Robert Ledsom, former Deputy Director of Building Regulations and Standards Division at DCLG (2011-2017), gives evidence about his background, the department's structure, and his role in overseeing building regulations policy.
00:00:23 so
00:00:30 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear more evidence from representative of the department for leveling up housing and communities as it's now called yes mr
00:00:42 communities as it's now called yes mr miller yes thank you very much mr chairman good morning to you good morning members of the panel i now call mr robert ledson please thank you
00:00:58 good morning mr ledson good morning i understand you're going to make the affirmation indeed uh well the words should be there on the screen in front of you would you in front of you would you read them out please i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm
00:01:11 sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth very good thank you very much indeed do sit down make yourself comfortable
00:01:24 yes mr village mr chairman thank you uh good morning mr ledson good morning can i start by thanking you very much for coming to this public inquiry and assisting us with your evidence we're very grateful to you
00:01:36 very grateful to you um if you have any difficulty understanding my questions or you'd like me to repeat the question i can do either i can repeat it or put the question in a different way we're going to take the usual breaks morning and afternoon in in the usual
00:01:48 morning and afternoon in in the usual way but if you feel you need a break at any other time please let us know can i ask you also please to keep your voice up
00:01:55 up and speak clearly say that the person who sits to your right the transcriber can get down clearly on the transcript what you're saying and in that respect please don't shake your head or nod you have to say no or yes as the case may be yes all
00:02:07 no or yes as the case may be yes all right um now you've written this a statement and that is at clg3019465
00:02:14 can we please have that up is that the first page of your statement it is and you can see that it bears the date at the top the 16th of november 2018 can we please go to page 67
00:02:26 please go to page 67 and you'll see a signature there at the foot of the page is that your signature it is have you read this statement recently i have can you confirm that its contents are true yes have you discussed the evidence that you're going to give
00:02:37 the evidence that you're going to give to this inquiry today and tomorrow with anybody before i'm only with my legal team right i'm going to start by asking you some questions about your background your training and your career history um first your educational background and
00:02:49 first your educational background and what formal qualifications did you have before you took up any civil service role um i had a bachelor of arts degree bachelor of arts degree in what subject
00:03:00 bachelor of arts degree in what subject modern history modern history do you hold any qualifications that are relevant to fire safety or any other aspect i'm sorry no no what about any other aspect of the building regulations um no formal qualifications construction
00:03:12 um no formal qualifications construction industry or the built environment no formal qualifications could you tell us a little bit as briefly as you can about your professional history before 2007. sure so um i joined the civil service in
00:03:25 sure so um i joined the civil service in 1981 working actually in an unemployment benefit office at the time i moved to the headquarters of the department of employment as it was then in
00:03:35 in 1984
00:03:37 1984 and held a series of roles in the employment department including a stint in a ministerial office in
00:03:46 in 1989 i joined the health and safety executive which was a non-departmental public body associated with the department of employment worked in the hse until the
00:03:58 until the until 2000 2002 at which point i joined a predecessor department of the department of leveling up housing and communities for on a on a loan basis which was then
00:04:11 for on a on a loan basis which was then made permanent in 2000 later in 2002 and 2003 and since 2002 i've played various roles in d-luck and its
00:04:22 various roles in d-luck and its predecessor departments that has included the planning department uh work on european funding excuse me funding programs
00:04:33 funding programs and
00:04:34 and work on climate change and sustainable development which was my role prior to becoming deputy director of the building regulations and standards division in um uh may 2011 right now if we go to page
00:04:47 uh may 2011 right now if we go to page three of your statement in paragraph eight
00:04:50 eight you say that that from the summer of 2007 yes
00:04:55 2007 yes until 2011 you were the deputy director for the climate change and sustainable development division at mhclg correct i think dclg as it had be as it had become
00:05:06 think dclg as it had be as it had become by that point i'm sorry yes i think we were then yeah we changed names quite often yes but we can call it the department throughout your evidence because i don't think it changed at least from 2002
00:05:19 think it changed at least from 2002 uh until
00:05:20 uh until um
00:05:22 um the end of the matters with which we're concerned of course now in paragraph eight you also say um that you led work on climate change and sustainable development uh including carbon zero homes policy
00:05:35 uh including carbon zero homes policy you see what you say there yes indeed you go on to say climate change adaptation carbon budgets local carbon frameworks zero carbon homes would be delivered through building regulations which therefore involved some work on
00:05:46 which therefore involved some work on the 2010 review of energy performance standards in part l conservation of fuel and power of the building regulations that's all correct is it that's correct yes and then nine paragraph nine you say that you had no
00:05:58 paragraph nine you say that you had no involvement in fire safety issues i note that i am not a building or fire safety specialist but i'm a policy professional correct what is a policy professional
00:06:09 correct what is a policy professional so
00:06:12 that would mean that i had developed a skill set
00:06:18 skill set involved in developing and implementing policy generally without necessarily um that being associated within a with any specific policy topic so
00:06:29 any specific policy topic so another way of putting this is would be to say that i was a generalist civil servant so
00:06:35 so throughout my career i played a variety of had a variety of different roles on a variety of different policy areas and
00:06:46 and developed a broad skill set in things like policy analysis development etc which could then be applied to different topic areas right did you have any
00:06:57 topic areas right did you have any training or experience in drafting legal documents
00:07:00 documents um
00:07:05 i didn't have training directly in drafting legal documents clearly as part of my professional development i had training in
00:07:16 training in communication skills and written communication skills um perhaps i could just take a step back i should say that it when i moved to the department of employment headquarters i went on to one of the civil service far stream
00:07:29 one of the civil service far stream training courses and that involved quite a in the early years at least quite an intensive set of training on policy development and associated skills so
00:07:40 skills so um
00:07:41 um i certainly had training in communication skills but directly in legal documents and perhaps not right
00:07:51 right now if we go up to the top of your screen you'll see you say there i took over as deputy director for the building regulations and standards division bsrd
00:08:02 regulations and standards division bsrd in june 2011 as part of the significant departmental restructuring which took place in 2011 and which from summer 2015 was known as the building regulations and energy performance division brepd
00:08:15 and energy performance division brepd and i assume that's correct too and i think you remained in that role until after the fire at grenfell tower in june 2017 for a period yes yes now it's that role on which my questions
00:08:26 now it's that role on which my questions principally are going to focus specifically between the period june 2011 and june 2017. okay but just for completeness can we go please to the foot of page 3 there paragraph 10
00:08:39 to the foot of page 3 there paragraph 10 and you say this following the grenfell tower fire and the establishment of the building safety program now the building safety portfolio in mhclg i became joint head of brepd alongside
00:08:54 i became joint head of brepd alongside ollie
00:08:55 ollie sorry offer stern now help me why now is it offer stern weiner reporting to neil o'connor
00:09:03 o'connor uh and you go on uh i took up posters deputy director for the technical policy division in the mhclg building safety portfolio reporting to andrew pattinson
00:09:14 portfolio reporting to andrew pattinson paterson
00:09:15 paterson was your move following the grenfell tower fire to the role of joint head of brepd a promotion to director level no in relation to the post of deputy director for the technical policy
00:09:27 director for the technical policy division to which you moved in june 2018 do you remain in that role today no i don't
00:09:33 don't are you are you um what is your position at the moment um well in june of 2019 i took partial retirement from the department so i now work part-time
00:09:45 part-time at that point i also regraded to a grade six
00:09:50 six and i now work in these net zero directorate of the department on a part-time basis yes thank you now i want to look at the team the roles and the responsibilities
00:10:03 responsibilities in uh surrounding you essentially in the period 2011 to 2017 uh
00:10:10 uh can we go please first to page four of your statement paragraph 15. and you set out there your responsibilities the responsibilities it says of brsd
00:10:21 responsibilities it says of brsd and then the brepd during the period 2011 to 2018 included a
00:10:26 a work on reviews of the building regulations and associated guidance this would involve the commissioning of research development and proposals for consultation including associated impact assessments management of consultation
00:10:38 assessments management of consultation exercises and preparation of final regulations and guidance oversight of the building control system including competent persons schemes and then c sponsorship of the building regulations
00:10:49 sponsorship of the building regulations advisory committee and the architects registration board that's all correct is it that's all correct as the responsibilities of the division of the division uh even if you go to page
00:11:01 five i think about four and five bottom of four you say in addition over to five you say
00:11:07 you say at 16
00:11:08 at 16 a
00:11:09 a as part of the 2011 reorganization the zero carbon homes team moved into brsl from my previous division so extending the range of responsibilities for the division
00:11:22 and at b you explained that in 2015 a new team was added to your division's portfolio now was that the team responsible for the energy performance of buildings directive correct operation and also the
00:11:34 directive correct operation and also the operation of the energy performance certificate system yes correct yes that's what i think that's what you tell us
00:11:40 us um and was it for that reason then in that year september 2015 the building regulations division was renamed becoming the building regulations and energy performance division correct
00:11:52 energy performance division correct in order to reflect those new areas of responsibility correct i follow can i then turn to the question of structure and line management if we go back to page three please paragraph
00:12:03 back to page three please paragraph eleven
00:12:04 eleven you you set it out let's just look at that for confirmation purposes you say uh
00:12:10 uh throughout 2011 to 2018 i reported to the director of the directorate with within which my team was located the relevant directors were john bright 2011
00:12:21 relevant directors were john bright 2011 to 2013 philip cox 2013-2014 sally randall 2014-2016 steve quartermaine 2016-27 september 2017 neil o'connor september
00:12:32 september 2017 neil o'connor september 2017 to june 2018 and andrew patterson june 2018 to date now that's four different directors during the period june 2011 until the grenfell tower fire isn't it it is yes
00:12:45 grenfell tower fire isn't it it is yes let's go to paragraph 17 of your statement on page five two pages on please and you you explain there and i'm going to summarize this that in that period as a result of
00:12:56 that in that period as a result of various reorganizations the building regulations division moved between a number of different directorates yes correct and you list them there a to e in paragraph 17 correct now you've explained at paragraph nine
00:13:08 now you've explained at paragraph nine that you're a policy professional but not a building or fire safety specialist now as far as you were aware mr ledson was that also true of the four directors that you've identified ending with steve
00:13:20 identified ending with steve quartermaine um so it was certainly true of john bright philip cox and sally randall steve quartermaine's main responsibility in the department
00:13:32 main responsibility in the department which he um i can't remember when steve joined was as the chief planner so he had a background in planning came from a local authority and i believe
00:13:43 from a local authority and i believe that in one of his roles as a senior official in a local authority
00:13:49 authority his um range of responsibilities included the building control department of that
00:13:55 of that um uh local authority um as well as the planning department so he um i'm sorry many local authorities building control and planning will be part of the same group
00:14:06 part of the same group as it were and i believe that he was head of a group which had both the building control responsibility and the planning responsibility within it right can we take it on everything you've told us so far in
00:14:18 on everything you've told us so far in practical terms you at deputy director level
00:14:22 level and the various directors above you relied on more junior colleagues who were
00:14:27 were specialists in building and fire safety we certainly relied on them for advice on technical issues yes and these were technical specialists and these were technical specialists can we
00:14:38 these were technical specialists can we now look at annex a of your statement which we'll find it's page 68.
00:14:46 now this is uh essentially an organogram yes that you explain at paragraph 19 of your statement on page six we don't need to look at it shows the basic structure of the division
00:14:57 the basic structure of the division between 2011 and 2015. is that correct um
00:15:02 um yes broadly with the energy performance team obviously on the left-hand side yes which came in in summer 2015 as we've discussed yes and looking at it we can see that you put yourself second from
00:15:13 see that you put yourself second from the top reporting to the division's director yes um or to be the director the director of the relevant directorate so that the director obviously would have a broader span of responsibilities
00:15:24 have a broader span of responsibilities yes and the directors to fill in the top box would would have would have been those were those individuals we've referred to john bright philip cox sally randall and steve quartermaine up to
00:15:35 randall and steve quartermaine up to september 2017. correct yes i see now but below you we can see three boxes g6 energy performance certificate team other policy g7s
00:15:47 other policy g7s and g6 poli technical policy and bird stroke richard harrell yes correct what does g6 mean um
00:15:58 so the term
00:16:00 term uh or the description of the role for the g6 was as the head of the technical policy
00:16:05 policy team
00:16:06 team um
00:16:07 um i mean it's a bit appreciated it can be quite confusing to try and describe the civil service hierarchy but previously um we defined our roles in terms of grades
00:16:19 grades so in that if i can use the term old money the deputy director would have been a grade five so the grade six would be the next level down uh reporting into a grade five
00:16:31 down uh reporting into a grade five so what that meant in practical terms is that that the person in that role and and and bird and then richard harrell would have been responsible for managing the technical team the various technical
00:16:43 the technical team the various technical specialists portfolio holders reporting into into me yes i see so is it right summarizing it that the g6 technical policy lead managed a technical team of various more
00:16:55 managed a technical team of various more junior officials correct and that was during the period you were deputy director correct yes i see and i think it's right isn't it confirm for me please that uh the post of g6 technical
00:17:06 please that uh the post of g6 technical policy lead was held first um by aunt bird anthony bird until december 2013. correct
00:17:14 correct and after that from january 2014 richard harrell until october 2017 correct and then brian martin after that correct now we don't need to look at it but in your statement of paragraph 19 a on page
00:17:27 your statement of paragraph 19 a on page six you describe the g6 technical policy lead as a specialist post correct and what particular qualifications or experience were required for that role so
00:17:38 so firstly we would be looking for someone with industry experience of some shape or form for experience of the construction industry having worked in the construction industry that would been the the main criterion
00:17:52 that would been the the main criterion we would not have been looking for someone with a specific technical expertise in a specific area we would have been
00:18:00 have been looking for someone as i say with with a broad specialist understanding and and experience um we would also um though this was a sort of second a
00:18:12 um though this was a sort of second a second level criterion um been looking for someone who had experience in um managing building regulations so for example both aunt bird and brian martin though not
00:18:24 aunt bird and brian martin though not richard harrell had been building control officers in previous existence is so having someone with that sort of enforcement um
00:18:32 um experience would have been was one of the criterion though as i say the main essential criterion was to have an understanding knowledge and experience of working in the construction industry right i see
00:18:44 construction industry right i see um
00:18:45 um was the g6 technical policy lead expected to have detailed technical knowledge of the building regulations well we would expect them to have a good overall knowledge of the building
00:18:56 overall knowledge of the building regulations inevitably i think it is likely that they depending on their precise background they would have greater knowledge
00:19:06 knowledge of a particular part of the building regulations um that was i think inevitable but we would certainly expect them to have had experience across sorry across the uh across the whole suite of
00:19:18 across the uh across the whole suite of building regulations so just trying to understand that answer you say that depending on their precise background they would have greater knowledge of a particular part of the
00:19:29 knowledge of a particular part of the building regulations correct what background would be required to give them greater knowledge of part b for example
00:19:36 example so for example if they had formal qualifications in fire engineering right if they perhaps had had previous experience working in a um in an in an organization which dealt with fire right
00:19:47 organization which dealt with fire right safety matters as as for example did anybody in the g6 technical policy team
00:19:55 team uh under ant bird and then later richard harrell have uh any formal qualifications in fire engineering um well i know that ann bird had formal uh related qualifications in
00:20:08 had formal uh related qualifications in fire matters i don't sorry i can't recall exactly what his qualifications were um as did brian martin um
00:20:17 um at this particular point in time i think they were probably the only two members of the team who had formal fire qualifications so subsequently we have the department has employed other fire
00:20:28 the department has employed other fire engineers but that's outside the time frame of this inquiry now looking at the organogram and going from the g6 technical policy box uh to the left below it you can see g7
00:20:40 uh to the left below it you can see g7 fire safety technical lead brian martin correct um now you tell us in your statement and we don't need to look at it it's paragraph 22 at page seven that brian martin held the g7 role of fire
00:20:53 brian martin held the g7 role of fire safety policy league during the period june 2011
00:20:56 june 2011 until november 2017 when he was promoted to the g6 role that is that right that's correct i mean brian had joined the department from the team before 2011 but um he was the g7 technical policy lead
00:21:08 um he was the g7 technical policy lead when i was the deputy director is it right also that the g7 fire safety technical lead his role was in turn supported by a number of other g7 staff not g7 staff i see so uh more junior
00:21:21 not g7 staff i see so uh more junior officer yes so those are on the organogram um a senior professional senior technical officer right steve kelly and then the senior executive officer shane coulson steve being a
00:21:33 officer shane coulson steve being a having a technical background he was a in fact building control background and um shane coulson was a generalist civil servant
00:21:43 i see and
00:21:46 uh is it right that the g7 fire safety technical lead was a specialist post but one with a particular focus on building regulations relating to fire safety
00:21:57 relating to fire safety it was a specialist post yes and um it was important therefore that that person had experience of um the building regulations and part b right clearly
00:22:09 regulations and part b right clearly right so looking at g7 policy leads on the right hand side that would be other aspects of the building regulations correct so part l for example yes right so the way it worked is that the various
00:22:21 so the way it worked is that the various different parts of the building regulations um a k l b uh would sit in various different boxes um as well as uh fire safety
00:22:34 um as well as uh fire safety all reporting to the g6 technical policy correct and um i don't know whether you're going to ask this but perhaps i should make the point that um the um
00:22:43 the um because of the breadth of the building regulations parts a2 i think rupture s now um each of the technical leads would be responsible for more than one part right building regulations
00:22:55 building regulations yes i see
00:22:56 yes i see i'm going to turn to uh the building regulations and approve document b before i do um mr lesson can i just ask you please just to slow down a little a little bit i know it's tempting to speak fast i do
00:23:07 i know it's tempting to speak fast i do it myself sometimes but i'll transcribe her maybe having difficulties getting down my apologies so just try and slow it down if you wouldn't mind thank you and can we please go to page 38 of your statement paragraph 145 top of your
00:23:20 statement paragraph 145 top of your screen it says brian martin was g7 for fire for safety technical lead for the period 2011 to october 2017 his post also involved wider responsibilities
00:23:31 also involved wider responsibilities beyond adb and fire safety combustion appliance
00:23:35 appliance issues electrical safety and noise and if we look at paragraph 149 at the bottom of page 138 it says
00:23:46 it says um the
00:23:48 um the uh it says um the g6 head of technical i'm say sorry policy development for fire safety issues
00:23:59 for some reason is at the foot of your screen um but policy development for fire safety issues as for other building regulations issues was a collective effort involving the technical team legal input and and now and analysts
00:24:13 legal input and and now and analysts other teams in the department would be involved as necessary other government departments would have an interest for example the home office the department for business energy and industrial strategy base and its predecessors and
00:24:24 strategy base and its predecessors and the treasury we would take advice of the building regulations advisory committee brac and as noted above brac would usually set up a working group to support the work now the technical team that you refer to
00:24:35 now the technical team that you refer to there is that the g6 and g7s correct and the analysts as you refer to in line two there legal input and analysts who are those um so the legal
00:24:47 analysts who are those um so the legal team obviously was the um department's legal department and there would have been a lawyer or a team of lawyers who were responsible for
00:24:58 were responsible for building regulations as part of their um brief so they would provide us with advice on any legal issues associated with
00:25:06 with building regulations and also would advise us
00:25:10 advise us to ensure that any changes for example that were being proposed um to the building regulations um would uh were you know in line with the parent powers
00:25:21 the parent powers of the building act and would indeed draft any amendments to statutory instruments and would also ensure that any um when we made changes to approved documents that those
00:25:34 changes to approved documents that those changes were within the frame of the relevant functional requirements so that's that is the legal team the analysts i refer to analysts in our
00:25:45 the analysts i refer to analysts in our the department's analytical division so
00:25:50 so as i think mr byrd explained during his evidence we
00:25:55 we were required to produce regulatory impact assessments or impact assessments to support any changes both to regulations and to the approved documents guidance
00:26:07 documents guidance so that would require an assessment of the impacts the costs and benefits and we used analysts ie economists to
00:26:17 to help with that work and for the period certainly
00:26:22 certainly during the first half of my uh time in the building regulations and standards division uh we had a dedicated analyst who worked with us across the piece and all the relevant building
00:26:33 piece and all the relevant building regulations proposals now go back to your answer just now on lawyers right in the department was it customary to involve uh lawyers take legal advice
00:26:45 uh lawyers take legal advice on
00:26:45 on amendments to the approved documents yes it was yes was that done as a matter of routine um it was an essential part of the of
00:26:56 um it was an essential part of the of the development we would not issue a change to an approved document unless it had been agreed with our legal team that the proposed changes uh were within
00:27:07 that the proposed changes uh were within the frame of the relevant functional requirement otherwise clearly there would have been the opportunity for challenge that any changes we made you know could have been ultraviolets
00:27:20 right and was the breaking that down further
00:27:25 uh when you say
00:27:30 we would not issue a change to an approved document unless it had been agreed with our legal team does that mean any change any word
00:27:41 team does that mean any change any word um
00:27:42 um well
00:27:47 i think all i can do is think back to the changes that were made when i was um in charge of the division and i'm pretty sure that all of those changes however minor
00:27:58 however minor would have been put to
00:28:01 put to our legal department even if the answer from the legal department was you know actually you don't need to worry me about this because it is such a minor inconsequential change it doesn't need a sort of legal eye
00:28:13 sort of legal eye crawling all over it to make sure that it's correct and legally accurate etc did you ever come across an instance whereby
00:28:20 whereby somebody
00:28:21 somebody in in your line of management below you made or sought to make a change to an approved document without running it past legal on the footing on the
00:28:32 past legal on the footing on the assumption that legal would just send it back and say don't trouble me with this i can't recall that
00:28:42 that's some um go down please to paragraph 151 the foot towards the foot of the page for page 38 and it says this
00:28:53 and it says this the g6 head of technical policy would lead on ensuring that proposals were sound technically on oversight and coordination of the projects within the overall technical programme and representation and stakeholder
00:29:04 representation and stakeholder engagement the g6 and g7 would take the lead in preparing and presenting proposals to ministers the g7 supported by the spto when in post and the seo
00:29:15 by the spto when in post and the seo would normally prepare the first drafts of submissions to ministers and if we turn the page to page 39 there's a longish paragraph 1552 but i'll read it to you not having a technical background i would not be in a position to provide
00:29:27 i would not be in a position to provide technical advice but would rely on the technical judgments of the g6 g7 g6 on technical issues although of course i would want to know and understand as far as possible as a layman in broad terms the basis for the
00:29:39 layman in broad terms the basis for the technical advice provided and be assured that the advice had a sound basis in evidence e.g the right questions had been asked and the right research and people consulted my role in technical projects was to ensure that the approach
00:29:52 projects was to ensure that the approach taken and outcomes proposed were aligned with departmental objectives and wider government policy and to help manage the relationships with senior officials in the department the ministers and other government departments and key external
00:30:05 government departments and key external stakeholders during the period 2011 to 2017 a key consideration was how projects fitted with the government's regulatory policy objectives and the department's priority objectives to boost housing supply
00:30:17 boost housing supply now i'd just like to focus if i can on the first part of that paragraph in relation to the in relation to fire safety matters in particular do you say that you were not a technical specialist
00:30:29 that you were not a technical specialist and you relied on those who were yes yes but nonetheless you sought to understand is this right enough of the the technical detail from a lay perspective so is to be able to give input into the
00:30:41 so is to be able to give input into the shaping of policy advice so um if
00:30:44 so um if um
00:30:46 um the technical team and both for fire safety but for any other matter um thought that changes were needed to the regulations and the approved documents i would want to understand why
00:30:58 documents i would want to understand why um so i could understand the um the reason why such a change was was proposed
00:31:05 proposed um as i say in my statement i would want to ensure that we could properly evidence
00:31:11 evidence that proposal so that um you know as we would be where we were queried as to why we're making changes we could answer those questions for ministers or um or others
00:31:23 or um or others um and then thirdly i would then want to and this particular was my um where i thought i could hopefully add value would be to see and ensure that proposals aligned
00:31:36 see and ensure that proposals aligned with broader policy objectives and help manage the process of ensuring that we could take forward proposals within the frame of broader government policy and was also your purpose to satisfy
00:31:47 was also your purpose to satisfy yourself that the advice being given to minister was act was accurate and comprehensive um well i was to to the extent that i would be able to interrogate and understand the detail
00:31:59 interrogate and understand the detail then clearly yes part of my role would be to
00:32:02 be to ensure that there was a broader that the the process of providing advice to ministers was was well based and sound and was it the technical team who provided the technical impact that you refer to here
00:32:14 technical impact that you refer to here so broadly yes
00:32:17 yes so
00:32:18 so i would expect either the head of the technical team or the relevant technical policy lead as as i say to prepare the relevant advice
00:32:29 prepare the relevant advice and proposed changes to
00:32:33 to approve documents or regulations and present those to to ministers they were the technical experts so they could best communicate those technical issues far better than i
00:32:45 those technical issues far better than i could uh to ministers um and indeed it was important that they did that because they owned the policy can we take it then shortly that you did
00:32:56 can we take it then shortly that you did not rely on questioningly on their technical advice but you interrogated it so far as you could so that you could understand its foundations and
00:33:05 and verify it
00:33:06 verify it um
00:33:07 um well i would i'm slightly hesitant to use the term verify because on what basis would i
00:33:18 verify because on what basis would i verify all right let me try satisfy yourself that have had a reasonable foundation inevitably i think satisfy myself that it had a reasonable foundation would be a better description yes yes
00:33:27 yes yes did you come to a position at any time from which you were able as well as understanding technical fire safety advice being provided by the technical team
00:33:35 team um to challenge that advice question it
00:33:40 not in terms of the detail in terms of the outputs the conclusions
00:33:50 i would not have looked at it within the frame within a technical frame um i would um have to take assurance and that
00:33:59 that technically what was being proposed was was was sound um
00:34:05 um where i would look at it was if for example i felt that
00:34:11 that some advice or proposal was
00:34:16 was running completely [Music]
00:34:18 [Music] counter to um some of the two um uh broader policy broad government policy or was out of line with the um department's broad objectives as i
00:34:29 department's broad objectives as i understood them to be at that point i would
00:34:32 would well i would certainly challenge and say can i i would need to understand the reasons for that proposal better so that if indeed there was some it did not fit
00:34:44 it did not fit or align
00:34:46 or align neatly with government policy i would be in a position to explain why that was the case is it right that during your time in post the official with the most detailed technical knowledge in relation to technical fire safety matters
00:34:58 technical fire safety matters of the building regulations and approved document b was brian martin yes was there any member of your technical team at any time who had the same or greater breadth
00:35:09 time who had the same or greater breadth and depth of knowledge on those matters than brian martin um well i would hesitate to sort of set brian martin against anthony bird but anthony bird as you um as you discussed with him was
00:35:22 as you um as you discussed with him was in effect brian's predecessor in that fire safety professional role at um at that level and had a background in um fire safety matters so um i mean with
00:35:33 um fire safety matters so um i mean with both anthony bird and brian martin um
00:35:37 um there was a good opportunity at that that for the period of time that they worked together for um that sort of challenge and quality assurance of technical issues
00:35:48 technical issues do you recall any occasion on which any member of the technical team or indeed you challenged or disagreed with any information or any interpretation or any advice
00:35:59 advice provided by brian martin or any technical aspect of fire safety gosh
00:36:08 i don't think i did i'm sure i wouldn't
00:36:20 i'm sure there would have been discussions uh within
00:36:24 uh within the team so there may well have been some dialogue between individual team members but you can't recall but i can't recall on occasion no
00:36:34 nick can we assume that you were familiar with the broad division of the functional requirements within part b in very broad terms yes in very broad terms i mean
00:36:45 in very broad terms i mean [Music]
00:36:46 [Music] were you aware that b1 dealt with means of escape b2 with internal fire spread d3 structure internal fire spread and particularly b4
00:36:57 internal fire spread and particularly b4 external fire spread um i would have been aware of the broad division of the right functional requirements or sub requirements and would you have been aware of the basic
00:37:08 would you have been aware of the basic architecture of the building regulations and their relationship with
00:37:15 with the approved documents yes
00:37:19 were you did you ever come to examine the functional requirement b4 1 in any detail no
00:37:30 detail no did you did you read approve document b in any particular respect during your time in post um well my draw distinction between pree grenfell and post grenfell well up to
00:37:42 grenfell and post grenfell well up to june 2017. so um up until pre grenfell no i would not i did not read um right the relevant sections of the approved document be in in detail so i think it would follow therefore that
00:37:54 i think it would follow therefore that there were no particular parts of approved document b with which you were more familiar than others you weren't familiar with any of it is that a fair summary um
00:38:05 is that a fair summary um i think it's a reasonably fair summary um i could only imagine that um i might have known a little bit more for example about provisions on sprinklers because that was an ongoing
00:38:16 because that was an ongoing issue but um that would be that would be it i would think were you at all familiar and i think on the basis of your last answer
00:38:26 answer the answer is no but let me just try it were you at all familiar with the provisions in the proof document b addressing external fire spread in buildings over 18 meters in height um not until after grenfell
00:38:41 let's um let's look at the building regulations can we please go to clg one six zero seven
00:38:54 now this is the 2006 edition published in april 2007 and if we can go in it please to page 93 we will see there and if we can have thank you uh we can see there the
00:39:05 thank you uh we can see there the requirement and as it says underneath that the this is taken from part b of schedule 1 to the building regulations 2000 as amended
00:39:16 2000 as amended and there's obviously a pretty history of amendments to this yes to the regulation but also to the to the approved documents and underneath that we have the requirement which is the regulation itself external fire spread
00:39:27 regulation itself external fire spread b4
00:39:28 b4 1 the external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another having regard to the height use and position of the building
00:39:41 height use and position of the building yes yes
00:39:42 yes yes were you
00:39:43 were you familiar with that regulation at any time you were in your senior post well i would have been aware of it in broad terms familiar maybe
00:39:54 broad terms familiar maybe pushing it a bit right did you have an understanding in the period from june 2011 onwards of the meaning of the words shall adequately resist
00:40:07 shall adequately resist so
00:40:09 so i would have interpreted this and would have thought about this in terms of a functional requirement or a goal setting requirement which is a similar term which
00:40:21 term which have been
00:40:22 have been sets out um something that needs to be achieved by the um the resistance of the spread of fire
00:40:31 fire um
00:40:32 um recognizes that um that probably cannot be an absolute requirement in all cases just because otherwise you know it would just be
00:40:43 it would just be impossible to implement or enforce and therefore a word like adequately is inserted to recognize that fact with the subsequent performance
00:40:55 with the subsequent performance statements in the approved document and the detailed guidance giving the view of what adequately meant in particular circumstances so that's how i
00:41:06 particular circumstances so that's how i would have understood um
00:41:08 um they um or why b41 is constructed in those terms right that's helpful um it's not quite an answer to my question sorry let me try it differently what did did you ever come did you ever
00:41:19 did you ever come did you ever consciously subjectively look at the words shall adequately resist the spread of fire
00:41:26 of fire and form a view about what that meant um i can't say that i would have consciously looked at it at germany uh pre grenville if i had looked at it um i would have
00:41:39 if i had looked at it um i would have probably reached the view that i've just tried to explain as to why the um
00:41:45 the um requirement is framed in those terms right but the reason why the requirement is framed in those terms is one thing what adequately means is another i would suggest to you did you ever
00:41:56 you ever think to yourself what are the parameters of adequacy in this context so
00:42:02 so i would not have thought about what the parameters were of adequacy in this context though obviously the
00:42:08 the final clause there referencing height use and position gives some indication of what parameters of adequacy might need to encompass however
00:42:19 however i was
00:42:20 i was i would be looking at this in the context of the relationship between the regulations and the approved document so therefore the purpose of the approved
00:42:31 so therefore the purpose of the approved document is there is to give guidance on compliance and therefore guidance on compliance with a qualified provision in these circumstances would mean guidance
00:42:42 these circumstances would mean guidance on what would be or what the secretary of state would regard as adequate in particular specific circumstances so was it your understanding that if the
00:42:53 it your understanding that if the guidance in the approved document in this case adb was followed
00:43:01 the person carrying out the work under the building regulations would have satisfied the requirement that the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire
00:43:12 resist the spread of fire could satisfy right because of course i mean as section seven of the building act sets out um following um approved document guidance doesn't give an absolute guarantee
00:43:24 guarantee of compliance um it's evidence that can be taken into account if a of of negative liability if uh if if an action was taken against the duty holder
00:43:34 holder um so that's the the first point the second point is that the approved document system always allowed for alternative approaches um directly in relation to to adb for
00:43:45 um directly in relation to to adb for example
00:43:46 example um so different routes to um compliance and that was something you understood at the time that was something i understood yes and it was you understood that as generic to the architecture of the
00:43:57 generic to the architecture of the relationship between the building regulations and the approved documents so i understood that in generically and i was not aware of any situations i'm trying to recall now or any parts of the building regulations
00:44:08 regulations where that relationship did not hold now can we then go to page 95 of this document and the very last paragraph in the right hand column where we can see
00:44:19 where we can see right at the foot of the page external surfaces
00:44:22 surfaces yes and uh paragraph or section 12.6 and i'll just read it to you the external surfaces of walls should meet over the page the provisions in diagram 40.
00:44:33 40. now it's a section of the guidance with which uh we here are very familiar but um you may be less familiar were you familiar with that paragraph at any time before the fire at grenville tower um
00:44:44 before the fire at grenville tower um i don't think i would have been known can we turn the page please to a diagram this is diagram 40 which bears a heading provisions for external surfaces or walls
00:44:56 external surfaces or walls and we have heard evidence from witnesses to say that the word or there was a typographical error for of but looking at the document on the screen is that a document with which you were familiar or
00:45:07 document with which you were familiar or even looked at at any time before the grandfather um well i would not have been familiar with it i'm you know i can't
00:45:13 can't recall whether i might have glanced at it looked at it at some point during my period but i would not pretend to be familiar with it in the same period did you have any understanding of the term national class naught
00:45:26 the term national class naught not in a technical sense no in any sense
00:45:31 it may well have been mentioned to me as part of a way of classifying the performance of materials or elements of materials
00:45:39 materials in um in fires but i would not pretend to have had a detailed understanding of class north no if somebody had said to you at the time it's got class naught a product has
00:45:50 it's got class naught a product has class north or it's achieved class nor what would you have understood by that um
00:45:55 um i would have understood that it achieved a certain level of performance in relation to the particular um aspects of performance which class nor sought to
00:46:06 nor sought to elucidate
00:46:08 elucidate what what would it signify what to you would the achievement of class naught signify
00:46:14 signify um
00:46:15 um well i would have had to have to answer that question i would have wanted obviously to go back to precisely how class naught was used or expressed so if i had been asked that question
00:46:27 i had been asked that question that to my mind for me to be able to understand and provide a an answer to that then i would have needed to have gone back to approve document be
00:46:38 looked at diagram 40 looked at section 12 looked at the definition of class not which is elsewhere in approved document b um having said all of that having said
00:46:49 um having said all of that having said all of that i would have been very low in fact i don't think i would have sought to give an opinion about class naught without taking further advice because i would not want to learn yes no
00:47:01 because i would not want to learn yes no i understand that entirely what i'm really seeking to get at is whether the phrase class not signified anything to you did it did it mean a particular thing
00:47:12 a particular thing or did you just regard it as a classification i think i would have regarded as part of a general classification system or process that helped
00:47:20 helped understand the performance of materials but nothing more than that it didn't have any particular transformative meaning to you it would not have had a transformative meaning
00:47:31 not have had a transformative meaning for me in the sense i think you're asking okay now and were you aware uh in and after 2011 or any stage uh before the grenfell tower fired that the national
00:47:42 tower fired that the national classification system and the european classification systems were running in the united kingdom in the approved document
00:47:50 document b in parallel um so i was certainly aware that over time
00:47:57 over time the national system classifications would be needing to be replaced by the
00:48:04 by the european classification system but i understood that in
00:48:09 in general
00:48:10 general terms
00:48:12 so for example i did understand that the changes made to adb in
00:48:18 in 2012
00:48:20 2012 i think the 2013 changes which were internal linings moved from a national system to the european system so i i understood that the concept of moving from a national system to a
00:48:32 moving from a national system to a european system was needing to happen i understood also that
00:48:38 that there would need to be a transitional period so there would be a period of of dual running for example did you also know that even after 2013
00:48:49 did you also know that even after 2013 diagram 40 here on the screen continued to offer an alternative classification for buildings exceeding 18 meters in height namely either class naught
00:49:01 height namely either class naught national class or class b s3 d2 or better european class well i can certainly say that no yeah did you know that i probably would not have known at the right time all right um
00:49:11 um did anybody brief you on the differences at any stage not on the differences specifically in relation to diagram
00:49:23 in relation to diagram 40. i certainly recall having discussions i think probably with without bird rather than
00:49:33 brian martin about the need to move from a national based class system to a european based class system for example to understand
00:49:44 class system for example to understand why we were making the changes um to part b in um in 2013 so i think i would have had a general discussion of the concept
00:49:55 a general discussion of the concept to understand that but i would not and i cannot recall and i think it's very unlikely that i would have had a specific discussion about this particular
00:50:06 this particular reference
00:50:08 reference can we look please then at page 96 back a page
00:50:13 a page i'd like to show you section 12.7 which bears the heading insulation materials stroke products yes and it says in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any
00:50:24 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a this
00:50:35 combustibility see appendix a this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9. now can we take it that you are now sitting there today familiar with that
00:50:47 sitting there today familiar with that very familiar yes yes now what about before the grenfell tower of fire um i would not have been familiar with the detail of that section though would you have even been broadly aware of its provisions
00:50:58 aware of its provisions um
00:50:59 um not in terms of the detail
00:51:05 i would have been aware for example because i do recall asking a question about this that
00:51:14 that being told that for example the um
00:51:18 the um the way in which part b worked and the approved document guidance for example should have ensured that the
00:51:25 that the sorts of materials which were found to be on some of the fires that we uh happened outside of the uk would not be allowed in
00:51:33 in in in england so in you know without going into the detail of what what says that makes that happen um i would have been aware of the general concept
00:51:45 of the general concept but without having interrogated the detail of paragraph 12 point right and during that period 2011 to 2017 did you have an understanding of the phrase limited combustibility
00:51:59 not in a technical sense i what it meant in terms of a particular european classification for example i mean i think
00:52:06 think it is it only has a technical meaning yeah defined in a7 as you can see yes so i would not have been so i certainly would not have been aware of the detail in table a7 i
00:52:19 been aware of the detail in table a7 i think it is that is correct yes yes but you know that it's table a7 from work you've done i've been very much more familiar with it obviously since um since
00:52:28 since since grandfather yes and what about full full-scale tests under bs8414 and the criteria in br135 did you have any knowledge
00:52:38 knowledge of what those were in that period
00:52:44 so i mean it's quite difficult to recall what i knew before grenfell from what i knew after
00:52:53 after well let me try it differently when did you first discover that there was such a thing as a full-scale test under the british standard to a criterion published by the bre doesn't
00:53:04 criterion published by the bre doesn't matter about the numbers which provided an alternative route to compliance with the guidance um
00:53:18 so i'm hesitating because i don't know for example
00:53:23 example whether this might have come up in some of the discussions that we had when the problems with the bba certificate were raised with us but i i think i think you know i wouldn't want
00:53:35 think i think you know i wouldn't want to give a misleading impression that i knew more
00:53:38 knew more at that point in time than i did so i i think i would have to say that um my awareness of the various routes of compliance with um with these provisions was probably
00:53:50 um with these provisions was probably was limited right before grandpa we'll come to the the bba certificate question later
00:53:56 later can we turn next then to your role as a deputy director of the division and you set those out in your statement at page three can we go back to that please
00:54:06 please paragraph 12 uh and you say the foot of the page there my functions as the deputy director include strategic oversight and leadership of the development of advice
00:54:18 leadership of the development of advice and policy proposals for ministers in the areas of the division's responsibilities and leadership of the division in line with departmental values and corporate policies b development and delivery of an
00:54:30 b development and delivery of an appropriate program of work to deliver on the objectives set by ministers for the division within the context of the department's overall budget and work planning requirements i'm going to pause
00:54:41 planning requirements i'm going to pause there
00:54:42 there um but we'll come back to objectives set by ministers but at the moment just looking at fire safety policy how were programs of work developed and agreed upon within the division
00:54:55 so
00:54:57 the case and reasons for change would be derived from a variety of sources so there may well have been issues which
00:55:08 issues which the technical team had identified as needing to be addressed
00:55:13 addressed um there may well have been information that we had got from stakeholders stakeholders approached us
00:55:21 suggesting changes so that would go into a process of working out an overall program of changes to approve documents or
00:55:33 approve documents or the regulations so that was in sort of general how we would first of all sorry i'm
00:55:38 i'm being a bit waffley here we would identify whether there was a need for change or an issue
00:55:46 we would then look and see well actually what does that actually mean in practice is that something for example that is going to need a full scale review of the relevant approved document or is it something that we can deal with in some
00:55:58 something that we can deal with in some other way
00:56:00 other way um once we got to that position then it was part of my job working primarily with the relevant head of the technical team to develop a proposition
00:56:12 develop a proposition to say that we needed to do x y and z within this particular time frame that would go into the overall well firstly the directorates will go into the divisions plan of work
00:56:24 will go into the divisions plan of work then into the directorate's business planning program and then ultimately um need to be agreed and signed off with ministers and with the and through and
00:56:35 ministers and with the and through and and with and be incorporated within the department's overall programme of work so that relevant budgets could be allocated resources made available etc and who would instigate these
00:56:46 etc and who would instigate these programs or suggest topics to be included for review research or change um so
00:56:52 um so as i said um that could come from a variety of sources so for example that was one of the things we expected brac to provide us with for example
00:57:03 with for example as our
00:57:04 as our statutory advisory committee we would expect and indeed they did make proposals where issues needed to be addressed in general terms
00:57:14 terms as well as specific proposals for research so that would be
00:57:18 would be one source secondly there may well be other stakeholders who would make similar suggestions for change
00:57:28 change um thirdly um part of the role of the technical team um which frankly i wish we'd had the capacity to do more of but we didn't um for reasons which i can go into if
00:57:40 um for reasons which i can go into if you wish um horizon scanning i mean part of the
00:57:44 of the purpose of the technical specialist would be to understand what was going on or more to the point what might be going on in say three five years time and and can we anticipate risks
00:57:56 risks etc so that would be a third source fourthly there would be a general you know
00:58:04 know government policy may well actually suggest that we needed to be looking at aspects both of the technical requirements and indeed the system i should say i mean a lot of this would be about the building control system it's
00:58:16 about the building control system it's not just about the technical requirements um so yeah i think i've listed four and then they will be other i'm interested in horizon scanning would you expect your
00:58:27 your technical people brian martin for example uh to
00:58:33 uh to listen closely to
00:58:36 to what
00:58:37 what i use the word loosely industry was saying and particularly those trade or industry bodies as collectives when they got together
00:58:48 when they got together um about particularly about the building regulations
00:58:54 i would not treat brian any differently from any other of the technical team right um the horizon scanning element was an important part of their role i
00:59:06 was an important part of their role i i regret bitterly that we and when i take a you know responsible for this we didn't give those colleagues as much space to do that work as
00:59:17 to do that work as as i would have liked and i'm sure um if anthony burden richard howell here were they'd say the same and that was just a function of the load that we had to place upon them which and regrettably and it's a very
00:59:30 which and regrettably and it's a very natural thing but of course you know if you're having to deal with this thing today then the longer term work sort of gets put to one side and that regrettably
00:59:41 put to one side and that regrettably i think that i fear happened yes
00:59:46 yes can we turn the page off page
00:59:50 off page four
00:59:51 four little c at the top oversight of resource and business planning for the division
00:59:56 division yes um now we'll come back to resources in relation to staffing levels at some point
01:00:01 point uh shortly perhaps but for now did your role in relation to resource and business planning include planning for the commissioning of technical research to support work on the building regulations and particularly science
01:00:13 regulations and particularly science sorry
01:00:14 sorry yes yes and thinking about fire safety policy do you know how particular areas for research were identified and selected
01:00:23 selected um so again i the proposals for research would come forward from a variety of sources so
01:00:31 so and in particular we did use the building regulations advisory committee quite extensively to advise on research and to review
01:00:42 and to review um research proposals and research in particular the research program before we even put it to to ministers so we got that input into understanding priorities for research
01:00:55 priorities for research and if we go please to paragraph 192 on page 51 of your statement we'll pick this up a little bit more
01:01:03 bit more uh closely here you say there
01:01:07 there in the second sentence a discrete research and analytical support program for building regulations was agreed as part of the budget allocations within mhclg flowing from the 2010 spending
01:01:18 mhclg flowing from the 2010 spending review undertaken following the formation of the coalition government and at 193 you say the objectives of this program were to provide research and analytical support for the project to make changes to the building
01:01:29 to make changes to the building regulations or guidance being taken forward in support of government objectives and to identify and investigate specific technical issues and risks to determine whether changes needed to be made to the
01:01:41 whether changes needed to be made to the regulations or guidance potential issues and risks needed research would be needing research would be identified for example from intelligence gathered by members of the technical team feedback
01:01:53 members of the technical team feedback from industry and investigations of incidents
01:01:56 incidents the building regulations advisory committee would advise on potential research topics and priorities i set up further detail of interactions with brac
01:02:04 with brac section 3j now i'm going to assume that you haven't confirmed the statement that that's all correct correct yes i want to break it down and analyze each element of what you've said there
01:02:15 of what you've said there first in line three of uh paragraph 193 you ident you say to identify and investigate specific technical issues
01:02:27 investigate specific technical issues uh what specific technical issues and risks were you referring to there which this program identified and investigated
01:02:36 so elsewhere in my um statement i obviously um set out the specific elements of the 2012 research program which was a major piece of research covering a number of issues so that would be an example of
01:02:49 so that would be an example of the sorts of issues which had been identified on fire safety which needed further
01:02:54 further investigation and the same would have gone for issues relating to other parts of the building regulations how did the programme of research that you described do that in the period 2011
01:03:07 you described do that in the period 2011 to 2017
01:03:13 so we had a broad program of research which
01:03:18 which it needed to to do a number of things um
01:03:23 um we identified relevant projects or areas for investigation um we would prepare um the relevant business cases etcetera
01:03:34 um the relevant business cases etcetera so that we could get authority because it wasn't my i couldn't just decide oh yes we will spend 100 000 pounds on this research we had to go through as you would expect a uh due process of
01:03:45 a uh due process of gaining authority to spend that money um
01:03:49 um and then obviously we would go um and if that was agreed commission the relevant research etc from an external and then manage the the project
01:04:00 project um
01:04:01 um so i mean we had a there would be a wide variety of issues that we were covering within our research program
01:04:10 program um some of them would have been quite directly related to changes that we needed to make specifically to approve documents so
01:04:22 specifically to approve documents so i'm pretty sure this time and certainly if not at this time then at a later period of time we in effect had a a call-off contract with a consortium
01:04:33 with a consortium of um
01:04:35 of um groups some of whom were technically based some of whom were more economically based consultants to provide advice on changes to the energy efficiency requirements part l
01:04:48 energy efficiency requirements part l which was a big big big issue for us so we had those which were more going to hesitate to because it sounds a bit sort of pompous to draw a distinction between applied
01:05:00 to draw a distinction between applied research and pure research but if you can understand how that concept might work those sorts of projects were more applied because they were we need to we we're going to make this change we need
01:05:11 we're going to make this change we need to understand exactly the impacts and effects of this change and the costs can you help us so that sort of thing as opposed to research in other areas and i would place the sorry if i'm speaking too
01:05:23 place the sorry if i'm speaking too quickly please tell me because i know i do start to rattle on a bit um
01:05:28 um and i would play if i would place the 2012 fire safety research in the second category i we think there's an issue here we think something is going on but we need to
01:05:39 something is going on but we need to understand it better before we can work out what precisely we need to do about it and then move to the next stage which would be to develop a specific set of
01:05:50 would be to develop a specific set of proposals
01:05:51 proposals i hope that's yeah thank you that's very helpful now looking at paragraph 193 halfway down you refer to intelligence gathered by members of the technical team
01:06:02 uh intelligence what what is what do you mean by intelligence there um well that's another way of talking about the horizon scanning right role which i mentioned right now when the
01:06:14 which i mentioned right now when the horizon got scanned and intelligence was gathered from the horizon was there a process or mechanism by which
01:06:21 which the intelligence was fed back
01:06:25 so we
01:06:28 we it would be a matter which will be discussed within the division um we would have conversations about that with the um the technical policy lead and with the head of the of the technical team
01:06:40 of the technical team um
01:06:41 um from that
01:06:42 from that we would reach a judgment as to whether we or what sort of action we might need to take to respond to that issue which could involve commissioning
01:06:54 involve commissioning research because we needed to understand the issue in more depth we refer also to feedback from industry and what kind of feedback is that is that feedback about the adequacy of the regulations or the
01:07:06 the adequacy of the regulations or the approved documents or is it the provision of intelligence about particular problems in the built environment really it could be either
01:07:14 be either um
01:07:15 um as far as you were aware what specific technical issues and risks in relation to fire safety specifically were identified by these means that we've just looked at um
01:07:26 um research intelligence gathered by the team and feedback from industry in the period 2011 to 2017. um well i think the the main issues as i was led to understand were those which we were looking or were being addressed
01:07:39 we were looking or were being addressed through the um 2012 research
01:07:42 research program um of which you know uh i can't remember i can't cannot now remember or recall all of the strands of that piece of research but
01:07:55 strands of that piece of research but now going back to your statement please page four and looking at 12d there you go on
01:08:00 go on uh to say
01:08:02 uh to say um representing and negotiating for the government for the department on policy issues with other government departments and external bodies building and maintaining appropriate networks for example with the building regulations
01:08:14 example with the building regulations advisory committee and just focusing on on on brac there can we go please to page 30 of your statement paragraph 116. and there you say under section 14 of the building act
01:08:26 under section 14 of the building act 1984 the secretary of state is required to consult the building regulations advisory committee brac on changes to the building regulations brac is an advisory non-departmental public body sponsored by mhclg
01:08:39 public body sponsored by mhclg it currently has 12 members as at 16 november 2018 and usually means three times a year to conduct formal business a brac technical working party would normally be set up to consider proposals
01:08:50 normally be set up to consider proposals for changes to any part of the building regulations and their approved documents and you go on to say i set out a detailed account and your attendance now looking at the first sentence of the paragraph i just
01:09:01 first sentence of the paragraph i just read out to you which is there on the screen as far as you were aware was it your understanding that there was a statutory requirement for the secretary of state to consult brac on changes to guidance
01:09:13 to consult brac on changes to guidance um yes and in particular the guidance in the approved documents yes yes yes and what was the basis of that understanding um the base of that understanding um was set out in um
01:09:25 understanding um was set out in um section 14 of the building act right and
01:09:29 and how were members of brac appointed so they would be appointed following the relevant process at the time um for public appointments right and who
01:09:41 um for public appointments right and who appointed them who was responsible for appointing them well ultimately they would be appointed by the secretary of state usually on the advice of the junior minister now you go on in the last part of that paragraph which i didn't read out to you but summarizing
01:09:53 didn't read out to you but summarizing it you you attended most of the main brac meetings during your time in post i think
01:09:58 think i think i probably would have attended all of them other than you know if i happen to be on leave or something like that yes yes quite and in that time in relation both to the building regulations and to the guidance in approved document b
01:10:10 in approved document b um was it the case that members of brac identified or proposed areas for potential change or potential research is that how it worked
01:10:21 is that how it worked that could be how it worked i mean certainly we would have been open for brac members to bring forward proposals research i'm as ever it's very difficult to
01:10:32 as ever it's very difficult to understand where a particular idea or issue may have originally emanated from and whether it was for example something that we thought was should we look at this brac
01:10:43 should we look at this brac do you think we're right or whether it came
01:10:45 came directly from bragg to us i see
01:10:48 i see let's then turn to page four of your statement and look at 12e we go back to that um you describe another of the functions of your role as deputy director and you say line management responsibilities for my
01:10:59 management responsibilities for my direct reports the number of direct reports varied during this period but was around six to eight correct now your direct reports between 2011 and 2017 included i think anthony
01:11:10 2011 and 2017 included i think anthony bird and then after january 2014 richard harrell yes correct yes let's look at richard harrell's report uh witness statement please that clg3019487
01:11:23 i'll show you the first page and then if we go to the third page page three paragraph eleven uh he says on in that paragraph we met as a team on a regular basis but
01:11:34 we met as a team on a regular basis but we also sat together in a group most days of the week internal communication was also good uh similarly i had a good working relationship with the divisional deputy director bob ledson and we would discuss
01:11:45 director bob ledson and we would discuss various aspects of the division's business on an almost daily basis does that accord with your recollection absolutely so did the team sit together physically uh well we were yes because we were all
01:11:57 uh well we were yes because we were all in an open plan office so literally they would be sitting across the corridor away from me yes now was that also the case between 2011 and december 2013 when anthony byrd was imposed as the g6
01:12:09 anthony byrd was imposed as the g6 technical policy leader it was indeed and were you included within that group or did you sit separately no i was included
01:12:15 included did you do you consider that you and richard harrell had a good working relationship absolutely yes and anthony bird before him absolutely yes and do you agree with his recollection that you discussed various
01:12:26 recollection that you discussed various aspects of your work together on an almost daily basis yes that's it and what about your working relationship with brian martin what was that like i think that was a good positive relationship with brian yes right
01:12:38 yes right and and where did he sit physically yes um
01:12:44 um i mean in relation to the this group well we
01:12:47 well we basically we had a some floor space allocated to us in england house and then into martian street uh which was allocated to our division it was completely open plan so there
01:12:59 it was completely open plan so there were there was i think there was a meeting room for private meetings but otherwise in day-to-day terms we were in an open plan so literally you could talk to someone as if i was talking to the stenographer
01:13:10 as if i was talking to the stenographer for example right now as g6 technical policy lead i think it's right that when he was in post richard harrell was brian martin's direct line manager overseeing his work correct yes and before that it was
01:13:21 correct yes and before that it was anthony bird correct did brian martin ever report directly to you even informally um well there was a brief period at the end of um 2016 when richard
01:13:34 at the end of um 2016 when richard unfortunately had a period of sickness and absence for about three or four weeks so brian informally took over a watching brief
01:13:45 a watching brief for richard's broader responsibilities at that point in time so although it wasn't a formal relationship in terms of me becoming his line manager in effect he worked to me for that
01:13:57 in effect he worked to me for that period
01:13:58 period can we then turn finally back to page 4 of your witness statement paragraph 12 f
01:14:06 which is the last in the list of your functions
01:14:09 functions as a deputy director and you say appropriate quality assurance arrangements for advice and briefing put to ministers i would expect to review and approve to clear
01:14:20 to clear all major policy submissions i would also expect to see major briefings and correspondence on significant issues but i would not expect for example to clear all letters in draft
01:14:32 all letters in draft now you refer that to quality assurance arrangements which were in place for advice and briefings to go to ministers what were those arrangements um so it would um it
01:14:43 those arrangements um so it would um it would depend um so
01:14:46 um so as i say in my statement for some instances i would want to see a draft of a submission and i would not authorize that draft to be submitted to
01:14:57 authorize that draft to be submitted to ministers unless i as i said cleared it i
01:15:00 i read it i happy i'm happy with this in effect and approval so so the appropriate quality assurance arrangements are those you described in the second sentence of f indeed yes i see
01:15:13 in circumstances where you didn't clear every letter how was the quality of those letters or briefings that you didn't clear monitored
01:15:21 well in some instances um that clearance may well have been taken up by the relevant grade six the head of the technical policy
01:15:32 technical policy team
01:15:33 team um
01:15:33 um in some instances um probably the uh the draft may well have been sent direct to the minister's office without a um
01:15:44 a um me or
01:15:45 me or richard harold or anthony bird formally clearing the draft did you yourself choose which letters or submissions you needed to clear in which you didn't um
01:15:56 needed to clear in which you didn't um well i would choose unless but about one of the technical team may or someone any of the policy officers may well have said i really would like you to look at this please because i'm not sure of whether i'm you know what we should be
01:16:07 whether i'm you know what we should be saying right so it was a two-way right but but is it the case that some of the junior officials might send uh
01:16:13 uh letters or draft letters or submissions to the minister without you seeing them at all or at least without you ask without um
01:16:21 um pre-clearing them with you it is conceivable i think it would be more likely to have been correspondents rather than submissions i have to say and i mean all certainly all submissions would have
01:16:35 certainly all submissions would have been copied to me so i'd certainly seen them
01:16:38 them um i perhaps i should just um mention that i mean on occasion i would agree in advance particularly with either anthony byrd or richard howell that i would be content for them to clear a
01:16:50 would be content for them to clear a particular submission because i was confident that they could do equally as good a job as i could in terms of ensuring that quality assurance role so certainly that would have happened on on occasions
01:17:01 occasions yes thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is well as we
01:17:06 as we told you earlier mr lesson we'll have a break during the morning in the afternoon and this is a good time to have the morning break so we'll stop now we'll resume please at 25 to 12. and now you started giving your evidence
01:17:18 and now you started giving your evidence i'm going to say to you as i have to all the witnesses you please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're away from the room of course all right thank you very much would you like to go to the usher then
01:17:29 would you like to go to the usher then please
01:17:36 thank you 25 to 12 please okay
01:35:14 would you ask mr led him to come back in please
01:35:24 [Music]
01:35:28 all right mr ledson ready to carry on of course thank you very much yes and mr ladson i'd like next please to turn to escalation and ministerial involvement how regularly did you meet or correspond
01:35:40 how regularly did you meet or correspond with the division's director
01:35:43 roughly gosh well um you know regularly so what do i mean by regularly it would depend on an issue on some issues you know we would be you know on a daily basis
01:35:54 a daily basis on other occasions it may be slightly more um infrequent um there would always be regular
01:36:02 regular one-to-ones so every probably every fortnight i would guess
01:36:07 guess in which case which would be the opportunity for me to brief the director on what was going on
01:36:14 going on and for the director to ask me what was going on
01:36:18 going on and then all of the directors would have had probably monthly meetings of myself the director and other deputy directors though they were tended to be more sort of direct management focused rather
01:36:31 sort of direct management focused rather than policy focused can we look please at
01:36:34 at the witness statement of steve quartermaine as we've discussed already he was the division's director between september 2016 and september 2017. that's clg three zero three zero eight six six
01:36:47 three zero three zero eight six six i'll just show you the first page of his statement to identify it it's a statement made in april last year and if we go please to page 3 paragraph 10 he says
01:36:57 says um
01:37:00 he said in the second line he expected the heads of those teams to operate with autonomy yes
01:37:09 yes and then
01:37:10 and then um
01:37:14 he says providing accountability through regular one-to-one meetings thus i relied on the managers running those teams to manage the teams on a day-to-day basis escalating issues to me as appropriate
01:37:25 as appropriate does that align with your own recollection first of steve carter maine's methods yes and and secondly is that consistent with his with the relationship between you and his predecessors
01:37:37 his predecessors broadly yes i mean naturally some directors might operate slightly differently so some directors might be want to be have a bit more involvement in particular issues yes yes
01:37:48 involvement in particular issues yes yes i see but it on the whole was it the case that under john bright philip cox and sally randall you are expected to lead your team on a day-to-day basis and to escalate particular matters to the
01:37:59 to escalate particular matters to the director only when necessary absolutely let's look at your statement now please back to that page 38
01:38:07 page 38 paragraph 150
01:38:11 and you say there the individuals set out above who had the leading roles for fire safety aspects of the building regulations and adb would of course have
01:38:22 regulations and adb would of course have contributed to relevant decisions or submissions along with a number of others within the team depending on the specific decision or submission and then you say significant issues might be discussed with more senior officers directors or directors general in email
01:38:35 directors or directors general in email correspondence or meetings now you say significant issues what would constitute a significant issue in which in your view would need to be raised with a director or a director general
01:38:46 general um so
01:38:48 um so where we were proposing to put up a submission with major policy significance for example that would be the main example
01:38:59 the main example and i think i've referred in my my witness statement to various discussions at various points that we had with the relevant director and indeed director general on some of the submissions we put to ministers did that
01:39:12 submissions we put to ministers did that occur often it would depend um
01:39:17 um so
01:39:19 so on some occasions and for some things we would have quite a lot of uh involvement with the relevant director and director general
01:39:30 and director general this might take a bit of a digression but can i use produce an example that was my next question give me an example okay good so the housing standards review for example
01:39:41 the housing standards review for example um we set up a structure there where john bright who was the director was heavily involved in fact john had a was almost like the program manager so very regular
01:39:51 regular um briefing to to john on the development of that piece of work uh and indeed given the importance of that
01:40:00 that uh at the time generally we had a lot of contact with the then director general peter schofield on that matter so that's an example of where a particular issue we would have had a lot of
01:40:11 of engagement or significant engagement with the director or director general right do you remember at any time before the grenfell tower fire raising with any of the division's directors or any more
01:40:22 of the division's directors or any more senior official any matter of significance relating to any aspect of fire safety
01:40:29 um well
01:40:37 i imagine we will come on to talk about the um response to the um black and white house coroner's inquiry where directors were involved so leave that on one side any specific issues of fire
01:40:48 one side any specific issues of fire safety
01:40:51 i can't recall very well and what about
01:41:03 i can't recall very well and what about um
01:41:03 um guidance in the approved document approved document b in particular i don't recall having any discussion with
01:41:12 with the directors about approved document be
01:41:18 be other than sorry um other than i'm pretty sure well i guess indeed of course i would i would have had some discussions with steve quartermaine about the review of approved document b
01:41:30 about the review of approved document b at that point in time was part of the response to the latino coroners well it was um well obviously steve was not the director at that point in time but um as we may come on there
01:41:42 in time but um as we may come on there were various exchanges that we had um
01:41:45 um with um in 2016 around progress that we would have discussed with steve quartermaine they were we were look at those but i think other than that i think the answer is no i think the answer to that is probably isn't no yes
01:41:57 answer to that is probably isn't no yes thank you now um turning to your interactions with ministers next uh it's right i think that between 2011 and 2017 there were no fewer than three
01:42:08 and 2017 there were no fewer than three secretaries of state for the department and five junior ministers with responsibility for the building regulations correct and i can give you the list just confirm it with me first eric pickles
01:42:19 confirm it with me first eric pickles secretary of state from 2010 to 2015 yes correct
01:42:23 correct uh and during that time there were i think three junior ministers andrew stunnell now lord stunnell from 2010 to 2012
01:42:33 2012 then don foster now the right honourable lord foster of bath from 2012 to 2013 and stephen williams
01:42:41 williams to 2015. correct yeah and during 2015 to 2017 there were two secretaries of state greg clark in 2015 and sajid javid from 2016. correct
01:42:52 2016. correct and i think there was james wharton now lord warden of yarm as a junior minister from 2015 to 16. correct and gavin barwell now now the right honourable lord barwell as junior
01:43:04 right honourable lord barwell as junior minister from 2016-2017 that's correct though um
01:43:09 um lord barwell's role was he was a minister of state as opposed to the others who were parliamentary under secretaries of state um and the importance of me making that point is just as you will be aware
01:43:22 point is just as you will be aware it meant that lord barwell had a very very wide portfolio of responsibilities across
01:43:27 across housing and planning right
01:43:31 right now um
01:43:32 now um in your experience of government did this list and these dates that i've just given you represent the norm in terms of turnover of junior ministers
01:43:46 it was more rapid than i had probably previously experienced what processes or systems did your division have in place for ministerial handovers and and particularly
01:43:59 handovers and and particularly bringing incoming ministers up to speed with the division's work and priority matters relating to the building regulations and guidance so
01:44:10 so can i draw a distinction between a change of ministers which is as a function of a for example a change of government or a significant change in the the government so after 2015 and um although
01:44:23 government so after 2015 and um although it wasn't a change of government i will actually place the changes consequent to the resignation of um of of the camera of david cameron as prime minister in 2016 it's the same category because you know there was a
01:44:35 category because you know there was a huge quite a change um draw a distinction between what happened there and when um there might have been a sort of minor reshuffle of ministers so in those former occasions
01:44:46 ministers so in those former occasions there would be a departmental wide process
01:44:49 process for providing briefings to the new ministerial team which obviously would pick up on any relevant manifesto commitments that would be the top top
01:45:00 commitments that would be the top top lines
01:45:01 lines and we as a division as with all other divisions in the department would feed into that process and we would be asked to provide briefing to explain what we did
01:45:13 to explain what we did and particular issues which were which we felt needed to be drawn to the minister's attention um plus of course um and particularly any relevant manifesto commitments and
01:45:25 any relevant manifesto commitments and that was a departmental-wide position we didn't do anything separately in the second instance where there may have been a change on a sort of as a part of a minor reshuffle
01:45:36 a minor reshuffle there would still be a coordination process across the department but
01:45:43 but in those occasions it might be that we would perhaps do a bit more of our own thing
01:45:48 thing for example um because we thought it was a good idea or um because the minister's office might ask us for some direct for some briefing right so
01:46:00 some direct for some briefing right so it was more responsive perhaps it was perhaps more responsive yes in those terms apart from briefing new ministers as direct as deputy director what were your responsibilities
01:46:11 what were your responsibilities in relation to communicating with the department's junior ministers and updating them on the division's work um so
01:46:19 um so that would depend on the particular minister's ways of working right
01:46:25 right so for
01:46:27 so for some of the ministers and i think particular lord foster was in this category
01:46:32 category we had quite regular meetings with him when he would like to talk to us about what was going on um that may well just have been a function of the way he liked to operate because some ministers obviously prefer
01:46:44 because some ministers obviously prefer to operate by talking to people others prefer to work from the written written word so it would it would depend on the nature on the minister's ways of working really so you regulated you
01:46:56 working really so you regulated you regularly communicated with don foster but is this right less regularly with anders donald stephen williams on a on a general basis for example i
01:47:07 on a on a general basis for example i think that's fair um where there were specific things happening then obviously the communications would have been more frequent so if we were reaching particular milestones
01:47:19 particular milestones with a
01:47:20 with a a piece of policy work then you like the interactions with ministers would like to be become more frequent do you remember any time before the grenfell tower fire in 2017 raising with any of
01:47:31 tower fire in 2017 raising with any of the divisions directors or any more senior
01:47:34 senior official uh any matter of significance uh in these discussions uh on fire safety or approved document b other than perhaps the progress of the
01:47:46 other than perhaps the progress of the um review of adb i think it probably would have been the progress with the review
01:47:52 review do you recall an occasion on which you or other officials on your team escalated an urgent or highly significant matter directly to a minister even if through his private
01:48:03 minister even if through his private office without reference to the division's director
01:48:11 i cannot recall that was it open to you to do that oh we could have done that yes right there was no prohibition on you alerting a minister to an important or pressing
01:48:22 a minister to an important or pressing matter no that would have been you know that would have been a matter of judgment
01:48:27 and i'm you know so and a judgment which i would have felt was for me to make or to authorize for my team to make that approach yes thank you yes let's then turn to a different topic
01:48:38 yes let's then turn to a different topic which is policy can we start with your statement please a paragraph eight sorry paragraph 29 on page 8.
01:48:50 when you say there during 2011 to 2017 there were two main policy influences on the department's work on building regulations deregulation and energy efficiency
01:49:01 energy efficiency now the two deregulatory policies in operation between 2011 and 2017 were the one in one out policy and the red tape challenge is that right yes though as i refer in little in tier
01:49:15 yes though as i refer in little in tier a b of that paragraph we were also working within the boundaries of a government commitment which was actually made in the spending review 2010
01:49:26 made in the spending review 2010 to reduce the burden of regulation on the house builders so that was separate from and outside of those other two um uh
01:49:34 uh policies which you've even mentioned i'd just like to explore a little bit with you the one in one out policy is it right that that was an administrative policy that operated across government
01:49:45 policy that operated across government from
01:49:46 from from 2011 as as you say where in theory no new regulation could be introduced without a compensating reduction in regulation being made elsewhere
01:49:58 regulation being made elsewhere yes it was an administrative provision i'm slightly being slightly hesitant because i do believe that there may have been some legislation introduced possibly in 2015
01:50:10 legislation introduced possibly in 2015 16
01:50:12 16 around this but i may be misremembering that so well you are right if you are referring to the small business enterprise and employment act 2015. i think that's probably what i mean yes right
01:50:22 right now um if you uh go please in your statement to paragraph 29 a
01:50:29 a as you say um
01:50:32 um there was no exemption for building regulations from these rules is that correct correct so
01:50:39 so uh the one in one out as it evolved which became one in three out in march 2016 applied to the regulations but did it apply to the guidance under the regulation it did
01:50:52 guidance under the regulation it did did you ever ask the question does this policy extend that far um well in fact i asked myself that question last night because i heard you talk to mr bird about this my recollection
01:51:04 recollection was that guidance such as approved documents guidance was covered and i um
01:51:11 and i um looked at the one in one out methodology statement which i believe has been disclosed to the inquiry and it says in there
01:51:17 there not sure if this is an exact quote but it's pretty close any rule or guidance or failure to comply with which could have a legal effect was within scope and i read that then and i'm absolutely
01:51:31 and i read that then and i'm absolutely we'll stand by that now that that improve included approved documents guidance in the way that it also i believe applied for example to approved codes of practice made under the health and
01:51:42 practice made under the health and safety work act which have got a similar status as
01:51:46 status as building regulations approved documents yes so
01:51:49 yes so to be clear the understanding you've just given us was that your understanding at the time absolutely right now looking at the last sentence you say there was no exemption for building regulations from these rules
01:52:01 building regulations from these rules was it possible to obtain an exemption from the one in one out policy and later one in two out and three out for certain regulations or certain guidance
01:52:12 guidance i suppose in theory it could have been in theory but was there a practical system whereby one could apply
01:52:21 um so there were some exemplary there were some exemptions from one in one out um
01:52:28 um which in our case were primarily about european legislation because the point of one in one out was to require departments to deliberately choose as it were whether they were
01:52:39 choose as it were whether they were going to regulate in this area or not and clearly departments did not have that choice with
01:52:47 with legislation european directives which we would be bound at that time to implement under the terms of the um under the european uh of our membership of the european
01:52:58 uh of our membership of the european union
01:52:59 union right so
01:53:01 right so there were some occasions when we might have argued that this is european legislation therefore it's not covered by one in one out but they would have been pretty
01:53:12 pretty um that would have not that did not happen very often if at all um otherwise i don't think there was a process other than frankly you know recommending to
01:53:24 recommending to the secretary of state and i think he would have had to go at secretary of state level to make a case to his opposite number the secretary of state
01:53:32 state for business um uh at the time for an exemption on you know
01:53:37 you know there were some exceptional circumstances reply in this case right you say the secretary of state for this department would have to make a case to the secretary of state for beis so is that how that's what i would have
01:53:50 so is that how that's what i would have expected to have had to have had happen because the um the secretary of state for the beis um
01:53:57 um was the was it whether his department or her department was responsible for the one in one out rules yes uh
01:54:04 yes uh do you remember did you or anybody else in your department ever consider even trying to apply for an exemption for for the building regulations or the approved documents no
01:54:16 no and why was that
01:54:24 frankly i don't think we would have got one
01:54:27 one and frankly there is a judgment which you make in this state as to whether is it a fight worth having
01:54:36 and can we take it as i can take it shortly i think that that one in one out is a shorthand for some principles set out in the reducing regulation committee updates
01:54:47 updates which we have in the disclosure um well sort of seeing what you're referring to i imagine that is the case it's a cost-benefit comparison analysis
01:54:58 it's a cost-benefit comparison analysis yes yes um sorry not quite because what happened with one in one out is it looked at the costs so there was an something called the net annual equivalent cost to business or
01:55:11 annual equivalent cost to business or some such
01:55:12 some such which was the key metric
01:55:14 metric for one in one out yes um the fact that there may be societal benefits as a consequence of the radiation was not something that was taken account of
01:55:25 not something that was taken account of in one in one out terms it was the net annual equivalent cost to business which was the key metric right now you say there
01:55:36 that there may be societal benefits as a as a consequence of the regulation what about the societal disadvantages
01:55:45 from not making a change so for example structural safety under
01:55:53 under um
01:55:54 um regulation building regulation uh part a or fire safety under b
01:56:01 b both of which can turn concern life safety how
01:56:07 how why was it not possible to obtain an exemption
01:56:11 exemption from the way in which one in one out worked for those
01:56:22 well our reading or and my understanding of the the way in which one in one out worked is that we would need to justify any proposals for change
01:56:35 any proposals for change in terms of that
01:56:37 that policy so does that tell us that even if your department had discovered that there were dangerous life-threatening practices out there as a result of
01:56:49 practices out there as a result of defective or loose regulation that you wanted to tighten you couldn't do that unless you could make
01:56:57 make the case
01:56:58 the case for
01:56:59 for uh
01:57:00 uh um
01:57:02 um a regulatory benefit based on a cost benefit analysis
01:57:08 i mean i can't that's a hypothetical question so i i don't know i mean we could have yes we could have made we could have we could have said to ministers do you want to make a change because we think we need to do something here
01:57:20 need to do something here we may not be able to justify it in um in
01:57:24 in um in in itself
01:57:26 in itself under the one in one out rules um
01:57:29 um you you may come on to this but um one of the ways that we tried to move through this process was by developing broader packages of regulatory change as in
01:57:40 regulatory change as in 2012 2013 and indeed in the housing standards review and indeed that was why though you know we'll come on to talk about this why we wrapped up the part b review in that
01:57:52 wrapped up the part b review in that broader review because we were thinking if we could get a package of regulation of regulatory proposals some of which would have a cost to business but some of which would remove cost of business even if they were in
01:58:04 cost of business even if they were in different
01:58:05 different areas of regulation then the net effect of that
01:58:09 of that would meet the one in one out policy and that was legit that was a legitimate approach to take in the principles which applied to your knowledge to the which lay under the one-in-one out was
01:58:20 which lay under the one-in-one out was there a
01:58:22 there a principle which either required or at least allowed the the secretary of state ultimately of the of the department to balance life safety as against cost
01:58:36 to balance life safety as against cost benefit
01:58:37 benefit i'm
01:58:39 i'm i cannot recall and i'm not aware but i'm happy to be you know proven wrong if there is something in the
01:58:45 the documentation you're referring to which says otherwise if i'm i would be surprised because i think that we would have identified that and wanted to do something about that
01:58:56 something about that so i'm surprised if there was such a reference and if there was then goodness i wish we had thought about it was it open do you agree for ministers
01:59:08 was it open do you agree for ministers to agree exclusions from regulatory targets
01:59:12 targets well it's obviously it's open for ministers collectively to decide whatever they want to decide and if they felt that they um wish to make some exceptions to those rules then um they're open to
01:59:25 to those rules then um they're open to do that it's indeed happened after grenfell because thankfully now um fire safety regulation is outside of one in
01:59:34 one in two out three out as a result of grenfell as a result of grandfather yes right
01:59:40 right uh
01:59:41 uh do i take it from that answer that your department to the best of your knowledge never thought of seeking exclusion from the one in one out one in two out one in three out four approved document
01:59:52 one in three out four approved document b at the very least um we didn't formally okay i'm not aware that we did and i would be very very surprised if we had and what was your pessimism that you
02:00:03 and what was your pessimism that you described earlier in not even applying or asking the secretary of state to go to the secretary of state for beis um grounded on in in the assumption that
02:00:14 um grounded on in in the assumption that the cost-benefit principle would always trump any consideration of life safety well it certainly would have made the case for change more difficult to
02:00:25 case for change more difficult to achieve
02:00:27 achieve certainly that would be the that would that was my view
02:00:33 now let's turn to the red tape challenge that was i think is this right across government policy designed to crowdsource the views from businesses organizations and the public on which regulations should be improved
02:00:45 on which regulations should be improved kept or scrapped correct uh and i think you say this in your statement if we go to page nine paragraph 29 c yeah you say it was launched in 2011
02:00:58 yeah you say it was launched in 2011 uh and you say this while the rio rule the one in one out rule was intended to control the flow of new regulation the red tape challenge looked at the stock of existing regulation a red tape
02:01:09 of existing regulation a red tape challenge for construction was launched in 2012.
02:01:12 in 2012. now i'm assuming that's correct correct um
02:01:15 um it was run i think until 2014 wasn't it well there were a number of elements to the red tape challenge so the first element was the um the
02:01:27 the first element was the um the crowdsourcing phase that you described where views are invited widely invited to
02:01:36 to be provided to the government on building regulations as indeed other topics
02:01:43 topics and that was done in
02:01:46 in the first half of 2012 maybe the back end of 2011 but that that that period um
02:01:53 um subsequent to that then the the results of that exercise were analyzed and that was a joint exercise between the department and the cabinet office
02:02:04 the department and the cabinet office who were overall responsible for the red tape challenge process
02:02:09 process and from that emerged some areas for further work
02:02:14 and that further worked the main part of that further work was what we called the housing standards review which indeed did run from 2012
02:02:25 from 2012 through to 2014 and in fact some legislation was associated with that didn't come came into force in 2015 as i remember right i see were you aware at any time that the regulatory reform
02:02:37 at any time that the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 was explicitly excluded from the far the red tape challenge process by ministers in 2012. i was aware of that right
02:02:48 that right did you did you wonder how come that got excluded
02:02:55 uh the um
02:02:58 the um that was in relation to a very specific piece of legislation the regulatory reform fire safety order which um was introduced in 2005
02:03:09 which um was introduced in 2005 following
02:03:10 following um as i understand it a consolidation and repeal of a lot of the existing fire safety legislation the fire protect private precautions act which i think
02:03:21 private precautions act which i think dated back to the 1970s 1971 1971 thank you so i presume the argument advance was that you know we've we've had this
02:03:32 we've we've had this major piece of legislative change which has actually done what the red tape challenge is looking to achieve ie to simplify and improve an existing corpus of legislation it's a bit soon to be putting it through
02:03:45 it's a bit soon to be putting it through a red tape challenge process that didn't apply to building regulations because obviously
02:03:52 obviously a much wider scope of building regulations we wouldn't we would need to look at building regulations as a whole or the red tape challenge we'll look at the building regulations that hold as a whole rather
02:04:03 regulations that hold as a whole rather than looking at individual components right of the regulation so the two things i think were conceptually different right right i see does it come to this
02:04:15 right right i see does it come to this that
02:04:16 that the
02:04:17 the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 in a sense had the clue in the title it had already been pre-reformed yes and that's why it was possible to obtain
02:04:28 and that's why it was possible to obtain an exemption for it whereas approved document b the building regulations and indeed the building act were not um
02:04:35 um i was not involved in the um the exchanges and the advice that was put to um the fire safety minister at that point or the advice that he um put to his cabinet of his colleagues but the
02:04:46 his cabinet of his colleagues but the way you describe it sounds eminently plausible to me right uh and is it for that reason that nobody in the department thought of applying for an exemption for
02:04:58 for an exemption for the building regulations or under the approved documents from the red tape challenge
02:05:03 challenge um well can i again there's a sort of question of phasing here so taking the building regulations as a whole and that's what the red tape challenge was about then no
02:05:14 challenge was about then no um
02:05:17 as you may you know i want to discuss later on the principal output from the red tape challenge was the housing standards review which was launched in 2012
02:05:29 which was launched in 2012 and you will have seen no doubt that the terms of reference for the housing standards review explicitly excluded standards relating to safety from that
02:05:40 standards relating to safety from that process and that was explicit in the terms of reference so although as it were approved document b was not exempted from the red tape challenge
02:05:51 exempted from the red tape challenge phase one
02:05:52 phase one it was exempted from what frankly was the most important part the red tape challenge which was the housing standards review sorry right thereafter cutting forward and keeping it as brief
02:06:03 cutting forward and keeping it as brief as i can because we'll investigate it in detail later was there any part of the um review of approved document b as promised by the secretary of state to the lachenal coroner that was caught by
02:06:15 the lachenal coroner that was caught by the red tape challenge
02:06:20 no um
02:06:24 no i can't recall whether there were any comments that came through through the crowd sourcing about part b at the time and we'll come to it but what about the one in
02:06:34 one in two out and three out does it become well
02:06:38 well when we would if we had come forward with a new version of approved document b then uh my view would be was it would
02:06:50 then uh my view would be was it would have been and still is that we would have had to have gone through that one in one out etcetera challenge and process before we would have had all collective
02:07:01 before we would have had all collective authority
02:07:02 authority to publish it so again in summary i think you're saying that notwithstanding that the review of approved document b was pursuant to a coroner's recommendation accepted by the
02:07:15 coroner's recommendation accepted by the secretary of state it would still have been subject to the one in two out and three out principles i believe so yes yes
02:07:23 yes and was that ever actually the subject of discussion with with either the director or the relevant minister
02:07:32 obtaining an exemption for that review on the basis that it was in response to a ministerially promised response to a currency well i certainly certainly didn't discuss that option and we didn't
02:07:44 didn't discuss that option and we didn't put that option to ministers i accept that entirely
02:07:49 i think though i cannot recall it may well have been discussed in general terms with um perhaps the director and the director
02:08:00 um perhaps the director and the director general as we were particularly working through
02:08:03 through the review um of building or the building control review of 2015 16 17. now we're going to come into some history and facts now i think can we start by uh looking please at hom402076
02:08:19 and this is an email from yeah thank you the second email down is an email from victoria moyo
02:08:30 is an email from victoria moyo to a number of people including you and anthony bird can you see that yes dated uh the 11th of may 2012 yes and she says
02:08:41 2012 yes and she says dear all please find attached the internal briefing pack for the building reg star chamber on monday
02:08:47 and if you scroll down to the third paragraph of the email it says to be aware oliver letwin will be calling andrew stunnell on sunday just pausing there is it is that how you pronounce it stunnel i believe so yes
02:08:59 pronounce it stunnel i believe so yes right good on sunday to us to discuss ahead of star chamber and then in bold any elephant traps we need to make andrew aware of can you please have a think and let me know so i can get back to car okay yeah
02:09:12 know so i can get back to car okay yeah right that's another question i had um attendees from our side are pete peter and that's anthony bird i think bob l which i think yeah yes yeah
02:09:23 yeah now um did first who is kerr so kerr would be um the um private secretary for andrew stone right but kendrick i think his name was right uh
02:09:34 kendrick i think his name was right uh do you understand or did you under what did you understand miss moyo to me when she asks whether there are any elephant traps we need to make andrew okay so um i should have said and apologies um that
02:09:47 i should have said and apologies um that in parallel to the um sort of public-facing aspect of phase one of the red tape challenge process we also did some internal work
02:09:59 also did some internal work and that would have been the briefing pack which is referred to in paraguay in the first sentence of ms mulholl's email
02:10:10 so you know and then the meeting between oliver lewin and andrew stunnell would have been probably looking at sort of both what
02:10:17 both what was emerging from the public facing work and also sort of some internal thinking so that would be that's just to give you a little bit of context the elephant traps
02:10:27 traps i think would be shorthand is oliver let when going to ask andrew stunnell something you know that is could be awkward or you know something we think um all of us at letman might have some
02:10:39 all of us at letman might have some particular ideas or issues which he wants to raise with andrew stunnell and we ought to ensure that our minister was aware of those so he would be forearmed and briefed right um
02:10:51 forearmed and briefed right um oliver letwin's role in this was what in a nutshell he was minister well he had a very very broad role as you will know under the um cameron government uh and that included sort of regulatory
02:11:03 uh and that included sort of regulatory policy generally he was based in the cabinet office right uh it's called star chamber yes as a student of modern history you will absolutely recognize that yes what was star chamberish about this
02:11:15 what was star chamberish about this process so basically the idea would be that the minister in this case andrew stunnel and indeed his successors with officials supporting cast of officials would
02:11:26 cast of officials would have a meeting with oliver lettman supported by cabinet office officials and
02:11:31 and um
02:11:31 um at that um oliver lewin and cabin office officials would quiz us the department on well these are the issues emerging from our red tape
02:11:42 issues emerging from our red tape challenge analysis broadly
02:11:45 broadly do you agree with them what are you going to do about them what can we do with them so it was that sort of process i see so he was the henry the eighth character as it were i don't think that i didn't think i would ever
02:11:56 would ever equate oliver with with henry viii but he was he was the interrogator quite rightly so uh was this an opportunity to raise concerns you may have had about the impact of deregulation on fire safety
02:12:11 i'm pretty sure and i'm pretty sure that andrew stunnell if andrew stunnel had been worried that what we were being required to do
02:12:20 do could have had a detrimental effect on building regulations not just in this fire safety area but in any other area i'm pretty sure he would have raised those
02:12:29 those let's go to the briefing pack um
02:12:32 um it's at hom402080
02:12:37 and if we turn to page three we can see the introductory section for the document says this yep
02:12:45 first sentence dclg is a deregulating department we've reduced regulation in all the areas we're responsible for in the housing and construction theme and are looking for what more can be done what did you understand was meant by
02:12:57 what did you understand was meant by dclg is a deregulating department um
02:13:01 um so
02:13:03 so what that means to me and the sense that i think that was seeking to get across
02:13:09 across is to make it quite clear that we were entering this process with an open mind we were not a department which says you know in crude terms get your tanks off our
02:13:20 in crude terms get your tanks off our lawn type thing we will approach this um it's an important government policy issue and we will address this properly and seriously and actually um we've already done things to show
02:13:32 um we've already done things to show that it's not just um we are abiding as it were by this we are addressing the spirit of what the government was seeking to achieve as well as you know the letter um as part of that the reduction in
02:13:45 um as part of that the reduction in regulation yes we had so for example the 20
02:13:52 the 20 the review that led to the 2012 changes to building regulations and approved documents preceded
02:13:59 preceded this
02:14:00 this so that we had this we the department led by andrew stunnell had already identified areas where we could simplify
02:14:11 could simplify the regulations clarify etc and indeed remove some provisions so [Music]
02:14:18 [Music] i think we were the message i do recall because we did discuss this and we discussed not just the substance but how we wanted to present this to oliver lewin was that we you know we were taking this seriously we've done things
02:14:29 taking this seriously we've done things and we're very open to look at what more could we do i follow by your um answer where there are other departments who are more recalcitrant in the face of the
02:14:40 are more recalcitrant in the face of the deregulatory policy
02:14:45 i'm sure they're worth right but this was being put forward as a positive to mr letwin yes we wanted to yeah we thought it would be best to engage in this in a positive way and our ministers agreed
02:14:56 agreed yes i see
02:14:59 now it goes on in the next in the next paragraph to say this however it is important to remember that the regulations being considered in the housing and construction theme have an important role to play in protecting people particular principally in terms
02:15:11 people particular principally in terms of health and safety but also ensuring vulnerable people are protected and to what extent could and to what extent did the department
02:15:22 and to what extent did the department refused to cull regulation when it was there to protect health and safety
02:15:32 well at this stage we weren't at the stage of culling because we were sort of talking in general terms about you know
02:15:41 you know where we might go but i will refer back to the explicit reference in the terms of reference for the housing standards review published in sometime in autumn 2012 which made explicit
02:15:53 autumn 2012 which made explicit that the housing standards review which otherwise might have involved some deregulation would not did not affect standards of safety would not lead to reduction of standards of safety
02:16:05 so is it a reference to that i think you're saying that this paragraph refers to that well it doesn't because this would be produced before the housing standards review um terms of reference but the principle right the
02:16:16 reference but the principle right the principle would have been there i see now turning to page four uh there's a table and
02:16:26 underneath the table there's a title what else could we scrap or amend and the next heading down reads what have we done to deregulate so far and underneath that it says
02:16:38 far and underneath that it says a lot of work has been done to deregulate and simplify building regulations in recent years and then the various
02:16:44 various heads of work are set up below yes
02:16:49 if we go to page eight
02:16:58 there's a title or sentence in bold i think in the middle of the page which says is there anything else we could scrap or amend eg introduce radical ideas like insurance to replace building control
02:17:13 did that focus there caused you any concern particularly in the light of the significant deregulatory work that the department had already done no because we were asked quite rightly
02:17:25 no because we were asked quite rightly so to think broadly about options for ministers to consider right and the fact of the matter is that some of these things are you know if ministers had so chosen they didn't but if they had so
02:17:37 chosen they didn't but if they had so chosen these would be options these were potential options so we were doing a job of
02:17:46 a job of providing ministers with the widest range of issues and options for them to think about was there any discussion at the time either within the department or what star chamber about the merits of greater prescription
02:17:58 about the merits of greater prescription within the building regulations and the the um
02:18:01 the um approved documents uh as against the regulatory drive at the time
02:18:07 time probably not deregulatory drive um no
02:18:13 um no no no right let's um let's look at something slightly different energy efficiency because that was the second i think of the
02:18:21 the policy influences in respect to the department's work on the building regulations correct that you refer to in your statement of paragraph 29 now can we go back to your statement please at page nine and look at paragraph 30
02:18:35 you say that the key contextual aspects of energy efficiency policy were and then you set them out in five sub-paragraphs the first is the coalition government statement in may 2010 we will require
02:18:46 statement in may 2010 we will require continuous improvements to the energy efficiency of new housing b the carbon budget targets introduced by the climate change act 2008 c the green deal policy of the coalition government and the obligations on energy
02:18:58 government and the obligations on energy companies to fund energy efficiency improvements d the implementation of the energy performance of buildings directive 2010 which had to
02:19:09 of buildings directive 2010 which had to be transposed into uk law by the end of 2012 and
02:19:13 2012 and e the zero carbon homes policy inherited from the labor government which the coalition government decided to take forward
02:19:21 forward now is it right that these policies here and the implementation of the
02:19:28 of the 2010 directive that you refer to required extra regulation particularly in respect of part l of the approved documents yes yes
02:19:40 approved documents yes yes now let's then go to clg three zeros three five three seven three
02:19:49 this is a submission from victoria moyo who is the strategic analysis team head to the secretary of state cleared by andrea lee dated second of may 2012 and the
02:20:02 lee dated second of may 2012 and the title is red tape challenge housing and construction proposition star chamber and if we look at item
02:20:11 item 3 there's the recommendation clearing the propositions paper and the position dclg will take at the start chamber on the 14th of may and then considerations under paragraph five can you see that yes and it says
02:20:24 five can you see that yes and it says this the propositions paper sets out the department's position and will inform discussion at the star chamber ministers saw a draft on 24th of april and the draft at nxa has been revised to reflect their feedback the paper is largely
02:20:36 their feedback the paper is largely unchanged from the previous version we've managed to strengthen our deregulatory package because of the department's obligation to bring in regulations which will affect the energy performance for buildings directed by july 2012
02:20:48 july 2012 this will be an opportunity to revoke all of the existing regulations and produce a single consolidated list now
02:20:55 now you say in paragraph 32 of your statement and i don't think we need to get back to it on page 10 that the department's approach was to develop packages of regulatory changes to provide a balance of deregulation
02:21:07 to provide a balance of deregulation to offset extra regulation correct yes now did increased regulation in the area of energy efficiency and particularly part l to the approved documents mean that regulatory cuts had to be
02:21:19 mean that regulatory cuts had to be found in other parts of the building regulations and the guidance um
02:21:26 um we would have to we would yeah well yes i'm hesitating because you know cuts is quite a
02:21:33 quite a it's a strong term so what we sought to do and we did this in the 2012 package is we sought to find areas where we could either simplify
02:21:45 areas where we could either simplify the regulations simplify guidance which could produce offsetting savings under the net equivalent annual cost of business metric which would offset
02:21:57 metric which would offset the um
02:21:58 the um costs of the increased energy efficiency proposals
02:22:02 proposals which were eventually introduced in the associated changes to partel in 2013. i see and
02:22:11 i see and in 2013
02:22:13 in 2013 were any regulatory deregulatory changes made to part b to cater for the as an offsetting saving to cater for the incoming changes in part l um that
02:22:26 incoming changes in part l um that package there were two changes to part b or approved document b one was um
02:22:34 um the need to introduce the european classification system for internal wall linings which i think other than a sort of familiarization cost was probably pretty much cost neutral
02:22:46 much cost neutral and then the second was some changes to the guidance on lighting which i believe we felt was could be made because perhaps the existing requirement was too
02:22:57 perhaps the existing requirement was too it was unnecessarily onerous and that would have resulted in some small scale changes small scale but the euro the introduction of the euro classifications for internal wall linings was one that had to be made
02:23:09 linings was one that had to be made isn't it
02:23:10 isn't it yes it was because it was really interesting quite right and then you know if it come to it then we could have argued that that was a european requirement and therefore was outside yeah of the one in one out rules as they were then yeah but
02:23:22 one out rules as they were then yeah but but would it be right also that the spirit of the need to find offsetting savings
02:23:29 savings in order to cater for the new part l regulations on a continuing basis would have influenced the way in which the the review of approved document b
02:23:40 the the review of approved document b uh
02:23:43 was progressed after 2013. well i'm not going to say that there was a direct relationship between the work we did on partel and the work we did on part b because i don't believe there was
02:23:55 part b because i don't believe there was but
02:23:56 but certainly
02:23:59 certainly the changes that we were proposing to make to part l under the regulatory policy would have as you say quite rightly so um required offsetting um
02:24:11 um uh regulatory savings elsewhere that would have been a huge issue frankly if the zero carbon homes policy had actually finally been implemented but a decision which we may want to discuss
02:24:23 decision which we may want to discuss was taken
02:24:24 was taken by the conservative government in 2015 to halt that because that really would have been
02:24:28 have been you know involved very high costs to industry
02:24:34 industry well
02:24:35 well did you yes it leads to this question were you aware at the time after the introduction of one in one out and then the red tape challenge of any tensional conflict between increasing
02:24:46 tensional conflict between increasing new regulations in part l energy efficiency on the one hand and the consequent need to make offsetting strategies savings in approved document b or other parts of
02:24:57 in approved document b or other parts of the building regulations and guidance to do with life safety we
02:25:03 we but of course there were there was a balance to be achieved and that was difficult that would have been difficult um and it wouldn't you know we would have been looking for
02:25:13 for savings where we could
02:25:16 could i you know
02:25:19 uh doing things which might have looked at the relevant um relevant um standards
02:25:26 standards i have to say i have to say that we would not have been our first port of call would not have been life safety issues we would have the building regulations covers a wide variety of issues
02:25:39 covers a wide variety of issues and we would have been looking at areas which certainly would not have had a potential life safety disbenefit i mean that would just not have been right
02:25:50 have been right so
02:25:50 so we'd have been looking at other areas as we did
02:25:53 we did in the uh work we did in the housing standards review where we um we looked at a whole variety of areas but not fire safety now against that background i want to turn to a different topic 2013 and the
02:26:05 turn to a different topic 2013 and the changes to the uh to approve document b yes uh
02:26:10 yes uh can we start with your statement please and go to page 10 paragraph 33
02:26:20 and it has a heading d coalition government building regulations to regulation review 2011 to 2013.
02:26:27 2013. and then you say paragraph 33 in december 2010 the then building regulations minister andrew stunnell announced plans for a programme of work on the building regulations this
02:26:38 on the building regulations this followed an invitation for ideas issued on 29th of july 2010 his statement said that the program quotes will have a particular focus on deregulation and streamlining of the technical and
02:26:49 streamlining of the technical and procedural aspects of the regulations and you
02:26:53 and you identify in the footnote the web page which is accessible to all who want to see it
02:27:00 see it and at 34 you say this this led to the 2011 to 2013 review of the building regulations the review was a comprehensive exercise in terms of coverage but did not involve an in-depth review of all of the technical standards
02:27:12 review of all of the technical standards the aim is to identify quotes quick wins on quotes for deregulation and system improvement and in what way were the changes quick wins
02:27:22 wins um
02:27:23 um so these were changes
02:27:27 changes that
02:27:28 that we felt that we could undertake without having to do the sort of in-depth
02:27:36 in-depth technical review that we would need to do if we were going to have a wholesale change to um
02:27:44 to um to an approved document so for example you know in that time frame there was no way that we could have done an in-depth technical review of approved document b it was just too big a job so therefore
02:27:56 it was just too big a job so therefore we identified you know there were two changes which we've we've discussed which
02:28:01 which you know relatively small scale we're not looking at the whole document and that was the approach that we looked at across the whole suite of all across the approved arguments and um
02:28:13 all across the approved arguments and um building control system arrangements right i see so the aim of this review the stunner review if i can call it that was to identify what you refer to as quick wins correct right and um
02:28:24 and um [Music]
02:28:25 [Music] was the scope of that review wide enough in order to offset extra regulation required in respect to energy efficiency indeed right now you say that it didn't involve an in-depth review of the
02:28:36 involve an in-depth review of the regulations in fact is it right that it didn't aim to review the technical substance of the regulations or the guidance to any extent either other than to to to find things to deregulate easily and quickly
02:28:47 things to deregulate easily and quickly um
02:28:48 um do you mind just um scrolling through because i'm just because for perhaps on to the next page just to remind myself of exactly what we covered yes of course i mean of course you could see down to the bottom of page
02:29:00 you could see down to the bottom of page 10 but go to page 11. yeah and you do cover f and g your two energy points um so um i mean most of those things in that list are
02:29:11 most of those things in that list are actually system issues they're about the way the building control system operated rather than changes to the technical requirements other than the very minor changes that we've talked about for part
02:29:22 changes that we've talked about for part b and again the um
02:29:25 the um the changes in part a were very much uh we're moving from a national based code system to euro code so that was a you know
02:29:33 you know that wasn't that wasn't changing the technical standards it would just says it's this technical standard which applies now rather than than that now
02:29:41 now were there any concerns in your division that the regulations were not being looked at in any way other than deregulatory in other words to look to things to scrap without an in-depth review
02:29:56 um so
02:30:01 i know um that
02:30:05 um that this approach sort of cut across to an extent
02:30:09 extent the approach which was set out in the future building control review of 2008 which talked about a process of ongoing reviews in a quite a structured way of course sorry
02:30:20 quite a structured way of course sorry um it's perfectly open for a new government to say well you know that's what the last government said but we're going to do something different so there's nothing wrong in that at all but obviously
02:30:31 but obviously what that meant i'm sure
02:30:35 i'm sure i
02:30:36 i absolutely understand why members of the team may have felt well is this going to inhibit
02:30:41 inhibit the um
02:30:42 the um our ability or the time when we can do perhaps some of the more in-depth work which we need to do on some of the approved documents i see now if you go to paragraph 36 of your statement a lower down page 11.
02:30:55 of your statement a lower down page 11. if we can scroll down to that you say this review led to changes in building regulations and ads which were made in december 2012 coming into force in spring 2013.
02:31:07 spring 2013. they were seen as delivering an even better and more cost-effective way of ensuring our buildings remain safe and sustainable and that's a quotation from don foster a ministerial statement in december 2012. then you say this excluding the
02:31:20 2012. then you say this excluding the energy efficiency requirements the review realized annual savings to business estimated in the impact assessment to be around 50 million pounds per annum now um that's your evidence there let's
02:31:32 now um that's your evidence there let's look at what you say about the changes if we go please to page 13 of your statement paragraph 46 you identify yeah
02:31:41 yeah them there and at a to c changes
02:31:46 changes and you call them minor and technical yeah
02:31:48 yeah so far as adb is concerned changes in relating to the fire classification of internal wall coverings to move to a european classification which were reflected in minor changes to adb
02:31:59 adb changes to requirements on spacing of lighting diffusers technical changes suggested by the lighting industry which were made through changes to adb and then over the page at sea repeal of local acts
02:32:10 local acts which allowed for specific requirements to be set for particular areas for example london now i've shown you two chunks of your statement did anybody in the technical policy department make you aware of any
02:32:22 policy department make you aware of any emerging issues or areas where the regulation or guidance needed to be updated or amended in relation to part b and approved document b during this review
02:32:37 so
02:32:42 i would have been made aware of the fact that we there were technical issues which would need to be addressed in relation to part b because that's why we
02:32:52 we started the research process in 2012 which obviously falls into this period so
02:32:59 period so in that respect yes but as i said earlier my recollection of the nature of those research projects was we think there's an issue here we
02:33:11 was we think there's an issue here we need to understand it better as a result of the 2011 to 2013 review and the research project
02:33:21 project did anybody in your technical policy team
02:33:25 team make you aware of any need to make changes to 12.6 and 12.7 of approved document b dealing with external surfaces of walls above 18 meters and
02:33:36 surfaces of walls above 18 meters and insulation broadly
02:33:39 broadly i don't recall that do you remember whether there was any discussion either during the review or the research of class naught
02:33:51 that i was involved in i don't recall that was there any discussion about any need to bring to an end the transition period where the national classes ran in parallel with the euro
02:34:03 classes ran in parallel with the euro classes
02:34:04 classes within adb again i don't recall that being discussed with me or maybe oh am i being involved in any discussions but that's my recollection now thank you now i'd like to turn to a
02:34:16 thank you now i'd like to turn to a different topic again lacanal yeah uh uh now the inquest intellectual house took place from the 14th of january 2013 until the 28th of march 2013
02:34:28 until the 28th of march 2013 and it resulted in what is called a rule 43 letter containing the coroner's recommendations i'd like to look at that with you it's at clg401870 please
02:34:41 you can see that it's dated the 28th of march 2013 from the coroner francis kirkham cbe and it's addressed to the secretary of state eric pickles
02:34:52 to the secretary of state eric pickles uh and uh you can see uh um well in fact you have to read the whole thing to see it take it from me that the coroner made recommendations under four heads printed in boldface type on the letter
02:35:04 type on the letter the one that was directed to the department related to the building regulations and approved document b and we can see that if we go please to page three
02:35:12 three of the rule 43 letter there it is second down building regulations and approved document b she explains that during the inquests it
02:35:23 she explains that during the inquests it was the 2000 edition of adb incorporating the 2002 amendments which had been examined and she says if you um if you look at it
02:35:35 and she says if you um if you look at it that
02:35:39 in the um three lines up from the bottom of the first paragraph however adb is the most difficult document to use further it is necessary to refer to additional documents in order to find an answer to relatively straightforward
02:35:50 answer to relatively straightforward questions concerning the fire protection properties of materials to be incorporated into the fabric of a building
02:35:57 building and then she sets out a recommendation that your department review adb to ensure that it provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4 of the building regulations with particular
02:36:08 building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to where the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection
02:36:20 protection second bullet is expressed in words and adopts a format which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just to professionals who may already have a
02:36:32 to professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control matters and then final bullet point provides guidance which is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock and not only
02:36:44 of older housing stock and not only those engaged in design and construction of new buildings now i'm going to look at each of those uh
02:36:52 uh on those which you accepted and those which you did not now um first can i take it that you're familiar with this letter yes did you read it at the time i would have read it at the time right um then let's look
02:37:04 at the time right um then let's look next at the department's opening submissions to this module with this inquiry
02:37:09 inquiry let's look at that at clg 3036387
02:37:18 uh that's the first page yeah uh
02:37:23 yeah uh and i'd like to show you some passages in this document to see whether you agree with them can we turn please to page 38
02:37:34 and at purge page 38 we have
02:37:41 i'm sorry sorry page 36 and on page 36 we have paragraph 112 a to e
02:37:50 uh which sets out the department's position now i'm afraid it's at some length but i am going to read it to you because i have questions about it for you and it says this having given extensive
02:38:01 and it says this having given extensive consideration to the response to the latin house coroner's recommendations issue the department's position is that a the department's response to the coroner was in it was inadequate and
02:38:12 coroner was in it was inadequate and should have clearly set out whether each recommendation had been accepted to what extent and any relevant reasoning b in particular the department should not have worked on the basis the recommendation for related to the 2000
02:38:25 recommendation for related to the 2000 and not the 2006 version of adb nor should it have concluded that the exercise to clarify and simplify adb in his 2006 iteration was not safety critical and therefore not urgent
02:38:37 critical and therefore not urgent without making that position clear in its response to the coroner and thereby affording her an opportunity to comment on a fully informed basis c without having made its position clear in its response the department should
02:38:49 in its response the department should have treated the work to clarify and simplify adb as an urgent priority and so should not have decided to fold the work into a broader review expected to take at least another three years
02:39:00 take at least another three years d subsequent delays to the original timetable should have been highlighted to ministers and led to a reconsideration of whether changes to adb required more urgent progression e the department missed the opportunity to
02:39:12 the department missed the opportunity to look beyond the recommendations made by the coroner and to consider how widespread the use of non-compliant materials on high-rise residential buildings was and the associated fire safety risks
02:39:26 do you agree with each of those admissions can we go back to the start of the yes passage please page 36 please
02:39:39 so with the benefit of hindsight
02:39:44 hindsight i would accept that it would have been better to have been clearer about how each individual recommendation was being
02:39:54 was being oh each of the three elements of the the recommendation were being treated
02:40:01 treated um
02:40:02 um so it made it sorry so with the benefit of hindsight you agree with a so with the benefit of hindsight i would agree with um i would agree
02:40:13 that the letter the response could have been fuller
02:40:18 fuller in terms of how the individual elements were being dealt with
02:40:30 right i've read you b c d and e do you agree with each of those or is there any one of those with which you would express disagreement
02:40:44 in relation to b
02:40:48 and i do recall discussing this with with anthony bird and brian martin at the time
02:40:53 the time it was felt that um the 2006 version of the approved document had indeed dealt with some of the problems which had led perhaps to some of the confusion
02:41:04 confusion expressed or discovered in the in the coroner's inquest relating to the wording of um the
02:41:11 the uh 2000 version of adb so
02:41:19 um i think that it was failed that we actually had gone some way to addressing to the the coroner's concerns
02:41:30 building on that answer what
02:41:33 what was the
02:41:35 was the what were the problems in the 2000 version of adb which had led to the confusion of the inquest but which had been addressed by the 2006
02:41:46 which had been addressed by the 2006 version
02:41:50 well this is this is from memory and without um being able to actually study you know the exact sort of the the transcript of the coroner's inquest to know exactly what um was
02:42:01 inquest to know exactly what um was being
02:42:01 being said i had understood that there was some confusion between the way in which the 2000
02:42:09 the 2000 um
02:42:10 um version of aedb um
02:42:14 um sorry there was some conflation or potential conflation between guidance in that version of the adb which was related to spread between buildings as opposed to spread up the buildings and that was one of the issues
02:42:26 buildings and that was one of the issues which had been sought to be clarified in the 2006 version do you remember having a discussion with brian martin about whether
02:42:37 about whether any ambiguity or difficulties in understanding class naught had
02:42:42 had been
02:42:43 been cured as it were by the 2006 version of i don't recall the discussion of that right
02:42:50 but looking at the admission by the department here that it shouldn't have worked on the basis that recommendation 4 related only to the 2000 and not the 2006 version of atb nor
02:43:03 2000 and not the 2006 version of atb nor concluding that the exercise to clarify and simplify adb in 2006 was not safety critical and therefore not urgent without making it clear to the coroner etc do you agree do you accept that
02:43:15 etc do you agree do you accept that admission by the department well i'm not going to say something that my department has said right does the same apply to see
02:43:34 i mean obviously i was not involved quite rightly so in this preparing this um statement so i don't know how far in preparing that position there was an investigation of the circumstances in which
02:43:46 circumstances in which we took the decision that we could deal with the coroner's inquest requirements as part of that long-term or longer-term review of adb i mean obviously i have to accept what my department has said
02:43:58 my department has said in that um and the view that's been taken by my department in
02:44:02 in the
02:44:03 the response that is the response of the department um
02:44:08 um well it is but what i'm really seeking to get from you i'm given that you were deputy director at the time and therefore
02:44:15 therefore do you accept these matters fell within your responsibility of course i accept their response they they fell within my responsibility and i'm accountable for the advice that we provided at that time absolutely of
02:44:26 we provided at that time absolutely of course
02:44:28 course we considered at that time that the best way of taking this forward for a variety of reasons which i'm happy to go into that the work to deal with the coroner's
02:44:39 to deal with the coroner's recommendation could be and would be best to be accommodated within a fuller review of adb rather than a very specific review of the of of um the guidance
02:44:50 review of the of of um the guidance related to requirement b4 well let me try it this way i've read you these recommend these admissions in in full slowly i hope yes and that we can look at them again
02:45:01 can look at them again but to the best of your recollection are they faulty is there anything you can recall which you think the department has failed to take into account or which you think the department has
02:45:12 or which you think the department has taken into account it shouldn't have taken into account which would undermine the validity of these admissions well i'm not going to say anything that will undermine the validity of these admissions right clearly this is a department statement and i'm not going
02:45:24 department statement and i'm not going to go and say that very well um now um if we look at your witness statement of page 33 going back three pages paragraph 96 mr ledson can we do that
02:45:37 96 mr ledson can we do that you say there
02:45:49 uh i'm so sorry i i'm i've taken you to the wrong document i'd like to get back to the submissions my fault um can we get back to the previous document please clg three zeros three six three eight seven
02:46:01 seven page 33 paragraph 96 of the submissions um and they say this in the fourth line officials agreed that further general improvements could be made to the clarity and presentation of adb and the
02:46:14 clarity and presentation of adb and the document had already been earmarked for redrafting in accordance with the department's new style guide but they did not agree that it in its 2006 iteration it was so inaccessible that a competent professional for whom the
02:46:25 competent professional for whom the document was produced would not be able to understand the guidance it provided this led officials to conclude that there was nothing about recommendation for that was safety critical
02:46:38 for that was safety critical now just to be clear recommendation fours i think we've seen already it refers to all three of the recommendations in the three bullet points
02:46:46 points um now as we know you were an official at the time were you one of the officials who disagreed that in its 2006 iteration adb was so inaccessible that a competent
02:46:58 was so inaccessible that a competent professional would not be able to understand the guidance um
02:47:01 um well on this match i would have taken advice and i accepted the advice that came back that this was drafted in a way that competent professionals should be able to
02:47:12 professionals should be able to understand and use did you conclude yourself that there was nothing in recommendation for that was safety critical
02:47:18 critical um
02:47:24 i concluded that the approach that we proposed and which was agreed by ministers to um in the response to that
02:47:35 to um in the response to that recommendation was inappropriate at that time was an appropriate way of dealing with it you say you would have taken advice that this was drafted in a way that a competent professional should be able to
02:47:46 competent professional should be able to understand who did you well that would receive that advice from well i would discuss it with anthony bird and brian martin
02:47:54 martin so that's so when you say the advice that came back it's those those officials yes
02:48:01 how did you reach the view that there was nothing in recommendation for that was safety critical
02:48:10 well i would sorry be can we go back to recommendation for yes absolutely it's possible to get them on the screen together yes of course at clg four zeros
02:48:23 together yes of course at clg four zeros one eight seven zero please
02:48:29 and in that we need to go to page three
02:48:41 okay [Music]
02:48:44 [Music] so in relation to the three bullets there
02:48:49 there the first as i say in discussion with um with my colleagues i was
02:48:57 i was happy
02:48:59 that with the advice i received we discussed
02:49:03 discussed that um the changes to par the proof document be in 2006 had
02:49:10 had indeed
02:49:11 indeed addressed some of this that's not to say it couldn't be improved but i'd address some of this so that was the first point the second just pausing there if i can discuss with colleagues i'm assuming that's brilliant yeah sorry yes yeah
02:49:22 that's brilliant yeah sorry yes yeah just doing the best you can with your recollection did you did that discussion involve any aspect any element of approved document b which the 2006 version had addressed did
02:49:34 which the 2006 version had addressed did was there a discussion that there was a particular problem in 2000 or 2002 that had lain waiting for amendment in 2006 but which that 2006 amendment cured
02:49:47 well i made the sort of general point earlier on which is what i understand had been part of the problem that had caused confusion at the lack of all inquests but i was not i don't recall any discussion that there were
02:49:58 recall any discussion that there were other things that had been done in the 2006 version to cure as it were other problems with the 2000s did you interrogate their advice and say to them look anthony look bryan i just want to know just show me
02:50:10 bryan i just want to know just show me the 2000 version show me the 2006 version and point out to me what it is about the 2000 version that's that's uh cured by the 2006. i don't think we went i
02:50:21 i went to that degree of detail right so essentially is this right that you accepted their assurances i think that's probably
02:50:32 i think that's probably correct
02:50:33 correct without going into the detail yourself um i no i'm not going to pretend that i interrogated the detail of regulation of um that section of the ad that at that point did you ever
02:50:44 that at that point did you ever say to any minister expressly that you did not believe there was anything in recommendation for here on the screen that was life safety critical
02:50:54 no because we put up the advice initially to lord foster and then obviously um to the secretary of state i don't recall any discussions
02:51:05 of state i don't recall any discussions with either lord foster or the secretary of state about this there may have been with others but i was not involved in any to the very best of my recollection i'm sure i would recall if i had we will look at the ministerial submission to
02:51:17 look at the ministerial submission to lord foster in a moment did you seek to advise the minister to respond to the coroner and tell her the recommendation for was not safety critical well he didn't put it in those terms
02:51:29 well he didn't put it in those terms let's then turn to the ministerial submission made to uh lord foster as he then wasn't um
02:51:37 um he was responsible he was the minister i think responsible for the building regulations at the time yes correct
02:51:44 and dealing with the the coroner's recommendations to put it shortly this recommendation yes obviously there was quite an intensive process as you would have seen with other ministers advising one another yes yes absolutely the home office for example well that was part of
02:51:56 office for example well that was part of the department at the time so yes now um if we go to clg four zeroes one eight seven one
02:52:03 uh you can see that here is the submission sent to don foster on the 11th of april 2013 from brian martin direct to don foster yes
02:52:14 yes and copied to uh secretaries and the ps yeah uh lachlan quest housing quest rule 43 recommendations regarding building regulations
02:52:25 building regulations uh and uh it looks from the documents that we've got that this was cleared by you
02:52:31 you i would fully accept that even if it's my name is not one this is saying cleared by me then i would fully accept i cleared it indeed i'll just put a document into the into the record clg 50509 page four is where we would we
02:52:42 50509 page four is where we would we would find the clearance i don't want to take you to it okay well i fully accept that um do you know who proposed the recommendations about how the minister should reply so
02:52:53 so i think it would have been an iterative process
02:52:57 process there would have been discussion i'm sure
02:52:59 sure before penn was put to paper
02:53:05 certainly i'd have expected and i think this is the case that brian martin would have discussed it with anthony bird and although i cannot remember that we discussed this on data x i find it i
02:53:16 discussed this on data x i find it i fully accept that i would have discussed it also or they would have discussed it with me given the importance of this right would they have brought this recommendation to you you can see it under the heading recommendation and gone through it with you and explained
02:53:27 gone through it with you and explained it to you um i think they probably would have done
02:53:31 have done um and we would have discussed it why do you say probably in woodhouse was that the practice well the practice for something like this would have been to well we could have done it two ways
02:53:42 well we could have done it two ways either we could have had a discussion before pen was put to paper or alternatively someone could have put pen to paper just to provide something for people to focus on and concentrate on as
02:53:53 people to focus on and concentrate on as a sort of you know and a first draft now i don't recall exactly what approach that we took on this
02:54:01 on this but um clearly i cleared this submission so i would have looked at what was being recommended and i would have said okay now can i have uh can i keep this on the screen and
02:54:13 uh can i keep this on the screen and have back on the screen please the recommendation at clg401870 page three i want to compare the recommendation made to don foster by
02:54:25 made to don foster by brian martin as sanctioned by you with the coroner's recommendation in the first bullet point under the recommendation for yeah and
02:54:36 and if you compare them just look across to the right hand side and look at the recommendation it which is a review of adb to ensure that it provides clear guidance in that first bullet point as i've already read to you
02:54:48 already read to you yes
02:54:49 yes i'm not going to read it out again it's there on the screen now look across to the left hand side and look at the recommendation
02:54:59 to respond an a acknowledge that the guidance and approved document b fire safety can be difficult for inexperienced people to apply
02:55:07 apply b relates to the replacement window competent person schemes and c set out the government's intentions to issue a revised approved document b in 2016-17 following a full review of the fire
02:55:18 following a full review of the fire safety aspects of the building regulations yeah this would use the department's new style guide for easy to read approved documents and take account of current research which is due to deliver in 2015. now when you cleared that did you
02:55:31 now when you cleared that did you understand the recommendation particularly in a and c to be to be uh accepting or to be rejecting the coroner's recommendation
02:55:43 so i'm presume because i can't recall the detail of the submission that there's nothing further in the submission that sort of provides background or context to
02:55:52 to the
02:55:54 the what is said in paragraph four
02:55:58 did you have a clear understanding about what the coroner was recommending in that first bullet point so
02:56:07 so yes i believe i probably i would have done
02:56:10 done which was what which was that she was concerned that the guidance in the approved document which was current at the time the refurbishment work was undertaken on nakano house which was
02:56:25 was undertaken on nakano house which was as you've said the 2000 version needed to be improved
02:56:32 improved and
02:56:34 and as i've said and i'm looking at this submission we probably should have said in this submission that if we don't if it's not said elsewhere that the work done on the 2006
02:56:45 2006 version of the approved document did address some of these issues improved how
02:56:50 how sorry the improved how you say in the last answer uh that um
02:56:57 um she was concerned that the guidance or could be clarified 2000 needed to be improved
02:57:03 improved well my question is really this did you understand that the recommendation to don foster was that he should accept the recommendation in that first bullet point
02:57:14 that first bullet point or reject it well i think that what we're proposing and we is a
02:57:22 it's a it's not an absolute acceptance and it's not an absolute rejection because what we are saying here and what's said in the secretary of state's reply is yes we will do a review of adb
02:57:33 reply is yes we will do a review of adb but it will be a fuller review and we hope to complete it by 2016-17 that is what the secretary of state's reply said now
02:57:42 now i know that the coroner didn't say you know this needs to be done within the next year within the next two years because clearly there was no discussion at the inquest about um you know what the government's plans were for adb
02:57:55 the government's plans were for adb can you explain why the recommendation that you cleared to the minister didn't spell out to the coroner that you are neither accepting nor rejecting
02:58:06 accepting nor rejecting her recommendation in that first bullet point
02:58:10 which is very particular well i accept it's very particular and with hindsight then a i accept we perhaps should have been clearer well
02:58:21 we perhaps should have been clearer well with hindsight i accept the advice could have been clearer on that point and b flowing from that we could have been more explicit in the i was suggested to the secretary of
02:58:32 i was suggested to the secretary of state that he was more explicit in the reply
02:58:35 reply that was sent to the coroner about that point so it was absolutely clear
02:58:41 clear about what the intention was
02:58:45 was but it's not there is it well i've accepted that no no and why was that
02:58:52 uh i can't i don't i can't i don't know um
02:58:57 um was there a sense in which providing this rather general blandishment to the coroner would would might satisfy her
02:59:08 might satisfy her and mean
02:59:09 and mean nonetheless that government wasn't committed
02:59:12 committed to including in its review the clear guidance she asked for in the first bullet point no i don't accept it in the terms that you've um you've described it to me i
02:59:25 you've um you've described it to me i where we were rightly or wrongly
02:59:29 is that we we knew we had to do work on approved document b we'd commissioned research prior to any of this
02:59:38 of this on some issues we knew it was a big job we knew that by the time we had finished that it would have been 10 years plus since the last review of approved
02:59:50 since the last review of approved document b
02:59:53 we knew that we had a lot else on our plate
02:59:57 plate with the housing standards review and everything else so we reached a view as in the
03:00:06 subparagraph c of paragraph four of the advice that the best way forward in delivering an improved approved document b as a whole
03:00:17 whole was to conduct the full review so that would in you know and yes that meant that the judgment we took then from all of the experience that we had
03:00:29 from all of the experience that we had over the length of time it took to undertake those types of pieces of work for example you know research which would not report until 2015 that that
03:00:40 would not report until 2015 that that time scale of 2016 2017 was a reasonable time scale to suggest for the review of adb
03:00:51 of adb just one or two questions if i may before the break it's right to think as a matter of chronology that
03:00:58 that the date of this letter was almost four years
03:01:01 years after the fire at latino house in which six people died correct and the date of the promised review 2016 2017 would be seven or eight years after
03:01:12 would be seven or eight years after those fatalities was there not a case did you consider taking the first bullet point and reviewing adb to ensure that that specific
03:01:24 specific uh
03:01:24 uh recommendation was
03:01:28 was carried out in in a revision without necessarily having to go through the whole process of amending a reviewing approved document be wholesale
03:01:39 reviewing approved document be wholesale which is after all not something that the rec that the coroner asked for i accept um i accept that the coroner was obviously focused on adb sorry um the guidance on
03:01:51 sorry um the guidance on requirement b4 as opposed to adb as a whole i mean i thought long and hard about this
03:02:00 it wouldn't have been a straightforward job just to have done um a change to ad to section b4 we would have still had to go through all of that process which we talked about earlier in
03:02:11 process which we talked about earlier in terms of
03:02:12 terms of you know justifying costs and benefits and all of that stuff so it would not have been a five-minute job and we can get a change to adb out out of the door
03:02:25 we were focused on this in terms of the overall programme of work
03:02:32 looking at it now
03:02:35 yes perhaps we should have said taking a harder look at this and been bolder about saying well actually can we do something more quickly with this even if it means for example that all the
03:02:47 if it means for example that all the other things that we've got on our plate or priorities we have to say sorry we could have put those down the track and
03:02:55 and clearly you know we did not put that those options to ministers and perhaps we should i mean given that this was life safety i think the question really is why was
03:03:07 think the question really is why was that
03:03:08 that exercise not the matter of upwards priority
03:03:15 well
03:03:18 it's very difficult for me to say we thought we were doing the right thing in the way that we were trying to approach
03:03:26 approach this recommendation um i accept all that you say about it um i mean that was the view that we took at the time mr chairman is that a convenient moment
03:03:37 mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is right to let some well it's time we had a break we can all get some lunch we'll stop now and resume please at five past two
03:03:46 two and again please don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to then of course the break thank you
03:03:59 thank you five past two please
03:04:21 you