the treasury minute system but there was nothing to flag recommendations like that

00:22:00 recommendations like that and given the nature of of that inquiry and the nature of those recommendations i think that was a a serious oversight and was one of the contributing factors as to why

00:22:11 the contributing factors as to why that work was not progressed so i was relying on my directors their deputy directors knowing the work uh there were quite a lot of processes that allowed them to

00:22:23 that allowed them to you know flag it at the planning stage but also then in the portfolio oversight that that came later and i was also relying on the experience to be honest of my directors and my director general on housing peter

00:22:34 director general on housing peter schofield in that first year he'd been in the department since 2012 and i relied heavily on his judgment and knowledge because he'd been there a while and he was you know he was an extremely strong individual and very effective yeah yeah

00:22:45 effective yeah yeah we'll come back to some of that later in your evidence um but

00:22:50 but just for now um was there a formalized handover process when you were appointed so we know you took over from so bob kerr's lake was there a formal handover that you went through when you took on

00:23:01 that you went through when you took on the new role it was quite um [Music]

00:23:06 [Music] it was quite a rushed process um bob's departure was uh at the very end of february and

00:23:15 and i spent the month of february in the department um

00:23:19 um getting briefed up meeting teams going out and meeting external stakeholders as well

00:23:25 well and then there was only a month before the general election was called in fact slightly less than a month before we were into election planning so

00:23:35 so the department did put in place briefings on key topics mostly the sort of minister of priorities but also things like departmental finance local government finance and a few other issues

00:23:46 finance and a few other issues but the moment i arrived we were really into in the thick of planning for the general election which at the time was very uncertain in the polls and as always for uh mhclgs then was housing

00:24:00 always for uh mhclgs then was housing was going to be right at the top of the agenda and the labour government priorities on housing were very different from the conservative manifesto proposals so we had to prepare for two extremely different scenarios and so that was my dominant

00:24:12 and so that was my dominant work and that was really one of the ways in which i got up to speed and got to know people was through that planning work that we did in april and may during the election campaign yeah i understand were you given any form of briefing

00:24:23 were you given any form of briefing about the builder building regulations or the systems of building control even generally during that handover process not that i can recall no

00:24:34 not that i can recall no do you think looking back you perhaps should have been so that you had some um at least overall awareness of how the system worked broadly what its objectives were how it worked what the

00:24:45 objectives were how it worked what the department's role was with the benefit of hindsight and and following the the grenfell tower fire then yes i i think that

00:24:54 that you know when i asked colleagues about this at the time shortly after the fire um

00:25:01 um you know

00:25:02 you know there was an awful lot to get through and

00:25:05 and [Music]

00:25:07 [Music] so while with hindsight i wish i had had a briefing on those issues obviously i'm not that surprised that the department didn't prioritize it because it was seen as quite a technical exercise um

00:25:17 um but

00:25:18 but i do i do think that and it may be that i was given some introductory information but i don't recall it so i don't think i had a meeting on it for example yeah um i do think that that should have been included yes a sense of

00:25:29 should have been included yes a sense of what the department's responsibilities were what its role was the nature of the regime its history and so on yeah yeah let me ask you some questions now about what you did know when you were so and these questions are all focusing on the

00:25:40 these questions are all focusing on the time before the grenfell tower fire i appreciate you underwent a very detailed process of educating yourself after the grenfell tower fire but i want to focus on what you knew before that

00:25:51 on what you knew before that um

00:25:52 um and

00:25:53 and so first of all to what extent during your time as permanent secretary did you become familiar with the building regulations just in general and the system for building control in england and wales

00:26:05 and wales so um

00:26:08 so um apart from the conversation i described earlier with sally randall about about prioritization the other conversation i remember is an introduction to the department's commitments on the red tape challenge

00:26:19 commitments on the red tape challenge and

00:26:21 and i think that took place in the first few months of 2016 and the reason for that was that i was like all permanent secretaries going to be grilled by the business secretary um

00:26:32 um that summer on what the department was doing

00:26:35 doing and so i had a preparatory meeting for that a first preparatory meeting and because of the referendum that meeting never took place the the meeting with the secretary of state never took place but i had an a first

00:26:47 but i had an a first overview conversation with stephen aldridge the director of analysis about the sorts of things that were in scope some of the history and some of the challenges that the

00:26:58 and some of the challenges that the department would face in meeting those objectives and i don't specifically remember

00:27:03 remember the general building regulations work i remember a conversation about energy efficiency and that being a conflict potentially with red tape challenge and i

00:27:12 and i um

00:27:14 um i remember forming the impression that we were going to have to argue quite hard that we couldn't meet the budget that we had been set but in the end i only had the one meeting because the the need for it um

00:27:27 meeting because the the need for it um wasn't there after the referendum and the pressure on red tape was significantly reduced after the referendum yes um did you know that the statutory scheme

00:27:38 statutory scheme around the building regulations involved the imposition of overarching functional or performance requirements did you know that

00:27:46 much i don't recall being talked through uh how the system worked at that level no not before the fire yeah

00:27:55 fire yeah did you have any understanding about what the overarching aim of the building regulations was if you'd been asked what what is the aim of the building regulations what's it there to do what would you have said i would have said that it was to ensure

00:28:07 i would have said that it was to ensure safety um

00:28:08 safety um but also to ensure performance of buildings in areas like energy efficiency for example um that's what i would have assumed yeah had you heard of the approved documents and that these

00:28:19 the approved documents and that these were the for the purposes of providing practical guidance with respect to the provisions in the building regulations i don't believe i had no i had heard about the enforcement side perhaps

00:28:30 about the enforcement side perhaps you'll we'll come on to that but i had heard more about how the local government end worked right yes did you ever ask you ever told about the systems in place for keeping the building regulations and any associated

00:28:43 building regulations and any associated guidance under review did you ever have any briefings about that no i don't believe i did did you know anything about how the department sought to keep up to date with current practices and trends in the

00:28:56 with current practices and trends in the building industry including methods of construction to be able to issue practical guidance in relation to it

00:29:05 no i wasn't aware of what we were doing from the building regulation side on that i was aware of what the department was aiming to achieve by way of a more widespread take-up of modern

00:29:16 a more widespread take-up of modern methods of construction and that was really focused on what one might call kit housing that's produced in factories and is very very much quicker to assemble on site and

00:29:27 much quicker to assemble on site and speeds up the process of house building and can also be very cost effective so not modern methods such as cladding but but more yeah or that kind of factory built actually usually rather accurate

00:29:38 built actually usually rather accurate and and well produced housing and that was an emerging industry at the time still is i think and we we had a number of programmes to try to support it so that was the that was the context

00:29:50 it so that was the that was the context in which i was aware of those sorts of developments across the industry and what the department was thinking about but i don't recall anyone ever raising any concerns that there might be safety issues about some of that innovation yes

00:30:01 that innovation yes um

00:30:02 um who was

00:30:03 who was the person that would have told you about this push for kit housing as you've just described it where would you be getting that information from well that was one of the government's

00:30:14 well that was one of the government's priorities i mean it wasn't perhaps one of the top 10 or 15 but it was one of the next tier of things we were trying to do to speed up house building

00:30:24 building encourage more finance into the industry and generally build more homes yes and going back to what you said a moment ago why do you think building regulations was not a priority area at

00:30:35 regulations was not a priority area at that time who had decided that

00:30:42 i mean it's a question to which i've given a lot of thought over the last five years and i'm i'm still not quite sure i know the answer

00:30:53 i mean my my my overall impression here and i'm sure will come on to this is that the department just didn't see that it had a role of oversight of that system it saw that its

00:31:04 oversight of that system it saw that its role was one of writing the rules and

00:31:08 and it understood that there was a role for local government to do by way of approvals and enforcement but everything else in the middle that you do when you're performing

00:31:19 that you do when you're performing regulatory oversight and that i do today through ofcom wasn't i believe understood by the department as something that needed to be done or as something that needed to

00:31:30 be done or as something that needed to be done by the department yes so

00:31:33 so in that sense had i been briefed on the regulations i think it would have been to be informed on the work that we were doing yes to change the rules to make them easier to understand etc rather than

00:31:46 easier to understand etc rather than to be informed of a wider statutory system because i don't think the department for many decades saw that as a role that it had or a role that needed

00:31:57 a role that it had or a role that needed performing yeah and do you think that perhaps had you known um that the department's practice was project to produce this practical guidance to assist people to comply with the building regulations had you known

00:32:08 the building regulations had you known that do you think you perhaps might have appreciated that it did have an ongoing role in terms of oversight to some extent of that regime even if not at the enforcement end

00:32:21 even if not at the enforcement end well

00:32:24 i might have done but i think it would be

00:32:28 be rather self-serving of me to say that i would have done when nobody else had done for several decades to be honest um it was very far from the way the department saw its role i think we we

00:32:39 department saw its role i think we we know that since the far is what i felt when i began to explore the history immediately after the fire but because i had been at hmrc and had been responsible for systems of

00:32:50 and had been responsible for systems of compliance i did actually have and was rather passionate about how you go about ensuring not just that the rules are right and that enforcement takes place but all those things in the middle about how people understand that

00:33:02 middle about how people understand that they're responsible for filling in a tax return

00:33:06 return making sure a building has been put up properly where does the training come from who are the experts who are the advisors you know on taxes the accountants on building safety is architects and engineers

00:33:18 architects and engineers and

00:33:19 and i did actually have an appreciation of those issues i think that was a relatively unknown it's a very unusual background for a permanent secretary in a white tall department so maybe i might have asked some wider

00:33:31 maybe i might have asked some wider questions but i i think i am you know i am i would be being as i say somewhat self-serving if i think i might have managed to discover something that nobody else had discovered for several

00:33:43 nobody else had discovered for several decades yes do you think that one of the explanations for why it wasn't more at the forefront was because it was seen as very technical and complex do you think that in itself meant that it ended up

00:33:54 that in itself meant that it ended up standing apart from perhaps the mainstream in terms of what people were aware of

00:34:01 aware of yes i i think that um to be honest these systems of regulatory oversight don't sit very well in government departments whose main focus is to serve the democratically elected

00:34:12 is to serve the democratically elected government of the day and and that focus is correct i mean it's extremely important

00:34:17 important particularly for very policy focused departments like mhclg and i think that sits quite awkwardly with the sort of long-term risk-based

00:34:28 with the sort of long-term risk-based oversight that you need to oversee a regulatory system particularly one that's about public safety um and i can say a bit more about that if it's it's helpful but i do think one of the one of the aspects of that is

00:34:40 of the one of the aspects of that is skills

00:34:42 skills so

00:34:43 so it's it's partly that those skills are not as necessary for the ministerial uh work that you do and therefore they are sometimes undervalued and i think the

00:34:54 sometimes undervalued and i think the team probably did feel a bit undervalued i think also it's quite hard to attract those skills into a government department and it's much easier to attract them and value them and reward them in a regulator where it's a dedicated and you

00:35:06 regulator where it's a dedicated and you know

00:35:08 know proud and central part of what those regulators do so i think the skills bit is one piece of it but it's it's for me part of a wider whole about the nature of the work of a government department and what is and is

00:35:19 government department and what is and is not easy to do alongside that yes now at the time did you know anything about the work done by technical policy officers including as a link to industry

00:35:30 including as a link to industry effectively feeding back information from industry and then enabling the building regulations and the guidance that was issued pursuant to it to be kept up to date to be current to be fit

00:35:42 kept up to date to be current to be fit for purpose did you know about the role of those technical policy officers no i didn't

00:35:49 did you know well it must follow that you didn't know therefore that they also had a role in terms of what's called horizon scanning to anticipate new developments in the construction industry which might

00:36:01 in the construction industry which might impact on the work of the department but also my impact on the building regulations and the guidance given pursuant to it no i wasn't aware of that

00:36:14 had you ever met with technical policy officers before the grenfell tower fire

00:36:21 i don't believe that i met members of the building regulations team um i can't recall for sure but i don't think i did and i think i probably didn't yeah

00:36:32 and i think i probably didn't yeah did you know that the department had moved away from there being a regular cycle of review of the approved documents the practical guidance that was being given so there'd been that there had been a

00:36:43 so there'd been that there had been a regular cycle of review and it had to take place but they'd moved away from that were you ever told about that no i wasn't not until after the fire so does it follow that you didn't know

00:36:55 so does it follow that you didn't know that the last major review of approved document b on fire safety had been in 2006. i wasn't aware of that for the fire name

00:37:05 fire name were you ever told in general terms that the technical guidance for part b of the building regulations on fire safety was

00:37:12 was known to be out of date no i wasn't aware of that did you understand that the enforcement of the building regulations was devolved to local authorities and building

00:37:23 to local authorities and building control offices did you understand that much

00:37:26 much yes i did and that was something that i was aware of partly because i was aware of the the wide range of functions that local government carried out and in particular

00:37:37 government carried out and in particular some of their enforcement roles on trading standards building regulations and and so on so that that i had a little bit more of an understanding of yeah did you know about the system for

00:37:48 did you know about the system for private building control services via the approved inspectors scheme yes i was aware of that i'm not quite sure

00:37:56 sure why that was brought to my attention but it was something that was discussed and generally the narrative was that this was a very effective scheme and that enforcement at the local level was something that was uh widely admired by

00:38:08 something that was uh widely admired by other countries right i see where did you learn that from do you know it was part of the general conversation um and i i i can't remember whether it was

00:38:19 and i i i can't remember whether it was uh

00:38:21 uh you know in a specific meeting or whether it was just something that was discussed when we were talking about um those functions i can't i can't really remember but i do i do have a general recollection of a prevailing

00:38:32 general recollection of a prevailing narrative that the system was very effective um but not any evidence that was supporting that it was just what people said yes i understand were you ever made aware of any systematic problems or failings within

00:38:45 systematic problems or failings within the construction industry before the grenfell tower fire no i wasn't or any systematic problems or failings within the system of building regulation

00:38:57 within the system of building regulation and building control did anyone talk about any systemic problems any known failings known issues with that no i mean

00:39:07 no i mean i think what the reason why i recall approved inspectors is that the conversation on reducing red tape almost certainly brought that topic in

00:39:18 almost certainly brought that topic in and

00:39:20 and so

00:39:21 so i was aware that there was a debate about whether approved inspectors were a good thing or not or whether it was allowing too much latitude in the industry

00:39:29 industry too much flexibility

00:39:33 so i was aware that there was that debate but that it was seen as a deregulatory initiative something that opened up competition increased capacity reduced reliance on local government resources and so on

00:39:44 resources and so on so i was aware of that general argument but not at any kind of level of detail and not any specific concerns about it just help me with this were you given the impression that approved inspectors operating on the

00:39:55 approved inspectors operating on the private side as opposed to the local authority were effective regulators

00:40:03 i don't think anyone ever used the word regulator in this context at all and um

00:40:12 uh so no i don't i don't i don't think that was the way it was seen i think it was seen as an administrative task of approval

00:40:20 approval um

00:40:24 i mean everybody had examples of you know how difficult it had been to get building control to sign off on you know changes to their own homes so it was

00:40:33 it was again the prevailing narrative was was something around this being quite bureaucratic and it being good that there were choices available and that that had been a very strong set

00:40:44 and that that had been a very strong set of political arguments in the previous few years

00:40:47 few years but i don't think it was seen as a regulatory function in the way that i would understand it today so it was widely

00:40:53 widely admired as you understood it as a means of streaming streamlining the process

00:41:01 process but

00:41:02 but it's not clear that anyone actually thought does this system

00:41:08 system operate an effective regulator to prevent prevent non-compliant materials or constructions from getting through the net

00:41:20 net i think that's right i think that the concerns that people had about it would have been that maybe it allowed corners to be cut but

00:41:28 but it was seen as you say as a system of streamlining and reducing burdens and speeding things up yeah thank you yes thank you were you ever made aware at any stage

00:41:40 were you ever made aware at any stage prior to the fire that the drive for energy efficiency was promoting the use of combustible materials for example in the external walls of buildings no i wasn't before the fire yeah

00:41:53 no i wasn't before the fire yeah were you ever given any reassurance about the effectiveness of the building regulations prior to the the grenfell fire do you remember receiving positive news about it and its system

00:42:07 not beyond the things i just discussed about the system more generally as opposed to the regulations or the approved documents so it was more the system that was talked about and the system of enforcement and approvals rather than

00:42:19 enforcement and approvals rather than the rules themselves yes were you ever told that deaths from fire were falling statistically and that was that there was nothing to worry about in terms of fire safety do you remember

00:42:30 terms of fire safety do you remember that ever being said i was certainly told that deaths from far were falling uh as indeed is the case yes um or was the case at the time uh

00:42:40 uh i wasn't told that there was nothing to worry about the the team that told me about overall deaths from fire safety was actually the fire team before it went across the home office i

00:42:51 office i gave evidence to a public accounts committee hearing in december 2015 on the fire service yes and as part of that briefing

00:42:59 briefing um

00:43:00 um i was informed about trends in you know um files in the home and so on um and

00:43:10 and it is interesting to me now that there wasn't as far as i recall and i don't believe there's anything in my briefing either anything about the building regulations and their contribution to that and to the safety system as a whole yeah it was a discussion that was

00:43:21 yeah it was a discussion that was entirely around the fire side yes

00:43:26 yes did you understand those trends to bear any relation to the efficacy um

00:43:32 um in relation to severity of individual incidents

00:43:36 incidents i'm sorry could you sorry question um

00:43:41 um what was the relationship you thought between um statistical deaths from fire and the efficacy of the building regulations did you were you ever was that link ever made

00:43:54 no i don't believe it was um

00:43:58 um i was told and i think the department believed that the reductions in

00:44:03 in um

00:44:05 um in the number of fires were due to things like smoke alarms in the home

00:44:13 and i can't recall if there was anything to do with the building regulations that was mentioned in that context but i don't think there was it was a different part of the department that was briefing me for that fire

00:44:23 fire pac hearing yeah i also did a number of visits to fire services during that autumn to get to know the system i went to two local authority um areas and talked to their fire services to get an

00:44:34 talked to their fire services to get an understanding of what they did yeah and it was it was like a different a different bit of the department yeah do you ever remember any discussions about the standards of fire safety in high-rise residential buildings

00:44:45 in high-rise residential buildings including an older housing stock high-rise buildings no i'm afraid i don't

00:44:52 now in terms of deregulation i want to ask you some questions now about deregulation and your understanding of the effects that that had on the department and we know that one in one out was an

00:45:04 and we know that one in one out was an administrative policy that was introduced in 2011 and operated within government whereby in theory no new regulation would be introduced without a compensating reduction in regulation

00:45:15 compensating reduction in regulation being made is that correct yes and um did you have any direct experience in government of one in one out and later one in two out which we think was introduced in 2013

00:45:27 introduced in 2013 before your time at mhclg so i had

00:45:31 so i had um

00:45:32 um one specific prior experience which was at hmrc where we weren't covered by one in one out as i think it was at the time specifically but we were required to commit to

00:45:44 to commit to a programme of reductions in overall red tape and that was mainly achieved by reducing the number of inspections but it was also achieved by simplifying guidance and so on so i

00:45:55 simplifying guidance and so on so i remember that i remember it being very challenging because simplifying tax guidance

00:45:59 guidance usually means that you don't get as much money in so the treasury were quite worried about some of that but i remember that debate happening in

00:46:08 in the years 2006 to 2011. so it was actually the back end of the labour government before the coalition government um and that that conversation had been going on generally about red

00:46:19 had been going on generally about red tape for several decades it wasn't new in 2010 with the coalition yeah and then i remember um

00:46:26 um in i remember it being part of what we were doing um in our relationships with europe so i was europe director at the treasury as you mentioned earlier 2002 and 2006. so

00:46:38 you mentioned earlier 2002 and 2006. so reducing red tape was always a big thing that the uk was trying to get out of the eu and i think the the uk actually was responsible for mobilizing quite a lot of the work that eu did itself on that and

00:46:50 itself on that and i think it's important to remember there was scope for reducing red tape there was quite a lot of needless bureaucracy and an excessive detail so it wasn't that these issues were were wrong and particularly in the early days i think there was a lot that could

00:47:01 days i think there was a lot that could be improved i then finally remember when i was in the cabinet office before i went to um mhclg um the red tape challenge was

00:47:13 um the red tape challenge was coordinated by the cabinet office yeah i wasn't responsible for my rich myself but

00:47:18 but i worked very closely with the implementation unit um who were responsible for overseeing the cross whitehall effort and oliver lett winners um minister in the covenant office was very involved in that so i

00:47:30 office was very involved in that so i was aware of it it was a very important part of the drumbeat of the coalition government and then later the conservative led government after 2015. yes

00:47:39 yes and we know during your time at the department uh that one in one out then one in two out became one in three out in 2016. is that correct yes yes and the red tape challenge you've mentioned that

00:47:50 red tape challenge you've mentioned that several times to what extent was that still impacting on the department when you were permanent secretary so i i knew uh

00:48:00 uh in the

00:48:01 in the summer and autumn of 2015 that we were going to have to come up with some proposals to reduce our overall um regulatory burden as it would have been referred to at the time and

00:48:13 referred to at the time and um

00:48:15 um i don't recall anything other than the one meeting i mentioned earlier where i was taken through the beginning of those plans i think in the first half of 2016 before the referendum

00:48:26 before the referendum and

00:48:27 and to be honest i recall at the time thinking that we almost certainly wouldn't be able to achieve one in three out because it was an extremely onerous

00:48:37 request and given what had already gone on in the preceding years a lot of the low-hanging fruit had already been taken so i was

00:48:45 i was although we never really explicitly pulled this out at the time because we didn't need to in the end i was expecting that we were going to need to have to you know push back quite hard

00:48:56 you know push back quite hard on those proposals i i didn't think that they would be achievable by the department right and did you in fact push back quite hard did you in fact have to do that it didn't actually get to that stage because um during that

00:49:09 to that stage because um during that summer and autumn the main focus in the first instance was the spending review and agreeing our budgets for the next few years and just mobilizing the really big priorities coming out of the manifesto on housing and so on and the

00:49:20 manifesto on housing and so on and the way i was describing earlier and the red tape challenge didn't really catch up with us during that first autumn as i recall i think what was going on was that in the department the analysts who were in

00:49:32 department the analysts who were in charge of it because it was a question of being able to measure costs and benefits

00:49:36 benefits the analysts were doing the work they were they did a very effective job in fact the analytical teams on this i think and they would have been going out and talking to the relevant owners of these systems and

00:49:48 owners of these systems and assessing and pulling together proposals and options and costs and benefits and risks and so on and that but that hadn't really crystallized but by the referendum and it never really was ever as sharp again as i

00:50:00 really was ever as sharp again as i recall yes certainly not after grenfell tower yes

00:50:04 tower yes now mr harrell richard harrell who was the head of technical policy in the building regulations division between 2014 and

00:50:10 2014 and 2017 he explained that the coalition government adopted a far more rigorous approach to deregulation with increased scrutiny of regulatory proposals was

00:50:21 scrutiny of regulatory proposals was that your experience as well yes

00:50:29 now we've seen documents from 2012 describing mhclg as a deregulating department i think mr led some in fairness to him explained that he was trying to show

00:50:42 explained that he was trying to show willingness and say we understand we have to be deregulating as well when he wrote that but would you agree with that description in your time there that mhcld was a deregulating department

00:50:56 mhcld was a deregulating department not in my time in the department no because as i was describing earlier we didn't really get to the point i don't think of drawing up major deregulations for the 2015

00:51:08 major deregulations for the 2015 parliament um i mean it's possible that more work was going on in teams than i was aware of at the time as i'm sure there was some preparatory work being done but in the time that i was there

00:51:19 in the time that i was there it just wasn't a in the end a big part of our work although it was still certainly the very first year or two a big priority for the government so we were having to get ready with proposals

00:51:31 were having to get ready with proposals right and i don't from where i sat in the cabinet office between 2011 and 2015.

00:51:37 2015. i don't particularly recall dclg as then was being highlighted as a major deregulator but that's partly because there were other departments that had an awful lot more regulations

00:51:48 that had an awful lot more regulations and rules such as defra on the environment and so on and the business department which would have been the main focus yes i see were you aware during your time as permanent secretary of the pressures that civil servants

00:52:00 of the pressures that civil servants felt at mr harold and mr ledson's level uh and below that to deliver on these deregulating policies were you aware how much pressure they felt to do that

00:52:11 felt to do that i was

00:52:12 i was i didn't uh as i was saying earlier i don't think i spoke to the teams myself and

00:52:17 and um i was really um

00:52:20 um you know really saddened to see quite how much pressure uh richard harrell and others were under and from the evidence they gave

00:52:27 they gave to the inquiry in the last few weeks um

00:52:30 um but i was certainly aware that this was very difficult for teams that owned rules like this um and that the demands that are being placed on

00:52:41 the demands that are being placed on them particularly as time went on and the easier things had already been found and delivered that

00:52:49 that it was

00:52:50 it was it was putting them under a lot of pressure but i didn't talk to the team specifically so i wasn't aware of the specific pressures on those individuals yes can you give any explanation as to how they can have felt under so much pressure and we'll come to some more

00:53:02 pressure and we'll come to some more detail about that um that really deregulation was driving an awful lot of the decisions they were taking

00:53:10 taking including after the lachlan fire can you explain how they can have felt under that pressure and yet you at the time weren't aware that they felt under those pressures

00:53:19 pressures i think we may be describing slightly different time periods here so i arrived in 2015 yeah and and the legacy of that previous few years which was

00:53:29 was immediately after lachen or house um

00:53:34 um i wasn't aware of because i wasn't in the department but i was aware of it in a general sense across whitehall i i saw the pressures everywhere but i also saw the very strong drive from the government it was in their manifesto you

00:53:45 government it was in their manifesto you know it needed the civil service needed to engage with that and yeah and work with it um

00:53:55 when it came to 2015 and when i arrived in the department uh as i say the slightly curious thing for me is that perhaps it's just a question of timing but i was aware that the department was

00:54:06 but i was aware that the department was going to have these really tough targets to meet and that they probably couldn't be met and i was going to need to be part of pushing back quite hard on that and i was ready i would have been ready for my meeting with the business secretary

00:54:18 with the business secretary and i would have been ready to defend the department and explain at level of detail what could and couldn't be done and the consequences of going too far i'm

00:54:28 i'm i'm

00:54:29 i'm a bit disappointed to be honest that that that worry in the team wasn't somehow shared and dealt with at a more senior level by directors and the director general peter schofield because

00:54:40 director general peter schofield because that's where i would have expected some of these issues to have been discussed and resolved because it's not the job of the civil service to just walk blindly into these issues it is the job of the civil service to

00:54:51 civil service to you know engage with what ministers want deliver when they've made a decision but to pull out risks and consequences so i'm surprised and as i say disappointed that they didn't feel they had that outlet and that it felt they

00:55:03 had that outlet and that it felt they felt somewhat alone in it can you just ask do you think that a decision whether to add another regulation or whether to remove a regulation or whatever perhaps should have been taken by more

00:55:15 perhaps should have been taken by more senior people than the uh relatively junior civil servants from whom we heard well i think there would have been decisions for ministers um

00:55:26 um and

00:55:28 and um

00:55:30 um our overall regulatory package had we got to that stage would have been something that would probably have been signed off by the secretary of state um so i think it would have been escalated and had we actually gone through the one in three out and had to

00:55:42 through the one in three out and had to deliver on it i think it would have become a big thing during 2016 involving the permanent secretary involving the secretary of state involving all the teams and i would hope that we would have flushed out

00:55:53 out the problems and been able to get some of the concerns of the team on the table

00:55:59 the table but i was thinking really that the pressure that appears to have been felt by some of the uh

00:56:05 uh grade sevens i think possibly some of the great sixes as well might have been alleviated if they'd been told look you just push it up the line and let your deputy director or

00:56:16 line and let your deputy director or maybe your director whoever it's going to be he can worry about this you don't have to

00:56:21 have to yes well i think that is partly the role of the deputy director and the director is to

00:56:26 is to is to have an open door to be listening to be asking what people are worried about

00:56:31 about and

00:56:36 i guess by the time we got to 2015 this pressure on the team had been going on for quite a long time and they may have felt that they just had to get on with it

00:56:47 with it and there were quite a lot of directors that moved around during that period and they they may not have felt they had the relationships to be able to raise those problems yeah all right thank you i mean to give you a

00:56:58 right thank you i mean to give you a concrete example we know now that in 2015 mid-2015 so after your appointment officials within the building regulation division

00:57:06 division decided to subsume a review of approved document b within a wider review of building regulation policy because they felt they needed to be able to present any changes as part of a

00:57:17 to present any changes as part of a package of deregulation that was the only way they felt that they could move forward

00:57:21 forward but that thereby caused years of delay to the process of reviewing approved document b now first of all did you have any awareness that that was going on

00:57:32 awareness that that was going on i didn't have any awareness of going on my understanding from reading the documents is that that was discussed by peter schofield and sally randall as director general and director and that it was something that was agreed you know not just by the team themselves

00:57:44 you know not just by the team themselves that it was something that they discussed with their director and dg how to handle and how to pull it together and you know

00:57:53 you know in my opinion it wasn't necessarily the wrong thing to roll all this up into one program that showed ministers that we were trying to achieve their objectives but also provided for the necessary

00:58:04 but also provided for the necessary work following latino house to be progressed as well so it wasn't necessarily a problem but i think what as far as i can understand what then happened was that the necessary work got lost as part of

00:58:15 the necessary work got lost as part of that

00:58:15 that of that roll-up yeah but i don't think it had to have done i don't think the roll-up and the decision to have one package was a bad idea in fact i think it might have been quite a good idea it makes it more coherent easier to track

00:58:26 makes it more coherent easier to track you know have a bigger more visible portfolio of work um but you know i wasn't aware of it at the time so i i'm probably commenting more than i should really on on things that yes i didn't have i understand but

00:58:38 that yes i didn't have i understand but the difficulty with that is the reasons for doing it were not for those reasons as far as we can see but because they felt selling it as a deregulatory package was the only way they were going to get it through with ministers

00:58:51 to get it through with ministers so whilst there might have been other ancillary benefits the main reason appeared to be the pressure they felt due to this objective of deregulation do you see

00:59:00 you see yes i do and i think look the deregulatory imperative did cast quite a shadow over teams like this in this department and many others and

00:59:11 many others and um

00:59:12 um by the time we got to 2015 i think it had it had become you know almost quite an extreme set of policy demands actually um

00:59:23 um i i what i don't know is whether peter schofield and sally randall who i think were engaged in this from what i can see from the papers i've read during that summer of 2015 whether

00:59:35 read during that summer of 2015 whether they saw it quite in the way that the team did

00:59:38 team did um

00:59:38 um [Music]

00:59:40 [Music] i think they may have seen what i think later became the productivity review as a

00:59:44 a in the way that i just described that it was helpful to pull it all together have it in one visible place yes um and that it wasn't because it could only be done because if it was a deregulatory package but that it was helpful to at

00:59:56 package but that it was helpful to at least explain how it contributed to deregulation and if you didn't do that then yes you weren't going to be able to get

01:00:02 get what you needed progressed yes i understand did you get the general sense that regulation was bad and even if there were regulatory proposals which might on the face of it look attractive

01:00:14 might on the face of it look attractive to ministers once it was recognized it was a regulation they would pull back because it was not what they wanted to do to drive change now that's the description we've had from mr harold do

01:00:25 description we've had from mr harold do you agree with that description of the

01:00:28 of the you know the climate within dclg at the time

01:00:37 i don't think amongst officials at a senior level as well as in the team that that it was as simple as that um

01:00:47 um it may well be how the team felt um

01:00:50 um but

01:00:51 but i think

01:00:52 i think certainly

01:00:54 certainly someone like for example sally randall who

01:00:56 who had overseen all the work on um

01:00:59 um housing standards um and private rented sector

01:01:03 sector had an extremely strong knowledge and appreciation of the importance of the rules and the regulations and about housing associations were governed and so on so

01:01:11 so on so my impression was that

01:01:14 was that the department actually was very expert not just at the in the teams but actually at more senior level as well and had quite a broad understanding and you know was was ready to be able to explain to ministers where the

01:01:25 explain to ministers where the trade-offs would lie right were you aware that officials felt that they were working in a policy environment where regulatory intervention was a last resort

01:01:38 i i can't really comment on what they thought i mean i can i absolutely hear that that's what what they thought i i don't think that other officials at a more senior level thought that regulation was a last resort however in

01:01:51 regulation was a last resort however in the climate at the time you would have had to have had a very good reason for new regulations or for putting in place the kind of system of regulatory oversight that has been put in since 2017

01:02:01 2017 is being put in now through the hackett review and the new act that would not have been something that was very well received i think in 2015 2016. and do you think anything short of the grenfell tower fire would have prompted that kind

01:02:12 tower fire would have prompted that kind of action

01:02:15 well i mean

01:02:21 i find it just horrific to think that we had to

01:02:26 had to experience such a terrible loss of life and such an appalling catastrophe for the community and the families in order to understand quite what was going on but

01:02:38 quite what was going on but my honest answer to the question is that i i think that even if those issues had been the issues that we the team were beginning to be aware of around cladding

01:02:50 around cladding even if somebody had come in and said we've got to we're not exerting oversight we need to to do that and i did do that on some other areas of the department's work actually even if we'd done that i think that

01:03:03 done that i think that by the time you got to 2015 the the

01:03:07 the the non-compliance in the industry was so entrenched and that combined with the

01:03:14 the very strong focus on red tape and all the history of that over the previous few years would have made it very very very difficult to get anything changed so

01:03:24 so i i find it horrific to think that it took the fire but i i honestly i'm not sure that it would have happened otherwise right did you know that we had a history in the uk of perhaps only bringing about

01:03:35 the uk of perhaps only bringing about major reforms in terms of fire safety in response to a multi-fatality incident were you aware of that prior to the grenfell fire

01:03:46 i i was aware of of other catastrophes such as piper alpha and the king's cross fire and

01:03:53 fire and um

01:03:54 um and various other disasters not bradford stadium um

01:04:01 and so on um the held a free enterprise i was aware of those

01:04:08 of those issues and in fact in 2017 after the fire we we put on a programme of events and we got people who've been involved in those to come in and talk to us about safety and what they've learned and what hadn't been in

01:04:19 they've learned and what hadn't been in place and what they put in place um we explored those issues very deeply i

01:04:26 deeply i i don't think the civil service as a whole

01:04:30 whole had an understanding of that history i i personally think that some of the the failings in the department were not unique to the department the department's culture was actually very committed it was very collaborative more

01:04:42 committed it was very collaborative more so than most and i think that uh looking back and particularly from the perspective i have now of running a regulator that an understanding of

01:04:53 an understanding of how to run regulatory oversight is not really very good in most whitehall departments it's not something that senior civil servants spend their careers on it's not something that

01:05:04 careers on it's not something that ministers particularly think about and that history is not learned from explained taught in a systematic way yes back to the deregulatory agenda did you

01:05:17 back to the deregulatory agenda did you know in 2016 that the better regulation unit within mhclg effectively told officials within the building regulations division not to propose any new regulation were you ever aware of

01:05:29 new regulation were you ever aware of that

01:05:33 were you aware that the building regulation department of mhclg or the division did not give any consideration to whether any of its work might legitimately be the subject of an exemption

01:05:44 exemption for example where life safety issues were potentially in play no i wasn't aware of that does it surprise you that no exemptions for the life safety parts of the building regulations

01:05:56 regulations was ever even considered by the building regulations division i find that very surprising and i i believe that the far safety order was given some form of exemption it was

01:06:07 was given some form of exemption it was it i find it very surprising therefore that the safety elements of the building regulations were not also given at least thought to an exemption yes exactly some consideration of it yes i find that very

01:06:19 consideration of it yes i find that very surprising yes because um so were you made aware at the time before the grenfell fire that the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 had been specifically exempted from the government's red tape challenge in

01:06:31 the government's red tape challenge in 2012.

01:06:32 2012. i wasn't aware of that before the far no yeah

01:06:35 yeah does it surprise you that officials within the building regulations division also didn't take advice on whether if clarification of the building regulations was all that was involved those deregulatory policies

01:06:47 involved those deregulatory policies were engaged does it surprise you they didn't take advice on whether a clarification effectively engaged those policies yes i would have

01:06:59 engaged those policies yes i would have thought that was one of the first questions does this work engage the red tape challenge and if it didn't then they

01:07:04 they wouldn't have had to worry about it yes did you know at the time that and mr harrell's evidence is that approximately 70 percent of the building regulations relate to life safety so you know quite

01:07:16 relate to life safety so you know quite a significant chunk of building regulations are impacting on life safety i didn't know that at the time no

01:07:24 sorry sorry it doesn't surprise me um but i wasn't aware of it at the time yeah were you aware that officials were working on the basis that any change to the guidance they were giving about the

01:07:36 the guidance they were giving about the building regulations needed to be the subject of a regulatory impact assessment because there would be a potential cost to industry of simply reading new guidance were you aware that that was the basis on which they were

01:07:48 that was the basis on which they were working

01:07:49 working no and i'm very surprised by that because our analytical teams were in the lead on this and i'm just very surprised that that dialogue wasn't there and the analytical teams coordinated it

01:08:01 analytical teams coordinated it precisely so that the department did have a knowledge of what the rules were and what was engaged and what wasn't so i find that very surprising i wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it just now can you help us as to why those

01:08:12 now can you help us as to why those departments weren't talking constructively to one another so that it was clear what was engaging and what wasn't and if there was work that they needed to do for public safety reasons to clarify the guidance

01:08:24 to clarify the guidance they could work their way around these deregulatory policies can you explain that

01:08:32 not really no i find it very surprising i would have expected it to be

01:08:39 it to be the first thing that bob ledson and stephen aldridge's the director responsible for analysis would have talked about and if bob had a concern that

01:08:49 that that he wasn't being listened to i would have expected sally randall to be a very sympathetic ear and one who was very well placed to be able to resolve any problems i just find it quite difficult to know why they didn't

01:09:01 quite difficult to know why they didn't have those conversations but i say it's the first time i was aware of that yes who are the analytical teams that you're referring to that you say there could have been conversations with so it's the analytical services directorate the

01:09:14 analytical services directorate the director was stephen aldridge and i don't know who the deputy directors were at the time but my recollection is that the red tape team was in that directorate i think that's the case yes

01:09:25 directorate i think that's the case yes i'm not 100 sure yeah did you understand that it was fully envisaged that the government's deregulatory policies would be impacting on parts of the building regulations

01:09:36 on parts of the building regulations which were concerned with life safety

01:09:41 no i mean i just i wasn't aware of that of that work in any level of detail so no

01:09:45 no i wasn't aware of that yeah did you ever have a concern that the government's wider priority in reducing regulation and red tape had increased competition amongst regulatory bodies which led to a

01:09:57 amongst regulatory bodies which led to a focus on cost cutting and cutting corners rather than an emphasis on competence and safety did you ever have those concerns or those concerns drawn to your attention no those concerns were never drawn to my

01:10:08 no those concerns were never drawn to my attention

01:10:09 attention at the time i i i i was not expecting that this was going to be easy though for the department and i was i was gearing up for the fact that we i was going to have to defend us so i would have been quite sympathetic to those

01:10:21 have been quite sympathetic to those concerns but we hadn't got to that stage yeah by the time the referendum came along and then the work was just no longer as as pressured as it had been yeah how widely shared with it within your teams was that knowledge that your

01:10:33 your teams was that knowledge that your awareness that you were likely to have to gear up for a bit of a fight over this

01:10:37 this was that shared with your um executive team that you talked about was it shared with the deputy directors the directors i'm sure we will have talked about it um

01:10:49 i'm sure we will have talked about it um i mean because i've been in the cabinet office you know i did have a very good understanding of sort of cross whitehall activities where ministers were coming from and it was one of the things i was bringing from to the department and

01:11:04 i i what i recall is that i did have conversations with peter schofield for whom this was the most relevant about about better regulation and whether it was going too far and and

01:11:15 and whether it was going too far and and whether it was going to be possible to achieve one in three out i suspect that when we saw that in the manifesto i'm pretty certain my own response will have been i don't think that's going to be achievable

01:11:26 be achievable and i'm pretty sure i will have shared that view with my colleagues yes yeah and we may well have had a bit of a i think we probably did have a bit of a debate about it i don't recall having a conversation specifically with directors about it but i don't think that view of

01:11:38 about it but i don't think that view of mine would have gone unnoticed yes what checks and balances were in place so far as you understood the position to be to ensure that life safety was not

01:11:49 be to ensure that life safety was not unacceptably compromised by these deregulatory policies i i just can't comment on that i don't think i wasn't aware of of the work at any level of detail so i i can't i can't

01:12:01 any level of detail so i i can't i can't really say yeah so you don't ever remember having conversations with your teams below you about what checks and balances there were to make sure you weren't going too

01:12:12 were to make sure you weren't going too far

01:12:12 far with deregulating in the fields which were impacting on public safety no i don't remember having those conversations and the context for that is the fact that i i wasn't as we were

01:12:24 is the fact that i i wasn't as we were discussing earlier really briefed up on the broader role of the of the building regulations and what they were seeking to achieve yes were there any policies in place so far as you were aware to ensure that the

01:12:35 as you were aware to ensure that the department's obligations to safeguard life including for example under article 2 of the european convention on human rights were properly prioritized where they needed to be were you aware of any policies which gave guidance on that no

01:12:47 policies which gave guidance on that no i wasn't

01:12:51 did you ever feel that you could push back to ministers on the deregulatory policies and targets did such conversations ever take place with ministers

01:13:00 ministers and if so can you give us some examples i would definitely felt able to push back um

01:13:06 back um with ministers in my own department and elsewhere

01:13:09 elsewhere um

01:13:10 um and i would have been ready to uh

01:13:14 uh talk to the cabinet secretary jeremy hayward if i felt that i had concerns as well i did that on a number of occasions it was i was doing it all the time actually

01:13:24 actually um

01:13:25 um but

01:13:27 but the the the conversation we're having is it is

01:13:31 it is is sort of making me feel that was quite odd about 2015 2016 was that red tape challenge just wasn't really very high up my agenda in 2015 because we were thinking about the

01:13:42 because we were thinking about the spending review and our housing policies and so on so it was clearly it clearly clearly was a strong jumby still

01:13:50 still and the teams were clearly gearing up and

01:13:53 and um expecting that it was going to be a big problem for them but because the decisions i don't think had crystallized for the department that early i wasn't really aware of the trade-offs and the issues and i think

01:14:05 and the issues and i think had we gone through 2016 i think a lot of this would have come out we would have sat there and i don't know whether the public safety issues would have been central to the conversation for the reasons i was describing earlier that i don't think

01:14:16 describing earlier that i don't think the department saw itself in that role of system oversight and with those responsibilities but

01:14:22 but but i think some of these tensions would definitely have been drawn out but it just hadn't happened as the timing issue is a little bit um odd to me yes do you think now looking back that there

01:14:33 do you think now looking back that there ought to have been guidance policies in place

01:14:37 place to ensure that life safety wasn't being unacceptably compromised and to give guidance to civil servants on when they should be

01:14:44 should be escalating because they thought this was going too far to give guidance on how much pressure they could tolerably deal with but how much pushback there ought to be yes i i think that should have been a

01:14:56 yes i i think that should have been a responsibility of the work that was being led from the cabinet office and i think it should have been happening inside the department as well um and it clearly happened to some extent because the fire safety order

01:15:08 extent because the fire safety order exemption was secured and

01:15:11 and my understanding is that then secretary of state was quite instrumental in that and was certainly aware of it so during that earlier parliament the conversations clearly were had in the department the work reached a certain

01:15:22 department the work reached a certain level of maturity and then various actions and decisions were taken and some exemptions were secured we hadn't got to that stage in 2015 2016 but

01:15:31 but um

01:15:33 um i think we would have done but there wasn't a system in place yes and there weren't clear rules by the side of it yes but can you see now how if that was the atmosphere that they were operating in or be it for legacy

01:15:45 were operating in or be it for legacy reasons that even clarifying guidance may have felt to them just to be too difficult to yes i can see that and i i think it's you know it's really very

01:15:56 think it's you know it's really very um upsetting actually to think that they felt so beleaguered and alone but we did have systems and processes in place in the department for them to escalate those concerns and i am surprised that

01:16:07 those concerns and i am surprised that there wasn't more of a dialogue with those who were responsible for the overall red tape challenge in the department and

01:16:14 and you know i said we did a full business planning exercise in the first three months of 2016 which was a chance for all these issues to be flushed out the portfolio boards were replaced

01:16:24 replaced in the autumn of that year and beyond for

01:16:27 for anything that was you know not being progressed to the time scale or and that was the place where things could and should have been discussed so we did have systems and processes in

01:16:38 we did have systems and processes in place in the department and as i said earlier it was a collaborative department i worked in um five in total in my time in the civil service and this was overwhelmingly the most collaborative and friendly

01:16:50 most collaborative and friendly and supportive culture that i worked in yes by a long distance mr chairman would that be a good moment for a break i'm going to move on to a separate topic next yes thank you very

01:17:01 separate topic next yes thank you very much well i think you probably would um name melanie we have a break during the morning and the afternoon as you probably know and this is a good time to take it so we'll stop there we'll come

01:17:12 take it so we'll stop there we'll come back at 25 to 12 please and um now you've started giving your evidence i have to ask you not to discuss your evidence or anything related to it with anyone once you're out of the room all right

01:17:23 once you're out of the room all right thank you thank you very much would you like to go to the usher please

01:17:36 thank you very much for strange uh 25-12

01:36:25 i would you'll stay melanie to come back in please thank you

01:36:40 good day melanin ready to carry on yes thank you good thank you very much yes yes thank you yes i'm going to turn to a different topic now which is what was discovered and what steps were taken in the immediate aftermath of the grenfell tower fire and if we can look at your

01:36:52 tower fire and if we can look at your third witness statement please clg 3030839 and look at page three paragraph six you tell us there you say on the morning

01:37:04 you tell us there you say on the morning of 14th of june 2017 the horrific scenes from grenfell tower immediately raised questions about the structure of the building and whether it was compliant with the building regulations i recall that there were also questions

01:37:15 i recall that there were also questions in the media straight away about the report department's response the coroner's recommendations following the lack of house fire including progress in revising approved document b i recall that i attended a briefing with

01:37:27 i recall that i attended a briefing with the secretary of state on these questions at 8 30. now when you say there that questions were immediately raised about um the structure of the building whether it was compliant with the building regulations

01:37:40 compliant with the building regulations um are you referring to questions being raised in the media at that point or questions being raised internally within within the department both

01:37:49 both um i can't recall exactly which questions were being raised in the media when but what i do recall is that the question of the lack of house recommendations was part of the media story almost immediately yeah um

01:38:02 story almost immediately yeah um and inside the department um

01:38:06 um that was also brought in very early in that 8 30 meeting which i recall being quite an impromptu meeting i think it was a more formally arranged one at 9 30 right i only attended the first five or 10 minutes of that yes

01:38:18 minutes of that yes anyway

01:38:19 anyway yes now who was present at that briefing with the secretary of state at 8 30. were any members of the building regulations division present so i've explored this quite a bit

01:38:30 so i've explored this quite a bit because most people's recollection from their witness statement was that the meeting

01:38:34 meeting was at 9 30 but what i recall is that there were two meetings and i think what happened was that i lived quite close to the department and i came straight in and was in i suspected about eight eight fifteen as

01:38:46 suspected about eight eight fifteen as was the secretary of state and i think what happened was that anyone who was around

01:38:52 around uh came along to talk to him and i think but i can't be sure that that included sally randall and i think steve quartermaine as well right and

01:39:03 there might have been members of the building regulations team but i just don't remember yeah but there was a much more formal and bigger meeting at 9 30 although that was more focused on the response and what was going on in kensington yeah and were these meetings

01:39:16 kensington yeah and were these meetings minuted do you know were there any notes taken the 9 30 meeting was yes right the 8 30 meeting i don't think so because i think we would have found that minute and that

01:39:27 would have found that minute and that would have helped me be sure that that meeting happened so what i'm giving you is my recollection but there's no documentary evidence that supports the 8 30 meeting it's just what i'm pretty sure happened yes and was the lack of house fire and the coroner coroner's

01:39:38 house fire and the coroner coroner's recommendations were they discussed at these early meetings yes i definitely knew about this by the time that meeting finished yeah um and

01:39:48 and i think sally randall raised it uh steve quartermaine was there as well and i don't remember very much about it but the the fact of the documents not yet having been revised right and

01:40:00 not yet having been revised right and that deadline having been missed yeah was in the room straight away first thing on that monday on that wednesday morning so that's what you can recall that's what i recall yeah and if we look at page uh paragraph

01:40:11 and if we look at page uh paragraph eight now i'll come back to paragraph seven later um

01:40:15 um you say this you say i did not myself launch any investigations into the department's response to the coroner's recommendations following the lack of house inquest but on the morning of the 14th of june helen mcnamara who was

01:40:27 14th of june helen mcnamara who was director general for housing and as such was the member of the executive team with oversight of the department's work on the building regulations immediately asked for the relevant information to be

01:40:38 asked for the relevant information to be pulled together this was necessary to ensure that ministers had the facts and could respond to questions accurately it included advice to ministers in 2013 subsequent correspondence and policy developments and progress in delivering

01:40:51 developments and progress in delivering the agreed actions now just pausing there you tell us that helen mcnamara had oversight of the department's work on the building regulations yes yes what exactly do you mean by that when you say

01:41:03 exactly do you mean by that when you say she had oversight of it what i mean is that um that work was the responsibility of one of the teams and one of the directors in helen's

01:41:14 and one of the directors in helen's overall part of the department and as such

01:41:17 such i would have expected the work on the building regulations to be part of the portfolio board yeah um structure and process that i was describing earlier right did you ever discover whether in fact

01:41:29 fact she had had oversight in practice of the building regulations team and the work they were doing did you ever discuss that with her so i discussed with her after the fire that she like me had not heard of

01:41:41 that she like me had not heard of blacknell house or the coroner's recommendations before um and we were both surprised that neither of us had heard of it before and i trusted helen when she said that yeah she'd arrived in

01:41:52 when she said that yeah she'd arrived in the department in september 2016 when peter schofield left he went in july so there's a little bit of a gap and then helen arrived in september and

01:42:03 and she was

01:42:05 she was very active in using her portfolio board hers was the first that really got up and running properly and she really supported making sure that all the program oversight was there so that they had all the data um and that they they

01:42:18 had all the data um and that they they logged their actions and um follow up and we're looking at risks and we're escalating so she was very much on that process and yeah used it because she felt she needed it because there was so much work going on

01:42:29 so much work going on um but she wasn't aware of those recommendations but i i would have expected her to know broadly what was going on on the building regulations more generally yes but can we take it from that that her portfolio board did not um get any

01:42:42 portfolio board did not um get any information about the lack of house fire the coroner's recommendations because as we'll see she wasn't aware of that either i can't say for sure what was i wasn't in the portfolio board but

01:42:53 wasn't in the portfolio board but um

01:42:54 um and i didn't see um the submissions on this myself during these years either but my understanding from what i've seen since is that lack of health is not often mentioned in those submissions and

01:43:06 often mentioned in those submissions and when it is mentioned it's usually an annex it's not being brought to bear as part of what ministers need to know when they're making decisions as i would have expected it to be yeah so it's possible that the work that i think it's likely

01:43:18 that the work that i think it's likely that the work and the the the

01:43:21 the the the pulled together broad portfolio building regulations work that we were discussing earlier was one of the items in the portfolio work that helen was overseeing through her board but

01:43:33 overseeing through her board but it's quite probable that lachlan house was not mentioned in any of those discussions otherwise i think she would have picked it up yes let's have a look at what she says in her own statement this is at clg 3031101

01:43:46 and i want to look at page two

01:43:51 here um she says at paragraph five she says as indicated in my first witness statement

01:43:57 statement as director general for housing and planning and mhclg i had five teams each led by a director reporting to me i established a governance and reporting system to manage the work of the teams

01:44:10 system to manage the work of the teams each director led their area of work and issues were escalated through the reporting system and or i had regular meetings with my director team both together and individually and she said i also regularly met the

01:44:22 and she said i also regularly met the senior civil servants working in housing and planning as a group and had meetings with the individual teams to talk about their work and then if we can move down to paragraph six she says this she says one

01:44:33 paragraph six she says this she says one of the directors that reported to me was steve quartermaine who was the chief planner steve quartermaine was also the manager of the building regulations and energy performance team the brep

01:44:45 energy performance team the brep as a result of the conversations that i had with steve quartermaine and his team i had a general understanding that they were undertaking work to simplify and improve the building regulations until the fire at grenfell tower on the

01:44:57 until the fire at grenfell tower on the 14th of june 2017 i was not aware of the relationship with the previous fire at lachnal house or of the coroner's recommendations or of the former secretary of state's response to those

01:45:08 secretary of state's response to those recommendations and i was not aware of the focus on or issues with approved document b or any particular urgency in the brep's team's work to simplify and improve the

01:45:19 team's work to simplify and improve the building regulations beyond a general impetus to improve and simplify regulation nor due to the supervisory nature of my role was i involved in the detail of

01:45:30 role was i involved in the detail of this work or the day-to-day operation of this team do you see that yes now

01:45:36 yes now i think you've answered this already but i'm going to just to be absolutely clear given ms mcnamara's role as director general for housing and planning would you have expected her to have known about the coroner's recommendations and

01:45:47 about the coroner's recommendations and the secretary of state's response to those recommendations i would have expected somebody to have told her about that yes just as i would have expected somebody to have told me about it

01:45:56 about it and is it fair to say that the fact that miss mcnamara was unaware of these matters is an indication of the lack of importance given in the department to those matters no i don't think it's about the lack of

01:46:08 no i don't think it's about the lack of importance given to those matters i think that it's because somehow the importance of a coroner's recommendation was not appreciated and somehow the department didn't have a

01:46:20 and somehow the department didn't have a system to flag those recommendations didn't put any weight on them and the team somehow lost sight of how important that was as a reason for the work that they were doing i mean ironically i think if they had

01:46:31 they had flagged that link every time it would have had a big impact on the importance with which their work was seen so i don't think it reflects i don't think it reflects a lack of importance i think it lacks it reflects a lack of

01:46:43 a lack of appreciation of the importance of current coroner's recommendations yes i think i see um

01:46:49 um now you go on to tell us if we go back to paragraph 10 on page four of your third statement so clg3030839

01:47:00 you say this you say it was immediately clear that the department had not met the promised time scale for publishing a revised version of approved document b of the building regulations by

01:47:11 of the building regulations by 2016-17 although much of the preparatory work had been completed the deadline of 2016-17 was not precise but in line with the usual government

01:47:22 but in line with the usual government conventions i've always understood this to be a reference to the financial year i.e a deadline of the 31st of march 2017. do you see that yes now to your knowledge was this or should

01:47:34 now to your knowledge was this or should that that deadline have been obvious to anyone else within mhclg i.e that it ought to have been a reference to the financial year spring march 2017 not

01:47:45 financial year spring march 2017 not later in 2017. i would have expected that to be a strong default assumption always that when you say 2016-17 you mean by the very end of march 2017 so it's entirely

01:47:56 very end of march 2017 so it's entirely possible that that might have been clarified at some point and changed to june or september but if that was the case i'd have expected it to be explicit and i don't think it was no it appears that those working on this um

01:48:09 that those working on this um well certainly mr harrell thought it meant

01:48:11 meant they had to deliver by the autumn of 2017

01:48:15 2017 in order to then um ensure it was done by the end of 2017 but that that's not your reading of it based on civil service convention no as i said it's entirely possible that they might have reprogrammed it to

01:48:28 reprogrammed it to allow for a deadline that like that and agreed it with ministers but i think they would have had to have gone through a process to agree that i don't they could have assumed that they had till the autumn when the date was set out in eric pickles reply to the

01:48:39 set out in eric pickles reply to the coroner back in 2013. yes thank you now i'm going to come back to some of what you say in paragraph 10 in a moment but just looking for the moment at paragraph 11 below that

01:48:50 paragraph 11 below that you say that your recollection is you became aware of this delay in meeting these um recommendations at the 8 30 meeting with the secretary of state

01:49:02 now was anything said about the delay to the publication of adb at that meeting and by who can you recall

01:49:12 i think that sally randall mentioned it um we

01:49:16 um we i can't remember the conversation very well but

01:49:19 well but um

01:49:21 um this was a meeting where we were all just coming to grips with what has happened and i suspect that i and the secretary of state were both asking questions about you know

01:49:32 asking questions about you know what's happened on the building should was there something wrong with the building what are our rules on buildings like that

01:49:40 like that and

01:49:41 and as well as what was going on with the the fire locally um but although i think most of that came in the later meeting so i think those general exploratory questions were what we were we were discussing yeah

01:49:52 discussing yeah and

01:49:53 and so in that context i i recall that sally randall mentioned it towards the end of the meeting i think and by the way that we should have we should have done this work yeah um

01:50:04 work yeah um and

01:50:06 and do you remember her giving any reasons at that stage as to why that work hadn't been done no i don't remember her or steve quartermaine ducking that issue at all though i mean it was in the room straight away which is why i was so clear that i knew the department had

01:50:18 clear that i knew the department had just not met its deadline yeah yeah now you go on to say in paragraph 11 picking it up in the second line you say i was certainly aware of it by the time i left the department for an external

01:50:29 i left the department for an external meeting at around 12 30 so since it was discussed in my conversation with sue gray now pausing there sue gray's role at the time was she was head of propriety and ethics at the cabinet office yeah

01:50:40 the cabinet office yeah and you also go on to say that you texted gavin barwell about it at 12 44 and you give more detail about those exchanges in your statement let's just look at those text messages you sent to

01:50:51 look at those text messages you sent to gavin barwell if we can go to clg 3030847

01:50:58 we can see that the text message states gavin hope all is okay wanted to let you know that this terrible fire will highlight government delay in changing building regs so you'll want to be briefed personally

01:51:10 so you'll want to be briefed personally as ex-housing minister as well as from number 10 perspective do you see that yes

01:51:16 yes so

01:51:17 so you were obviously concerned at this very early stage about the government delays in changing the building regulations when you texted mr barwill yes yes i was and i felt that the department had let

01:51:28 and i felt that the department had let him down

01:51:29 him down because gavin had been a really outstanding housing minister and he'd been incredibly constructive incredibly able we'd delivered a huge amount

01:51:40 able we'd delivered a huge amount during the time that he'd been our housing minister and

01:51:43 and although i didn't at that stage know all of the details about what had happened or not happened when i felt

01:51:51 i felt as his former permanent secretary that i owed it to him to let him know what had happened and you know that he was going to need to be briefed up on it because he was going to have to answer questions on it yeah yeah

01:52:03 have to answer questions on it yeah yeah and at that very early stage had you asked anyone why that delay had occurred

01:52:14 i don't think so not in any real detail we had a discussion later on at about 3 30 when i came back

01:52:20 came back from the department so just to clarify my movements that morning at about 9 40. i think i probably attended the beginnings of the 9 30 meeting that secretary of state had and then i had to go to the cabinet office for the weekly

01:52:31 go to the cabinet office for the weekly meeting of permanent secretaries which takes place at ten yeah and we just had a general election we didn't have a government yet there was a lot to talk about i had to go to that meeting and i came back to the department

01:52:42 and i came back to the department at around 11 30 as usual and then i had to go to this external meeting where i was representing the department that i just couldn't get out of so i i had a period at about 11 between about

01:52:53 i had a period at about 11 between about 11 30 and 12 when

01:52:57 when i probably spoke to helen matamara um i think i did and

01:53:03 and we will have talked about all sorts of issues but i know that she was very much

01:53:08 very much on top of trying to find out what had happened when yeah and i don't know when i knew that and whether i knew it before i went out to that lunchtime engagement or after i came back but um i was certainly aware quite quite

01:53:20 um i was certainly aware quite quite quickly that we were beginning to pull together the record to try to understand what has happened when yeah help us with this why was it thought relevant at that early stage to the grenfell tower fire

01:53:31 early stage to the grenfell tower fire that the promised review of approved document b hadn't materialized

01:53:40 well um

01:53:42 those who knew about la canal house and that did include sally randall um and a number of others knew that it had been a very serious fire and that there had been issues around some of the

01:53:54 there had been issues around some of the panels yeah which were not exactly the same as but related to some of the cladding issues at grenfell tower yeah and

01:54:03 and they also knew that the department just hadn't met its commitment yeah on an important and material set of recommendations and so

01:54:14 recommendations and so i mean the media will have driven us to have to answer those questions but we were asking them ourselves as well yes but whether there was a direct link between that recommendation and the courses of the fire was not at all clear

01:54:27 courses of the fire was not at all clear and i i think i don't recall this but i very well but i don't think we thought that that was so much the issue because we didn't know what would cause the fire at that stage but i think we were just really concerned that the department hadn't

01:54:38 concerned that the department hadn't done what it should have done yes yes now just um to complete these text messages the message continues if we go to another document clg 3030848

01:54:50 and you get a little bit more text in this message or this version so in the last four lines there we can see you say we are still bottoming out and we'll let you know more later did you have further discussions with

01:55:02 did you have further discussions with gavin barwell about this no not for several weeks um and he didn't reply to my message right uh but i could see i believe that he'd seen it right no perhaps like no i don't

01:55:14 seen it right no perhaps like no i don't think i did actually i think it wasn't a whatsapp message it was just a text message yeah i knew i knew he'd received it i don't quite know how but maybe sue grey told me that yes and when you did have some discussions with him

01:55:25 you did have some discussions with him several weeks later do you remember the gist of what you discussed with him

01:55:39 the reason i'm pausing is because we is because we must have had a lot of conversations during that period and or at least several conversations um

01:55:52 but my recollection and it's only that i've got no documentary evidence of any of this is that sometime in probably early july gavin and i finally caught up with each

01:56:03 gavin and i finally caught up with each other he had obviously a massive amount on he was chief of staff at number 10. and

01:56:09 and um

01:56:10 um i

01:56:11 i just really as a courtesy as much as anything else wanted to make sure that he knew that his former permanent secretary was aware of this and to check that he had the support he needed that was really the gist of it it wasn't a

01:56:23 was really the gist of it it wasn't a very long conversation that we had it was on the phone i think and

01:56:28 and by that stage things had moved on quite a bit and we were we either had or had not we were certainly on our way to announcing the judith hackett review and the questions were clearly so much wider

01:56:39 the questions were clearly so much wider than just the approved documents um so in answer to your question i don't think we had a particularly deep conversation about about these issues it was my what i was trying to do was just

01:56:50 was my what i was trying to do was just to make sure he felt supported by the department right yes now if we go back to your third witness statement page 15 paragraph 40 you say this here um you say my best

01:57:02 you say this here um you say my best recollection is that sues that sue gray we know suggested that the snap general election and subsequent purder period which had unexpectedly prevented any government publications for several

01:57:13 government publications for several months was the cause of the delay to the publication of the revised approved document b and i told her this was a side issue as the election had been announced in mid-april in other words the department

01:57:26 mid-april in other words the department had missed the deadline even before the election was announced yes yes now at this point did you have um any briefings were you given any information about the reasonable reasons

01:57:38 information about the reasonable reasons for the department's failure or inability to meet its own deadline for that revised version of approved document b no um i hadn't been given any reasons and i hadn't at that stage seen any of

01:57:49 and i hadn't at that stage seen any of the documentation yeah um but i was i think sue was trying to be nice she was trying to be helpful to me in the department and say actually is that the only reason it was

01:58:00 actually is that the only reason it was delayed and i was very clear that it wasn't the only reason it was delayed that it was a we hadn't even launched the final consultation on the document so it wasn't going to be in place even had it been consulted on slightly sooner

01:58:13 been consulted on slightly sooner now um i want to look back now at what you said um at paragraph seven page three of your of this statement the third statement we skipped over it before but i want to read that now

01:58:25 before but i want to read that now so you say there that that morning i the morning of the grenfell tower fire was to the best of my recollection the first time i'd heard of the latino house fire the coroner's recommendations or the commitment to

01:58:37 recommendations or the commitment to simplify approved document b by 2016-17 my predecessor bob kurzlake did not raise the lack of house fire all the coroner's recommendations with me during our handover discussions in february

01:58:48 our handover discussions in february 2015. neither do i recall the ongoing work on the approved documents being discussed during any subsequent consideration of the departmental priorities between march 2015 when i

01:58:59 priorities between march 2015 when i became permanent secretary and the 14th of june 2017. i describe in the paragraphs below my reflections on this in the context of the wider issues of building safety which came to light in the weeks that

01:59:11 which came to light in the weeks that followed

01:59:12 followed now in relation to those handover discussions between you and bob kurzlake in february 2015 you say that he didn't mention the lack of house fire or the coroner's recommendations

01:59:24 fire or the coroner's recommendations what form did that hand over briefing from him take was there a specific meeting or a programme of meetings with him so during the month of february 2015

01:59:37 so during the month of february 2015 i

01:59:38 i um spent pretty much all my time in the department um i agreed that with the cabinet secretary because it was such a tight time scale for me to get briefed up on the department and lead it

01:59:49 briefed up on the department and lead it through the general election and so during that month while bob was still there as permanent secretary i

01:59:57 i did a mix of having my own meetings on specific topics

02:00:02 topics and sitting alongside bob including in the weekly meetings with eric pickles looking at the whole of the department's business

02:00:08 business and then having some one-to-one discussions with bob not very many i think we had two or three um

02:00:15 um and

02:00:16 and they weren't particularly structured i was asking bob what he thought mattered what what would he be worrying about over these next few years what were the issues in particular i was trying to

02:00:27 issues in particular i was trying to get a sense of the next parliament rather than just the finishing off of the existing one which is what he was really focused on now you tell us later in your statement that you did speak to some of your predecessors

02:00:38 did speak to some of your predecessors after the grenfell tower fire did you ask bob koslake what he knew about lachen or house and the coroner's recommendations when you spoke to him yes i did and what did he tell you he

02:00:49 yes i did and what did he tell you he he um

02:00:50 he um [Music]

02:00:51 [Music] he told me a little bit about the recommendations from the coroner and how they were responded to he said he didn't get very heavily involved in that work

02:01:03 work but

02:01:04 but he remembers it he remembered it and he remembered that most of the recommendations were discharged or had already been discharged by the time of the

02:01:12 the coroner's recommendations or very soon thereafter right and he

02:01:18 he we didn't really talk very much about the approved document work we did but bob is a very deep expert in housing and local government and he gave me his reflections on

02:01:29 and he gave me his reflections on um

02:01:32 the comparisons between the grenfell tower fire and luckiness house how there were clearly some similar issues but he didn't raise any of the wider system oversight issues that i became so concerned about in the subsequent days

02:01:43 concerned about in the subsequent days yeah there is actually a minute of my discussion with him um that i discovered in reading around my papers a few days ago which has been submitted to the inquiry i

02:01:54 has been submitted to the inquiry i believe right i see did you ask him why it hadn't been included in any briefing to you from him or his team did you ask that question no i didn't i don't think i did anyway do

02:02:07 i didn't i don't think i did anyway do you think that mr kerslake's failure to mention the lack of house fire the coroner's recommendations and the work on the approved documents perhaps tell us something about the extent to which those matters were recognized as a

02:02:18 those matters were recognized as a priority in the department

02:02:22 yes i think that um [Music]

02:02:27 you know the department in 2013 did not see the coroner's recommendations on the building regulations as particularly important for public safety

02:02:38 particularly important for public safety and

02:02:41 i think the department interpreted the recommendations as not particularly well written and not particularly clear and will probably a little bit dismissive of them if i'm honest when i

02:02:52 dismissive of them if i'm honest when i look back at correspondence

02:02:56 i read the coroner's recommendation myself again yesterday and i thought with hindsight how clear she was about the issues and that somehow that wasn't heard by the department in

02:03:09 that wasn't heard by the department in 2013 and

02:03:12 my impression i wasn't there of course but my impression is that the team were left to form the response and there wasn't particularly very much oversight of that

02:03:22 of that um

02:03:23 um and

02:03:25 and i suspect the fireside of the department were dominant in coordinating and leading on the work and that the building regulations were the junior partner

02:03:35 and that bob's own view on this was conditioned by that environment and the department in the same way as as as mine was in 2015 and 2016. yes so does it follow from that that

02:03:47 so does it follow from that that he'd been led to believe that there wasn't really much in these recommendations there wasn't much to worry about it didn't impact on public safety either work had been done or it was fairly straightforward work is that

02:03:58 was fairly straightforward work is that the impression he was given

02:04:02 given i think it's a bit hard for me to to say exactly what was in his mind and what he was told and wasn't told in 2013 but i don't think there's very much more i can say to be honest i'm a little bit worried i might be i understand adding

02:04:14 worried i might be i understand adding more than i know yes let's look at some correspondence before the grenfell tower fire um in terms of what your office was being sent can we

02:04:25 what your office was being sent can we go to clg3019312

02:04:36 this is an email from alex murphy in the building regulations and standards division dated the 10th of november 2015.

02:04:44 2015. we can see from the subject there that it's in relation to the simplification of building regulations and building control system and it's got some attachments to it

02:04:55 attachments to it and um

02:04:57 and um we can see that your office is copied in it's cc'd in do you see that yes it's been gisted here but office of melanie dawes appears in a box next to the names of bob blenson and richard harrell

02:05:10 of bob blenson and richard harrell and we can see that alex murphy says hi sarah as discussed please see attached submission on work to simplify the building regulations approved documents and building control system thanks alex

02:05:22 and building control system thanks alex and then if we look at the attachment which appears at

02:05:27 at clg 3019313

02:05:32 we can see that this is a submission to james wharton and greg clark from alex murphy dated the 10th of november 2015.

02:05:43 november 2015. we can see the heading again simplification of building regulations and building control system and then we read in the summary in paragraph one this submission sets out proposals to simplify the building

02:05:54 out proposals to simplify the building regulations and associated approved documents and to explore options to reform the building control system this work will seek to deliver annual savings to business of 20 to 50 million

02:06:05 savings to business of 20 to 50 million it will support housing implementation task force commitments on deregulation and establish a platform for further deregulation in the long term so heavy emphasis on deregulation at the beginning of this submission yes yes

02:06:18 beginning of this submission yes yes and then if we look um at page five in what's called annex a technical issues to be addressed we can see under part b fire safety

02:06:29 part b fire safety it tells us the previous secretary of state committed to undertaking review and simplification of part b following the coroner's inquest into the lack of house fire which was critical of the clarity and format of existing

02:06:41 the clarity and format of existing guidance which it was suggested contributed to a number of deaths do you see that there yes now do you recall ever seeing this email from alex murphy and the

02:06:52 this email from alex murphy and the attached submission to ministers to no i don't believe i did see it and just help us where we see an email where it's got office of melanie dawes

02:07:03 where it's got office of melanie dawes on the email who will that go to in practice

02:07:07 practice yes so um

02:07:09 yes so um like all permanent secretaries i had a private office which

02:07:15 consisted of four people one running the diary and the other three overseeing the work of the department and supporting me in my role and we received around a thousand emails a week that would have come into that

02:07:27 week that would have come into that inbox so it was a lot and what my office did was essentially triage what they thought i needed to see and

02:07:37 and sometimes things were urgent and needed to be brought to my attention really quickly in the moment sometimes there were things for my action a document i needed to formally approve or sign off or something i needed to write myself or

02:07:50 or something i needed to write myself or letters i needed to reply to personally but

02:07:53 but a lot of what was going on there was just the department going about its business and what my office were doing was working out what needed to come to my attention so the system we had was that at the end of every week on a

02:08:04 that at the end of every week on a friday afternoon i received three updates one on housing and planning and local growth and one on local government and one on the corporate side and each of those updates contained about 10 or 12

02:08:16 contained about 10 or 12 submissions notes documents things that have been published

02:08:20 published that i might be interested in so it's quite a lot even then but it was still a subset of what the department was up to yes and

02:08:27 yes and i i would go through that on a sunday morning would take about four or six hours and it was it was it was reading essentially um and um

02:08:38 my office would work out what should go in those updates in discussion with directors general and directors so sometimes it would there would be priorities i had i got involved in some quite technical

02:08:49 i got involved in some quite technical things partly through interest relatively few because i didn't have very much time to devote to that kind of thing but um so sometimes it would be that but more usually it would just be something they thought i should be aware

02:09:00 something they thought i should be aware of

02:09:01 of and

02:09:02 and my understanding is that there's no documents referencing lack of house that that were ever brought to my update into my update there was a reference to this one

02:09:12 this one that was in the relevant update but the submission itself was not attached i was invited to look at it if i wanted to but i don't think i did yes i'm going to take you to that email and just apologize because it's very recently

02:09:23 apologize because it's very recently been disclosed to us so um i will take you to that just concentrating on this submission for a moment given the mention of deaths at lachenal house in this submission and the

02:09:35 house in this submission and the coroner's recommendation on approved document be linked to that looking back should this have been brought to your attention at the time by members of your office

02:09:47 no i don't think it should um there was no reference as far as i'm aware in the submission to la canal house or to a a foreigners recommendation as such

02:09:58 as such they will have been um they will have been you know looking at the the submission they wouldn't have read all of the annexes in order to judge whether or not it should go into my inbox yes and they they would have

02:10:09 my inbox yes and they they would have been discussing it with directors and with peter schofield at the time the director general does melanie need to see this yeah do you think it's important yes now do you think had this been higher up and in the body of the

02:10:20 been higher up and in the body of the submission itself flagged early i think you said earlier often when lacking was mentioned and it was rarely mentioned it was put in an annex it wasn't in the body of the submission i i appreciate it's you know

02:10:33 i i appreciate it's you know it's looking back speculating to some extent but would you have expected your office to have flagged this to you had that paragraph been higher up in the submission there would have been more

02:10:44 submission there would have been more likely to and i think that um because you know they were they were very good and they're very conscientious and had an enormous an enormous workload but they took very seriously the need to

02:10:55 but they took very seriously the need to make sure that things i needed to see i saw and they chased me up and followed up when i hadn't managed to do everything so they were they were extremely conscientious

02:11:06 you know perhaps not every submission needed to mention lacking or house but from what i've seen of the record and i haven't read them all but from what i've heard from the department about the searches we've done it was barely mentioned

02:11:17 mentioned in the body of the submission and submissions are supposed to include things that are important for ministers decision making i think the fact that this was a coroner's recommendation was important yes and so

02:11:29 important yes and so had that had it been flagged more often and in a different way i think it would have become part of the discourse and the discussion and probably i would have would at some point have been something that i was made

02:11:40 have been something that i was made aware of now me being made aware of it wouldn't necessarily have changed things of course this is just about information to the permanent secretary so i would still have been relying on my directors my directors general

02:11:51 on my directors my directors general and the portfolio system we put in place later to be chasing work and making sure that it it went to time and that was the main assurance i got rather than my own update notes yes but you you when you're

02:12:02 update notes yes but you you when you're a permanent secretary you rely on lots and lots of different things and you have to have layers of assurance and knowledge and information some formal some informal and this was one of several yes yes i understand

02:12:14 yes i understand and can we agree this wasn't any old inquest was it not that any inquest is insignificant it's not um but this was where there'd been multiple fatalities and you'd had a special person brought

02:12:25 and you'd had a special person brought in as coroner with someone with expertise in construction and buildings wasn't that something as well that ought to have raised this up the priority list

02:12:36 to have raised this up the priority list yes i think it should have done it was a really serious fire and you know there haven't been as many deaths from fire in in england or the uk over the last few decades and the very

02:12:48 over the last few decades and the very fact that this fire happened and that there were fatalities on quite a significant scale you know should have i think be more in the department's consciousness as the years went by yes and the fire became slightly further away yes thank you

02:13:01 slightly further away yes thank you let's look at the little roundup email that you were talking about it's at clg 3036413

02:13:27 is that coming up clg three zeros three six four one three

02:13:50 is there a problem okay oh we've got that email it was only disclosed to us yesterday i know it's been disclosed but it may just be delayed getting onto our system what i'll do is i'll take you back to that but what we see is a number

02:14:02 back to that but what we see is a number of issues being brought to your attention including the work to simplify approved document b and it's from your office to you personally so that was something that you would review on a weekend yes yes a

02:14:13 you would review on a weekend yes yes a check

02:14:15 check um you may want to come onto this when we have the document in front of us but my understanding is that that was a follow-up

02:14:20 follow-up to one of that week's updates so it was an example of of a relatively small segment of yes of that yes work and lacking house and the coroner's

02:14:31 and lacking house and the coroner's recommendations aren't mentioned in the kind of sentences that you're given in that i think they're actually lifted from paragraph one of the submission which i just read to you yes that's my recollection too without

02:14:42 yes that's my recollection too without having oh here is the document

02:14:47 so um here we have um it's an email dated the 11th of november 2015. so it's the day after the 10th of november submission that we were just looking at

02:14:59 were just looking at and it's from the office of melanie doors to melanie dawes yes yes so that's coming to you for your personal attention

02:15:07 attention and we can see third bullet point down it says advice has gone to ministers setting out proposals to simplify the building regulations and associated approved documents and to explore options to reform the building control

02:15:18 options to reform the building control system this work will seek to deliver annual savings to business so it's exactly the same text that i read to you from the first paragraph of the submission someone looks like it they've cut and pasted does that sound right yes

02:15:31 cut and pasted does that sound right yes so had luck in a house and the coroner's recommendations been in paragraph one of the ministerial submission it might well have found its way into this update to you yes it almost certainly would have done yes

02:15:43 certainly would have done yes thank you

02:15:45 thank you and this gives you an indication of the sorts of issues i was being updated on often quite technical yes so it's not that i was only focused on the ministerial priorities i mean this is this is a whole array of different

02:15:56 this is a whole array of different things yes um and is quite a good example actually will be as i say quite a short segment because normally there would be about three times of this just on that on the housing and evolution side but

02:16:07 side but it gives you a flavor for how my office kept me updated yes in paragraph seven of your third statement you told us that you weren't aware that there was ongoing work on the approved documents and that wasn't

02:16:18 approved documents and that wasn't brought to your attention it does appear that that was brought to your attention albeit only in this email as far as we can see is that is that fair

02:16:27 that fair yes i think what i meant in my witness statement was the work on the approved documents following black and or house in response to the coroner's recommendations rather than rather than a broader work program yes my apologies

02:16:38 a broader work program yes my apologies if that isn't quite clear but that was what i that was what i meant no i understand thank you now if we can look at another um kind of episode this time in 2015 if we can go to clg 130729

02:16:54 this is an email chain from october and november 2015 and i want to start by looking

02:17:01 looking there's an email at the bottom of page two

02:17:04 two of this string yes

02:17:07 yes 29th of october 2015 from

02:17:11 from ronnie king to a number of individuals including the private sector of james wharton do you see that

02:17:19 see that and the subject is appg fire safety and rescue group and what appears to be going on here is that in his email mr king is confirming the date of a meeting

02:17:30 the date of a meeting between sir david amos and the minister james wharton yes

02:17:36 yes yes

02:17:36 yes and we can see towards the bottom of that email if we go on onto page three that we get an indication of what this meeting is going to be about

02:17:47 meeting is going to be about and it says in the second paragraph there'll be no formal recorded minutes taken at the meeting but i will assemble the topics for discussion in advance which have been the subject of recent concern at all party group meetings and

02:17:58 concern at all party group meetings and which will center around the current review of approved document b to the building regulations leading to a revised document being published in 2016 2017

02:18:09 document being published in 2016 2017 and then in brackets it says as set out in the secretary of state's letter to her honor francis kirkham cbe assistant deputy coroner following the lack of house inquest and enhance sard and then there's

02:18:20 and enhance sard and then there's reference to a hansard debate so that meeting's being set up um just pausing there had you heard of the appg when you were um permanent secretary mhclg no there

02:18:32 um permanent secretary mhclg no there are there are many appgs and right i didn't come across this one or indeed really very many of the others either right so you hadn't come across the fire safety version of the appg

02:18:43 safety version of the appg um if we go up to page one then and we look at the penultimate email on page one

02:18:50 one what we see is that there's an email from your office if we could just blow that up on the 24th of november 2015 1501

02:18:59 1501 we can see it's from office of melanie dawes and it's two brian martin who we know was the technical policy lead on fire safety and private secretary of james wharton

02:19:11 and private secretary of james wharton see seeing bob ledson sally randall richard harrell and others and

02:19:17 and what your office says is this just to flag that melanie will be at the pacs that public accounts committee yes she'll be at the pa public accounts committee on fire sustainability from 10

02:19:28 committee on fire sustainability from 10 30 a.m so this could possibly come up those could still be going on when the meeting starts now can you help us what was the nature

02:19:39 now can you help us what was the nature of the public accounts committee on fire sustainability yes so this in fact was the hearing that i mentioned earlier yeah i think i said it was in december 2015 but i can see

02:19:50 it was in december 2015 but i can see from here that it must be november um and i recall that it was um the day after or one or two days after the spending review so it was a particularly um

02:20:02 particularly um crazy time to be honest um but i it just in terms of the workload and what was going on in government and in the department i

02:20:11 i the the the pac hearing was on the back of a national audit office report into the sustainability of fire services and there were a number of those reports on different services that were

02:20:22 that were overseen or related to local government so they did they did reports on sustainability of social care um and another other issues and this was the fire one

02:20:33 fire one and i had extensive briefing to prepare for that hearing um it was led by the fire side of the department which was shortly to leave us and go to the home office and um

02:20:44 um that line that brian nash offers was very much the sort of overall narrative to be honest

02:20:51 honest um which is that fire incidents had halved um and that there was a lot of efficiencies that could still be driven out of fire and rescue authorities yes so you're looking at the email above yes in which you've got a line to take which

02:21:02 in which you've got a line to take which says alongside the rest of local government fire and rescue authorities will have to continue to play their part in reducing the deficit fire incidents have halved in the last decade and the night review was clear that there's scope for fire

02:21:14 scope for fire assessors to make efficiencies i think that's correct fire and rescue authorities to make efficiencies whilst continuing to deliver a good service to the public so is that the gist of what you were getting across to

02:21:26 gist of what you were getting across to the public accounts committee that was the gist of the deep the department's line yeah i would not have delivered that line quite boldly as that no but i would have made some of the points about efficiencies and i you know

02:21:38 you know i had

02:21:39 i had i had a lot of information about about the numbers however it was clear that that funding had been reduced yeah and one of the things i sought to explore in preparing for that hearing was what the numbers were what the impact

02:21:51 what the numbers were what the impact had been um what the department's oversight was whether it was good enough and you know we did put in place quite a lot of work after that hearing to try to improve some of that oversight yes but was that very intensely focused on fire

02:22:02 was that very intensely focused on fire and rescue authority it was yeah and we to the best of my knowledge and recollection the building regulations weren't mentioned as part of the meetings i had to prepare for that

02:22:13 the meetings i had to prepare for that it was all on the far side yes that was my next question yes um can you help us as to what might have been meant in this email from your

02:22:24 been meant in this email from your office this could possibly come up um

02:22:28 um on one reading of this email chain it seems to be suggesting that this meeting between

02:22:32 between um

02:22:33 um david amos and the appd on fire safety might come up or possibly lack of house and the coroner's recommendations might come up can you

02:22:44 recommendations might come up can you help us with that

02:22:47 so i haven't seen this email before and

02:22:52 i suspect that this is charlotte in my office who actually supported me on the local government side yeah and that included the fire portfolio of work this is charlotte being very

02:23:05 this is charlotte being very thoughtful about whether or not her permanent secretary might get asked a question about this appg meeting yeah because it might be in mp's minds and she wanted to make sure that

02:23:17 and she wanted to make sure that if there was such a question i would be able to answer it yeah i don't think there was a question about it and i think they were really rather independent processes actually but she was just yeah being very punctilious and

02:23:29 was just yeah being very punctilious and and and trying to make sure i didn't get yeah a question i wasn't ready for yeah and this doesn't provoke any recollection about whether anyone mentioned black and or house or the coroner's recommendations to you at this point no i'm pretty confident they

02:23:41 point no i'm pretty confident they didn't yeah and the line to take that that i've been given there doesn't make that link at all it talks about the overall you know approach to fire and

02:23:52 overall you know approach to fire and rescue which was fine for that hearing actually as it happened yeah uh but but didn't actually it didn't actually relate to the appg discussion yeah and just yeah that's the

02:24:03 discussion yeah and just yeah that's the first time i've seen these emails so no understand responding to them in the moment a bit yes just to be absolutely clear did you um attend the lunch between james walton and david amos no no you wouldn't have

02:24:15 and david amos no no you wouldn't have gone on and i wasn't invited and i no didn't attend no right just can i look at a few other documents if we go to clg one three zero eight

02:24:26 if we go to clg one three zero eight seven four zero

02:24:34 here we have on the 15th of november 2016 now so a year on

02:24:39 year on there's a letter from brandon lewis we can see minister of state for policing in the fire service to gavin barwell mp

02:24:48 mp off that date and we can see from the first paragraph that he says dear gavin i'm writing to you about the department's long-standing commitment to review approved document b which provides advice on the measures that are

02:24:59 provides advice on the measures that are needed to meet the functional requirements of the fire safety provisions of the building regulations although the guidance includes amendments from 2010 and 2013 it has not been formally reviewed since 2006

02:25:10 been formally reviewed since 2006 despite the commitment of the right honourable eric pickles in his 2013 response to the coroner who led the inquest into the cause of fatalities in the 2009 lack of house fire

02:25:21 the 2009 lack of house fire now if there was correspondence like this between ministers would you normally expect to see it or again would it be a matter for your office to decide whether to draw it to your attention

02:25:32 whether to draw it to your attention i wouldn't normally expect to see ministerial correspondence no and i don't believe this was drawn to my attention no we can see um just to finish this that at point two of this

02:25:43 to finish this that at point two of this letter

02:25:45 letter towards the bottom if we can scroll down the page we can see um that there's a paragraph beginning my officials met recently with representatives from the fire sector

02:25:56 representatives from the fire sector federation who highlighted that the following areas are causing concern within the fire sector and number two is changes in construction technology in particular increased use of combustible materials

02:26:08 increased use of combustible materials now just for the avoidance of doubt um did you ever become aware of those concerns that were being raised changes in construction technology in particular increased use of combustible materials no i didn't become

02:26:20 combustible materials no i didn't become aware of those issues before the fire now can we go now to another document clg three zeros one nine three nine zero

02:26:36 we're now in 2017. [Music]

02:26:38 [Music] this is an email we can see from the top we could just blow it up so we can all see

02:26:44 see from richard harrell on the 23rd of march 2017 to uh gavin barwell's office and the office of sadie javid and we can see that your office is

02:26:56 and we can see that your office is copied into this do you see that cc'd office of melanie doors yes and we can see that the purpose of this submission um and we get it from the first

02:27:07 um and we get it from the first paragraph of this email please see attached submission seeking ministers agreement to the content of the building regulations discussion document and potential scope of future work on

02:27:18 and potential scope of future work on building regulations and the building control system do you see that yes and then if we could go to the submission itself this is at clg three

02:27:29 submission itself this is at clg three zeroes one nine three nine two

02:27:35 so here's the submission we can see the purpose at the beginning

02:27:41 it said ministers previously approved development of a discussion document setting out the potential scope of work on the building regulations policy over coming years this submission seeks

02:27:52 coming years this submission seeks ministers agreement on the proposed scope as set out in the final draft discussion document and then there are recommendations below that uh including to agree to meet with officials to review the content of the

02:28:03 officials to review the content of the discussion document and then if we go to the bottom of page 3 we can see that it states in paragraph 13 under key risks and issues

02:28:14 issues it says this changes to building regulations whether new regulation or deregulation have significant consequences for society and business a summaries provided at annex v issues likely to be of most interest of which

02:28:25 likely to be of most interest of which ministers should be aware include and then the first bullet point is the 2013 coroner's report on the fire at la canal house fire criticized the clarity of the guidance on part b fire safety and in

02:28:37 guidance on part b fire safety and in response to this the then secretary of state eric pickles committed to review it we have started work on a redraft as recommended by the coroner but we will need to work with industry to take this

02:28:49 need to work with industry to take this further there are regular calls on the government to set out when and how this work will be taken forward we have constrained the proposed scope of the review of part b to areas of highest priority but the fire lobby is powerful

02:29:01 priority but the fire lobby is powerful and there will be pressure to do more so we can see there that did actually appear in the body of the submission this time yes it is now can can you remember ever reading that submission when it was copied into your office

02:29:14 when it was copied into your office no i i don't remember reading it and i don't think it was included in my weekly update

02:29:18 update at the time should officials within your office have read this and drawn this to your attention at some point

02:29:28 well in making the decision as to what to bring to my attention at that particular time they will have been doing what they always did which was was talking to dgs and directors and

02:29:39 and directors and um

02:29:40 um you know asking whether this was something that needed my personal

02:29:44 personal you know

02:29:45 you know view or needed me to see it yeah and so it's a little bit hard to say without knowing exactly what else i was looking at at the time but it will partly have been about that we just had a budget we

02:29:56 been about that we just had a budget we just published the white paper on housing which was a a huge piece of work that had been done in a really short space of time so there was a lot of other work going on um there were devolution deals concluding um

02:30:08 concluding um and

02:30:11 so i i don't think i can say i think they should have included it with hindsight i wish they had but that is with the benefit of hindsight i think it's you know

02:30:21 you know it's not really the same question as to whether they should have done it at the time no can we agree that that the gist of that paragraph ought to have been not on page three but actually in paragraph one

02:30:32 paragraph one of the submission well probably i mean you know if it had been more regularly present then you wouldn't have needed to keep drumming at home every single time but

02:30:43 home every single time but uh

02:30:44 uh in an ideal world you know yes it would have been a bit higher up and there's no mention of the time scale either in that bullet and the fact that it was about to be missed according to my interpretation of the dates anyway yes

02:30:56 interpretation of the dates anyway yes and we put that to mr ledson and mr harold and in fairness to them they accepted that that should have been in there

02:31:03 there um

02:31:04 um but can we agree that you should have been made aware of all of these matters prior to the grenfell tower fire in some form or or another i i do certainly think that

02:31:15 i i do certainly think that um

02:31:15 um we should have had some kind of system in place or the right kind of if you like cultural approach really in place for

02:31:23 place for that link to recommendations from a coroner following a far as far as serious as lacking or house we should have had some system in place that meant those issues were escalated to me to helen mcnamara to the secretary of state

02:31:35 helen mcnamara to the secretary of state uh and and held in a more present way across the department and i think every government department should learn from that to be honest because it wasn't in place in

02:31:44 place in mhclg and it's i think something i i wish i'd put in actually but i didn't think to ask at the time

02:31:54 whether or not i should have then been copied in on specific submissions on the building regulations i think it's just a little bit harder to judge

02:32:02 judge um

02:32:03 um this was this was seen as a technical exercise and not there for one that was relevant to public safety so once you've once you once you've got to that place then it isn't necessarily clear that it

02:32:15 then it isn't necessarily clear that it was something that the permanent sector needed to be kept abreast of or copied in on all the time yes so i i find i think that's a little bit harder to to answer but the benefit of hindsight i certainly would have wished i'd seen this although it was quite late in the

02:32:26 this although it was quite late in the day by this day of course well i'm going to come back later in your evidence to some of the warnings that the department was receiving from industry about the building regulations and about the approved documents and perhaps we'll

02:32:37 approved documents and perhaps we'll return to that topic about whether or not in fact you should have been made aware of

02:32:42 aware of more information about that process had you been made aware of the failure to meet the lachenal commitment the failure to meet the 2016 27

02:32:53 failure to meet the 2016 27 17 deadline um what steps do you anticipate you would have taken to ensure that that was addressed

02:33:02 addressed without further delay um

02:33:10 if i'd known that there was a recommendation from a coroner i would have asked about it i would have i would have asked to be briefed on it and i probably would have had a

02:33:22 probably would have had a short meeting on it to find out what it was

02:33:25 was and what the work was that needed to be done and particularly what the time scales were i would have been pretty hot on the deadlines and

02:33:33 and um

02:33:36 you know that might or might not have made any difference i mean the permanent secretary having a meeting on something is not nearly as important as the team and the directors and the director general and ministers who are actually

02:33:47 general and ministers who are actually working on these things in the moment actually having the right conversations and and having pushing these things forward but i i guess it probably would have sent a signal through the system at the very least

02:33:58 through the system at the very least that this mattered um

02:34:00 um i think others around me had they been aware i would also have have um have done some of what i just described i think helen mcnamara would have done so i think lisa boissiere as our head of strategy would have done so although

02:34:13 strategy would have done so although she was not had a strategy until a little bit after this period which was kind of housing strategy at this point and she was putting together all the housing work and prioritizing it and looking at an overview for helen and just to be clear if you'd been told at

02:34:25 just to be clear if you'd been told at that point well part of the reason why we haven't progressed this is because we're so overwhelmed we don't have the resources

02:34:32 resources was there something that could have been done about that had it been escalated to either heather mcnamara or to you or one of the other people you've just mentioned

02:34:45 well yeah yes i would have i would have um

02:34:49 um once i'd found out that it was delayed i would have asked why and i guess all those issues would have come out including the links with the red tape challenge and then i would have asked i would have asked for those to be

02:35:01 i would have asked for those to be addressed and to be honest just by having a discussion and how they had it i would have had others in the room like helen probably steve quartermaine yeah maybe stephen aldridge

02:35:11 normally that would have been enough for people to go away from the meeting and go oh goodness me you know we need to be on this um and we probably would have had an email note that would have recorded

02:35:21 recorded that and i would have talked you know i wouldn't probably have talked personally but but my hr teams would have perhaps swung in to help the team with what were clearly resourcing issues which i think were

02:35:32 resourcing issues which i think were related partly to budget cuts but also just to being able to attract the right people to fill the roles yes so that's a question of how we were recruiting and and whether they were getting the assistance they needed to find people yes so all of those issues

02:35:45 find people yes so all of those issues could have been explored they could have been yes it's just been escalated yes i i do think that i don't want to leave you with the impression that these things only get explored when the permanent secretary takes an interest

02:35:57 permanent secretary takes an interest because you just can't run a government department like that there's too much going on

02:36:01 going on but i do think the lack of house flag would have given these issues are prominent yeah if it had been used a bit more which is something i think is

02:36:12 bit more which is something i think is just very regrettable because i think it would have helped the team yes and they would have found their job easier and you wouldn't have been so worried yes yes i think they felt or

02:36:24 worried yes yes i think they felt or what we've been told is they felt that they didn't want to keep drawing attention to past delays and past failings

02:36:29 failings because in a way what was the point of that

02:36:32 that i mean what's your response to that

02:36:36 i can see that as time went on it got harder and harder for them to escalate it because you sort of you sort of hope that you can find your own way through and

02:36:47 own way through and my experience of leading organizations is that

02:36:51 is that normally the first response of any team when things go wrong is to try to fix the problem and that's a natural and very positive human instinct and one of the things you have to do in a department like this

02:37:03 have to do in a department like this is

02:37:04 is encourage people to come forward and have a culture that allows that to be the case

02:37:09 the case because

02:37:10 because you know sometimes when something serious has gone wrong it's it's quite rare the team can solve it themselves so what i'm thinking when i'm describing this to you is of some errors we made on local government finance during my time as permanent secretary and the first

02:37:23 as permanent secretary and the first time it took a couple of weeks for those to be flagged and because the team tried to fix it and they couldn't and by the time they realized that it was much more serious and

02:37:33 and so what we did there we did a review of that system in fact and an external review it says in 2018 and one of the things we did out of that was to to really really try and support

02:37:45 was to to really really try and support the team in believing that if they did come forward if there was a mistake again and there was another mistake actually that they would be listened to and they wouldn't be attacked and they wouldn't be blamed but they would be heard and they would be helped to sort the problem out so

02:37:57 the problem out so this is an incredibly important part of leadership for me in organizations like this that you try to create those channels and i feel you know

02:38:06 you know a sense of surprise that that this was so held by the team on their own but also a sense of real regret that somehow the department despite having i think quite a lot of

02:38:17 despite having i think quite a lot of systems in place didn't manage to have the conversations with itself and across different teams that it needed to have and could have had yeah yeah my apologies for a rather long answer no no that's absolutely fine

02:38:29 answer no no that's absolutely fine just going back to an answer you gave a minute ago you said that the review of approved documentary was seen as a technical exercise and not relevant to public safety what's your understanding about how it came to be

02:38:41 understanding about how it came to be seen that way because it wasn't merely a technical exercise it was absolutely relevant to public safety wasn't it

02:38:52 i think it was now with the benefit of hindsight yes and as i said i think you read um the coroner's recommendations you know in a particular light now after the

02:39:03 know in a particular light now after the fire in a way that perhaps wasn't they weren't read at the time in 2013. i mean it's difficult for me to say because i wasn't involved at the time so what i will say is pure um

02:39:14 um reflection on my part having seen the document some of the documents and so on i think that in 2013

02:39:24 in 2013 the fire teams led the response to la canal house the building safety team was i think the junior partner i believe it's the case that peter scofield the director general housing

02:39:35 scofield the director general housing wasn't even copied in on the final submission that brought all those issues together in one place for the secretary of state i think that tells you that it was being dealt with by the other half of the department as it was at the

02:39:46 half of the department as it was at the time because there were just two director generals on the policy side and

02:39:51 and i think the team were left to their own work it was highly technical brian martin himself had given evidence to the inquiry um he was clearly on top of the technical issues

02:40:04 technical issues a lot of people outside said to me after the fire how well-regarded the experts were in the building regulations team and i think the department probably rightly in some ways had that view themselves

02:40:15 themselves and so nobody thought that they could add any value to the judgments that the team were making about what mattered in response to the fire nobody saw the wider issues of system oversight that

02:40:27 oversight that i think we now know were completely lacking in the department's appreciation of its role and

02:40:35 and a certain

02:40:37 a certain a certain sort of um

02:40:40 um mentality of that must have combined a lot of worry amongst the team members um but also a certain um perhaps complacency that that they

02:40:52 um perhaps complacency that that they they had it all under control and that this wasn't material to the work that they were doing and the way that they saw the system yes when you say after the fire you spoke to people and you learned that this building regulations team were highly regarded who told you that

02:41:05 regarded who told you that i was told that by ken knights or ken knight um i was also told that by peter bonfield from the building regulations establishment yes did you think about whether individuals like that might be simply too close to

02:41:16 like that might be simply too close to these individuals to give you an objective assessment on

02:41:21 on their work well i didn't particularly act on what they had told me i was reassured by it to some extent but

02:41:32 what i heard them say to me was that they knew the detail they knew the technical issues they were respected across the industry and i mean perhaps we'll come on to some of this but in thinking about what had gone

02:41:44 this but in thinking about what had gone wrong and the worries i began to have quite quickly about the whole system and it being

02:41:48 it being failing

02:41:49 failing um

02:41:51 um i did wonder whether or not the teams were capable of doing the job and i guess i did take some reassurance from what i heard that they were technically able

02:42:00 able on top of the issue so maybe i did act on it actually on reflection okay and

02:42:06 and we the minister of submission we were looking at this one in in march 2017 did have the discussion document attached to it

02:42:15 it and do you remember anyone ever bringing that discussion document or the contents of it to your attention no now if we could go and look at now your third statement again paragraph 18 on page six

02:42:31 so clg 3030839

02:42:41 you say it's right at the bottom of that page

02:42:44 page you say um over the following weeks or the following few weeks i inquired into these questions by reading the background documents including some of the transcripts of the lack of house inquest and reports of previous fires

02:42:57 inquest and reports of previous fires over the past 20 years i also spoke to people in the fire service and the industry and to several of my predecessors as permanent secretary i do not have records of these conversations but i recall being struck

02:43:09 conversations but i recall being struck that my predecessors had not had any inkling i think you mean of any of the problems that were now coming to the surface and they did not recall building safety

02:43:21 they did not recall building safety issues of this kind being escalated to them

02:43:24 them yes

02:43:25 yes now

02:43:26 now um you say you read some of the transcripts did you read the transcripts of um

02:43:31 of um mr martin's evidence to the lack of inquest yes i did he we know he gave evidence for a full day on the 13th of march 2013. in general terms did anything strike you

02:43:42 general terms did anything strike you about his evidence to the coroner when you read it well the reason i read it was because um i'd been told that there was some confusion in the way that the inquiry had been the inquest had been asking

02:43:54 had been the inquest had been asking questions and so on and i um

02:43:59 so i i made my own decision that i wanted to read it i'm not quite sure quite how i actually managed to prioritize the time to do this but i i did and i remember that being an extremely long document

02:44:10 that being an extremely long document and i read it from start to finish and

02:44:14 and i i remember thinking that that brian was very expert and that he was cheating his way through some pretty complicated issues and i could see a bit of what at least i thought i could see i'm not a technical expert i could see a little

02:44:25 technical expert i could see a little bit of what the team was saying that some of the questions seemed to be coming from slightly different angles and i could see that he was trying to explain

02:44:34 explain and i overall formed the view that he was very expert and had actually uh given um helpful evidence to to the inquest right um

02:44:45 um i mean it

02:44:48 i remained having read that transcript still slightly confused about all of the various layers of regulations that applied to the lack of house building that had been built up over the years

02:44:59 that had been built up over the years yes to the question of the cladding and the panels and the relationship between the two

02:45:04 the two and i didn't try to resolve all that confusion in my mind because that wasn't the purpose of what i was doing i was trying to understand and in the end as i've said i in my witness statement i concluded that we

02:45:15 witness statement i concluded that we needed a full scale review and i wasn't the only one to conclude that the secretary of state was in the same place yes

02:45:20 yes now um in that last um sentence of that paragraph that we read you said you were struck by your that your predecessors had not had any inkling of the problems that were now coming to the surface can

02:45:32 that were now coming to the surface can you just be specific what were those problems that were coming to the surface now

02:45:39 uh the problems of non-compliance with the building regulations and the approved documents

02:45:46 documents um so people are failing to comply with those yes right

02:45:55 by the wednesday after the fire a week after the file we knew that there were three other buildings that had acm cladding um and

02:46:06 with each sort of 12 24 hours that went by we had some more and they kept coming through it was five and it was nine and it was 13 and and by the weekend it was it was 25 or

02:46:17 and by the weekend it was it was 25 or 30.

02:46:18 30. and

02:46:20 and those were extremely chilling moments for us when that information came through i mean we were horrified actually because it meant that this wasn't a one-off and

02:46:30 and quite what that would mean was unclear at the time but it was it was an unbelievably sobering moment yeah inside the department and so it was those issues

02:46:41 department and so it was those issues that were not when i then spoke to my permanent secretary for my colleagues late i think it was after we knew that that i was speaking to them so it was that sort of issue that i think i meant when i was writing that statement yeah

02:46:53 when i was writing that statement yeah when did it become clear to you if at all that there might actually be a problem with the regulations and the guidance that have been given themselves not simply a question of failure to comply but

02:47:04 a question of failure to comply but actually a lack of clarity or even worse with the guidance when did that become clear to you well there were claims to that effect within a few days of the fire i can't remember exactly when but i'm sure

02:47:16 remember exactly when but i'm sure before the first weekend and um

02:47:21 and um i and the secretary of state were both quite concerned to understand whether the

02:47:27 the documents themselves were part of the problem or whether they weren't um and there were quite a lot of debates in those first days about whether the documents were clear that this sort of cladding should not be on a

02:47:38 this sort of cladding should not be on a high-rise residential building and the team were very clear it shouldn't be but there was more ambiguity coming from the industry

02:47:46 industry and on the tuesday i think after the fire i sat down with the team with um brian martin and also actually with nick king the secretary of state

02:47:57 with nick king the secretary of state special adviser who's very able special advisor and we just went through that bit of the approved document and we had it explained to us our lawyers were there as well and we

02:48:08 our lawyers were there as well and we just discussed what what it meant and we took that whole question of the word filler

02:48:13 filler whether it helped or whether it didn't um

02:48:17 um and

02:48:18 and that was my own personal sort of exploration of those issues but we also took legal advice and overall formed the view that i mean clearly the coroner had said

02:48:30 i mean clearly the coroner had said these documents were not easy to use and our own usability study as i now know i'm not sure i knew this at the time had been i think quite hard-hitting about how unusable the documents were actually not very long before but when i read

02:48:42 not very long before but when i read that quite short set of paragraphs i couldn't really see why it was difficult to understand that combustible cladding

02:48:51 cladding was okay to put on a residential building of that type but given that given the warnings in par in the first paragraph about specifically about cladding i i read that and as a lay person i found it quite hard to believe

02:49:03 person i found it quite hard to believe that

02:49:04 that you would

02:49:05 you would read those paragraphs and think that it was okay right and unless you'd done a full full-scale test and that

02:49:13 and that you know what what my understanding was that in order to believe that you could put that kind of cladding on a tall residential building you would have had to have worked extremely hard to find your way

02:49:25 worked extremely hard to find your way around the language and why would you do that

02:49:28 that right

02:49:29 right yes

02:49:31 yes was there a later stage at which you came to realize that the guidance perhaps wasn't as clear as it ought to be

02:49:39 um

02:49:46 well

02:49:50 by that stage even i think that quite early stage but certainly once we began to get the test results back i i began to be much more worried about the wider system and the documents as part of that so

02:50:01 part of that so at the beginning in the first few days the focus of ministers um and the questions that we were we were asking and answering were on

02:50:12 asking and answering were on are the rules clear and are they right and what's going on on the enforcement side

02:50:18 side and

02:50:19 and what i felt once we got about a week after the fire that it was everything else that was worrying me almost even more

02:50:26 more so whether or not the regulations were clear

02:50:29 clear i thought they were at high level i couldn't really understand why you know structural engineers and architects could have

02:50:40 could have why that could have been so confusing but

02:50:43 but i believe that people were confused but for me that spoke to system issues of responsibility and accountability and oversight and training and all of the things that judith hackett's review uncovered as well as the regulations

02:50:56 uncovered as well as the regulations themselves so i thought i thought it was right to broaden the question is what i'm saying sorry rather long-winded no no that's fine um rather than just focusing on the regulations themselves so i don't recall having any further meetings that discuss

02:51:07 having any further meetings that discuss the detail of the regulations or the approved documents with proof documents i mean okay that's helpful i i'm going to come back to some of the meetings you had including the one with mr martin in a moment yeah possibly this afternoon

02:51:18 in a moment yeah possibly this afternoon just in terms of this paragraph and what you told us you said that you spoke to several of your predecessors who else did you speak to we know you spoke to sir bob kurzlake who else did you speak to

02:51:29 to i spoke to sir richard motrum who had been permanent secretary from around 2000 and sorry 1998. i spoke to

02:51:40 i spoke to mavis mcdonald who was permanent secretary after him until the early 2000s um mavis had worked in the department for 40 years and we're steeped in its history and

02:51:51 and we're steeped in its history and it's and it's work and i spoke to peter houston who was her successor and had worked in local government like like bob kerslake although without the depth of housing

02:52:01 housing yeah and just in brief were any of them aware of systemic problems with the building regulations system or the building control system no they were very short conversations

02:52:13 very short conversations i had

02:52:14 i had sought to get to know all my predecessors when i arrived in the department because i i always approached new jobs by by getting involved in the history and trying to understand it and as part of that i had lunches and dinners with all of my predecessors

02:52:26 dinners with all of my predecessors on a number of occasions so i had the relationships already there and so we got quite quickly to what did you know were these other issues when you were there and i i raised some of the specific fires gone at court

02:52:37 specific fires gone at court and so on with i can't remember which permanent secretaries were there at different times but i raised some of those questions what about that do you remember that remember what we did after that and the overwhelming message was i

02:52:48 that and the overwhelming message was i just don't remember any of this it wasn't something that was particularly brought to my attention and i found that quite

02:52:54 quite chilling to be honest yeah now if we can look back at your third statement it's a sentence that we read before but i want to pick you up on it now if we go to clg three zeros uh 308

02:53:05 now if we go to clg three zeros uh 308 three nine your third statement page four paragraph 10.

02:53:14 you say in the first three lines it was immediately clear that the department had not met the promised timescale for publishing a revised version of approved document b of the building regulations by 2016-17

02:53:25 by 2016-17 although much of the preparatory work had been completed do you see that yes and you say something similar although not quite the same if we go to page 11 and look at

02:53:36 if we go to page 11 and look at paragraph 30.

02:53:54 we seem to have a bit of a problem oh here we go yes at paragraph 30 you say that as described in paragraph 10 above by the morning of wednesday the 14th of june it was clear that the department had missed its deadline of

02:54:06 department had missed its deadline of 2016-17

02:54:08 2016-17 for publication of the revised approved document b although much of the work had been completed so in one part of your statement you're saying much of the preparatory work had been completed in another part you're

02:54:19 been completed in another part you're saying much of the work had been completed

02:54:23 completed um are you drawing a distinction between preparatory work and work there and which do you mean i wasn't intending to draw a description a distinction

02:54:36 in my witness statement

02:54:39 and the information i had at the time was what i'd been told only at that very early stage so i think i must have been told that

02:54:47 told that we were ready to consult that we've done some of the research i i would have i think i would describe that as preparatory work because the consultation had not yet been actually launched yes

02:54:59 launched yes um

02:55:00 um but most of the work would have been preparatory work so in my mind there isn't an enormous difference right the inclusion of that extra word yes does it remain your understanding of the position that much of the preparatory

02:55:11 position that much of the preparatory work had been completed on publishing a revised version of approved document b before the grenfell tower fire um

02:55:20 um yes working on the basis of the information i had at the time and i mean how much is much but i mean i know they'd done the research and that was actually concluded in early 2015 i think i know that now i didn't know that at the time

02:55:32 that now i didn't know that at the time at that level of detail no what was it that you had understood had been done was it just the research work had been done you know i can't really remember i mean if if if you're asking me what did i

02:55:44 if if if you're asking me what did i know on wednesday the 14th of june in the morning the answer is not very much i think i was told we've done most of the work and we're ready we've got a document ready to go and that that would suggest we were quite well advanced in

02:55:55 suggest we were quite well advanced in the work and that's what i would have assumed but i don't think i knew then about the research and the usability study or any of the the detailed preparations that had been done yes can we agree now that in fact

02:56:07 done yes can we agree now that in fact the evidence shows that the work was very far from being completed and was many years behind where it should have been

02:56:14 been um

02:56:16 yes i i yes we can i mean i i think the department was not even had not even not even consulted so that was going to take quite a while and then the document would need to be revised again so it was

02:56:27 would need to be revised again so it was it was some months away and i i must have

02:56:30 have i must have been told a little bit of that to be so clear because i was i was pretty

02:56:36 pretty you know trenchant in my view that we had missed the deadline and if it was only a question of two or three months i think i would have thought well that's not great but you know um but i think i must have known that it

02:56:47 um but i think i must have known that it was quite seriously delayed were you told that the housing standards review had delayed this work from even really starting in earnest until mid 2015.

02:56:59 until mid 2015. no not at the time i wasn't told that were you uh aware that the research worked well you couldn't have been well were you aware that the research work which had been commissioned and which was an important part of the review was

02:57:11 was an important part of the review was not even published by the time of the grenfell tower fire no i was not aware of that and was not published until february 2019 yes i mean after the fire everything was

02:57:23 yes i mean after the fire everything was paused and looked at through a different lens but um i'm aware now that that was a very long delay because the research was ready i think in february 2015. that's right

02:57:33 right a discussion document was not published on the review of part b until march 2017 were you made aware of that well i wasn't aware of any of the details no but i'm aware now and a

02:57:44 details no but i'm aware now and a usability survey had been completed and was published in february 2017. were you aware of that probably not on the morning of the fire now

02:57:54 now were you aware that by the time of the grenfell fire a formal part b working group had still not been established no

02:58:02 no no impact assessments have been completed prior to the grenfell tower fire were you aware of that no

02:58:09 no were you aware that no public consultation had taken place on any revisions prior to the grenfell tower fire

02:58:15 fire no i mean i wasn't aware of the work at all so

02:58:19 all so you know i wasn't aware of all the different phases and stages and where they got to yes but can we agree now that it was certainly not the case that much of the work had been completed even if some of the preparatory work had

02:58:33 um i i honestly don't draw much of a distinction between preparatory work and work i think i basically meant preparatory work and and a lot of it had me completed but it hadn't been sufficiently

02:58:45 sufficiently far progressed and there were a lot of stages still to go mr chairman um i know there's a couple of minutes to go but i i was about to turn to a different topic and this would be a good moment i think the brave

02:58:56 be a good moment i think the brave forward to give away a couple of minutes thank you

02:58:58 thank you um well then melanie we need to stop about this time so we can all have some lunch and so a couple of minutes early that won't hurt so we'll break there we'll resume please at two o'clock

02:59:10 we'll resume please at two o'clock and as before i have to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it all right thank you thank you very much you'd like to give the usher please

02:59:33 yes thank you very much from scrange two o'clock then please

02:59:46 you