Witness Ledson's cross-examination reveals how the government department repeatedly failed to prioritize safety-critical changes to building regulations following the 2013 Lakanal House coroner's recommendations. Despite a commitment to deliver revised Approved Document B by March 2017, deregulation priorities, resource constraints, and ministerial approval delays meant the commitment was never met before Grenfell.
00:00:24 would you ask Mr ledson to come back in please
00:00:36 foreign
00:00:38 [Music]
00:00:44 were you aware in 2013 that Brian Martin had been one of the authors of the guidance in section 12 of approved document b as it then stood I think what I probably would have been
00:00:55 I think what I probably would have been because he was the fire safety professional at the time of um approved document was produced yeah the 2006 Edition yes yes did you ever consider or consider the possibility
00:01:08 consider or consider the possibility that Brian Martin was unable to be objective about the terms of guidance in approved document B and about any criticisms or shortcomings in it no not at all no
00:01:18 at all no now let's turn to the um the second recommendation of the coroner clg40 is one eight seven zero yeah
00:01:30 and you can see there the second bullet point down yeah uh which is uh two
00:01:38 two yes review ADB to see that it's expressed in words and adopts the format as it said which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just
00:01:49 refurbishment of buildings and not just to professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control matters now can you confirm was it your understanding that that recommendation was accepted or rejected well
00:02:01 well um
00:02:02 um we had already realized and appreciated the need to revise the format of the approved documents we had a program of work and we um expected or you know the way we approached this was to when we
00:02:15 way we approached this was to when we got around to the review of ADB put it into that new style which we had sort of um
00:02:22 um originally piloted with the what was in fact the new approved document case I I would regard that recommendation is being accepted right now let's look at the submission that's
00:02:33 now let's look at the submission that's it got centered on Foster again can we do the same exercise we should have that up on the screen at the same time it's clg40 is one eight seven one
00:02:44 uh page one paragraph four
00:02:48 and there it is um now at this time on the right hand side yes
00:02:52 side yes um
00:02:55 and I've read this to you before could you confirm of these three subparagraphs a b or c which sub paragraph relates to the second of the coroner's recommendations there in the second
00:03:06 recommendations there in the second bullet point on the left it would be the sub paragraph C and the final sentence so what we're talking about there is the new easy to read style guide which we as I say we'd already piloted
00:03:19 which we as I say we'd already piloted in chain in one of the in the approved documents produced in 2013 or 20 at the end of 2012 right and we and that's indeed what we did with the plain English review which we commissioned
00:03:30 English review which we commissioned River to do a approved document the in uh you know in 2015 right so so not a c so C yes yes
00:03:41 so C yes yes the um
00:03:43 the um by adopting C I said we're all taking that approach instead impact also at the very least it would help with a right did you agree with a so I acknowledged that the guidance in
00:03:54 so I acknowledged that the guidance in approved document B can be difficult for inexperience yes that was a you know I I could understand um why that might be the case right what did you mean or what did the department mean in the in the um submission to Mr
00:04:08 mean in the in the um submission to Mr Foster of inexperienced people well I think what the what we're talking about there are people who would um not be
00:04:17 be um fire safety Professionals for example or fire engineers so um for example you know a a building owner or someone a
00:04:28 you know a a building owner or someone a sort of General Builder who may not be have detailed understanding and knowledge of fire safety matters right so by that answer were you
00:04:39 right so by that answer were you agreeing or did you as a department accept that approved document b as it stood was difficult for the wide range of people and bodies engaged in the
00:04:51 of people and bodies engaged in the construction industry to apply not only professionals ah
00:05:01 well I mean there's always sorry I'm going to be a bit discursive here um
00:05:07 um well we have to think very carefully about the audience for for a document like that
00:05:12 like that and how far in terms of simplifying it you reduce it to a level which is actually no use to anyone because it's just a set of sort of General statements and
00:05:23 set of sort of General statements and how far
00:05:24 how far it does need to go into into detail about quite technical matters and um
00:05:35 and um so it was it was yes of course it was a challenging document to read and you know
00:05:43 know I would find it challenging very challenging document to read as a as a lady person so yes I I would accept that it would have been a challenging document for um your an average builder for example
00:05:55 um your an average builder for example to read but on the other hand given that the Builder is the responsible person for ensuring compliance with the regulations if they don't understand it they should be
00:06:06 don't understand it they should be talking to someone who does yes but do you agree that simplification and clarifications aren't always the same thing
00:06:12 thing and they can be different yes yes and ideally one wants to have a document that is as simple as possible without compromising its technical Integrity on the one hand whilst making it as crystal clear to the reader that is absolutely
00:06:24 clear to the reader that is absolutely that's absolutely the ideal of any technical document but the point I think the coroner was making is what I think you were accepting which was that there is a wide range of were was a wide range of of people and bodies out there not
00:06:37 of of people and bodies out there not only professionals who needed to understand and use ATP but for whom the guidance was not sufficiently easy to apply
00:06:45 apply well I think I would accept if people were saying that's you know the document could be improved in terms of clarity of course I would accept that can we go to Anthony Byrd's statement please clg30 is
00:06:58 Anthony Byrd's statement please clg30 is 19461 page 19 paragraph 46.
00:07:15 and at the end of the paragraph on that page he says this
00:07:21 says this uh
00:07:24 he says I should add I should however add here that it is important to note that the approved documents are technical documents and therefore will never be considered accessible reading for all they're designed as I've set out
00:07:35 for all they're designed as I've set out above to be read interpreted and applied by technically competent people in the industry who are familiar with the functional requirements of the regulations that underpin them do you agree with what Mr bird says
00:07:47 do you agree with what Mr bird says there that the approved documents were designed to be used by technically competent people in the industry familiar with the functional requirements of the regulations yeah I would agree with that statement right did you therefore agree with the coroner
00:07:59 did you therefore agree with the coroner that there was a wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance refurbishment of buildings who were required to use and to understand ATB not only professionals
00:08:11 understand ATB not only professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge in building and building control masses well people are undertaking building work of
00:08:22 people are undertaking building work of whatever nature of course would only be expected to be aware of what they needed to do to comply with the regulations and using
00:08:34 comply with the regulations and using the approved document relevant approved document guidance appropriately in so doing
00:08:41 doing for something
00:08:44 like this fire safety particularly if there's a particularly complex fire safety issue then as I said if they were not or did not feel confident in understanding
00:08:56 understanding the what was required of them then they should take competent advice so was it your view an agreement with Mr bird that in fact that the readership of
00:09:07 bird that in fact that the readership of ADB was not the wide range of people and bodies engaged in the construction industry not limited to professionals but technically competent people what whatever that means
00:09:21 well
00:09:25 and the approved documents guidance as I said is they were there to help those with duties under the regulations achieve compliance
00:09:36 achieve compliance and there will be a wide range of Duty holders through from you know your the white van man if I may use that term in you know you know through to
00:09:47 in you know you know through to designers Architects Etc it is always and always would be a very difficult job to try and draft an approved document to try and cover both of those audiences with something like
00:09:59 of those audiences with something like approved document B and this is how I read what Mr bird is saying here we needed to ensure that the guidance provided the guidance for
00:10:11 provided the guidance for those engaged in providing advice designs
00:10:17 designs Etc
00:10:18 Etc to be able to understand what they needed to ensure their clients or if they were doing the work themselves they themselves needed to do to achieve compliance well you say that if they
00:10:29 compliance well you say that if they were doing the work themselves that that's the point isn't it that somebody with a high-rise for example I don't know very many people with high rises but if they if they were might
00:10:40 rises but if they if they were might decide they didn't want to spend that much money on professionals and do it themselves was that person who didn't want to engage with a safety engineer or an architect but had sufficient design
00:10:51 an architect but had sufficient design expertise themselves or thought they did was that person the readership to whom these documents were aimed well if that person was decided to do that then um
00:11:03 person was decided to do that then um you know if they're not going to take account of the approved document then presumably they would be going to do something different from the approved document guidance which of course they are entitled to do which of course then
00:11:14 are entitled to do which of course then building control needs to sign off so they need to have that discussion with building control about what they're proposing to do is not in line with the approved document but it meets the relevant functional requirement because
00:11:25 relevant functional requirement because of a b and c and if they're going to get that you know have a positive outcome from that discussion with building control then they've obviously got to be able to demonstrate to building control
00:11:36 able to demonstrate to building control that they know what they're talking about right I mean my example but it was perhaps a bit extreme but but does it come to this there was a tension between the coroner's expectations of clarity
00:11:47 the coroner's expectations of clarity and simplicity so as to accept allow a wide readership to access the approved documents on the one hand and what Mr bird is saying here with which you agree
00:11:58 bird is saying here with which you agree on the other well obviously I can't and should not try and put um and you know second guess what was in the coroner's mind
00:12:07 mind when she made that recommendation but clearly as I the word I would use is is balance if the word you wish to use is tension then I would accept yes there is that
00:12:19 that need for balance there is that tension there is that challenge um I mean the other uh in terms of providing clear guidance and making sure that in terms of
00:12:30 that in terms of simplifying um putting into more lay persons language or terms for example you then do not lose the substance of what's needed in a particularly technical area
00:12:43 needed in a particularly technical area I mean the other aspect of this of course is that industry bodies themselves May produce their own guidance
00:12:52 guidance um in terms of you know how their membership for example may need to comply with with guide with um with with the requirements so that there's that aspect to it as well
00:13:08 now let's look back at the submission yes CLG 40 is one eight seven one page two paragraph nine
00:13:20 page two paragraph nine under considerations it says this at the inquest it was acknowledged that the fencer scheme did not extend to certification of the wall panels and that the panels themselves
00:13:31 panels and that the panels themselves did not meet the guidance given An approved document B unfortunately the expert witness appointed to advise the inquest gave confused and conflicting evidence on what was required by
00:13:42 evidence on what was required by building regulations at the time this was to some extent due to the process of cross-examination and it became necessary for me to give evidence to clarify the situation
00:13:53 clarify the situation now the me there is Brian Martin correctly he signs this document yes from Facebook um now I just want to focus on the the part of that paragraph after the words
00:14:05 part of that paragraph after the words unfortunately and then um go on to the next paragraph and then I'll ask a question given the confusion in court it's unsurprising that the coroner has criticized the clarity of the guidance
00:14:16 criticized the clarity of the guidance in approved document B and has called for it to be made clearer now were you told that one of the experts instructed to advise the coroner who was a chartered surveyor from racs
00:14:27 who was a chartered surveyor from racs by the name of David Walker um misunderstood the guidance in ADB when giving evidence to the inquest well I was certainly told and knew that
00:14:40 well I was certainly told and knew that Mr Martin had been asked to give evidence to the um Coroner's inquest to help clarify the application and interpretation of the building regulations as they would
00:14:53 the building regulations as they would have applied to the refurbishment work and that was my recollection is that Mr Martin wasn't originally asked to provide expert witness advice but then because of the way the the inquest
00:15:07 because of the way the the inquest unfolded he was then asked to provide that expert witness advice um it's a testimony right and did you believe that the con confusion and conflicting evidence was due simply to
00:15:19 conflicting evidence was due simply to the process of cross-examination as opposed to a problem inherent in the regulations well I don't know and I cannot recall exactly what may have
00:15:30 cannot recall exactly what may have given rise to the confusion as to whether as you say it was in the process of cross-examination or um how far it might have been based on a on the evidence that Mr Walker gave
00:15:44 on the evidence that Mr Walker gave in relation to ADB 2000 uh no taking the sentence in paragraph nine which starts with the word unfortunately and going uh into the second sentence of paragraph 10
00:15:57 into the second sentence of paragraph 10 those are in a sense uh statements of fact about what happened at the inquest to get together with a little bit of uh of um description by by Brian Martin
00:16:08 of um description by by Brian Martin um did he tell you himself
00:16:12 himself anything of what we see in those two paragraphs before you saw this submission um what I would have been aware of the the issues of course because I would have been aware that Mr Martin had been
00:16:23 have been aware that Mr Martin had been asked to give expert witness at the time did what Mr Martin told you and did what Mr Martin wrote on the page here lead you to
00:16:33 you to disregard or take less seriously the criticism by the coroner about the clarity of ADB no I don't think that we are disregarding the recommendation made by
00:16:47 disregarding the recommendation made by the coroner that ADB
00:16:51 ADB um the about her her criticism of the clarity of the ADB guidance there was the issue which we discussed before lunch as to whether the particular ADB guidance that was
00:17:03 the particular ADB guidance that was being referred to as the 2000 version that I fully accept that she was sort of looking looking forward um but I don't think I don't see a contradiction between what is being said here and the way in which we've
00:17:17 here and the way in which we've um then recommended to Mr to Lord Foster how we should approach that particular recommendation did you yourself read the transcript to check for yourself whether
00:17:28 transcript to check for yourself whether Brian Martin uh what Brian Martin is saying is correct about the process across examination uh and to make sure that
00:17:39 and to make sure that it wasn't Brian Martin himself who had exacerbated the confusion no I did not did you interrogate Mr Martin about why he thought that the process of
00:17:51 he thought that the process of cross-examination had confused the inquests expert uh well it was discussed with Mr Martin did you ask him did you test uh whether it was fair to blame the
00:18:03 uh whether it was fair to blame the expert in this way
00:18:07 well I don't recall saying you know posing a question in quite that way I mean the um I can't remember the exact circumstances
00:18:18 I can't remember the exact circumstances in which Mr Martin was asked to provide expert witness testimony but clearly someone presumably the coroner felt that it was necessary to have the Department's expert provide testimony
00:18:29 Department's expert provide testimony that would have been a decision for the coroner not for Mr Martin to say I'm going to turn up to provide expert testimony
00:18:37 testimony so there must have been something happening in the in the way that the inquest developed which led the coroner to ask
00:18:45 to ask um for Mr Martin to provide testimony Mr Martin may have been the ex the Department's expert but he wasn't independent was he not least because he drafted the approved document b or at
00:18:57 drafted the approved document b or at least the amendments in 2002. well I think the coroner would have failed quite rightly so that this is a government publication [Music]
00:19:04 [Music] so let's ask the government what they think is around what this is what this about this document about this document yes did you sorry I'm so sorry so um
00:19:15 yes did you sorry I'm so sorry so um absolutely so um very reasonable request and in these circumstances we would eventually obviously exceed and we would say we would be able to help you by
00:19:27 say we would be able to help you by providing
00:19:28 providing um you know our expert our technical expert Mr X or whoever to provide expert witness
00:19:34 witness testimony I mean it's it's you know it doesn't happen obviously very often but I'm sure there would have been other occasions when Department the department may have been
00:19:45 Department the department may have been asked to provide expert witness testimony in this sort of way it's not a completely unique circumstance
00:19:56 did you yourself interrogate the question whether the confusion in court had Arisen from the evidence and the way it had come out on the one hand as opposed to something inherently
00:20:07 as opposed to something inherently confusing in the in the regulatory document approved document B well when we discussed it and as I say it was both with um I mean Mr bird would
00:20:18 it was both with um I mean Mr bird would have been involved in those discussions as well my understanding was that the Corona's inquest and therefore the testimony had been
00:20:31 and therefore the testimony had been focused on and what was understood by the 2000 version which had led to the situation where Mr Martin was then asked to give expert witness testimony now as I say quite how
00:20:46 witness testimony now as I say quite how it was felt that confusion arose I'm afraid I can't say
00:20:54 say did you give any thought to the the the possibility that David Walker as the expert from rics called to advise the inquest
00:21:08 was representative fairly representative of those in the profession those in the industry
00:21:16 industry well I can't comment on Mr Mr Walker's credentials clearly if he was appointed by the inquest he had had absolutely the right
00:21:25 right write credentials to fulfill that um fulfill that role all I can say is that clearly it was felt as the inquest unfolded that the view of the government
00:21:37 unfolded that the view of the government was needed to clarify what was emerging from the relevant witness evidence and therefore Mr Martin was asked
00:21:49 therefore Mr Martin was asked um all we offered Mr Martin to provide that evidence that expert evidence yes does that tell us that you at least had understood that the the profession or industry if you like or some segment of
00:22:01 industry if you like or some segment of it at least was laboring under a confusion about the meaning and effect of this part of the proof document be well clearly if um if there was if
00:22:12 well clearly if um if there was if an expert like Mr Walker was um was was always felt that there was a need for another expert other than Mr Walker to give evidence then clearly there was obviously there were some issues with
00:22:23 obviously there were some issues with that particular guidance which was the um the two as I understand that the 2000 version of ADB now can we look at uh
00:22:34 now can we look at uh paragraph 4C of the submission on page one if we can go back to the previous page
00:22:42 uh that says set out the government's intentions to issue a revised approved document B in 2016-17 follow following a full review of the far safety aspects of building regulations this would use the
00:22:54 building regulations 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 said or Mr Martin said with your blessing 2016 to
00:23:06 Martin said with your blessing 2016 to 17 what was meant
00:23:09 20 sorry what was meant by 2016-17 um well I think it's reasonable to assume that so we were thinking about the financial Year 2016-17 yes I see so
00:23:20 the financial Year 2016-17 yes I see so would that mean a deadline of the 31st of March 2017. um what an expectation that it would be done by then yes we say an expectation yes I see so so that so for 2016-17 we should read 31st
00:23:33 that so for 2016-17 we should read 31st of March 2017. I think it's I think oh yes right
00:23:38 yes right now that was
00:23:42 almost exactly four years after the recommendation made by the coroner wasn't it yes were you concerned about that period of time
00:23:54 that period of time well as I said before lunch um we looked at this in the context of that we needed to do a forward we needed to review much of ADB anyway there were
00:24:06 to review much of ADB anyway there were the issues that we were researching there was the fact that in the normal course of events a review of ADB would be needed
00:24:18 a review of ADB would be needed and a reasonable time scale for that review Taking account of the research which which I mentioned and other things suggested to us that a an end date
00:24:31 suggested to us that a an end date for that review of 2016-17 was reasonable and that's why we suggested that in the in the submission we discussed before lunch whether we could have uh
00:24:45 lunch whether we could have uh taken out a specific review a revision of chapter 12. um
00:24:53 um we didn't I explained why I explained that
00:24:58 that um
00:24:59 um that wouldn't have been necessarily A straightforward of exercise it would have taken some time it wouldn't have um we'd still had to go through the regulatory hopes Etc which we've discussed but I
00:25:11 hopes Etc which we've discussed but I accept with hindsight we could have offered that as a possibility to the minister explained the implications of so doing so that um he could have then taken a
00:25:22 so that um he could have then taken a view as to which those two options he prefer he would he would he would recommend did it we didn't do that and you know and I take responsibility as her if that is regarded as a
00:25:33 her if that is regarded as a as as a as something we should have done now let's go to his witness statement uh this is CLG three zeros one nine four seven one for Lord pickles uh and if we
00:25:46 seven one for Lord pickles uh and if we go to page 17 in little pickles's statement paragraph 56 he says
00:25:55 and this is about this submission in the last two in the last uh third of the sen of the paragraph there's a sentence that uh starts I recollect you see yes and he
00:26:06 uh starts I recollect you see yes and he says I recollect querying the time scale at a meeting with the permanent secretary and being informed that the research was substantial and that the issues were complex which was why the revision date was as projected Minister stated that the intention was that it
00:26:18 stated that the intention was that it would be published in an easier to read style albeit would necessarily still contain technical material
00:26:25 now were you aware yourself that Lord pickles the minister had queried the time scale no you weren't no I'm just well I do not recall it whether it was mentioned to me at the time I
00:26:37 it was mentioned to me at the time I don't remember um I think I would remember it if it had been right can you account for why that query didn't come back down to you because I would imagine obviously the
00:26:48 because I would imagine obviously the secretary of state would have had regular meetings with the permanent secretary
00:26:53 secretary and this obviously was something which Lord pickles wish to check with the permanent secretary quite right you know obviously because it was an
00:27:04 you know obviously because it was an important point and um the permanent secretary you know replied
00:27:10 replied in the way that he did um
00:27:17 that is all I can assume from that um description in Lord pickles's statement now we saw that the submission went up to Don Foster at dated the 11th
00:27:29 went up to Don Foster at dated the 11th of April correct 2013. if we go to CLG 50s 485
00:27:42 uh if you look at the second email down on the page here is an email from Don Foster to Brian Martin copied among to
00:27:53 Foster to Brian Martin copied among to among other people you and Anthony Byrd Brian DF and is dated the 15th of April 2013. Brian DF has senior servant agrees to all recommendations in paraphor so so
00:28:04 to all recommendations in paraphor so so the agreement came pretty quickly it did yes
00:28:08 yes now can we turn on a month to May 2013 and the submission to Lord pickles we know that advice about how to respond to the lateral house coroner was agreed collated and submitted to Lord pickles
00:28:20 collated and submitted to Lord pickles Eric pickles for approval on the 13th of May I'll just show you one document hom 404397
00:28:36 and here's an email which fixes the date Monday the 13th of May 2013. PSTA submission covering a draft Secretary of State response nxb to the rule 43 sent by the
00:28:49 response nxb to the rule 43 sent by the coroner
00:28:50 coroner now um if we now turn to your statement at page 46 paragraph 177 you say there on 13th of May 2013 I was copied into a
00:29:03 on 13th of May 2013 I was copied into a submission by Louise Upton regarding a draft reply from the Secretary of State to the coroner's rule 43 recommendations following the Lackland house inquest the submission set up the various responses are set out in the submissions to
00:29:14 are set out in the submissions to individual ministers and the next I do not recall seeing or commenting on the submission in draft but it reflected the advice previously supplied to Don Foster on the issues for which we were responsible
00:29:25 responsible now if we go back to the submission itself please if we can go to the the um the document at hom 40403
00:29:34 I'll show you the first page of that before we go into the middle of it here is the uh the response uh from Louise Upton to the Secretary of
00:29:45 uh from Louise Upton to the Secretary of State 13th of May 2013 that was attached to her email that day as we've seen if we go please to page four we can see on page four
00:29:57 uh uh paragraph 17 and this is under the heading on page three we don't need to go back to it building regulations and what is said at
00:30:09 building regulations and what is said at paragraph 17 is a full review of the approved document would require significant resources and have a disruptive effect on the construction industry instead we propose to seek confirmation from fencer and other
00:30:20 confirmation from fencer and other scheme providers for replacement windows to ensure that their members are fully aware of the scope of the schemes and the requirements applicable to their work we would aim to complete this by the end of the summer without the need
00:30:31 the end of the summer without the need for the Department to divert significant resources the department has also commissioned research intended to feed into a future edition of approved document this work is due complete in 2015 and we expect that a revised
00:30:43 2015 and we expect that a revised approved document B could be published during 2016-17
00:30:48 now the words uh
00:30:52 uh have a disruptive effect on the construction industry those words there um it appears from the documents we have
00:31:03 um it appears from the documents we have that they were added by Brian Martin on the 8th of May 2013. did you know that I didn't know that let me show you a document to make that good if I can CLG
00:31:14 document to make that good if I can CLG 50 is 559
00:31:21 and if we turn on in that document please
00:31:27 please to paragraph 17 which we'll find on page four in fact it's the whole of the paragraph and indeed the surrounding paragraphs
00:31:38 and indeed the surrounding paragraphs that are added
00:31:41 that take it from me comes from Brian Martin okay um did you did you agree with the addition of those words within that paragraph
00:31:52 paragraph as a rationale uh for a for um
00:31:58 um not having a full I'm I cannot recollect if I saw Brian Mr Martin's proposed amendments
00:32:10 amendments I mean you may have evidence that I was involved in an email chain I just do not recall right do you know how a full review of ADB might have a disruptive effect on the construction industry as Mr Martin has
00:32:22 construction industry as Mr Martin has suggested
00:32:24 suggested well I think that um what Mr Martin would be alluding to there would be the fact that any major change to an approved document particular
00:32:35 approved document particular particularly particularly if there were significant technical changes in terms of Standards to be achieved or ways of demonstrating compliance would inevitably entail quite
00:32:49 compliance would inevitably entail quite a significant familiarization process for the industry um which could you know
00:33:00 which which I mean disruptive is perhaps if I'd writing this not a word I would have used but um would have happened an effect on the construction industry
00:33:11 effect on the construction industry um and I know that um some changes for example to to approve documents in earlier years there had been quite a bit of concern
00:33:22 there had been quite a bit of concern about the effects of major changes and how they were and the impact on industry so I think that is probably what Mr Martin
00:33:30 Martin was getting at when he um he used that that expression do you recall that in 2005
00:33:37 2005 well between 2004 and 2006 there had been a full review and a consultation on the changes to ADB well I'm aware of that yes had that led to disruption in the construction
00:33:49 to disruption in the construction industry um I don't know because I wasn't around at the time
00:33:58 why would it be disruptive to the industry to receive a document particularly in relation to fire safety that guided them with Clarity and accessibility about what they could and
00:34:09 accessibility about what they could and couldn't do well as I said um if the document as well as providing that Clarity and simplicity was introducing new ways of demonstrating
00:34:20 introducing new ways of demonstrating compliance new standards for example then inevitably that's inevitably going to have some impact on the industry there is at the very least the need to familiarize themselves with
00:34:33 the need to familiarize themselves with the new guidance and if there are significant new approaches which are being set out in the approved document then the industry would need to adapt accordingly isn't that always the case
00:34:45 accordingly isn't that always the case even in relation to cyclical reviews um well that is always and that is always a you know an issue which is why we often have very significant transitional periods for um changes to approve documents or
00:34:58 for um changes to approve documents or regulations this was an area of the UK economy wasn't it in respect of which the government was trying to reduce the burden of Regulation and stimulate economically
00:35:10 economically yes
00:35:11 yes and as we've seen your department was a deregulating department and was proud of the fact or at least wanted to make sure that the Star Chamber knew of it yeah he wanted to make sure that the Star Chamber knew of it yes right that's a
00:35:23 Chamber knew of it yes right that's a fair distinction and how much was the Department's reticence to launch a full review as reflected in the words on the page in red here linked to those concerns to
00:35:35 red here linked to those concerns to those ambitions
00:35:37 well
00:35:41 there are a number of aspects to this so one aspect I think would have would have been influential um would be not having sort of
00:35:52 um would be not having sort of piecemeal I'm going to use the term piecemeal but I don't want that to be taken in any sort of dismissive sense but sort of individual changes to bits of an approved document every year or every 18 months so there's a drip feed
00:36:04 every 18 months so there's a drip feed of changes and everyone is having to get used to another change the approved document so that's why we felt uh it was the best approach was to conduct this as
00:36:15 the best approach was to conduct this as a single formal review which indeed is what was the original intention of the future of building control um review uh proposals in 2008
00:36:28 um review uh proposals in 2008 so
00:36:29 so um that would be a way of Trying to minimize that transitional and familiarization upheaval that um I would be talking about and clearly and I don't
00:36:40 be talking about and clearly and I don't know
00:36:41 know I would not just I want to argue that um a succession of you know changes happening rapidly in perhaps in what to the outside world may feel seem
00:36:54 what to the outside world may feel seem to be quite an incoherent way it would be disruptive to that industry and that was something that we wished to avoid and that's why as I said we
00:37:05 avoid and that's why as I said we thought the best approach would be to do a big bang sorry that's the wrong term do a a full review of um of approved document B recognizing that that would
00:37:16 document B recognizing that that would take the period of time [Music]
00:37:19 [Music] um
00:37:20 um set out in the advice we gave to ministers and even though that wasn't something that the current who had asked you to do it was not something that the coroner had asked us to do no but we had other things that we felt or we
00:37:31 we had other things that we felt or we were looking we were starting to think needed to be done with approved document B and even though doing a full review would plunge you straight into the exercise of one in by this team this
00:37:42 exercise of one in by this team this stage two out and the red Tape Challenge well it wouldn't have plunged us into the red Tape Challenge because that was existing stock of Regulation but it would have we'd have had to go through the one in two out hurdles um really but
00:37:56 um really but um
00:37:56 um again
00:38:01 we probably felt oh well if I had thought about it at the time I would have been concerned that doing a piecemeal review in fact no I
00:38:13 doing a piecemeal review in fact no I you know we did think about this because this was a conscious decision and
00:38:19 and I was concerned that if we undertook piecemeal reviews of ADB a the disruptive effect that I talked about they
00:38:31 they that
00:38:33 that we actually could be more difficult to get through some of the regulatory hurdles because this would be a self-standing change which we would need to justify in its own right and we wouldn't be able to claim sorry
00:38:46 and we wouldn't be able to claim sorry deregulation elsewhere in the building regulations to help get through that and see um I had to be cognizant of the resources available in my team and the other priorities which my team were
00:38:59 other priorities which my team were being given at that point in time to come to a
00:39:03 come to a to you about what
00:39:07 met the intention of the coroner's recommendations clearly what would enable us to deal with the part B issues in the round and Achieve an outcome that sort of
00:39:20 and Achieve an outcome that sort of helped as best we could made all of those various different imperatives and is everything you've just said the totality of the factors
00:39:32 said the totality of the factors that went into the thinking
00:39:36 well I think um I think I provide somewhere in my witness statement a sort of quite an extensive uh rationale for the timetable which um I do have my witness statement here I
00:39:47 um I do have my witness statement here I don't obviously don't want to refer to it outside of documents on the screen but I do set out in my witness statement somewhere
00:39:54 somewhere um quite a list of which and I may well have missed things which I put in my witness statement from what I've just said to you you see what what you've just given us doesn't include life safety and this
00:40:06 doesn't include life safety and this being recommendations arising out of an inquest in which six people died well clearly we were wanting to ensure that
00:40:16 that um
00:40:17 um what we were doing was ensuring that approved document B um the new version of approved document would be addressed all of the various issues
00:40:28 issues that we were identifying all of which had a potential Life Safety aspect to them
00:40:36 but did Life Safety play any part in the time the time frame selected 31st of March 2017. well
00:40:46 well I know obviously at the back of our mind all the time we were thinking about well how can what can we do to ensure that ADB
00:40:56 ADB is uh is is is is is is is fit for purpose for the future and that was the whole purpose of doing the review of ADB well isn't your answer just now the
00:41:07 well isn't your answer just now the point it was at the back of your mind wasn't at the front of your minds well
00:41:17 we were looking to
00:41:23 to see what we could do within the parameters which I have described to deal with and improve approved document B
00:41:35 and improve approved document B and of course we wanted to ensure that approved document B gave the best guidance on this really in these on these matters
00:41:46 these matters now as I said and we discussed before lunch there was an issue about how far some of the immediate problems with the 2000 version have been dealt with in the 2006 version and I was advised that that
00:41:59 2006 version and I was advised that that had been that had gone some way perhaps to dealing with the with the coroners Coroner's worries um but we accepted that we could do we needed to do more and that was why we
00:42:13 needed to do more and that was why we um certainly said that we must continue we you know we would we would take forward the review of ADB is the reality that in framing the ultimate delivery date for this whole
00:42:25 ultimate delivery date for this whole scale uh
00:42:27 scale uh a whole scale of review of approved document B and any revisions to it
00:42:33 you uh allowed yourself to be overwhelmed and distracted by the complexity of the size of the task and lost sight of the fact that in fact what the coroner wanted was a response which
00:42:47 the coroner wanted was a response which went to Life Safety well lost sight of that I do not accept that we lost sight of Life Safety I do accept
00:42:59 I do accept as I discussed and said before lunch and have reiterated after lunch that
00:43:07 that we and I take account you know I was part of this we looking back could only others today judge whether should
00:43:20 only others today judge whether should have thought well is there an option to do something sooner with the with uh with that particular part of approved document B um
00:43:31 um and
00:43:33 and yes
00:43:35 yes I accept that and um and I you know I regret that perhaps we should have given it more attention and we didn't very well now let's look at little Pickle's response and the commitment made
00:43:46 made um we can find his response to the coroner uh clg-40 is 2788 and we can see there a letter of the
00:43:57 and we can see there a letter of the 20th of May 2013 dear Madam yes and if you turn to page two
00:44:04 two starting with the word finally uh in the pronouncement paragraph he says this finally in relation to billing regulations I've noted your concerns about the difficulties that some of those involved in the inquest had with the interpretation of a proof document B
00:44:16 the interpretation of a proof document B I can assure you that my department is committed to a program of simplification however the design of Fire Protection in buildings is a complex subject and should remain to some extent in the realm of professionals we've
00:44:28 realm of professionals we've commissioned research which will feed into a future review of this part of the building regulations we expect this work to form the basis of a formal review leading to the publication of a new edition of the approved document in 2016
00:44:39 edition of the approved document in 2016 strike 17 the revision would be drafted in accordance with the new style guide for Approved documents aimed at ensuring the guidance is capable of being more easily understood and the need to cross-reference is
00:44:51 and the need to cross-reference is reduced
00:44:54 reduced in the meantime however I have commissioned my officials to review the current guidance issued by providers of competent person schemes for window installers the review is intended to ensure the members of these schemes are fully aware of the scope of these
00:45:06 fully aware of the scope of these schemes and the fire safety measures which should be addressed and is I believe an appropriate response to the problems that came to light during the inquests
00:45:14 inquests I'm grateful for your recommendations and can assure you of my commitment to ensuring that the safety of residents in high-rise buildings continues to be a priority now I put that there for you let's now look and see what the
00:45:26 let's now look and see what the department says in its opening submissions at this part of the inquiry can we go back to those please CLG 3036387 page 34.
00:45:48 uh uh and if we go I'm so sorry page 32 and if we go back to page 32 please paragraph 96 and 97 I want to focus on
00:45:59 paragraph 96 and 97 I want to focus on 97 but if you want to look at 96 there is a that is the background to it 97 says this the advice that was sent to ministers of the Secretary of State subsequent response to the coroner
00:46:10 subsequent response to the coroner failed to articulate clearly that the work was not considered to be safety critical or to explain how and why this view had been reached without this information the response to the coroner was ambiguous as to whether the
00:46:21 was ambiguous as to whether the recommendation was accepted in full or safety critical and this may have been the reason why in turn the coroner did not challenge or seek to correct any misunderstanding in the Department's response
00:46:31 response do you agree that the response was ambiguous as to whether the recommendation was accepted in full can I go back to the response please uh certainly
00:46:42 certainly clg40 is 2788 page two
00:46:50 I mean you may need to go over to page three depending on what you want to show us yeah
00:46:58 so what the draft is saying reading it now is that yes we will do a formal review of ADB
00:47:10 a formal review of ADB um to the date provided that as part of that we would undertake the new style so that would hopefully improve the the clarity and presentation of the approved
00:47:21 clarity and presentation of the approved document
00:47:23 document um the first sentence of the paragraph at the bottom of the letter refers to research which will feed into a future review
00:47:32 review um
00:47:33 um I mean looking at it now yes um it could have said and the approach we propose is to wrap your um wrap up the
00:47:45 wrap your um wrap up the um
00:47:46 um proposed changes which you've recommended as part of that review that would have been clearer clearly um in the in the draft in the response um sense I I would I would agree with
00:47:57 um sense I I would I would agree with that
00:47:59 that would you also agree that the response was ambiguous as to whether the recommendation was accepted in full as safety critical well then the um uh recommendation well
00:48:12 well then the um uh recommendation well we do not refer to the term safety critical
00:48:18 um I'm not sure whether that would even be necessary to have said that in the
00:48:29 necessary to have said that in the response or not he made no reference in his letter to the coroner's recommendation that ADB be clarified with particular regard to the spread of fire over the
00:48:40 regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building we haven't seen any referencing no no he didn't say that no why was that um well is that well with this response
00:48:51 um well is that well with this response I mean I cannot recall exactly so I'm slightly trying to think what may have been in our in the Minds when when the reply was drafted and approved and sent
00:49:04 reply was drafted and approved and sent that
00:49:06 that um certainly
00:49:10 what the coroner would have was recommending vis-a-vis the need to make those changes to the approved document B would be encompassed within the formal
00:49:21 would be encompassed within the formal review which we've discussed
00:49:27 um
00:49:31 it probably was not felt necessary to spell out explicitly that that would include changes to guidance related to requirement B4 I can only think that it was felt that that
00:49:42 only think that it was felt that that was
00:49:43 was um slightly if we're going to look at ADB
00:49:46 ADB and a full review of ADB then obviously that would include requirement before without it needing to have been spelled out that's that's
00:49:56 that's that's a little bit of an assumption there but I think that's possibly plausible right right who drafted this document the Mr Pickles as he then was is his
00:50:08 the Mr Pickles as he then was is his response to the coroner um well there was a collective effort in the first place because obviously the response as you know will cover that covers a number of of elements so
00:50:20 covers a number of of elements so um I would we would have contributed to Mr Martin I think probably would have done the drafts to um a draft which would then have been coordinated and collated I presume by
00:50:32 coordinated and collated I presume by Louise Upton who put it up with the advice to the Secretary of State now whether there was any sort of overall editing done to ensure that all the various bits hung
00:50:43 to ensure that all the various bits hung together in a coherent let's say I'm sorry I don't I don't know who would have had final approval apart from the Secretary of State himself before he sent it or it was sent on his behalf but who before him in the process would have
00:50:55 who before him in the process would have had final approval um well I think if I recall there was a reference in the covering submission that the submission was cleared by Louise Upton and deputy director so my
00:51:08 Louise Upton and deputy director so my opposite number on the fire safety side so that's the first point I would make um subsequent to my witness statement I've also
00:51:20 I've also had my attention drawn or realized or found that I do believe that the director of the fire and emergencies
00:51:34 the director of the fire and emergencies directorate so I.E Dawn East needs boss did wish to discuss the response or the proposed approach to the response prior to it going to the Secretary of
00:51:46 prior to it going to the Secretary of State now I don't know whether that involved going through a draft and ticking off a draft but I'm certainly aware that um I think Mr Mr O'Connor obviously wanted to know what was being
00:51:59 obviously wanted to know what was being proposed across the piece and that had that had to do with things outside your Department's remit did it no it covered everything I mean the the first point is that this was obviously at this point in time the foreign
00:52:10 at this point in time the foreign emergencies a division was part of the department so we were all the same department but your department rather than the department yeah yeah my my division yeah absolutely
00:52:21 yeah yeah my my division yeah absolutely so um
00:52:23 so um from memory parts of the recommendations were dealt with were needed to be dealt with by the foreign emergencies directorate because they were to do with operational firefighting matters there
00:52:34 operational firefighting matters there was our bit there was also recommendations there which were dealt with by housing policy for example yes I understand so that's that's why there was quite a complex
00:52:45 that's why there was quite a complex process of involving three if not four Junior ministers in signing off the specific advice you know you know rightly so before it went to the Secretary of State so that he could be assured that his Junior ministers were
00:52:58 assured that his Junior ministers were had seen this and were comfortable with the advice being provided to him and that was coordinated overall by the fire and emergencies directorate and as I say
00:53:10 and emergencies directorate and as I say I'm now aware um I regret I was not aware when I wrote my witness statement that um I believe that Mr O'Connor met with a number of people to sort of review the approach
00:53:22 people to sort of review the approach being taken
00:53:29 now as we can see there's no reference to the coroner's first recommendation about the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building was its absence from this letter
00:53:40 was its absence from this letter due to the fact that Brian Martin considered that the 2006 guidance had dealt with that problem
00:53:54 I can't answer that question definitively because um I wouldn't um not a question I would have asked Mr Martin at the time as I said certainly my understanding had
00:54:06 as I said certainly my understanding had been that
00:54:08 been that um
00:54:10 um some of the issues that were causing concerns at the in question relation to approved document version 2000 had I was advised been addressed in the 2006
00:54:22 advised been addressed in the 2006 version but that is not to say that it wasn't
00:54:25 wasn't um that the two you know we would completely say in our in the next review of approved document B that we didn't need to look at that particular section of the ad I'm sure we would have done
00:54:36 of the ad I'm sure we would have done let's turn then to another question which is the scope of this proposed review can we look please at CLG 50634
00:54:49 this is an email from Anthony bird of the 11th of July 2013. uh to others in the department including Richard Harrell Brian Martin and others and copied to
00:55:00 Brian Martin and others and copied to you yes to let some subjects our meeting today at 2PM to discuss 2016's strike 17 review chaps were due to sit down together at 2PM today to discuss the potential scope of the 2016-17 technical
00:55:12 potential scope of the 2016-17 technical review you see that now did you did you attend that meeting I don't know I think probably not because I believe that
00:55:23 probably not because I believe that looking at this email Mr bird would have wanted to discuss this with all of his technical team and all of the recipients of this email they were the technical grade sevens at
00:55:35 they were the technical grade sevens at the times devam to Mr Harrell Mr Martin and Mr de cord so I this to me says that Mr bird wanted to sit down with his senior technical colleagues to as he says think about
00:55:47 colleagues to as he says think about what was needed for the 2016-17 technical review and this is absolutely what I would have encouraged him to do right and if you look at the first I could call it a paragraph there are two numbers there number two what technical
00:55:59 numbers there number two what technical parts of the regulations should be included in any 2016 stroke 17 review and why yeah uh do you do it yourself become involved in discussions about what technical parts of ADB would be
00:56:11 what technical parts of ADB would be included in in the review um not at this point at what point um
00:56:20 um well
00:56:21 well I mean as
00:56:24 I mean as I mean as as our thinking um
00:56:28 um on what changes needed to be made to the approved documents evolved then part of that process was to try and
00:56:39 then part of that process was to try and identify technical issues across the whole Suite of the approved documents might need to be addressed and we there was an exercise on that certainly in
00:56:51 was an exercise on that certainly in later years two or three a couple of years after this I believe which I know I
00:56:56 I certainly saw some outcomes from why was the starting point the question what technical parts of the regulation should be included as opposed to the coroner's recommendations and the specific parts
00:57:08 recommendations and the specific parts of approved document B that had been examined at the inquest well um that's a very interesting question
00:57:17 um because um I mean obviously I saw this email at the time and my immediate reaction when I when you put it up and on on screen was that it was about
00:57:28 it was about um the 2016-2017 part B review but I'm now reading um the penultimate paragraph
00:57:37 um ministers have already shown their hand on Part B part L and part m so um and because Mr bird addressed this to all of the
00:57:48 Mr bird addressed this to all of the technical team leaders not simply Mr Martin I'm beginning to think that Mr bird was looking here for a wider discussion with his technical colleagues about technical issues which may need to
00:58:01 about technical issues which may need to be reviewed in a further iteration of technical reviews of approved documents plural rather than simply just approved document B that's what I now read from
00:58:14 document B that's what I now read from from this right did you understand at the time not perhaps interpreting this document but from your recollection whether the technical parts of the regulations to be included included
00:58:26 regulations to be included included scrutiny of paragraphs 12.6 and 12.7 of approved document B specifically dealing with the external wall construction um well I wouldn't have I mean
00:58:38 um well I wouldn't have I mean obviously that would have been something that we would need to factor in because of the current recommendation but in terms of the whether there were technical issues associated with with that document as opposed to can we improve the drafting at this point no I
00:58:51 improve the drafting at this point no I wouldn't have no no can we go to clg30 is one eight nine one seven this takes us into 2014 now okay second email on page one is from Richard
00:59:03 second email on page one is from Richard Harrell to Brian Martin and you 4th of February 2014 at 8 57.
00:59:11 and he
00:59:19 says uh in that email a couple of thoughts how does this align with our capacity to update ADB in terms of time scales being flagged to ministers do we have ministerial agreement to implement the
00:59:32 ministerial agreement to implement the ADB review if not then statements in the sub need to be suitably qualified question mark and then if you look up the page if we scroll up you can see there's an email from Brian Martin back to Richard
00:59:43 from Brian Martin back to Richard Harrell and to you at the same day about an hour later or so and he and he says uh in blue question mark do we have the ministerial agreement to implement
00:59:55 the ministerial agreement to implement the ADB review question mark and then sfs's letter to the coroner after lack of house and quotes from the 20th of May 2013 letter from the Secretary of State back to the coroner and then says
01:00:06 back to the coroner and then says afterwards underneath that we've repeated this line a couple of times since it's also in Brandon Lewis's speech for Thursday it's not an absolute commitment now what did you understand
01:00:17 commitment now what did you understand Brian Martin to mean there when he said it's not an absolute commitment
01:00:25 well um
01:00:28 Mr Harold had obviously just taken up post at the beginning of at this point in time as the um successor to Mr bird so I can understand why he was asking
01:00:39 so I can understand why he was asking about
01:00:40 about um
01:00:41 um what the proposals were for the review of approved document B because he wouldn't have been involved in the response to the lackinaw house inquiry so that would be the context for this Exchange
01:00:57 um
01:01:00 but I can't I'm trying to think why Brian Mr Martin would have said that because I mean obviously there was a commitment yeah and did you understand at the time that there was ministerial agreement to
01:01:13 there was ministerial agreement to implement the ADB review yes I did but as I said I think it's perfectly legitimate for a new person who's coming in to take on a new portfolio of work with which he is not
01:01:25 portfolio of work with which he is not familiar
01:01:26 familiar given the
01:01:28 given the significant resource issues on his team to ask the question about exactly what do we need to do so I'm I'm I think that's a perfectly legitimate question
01:01:39 that's a perfectly legitimate question for Mr Harold to have asked yes I'm really asking you about Mr Martin's response when he says it's not an absolute commitment is that correct well we may you know the Secretary of State
01:01:50 we may you know the Secretary of State made a commitment clearly correct that was a commitment we we should we should try and meet so um
01:01:57 so um well he's quoted it in highlight yes we expect this work to form the basis of a formal review leading to the publication of a new edition of the approved document in 2016-17 and you've told us what that means in late terms 31st of
01:02:09 what that means in late terms 31st of March 2017. yeah now it then goes on to say it's not an absolute commitment is that correct was that correct well in terms of what we are expecting to do
01:02:20 in terms of what we are expecting to do the commitment was to um uh you know it was as set out in the Secretary of State's letter and obviously trumps any statements that are made
01:02:31 made well indeed so why wasn't why was it not an absolute commitment um well I sorry I don't know why Mr Martin would have said that no did you go back to him and ask him given that you received this email I
01:02:43 him given that you received this email I don't know whether it was asked I asked him that precise question but certainly you know we were working on the basis that we needed to deliver against the commitment made by the Secretary of
01:02:55 commitment made by the Secretary of State were you not concerned to discover that Mr Martin did not regard the commitment that had been made to the coroner in his 20th of May letter by Eric pickles as absolute well I think
01:03:10 by Eric pickles as absolute well I think I'd well
01:03:11 I'd well I can't comment on why Mr Martin used that term all I can say is in all of the discussions that we were having at that time and subsequently we were very very conscious
01:03:22 subsequently we were very very conscious of the um of the of the time frame which had been set out in um in the Secretary of State's response and indeed were you not concerned to discover that that uh um your officials in your reporting line
01:03:34 um your officials in your reporting line Mr Martin
01:03:36 Mr Martin um took the view the lyric pickles his commitment to the coroner was less than absolute was that not a matter of concern to you
01:03:48 well
01:03:53 I mean as I say it's difficult for me to talk to um to understand why Mr Martin said that given um
01:04:03 um uh given what was said um he may have been referring to the term we expect this work to form the basis I don't know well let's
01:04:16 just there's a there's a prior question this is now 2014 and a year almost a year had passed uh since Eric pickles his letter of the 20th of May would I be
01:04:29 his letter of the 20th of May would I be writing thinking um that
01:04:33 um that there was as yet no ministerial approval of the proposed review of ADB or had there been ministerial approval of the review of ADB by this point
01:04:45 of the review of ADB by this point so
01:04:47 so um we had not put a detailed proposition to ministers at this point about what the full review would Encompass we had provided general advice in terms of the advice provided
01:05:00 advice in terms of the advice provided to Lord Foster and then through to the Secretary of State in Broad terms about the scope of approved document of the approved document B but we had not at
01:05:11 approved document B but we had not at this point put forward a specific proposition that this is what the review of ADB will income might Encompass right so was the position as this that so far
01:05:25 so was the position as this that so far as you were concerned Eric pickles's commitment to the coroner was an absolute one but that in the year since he made it at least until early February 2014 things had not moved on internally
01:05:39 2014 things had not moved on internally um and there was no Minister well there was no ministerial approval of that review
01:05:46 so as I said we didn't have we didn't have ministerial approval of a specific detailed scope for the review because we've not put one up so that is
01:05:57 we've not put one up so that is absolutely um correct um we will uh obviously the research that had been commissioned from the bre et cetera was underway so there was a
01:06:09 et cetera was underway so there was a bit of a holding position uh whilst we waited for that research to report
01:06:16 to report um we did not have an explicit discussion about this but I think if we had my view would have been that it would have been premature to put up a
01:06:28 it would have been premature to put up a submission at this point in time to ministers about the detailed scope of that review in advance of knowing what that research was likely to be telling us now let's look and see what Mr Martin
01:06:40 us now let's look and see what Mr Martin says about this statement in his witness statement to the inquiry can we go please to that statement at clg-30 is one nine four six nine page 14 paragraph 41.
01:06:55 [Music] he says in the last third of that paragraph I remarked that this did not constitute an absolute commitment not least because the statement had been
01:07:06 least because the statement had been made during the course of one government and it was known at the time that by 2016 to 17 another government would be in power and would not be bound by the commitments of a previous administration
01:07:19 commitments of a previous administration is that how you understood his remark it's not an absolute commitment
01:07:27 well I can see um why he's saying that now I'm now reading um that statement in his um in his witness statement because clearly a new government is not bound by
01:07:40 a new government is not bound by um the um by what by previous government so that is a statement of the fact that and certainly um
01:07:49 um we you know if with a new government we would need to advise new ministers on the commitments inherited from the previous administration
01:08:01 previous administration and confirm with them as to whether they wanted to continue on with those commitments and of course it would have been open for Minister for a new government to say yes or no to that yeah indeed and wasn't that a factor which
01:08:13 indeed and wasn't that a factor which led you to think that it was of the utmost importance that the issues be resolved quickly and the coroner's recommendations be addressed before another government came in perhaps of a different political stripe and undo the commitment
01:08:26 and undo the commitment well I would have
01:08:31 thought that
01:08:35 that something like this it would have been unlikely that a new government would have said oh we're going to completely ignore this recommendation and do something completely different in which case why wasn't the commitment
01:08:46 case why wasn't the commitment absolutely notwithstanding the possibility well um you know as I say I can't I mean Mr Mr Martin has explained here why he used that term and I can see now
01:08:57 I can see now um his reasoning and it is he's correct in one sense that of course a new government could decide to do something different um
01:09:11 my view of it would have been that um
01:09:15 um it would have been I would have been very surprised even if it's a completely different
01:09:19 different government a completely different Hue that a new government would have completely thrown out taking forward that corner's recommendation you might have asked to be done a different way it might have
01:09:30 be done a different way it might have adjusted the time frames that's obviously something that could have been done but um I find it I would find I would have been very surprised if we'd been faced with that situation thank you yes Mr chairman it's now a
01:09:42 thank you yes Mr chairman it's now a convenient moment yes it is we'll have a short break now okay Mr Linton will come back at half past three and as before please don't talk to anyone about your
01:09:53 please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when they're out of the room thank you very much
01:10:01 thank you Mr military please
01:28:15 I'll do it then
01:28:18 good would you ask Mr LED some to come back in please thank you
01:28:25 caption when they're doing it
01:28:33 right Mr Hudson ready to carry on my home good thank you yes Mr Miller Mr ledson Mr chairman thank you I now like to ask you a little bit about the process for a review of approved
01:28:45 process for a review of approved document B um and you'll roll in that process can we look at your statement please page 10
01:28:53 and I'd like to go in it please to paragraph 32
01:28:57 where you stay at the top of the page the labor government's future of building control review in 2008 recommended that building regulations should be reviewed on a cyclical rather than piecemeal ad hoc basis
01:29:10 than piecemeal ad hoc basis now I don't need the rest I don't think what intervals are you talking about there
01:29:15 there oh gosh so from my hazy recollection I think the idea was that
01:29:26 the idea was that approved documents should be reviewed I think on a six-year basis other than partel Energy Efficiency which was on a three-year basis just because of the
01:29:37 basis just because of the priority attached to the partel reviews particularly in the context of the zero carbon homes I believe that was the case right now let's look at Richard Harrell's statement uh please clg30 is
01:29:49 Harrell's statement uh please clg30 is one nine four eight seven page five paragraph 17. he says here
01:29:59 at the end of the at the bottom of the page decisions on changes to regulatory requirements in the building regulations or to the supporting statutory guidance in the approved documents could only be made through a formal review process
01:30:10 made through a formal review process and breaking it down he says the steps are as follows and I can let me summarize them for you as best I can developing the initial case and advice for ministers which set out the scope and leave review yes yep policy
01:30:22 and leave review yes yep policy development in collaboration with an industry working group for which I would read a black working group but yep right that thank you commissioning research is necessary to develop or assess technical
01:30:33 necessary to develop or assess technical proposals
01:30:34 proposals yes yes yes a development of impact assessments yes full public consultation preparing drafts of approved documents working with the lawyers on any
01:30:45 working with the lawyers on any necessary changes to primary or secondary legislation and then finally impact assessments and implementation change yes now those are the stages would those stages be sequential or could some of those stages be carried
01:30:57 could some of those stages be carried out simultaneously um so some of them could have been done um
01:31:04 um in parallel so if you could scroll back to the can we go back to the previous page please so
01:31:12 so um so in fact it would be good practice to do the impact assessment work in parallel with the policy development work so that there was an iteration between the two because
01:31:24 between the two because um
01:31:24 um you actually may want to change policy or you know take a slightly different view approach depending on what your impact assessment was telling us telling you
01:31:35 you so those certainly could be done in parallel with each other and indeed which that's pretty much what we did
01:31:46 which that's pretty much what we did so some of it could have been done concurrently nothing else there I think most of the others I think it would be quite difficult because they are quite discrete phases of uh of work and one would and they they would need to feed
01:31:58 would and they they would need to feed into each other was there policy development and the development of the impact assessments done to some extent in parallel in this review
01:32:07 um so in terms of reviews generally yes but um I mean at this point we were not at the stage of developing specific proposals which would have required an
01:32:19 proposals which would have required an impact assessment yeah and was this formal review process the stages that he set out and with which you've agreed contained in any written protocol or guidance
01:32:29 guidance oh gosh
01:32:32 oh gosh probably not actually it was so ingrained in our way of thinking which so we probably didn't document it which actually probably would have been a good idea to have done so thinking about it okay were there
01:32:44 so thinking about it okay were there ever any circumstances in which the formal review steps could be bypassed or expedited or was it followed strictly yeah and without exception yeah I mean sorry can I just go back to my previous answer there is a lot of sort of General
01:32:56 answer there is a lot of sort of General government guidance on good practice on policy making which would reflect these stages in Broad terms so it's wrong to say there was absolutely no guidance for civil servants generally on how to do this sort of thing but we um we didn't I
01:33:09 this sort of thing but we um we didn't I don't think um have anything specific for work on on approved documents I'm sorry that I've lost the threat of your next question was were there any circumstances in
01:33:20 was were there any circumstances in which the formal review process we've just been looking at could be bypassed or expedited or was it always followed strictly and without exception it would have already been always been followed formally there were some
01:33:33 followed formally there were some phases as we've discussed where we had to do things like we had to consult that was a statutory requirement um but generally this this process is good practice this is
01:33:45 this process is good practice this is how you would expect and hope policy would be developed and a formal review process according to Mr bird might take two to three years and I think according to Mr Harrell Richard Harrell in his statement he says anything between 18 months and four years quite possibly
01:33:57 months and four years quite possibly those time frames are slightly different which would you agree with well I'm going to chicken for cherry pick from both I would say between 18 well I would actually say sorry I'd actually think that if we got a pretty
01:34:10 actually think that if we got a pretty substantive review done in 18 years we'd have 18 years 18 months we'd have done pretty well and I would suggest also that for The Other Extreme four years is not for a big review is not
01:34:23 not for a big review is not um unrealistic either could clarification of the regulations or particularly the guidance that didn't involve changing the wording of the regulation or guidance be achieved by means of an FAQ
01:34:35 means of an FAQ on the Department's website
01:34:39 well I think um
01:34:43 the issue an FAQ so that obviously has to work within the context of of the guidance we couldn't as it were make changes to the guidance in an FAQ it would have to be absolutely
01:34:54 in an FAQ it would have to be absolutely Foursquare within the um within the terms of the of the guidance um
01:35:02 um um but
01:35:03 um but right clearly you know an FAQ was a possible option for
01:35:11 for um
01:35:14 um um if it clearly is a just purely answering a question as opposed to rewriting the approved document guidance which I thought you would not have been appropriate
01:35:30 does that mean
01:35:34 the FAQ would be a possible option for answering a question what does x mean I'm sorry it's interrupting this a minute I'm going to have to ask those
01:35:45 minute I'm going to have to ask those who are sitting around the room if they go to speak to each other to do very quietly please because it's becoming a little disturbing to some members of the panel I'm sorry start again
01:35:56 on the question of FAQs was it possible uh to use an FAQ process to answer a question
01:36:06 question in a particular paragraph or section of approved document whatever it is what does the following word mean and to define or explain the meaning of the word would that be possible
01:36:19 the word would that be possible I don't see why it wouldn't have been possible well we may return to that yes now
01:36:25 now um I want to ask you what has been achieved by the 14th of June 2017 and let's start examining that issue with paragraph 88 of your statement please at page 24.
01:36:40 and you can see you say
01:36:46 there in the third line of paragraph 88 this as well as developing the detail of the policy proposals during this period there was consultation with in-house
01:36:57 there was consultation with in-house legal advisors and analysts this led to further consideration of the issues identified to clarify thinking this took longer than originally expected alongside the need to deal with other
01:37:08 alongside the need to deal with other issues
01:37:09 issues now what additional delay was caused by those factors so um this is referring to the overall discussion document um so obviously
01:37:20 um so obviously um the sorts of things that were being discussed and considered there went wider than um the ideas and proposals in the discussion document with um in regard to approved document
01:37:33 um in regard to approved document B
01:37:35 B um and given that some of those issues were about the building control system for example and we were wanting to explore
01:37:47 and we were wanting to explore reforms to the building control system that's why we at that point it was absolutely right that we talked discussed our thinking with our legal advisors to make sure that we were not
01:37:58 advisors to make sure that we were not going off on a complete up a complete blind alley with anything right my question is sorry I'm sorry to cut across you my question is how much extra time was caused how much extra time is lost by the need to to well
01:38:10 lost by the need to to well um I'm trying to recall now um the position that we had reached so I believe that the submission that we put up in September 2015 to James
01:38:23 put up in September 2015 to James Minister Wharton included an outline of a possible scope of the discussion document sort of to a three-page outline I believe that's the case and then by the time that we had
01:38:35 case and then by the time that we had got to the next major
01:38:38 major submission which was later in in 2016 by that time we had we had a more fully fledged draft it wasn't a fully fledged
01:38:49 fledged draft it wasn't a fully fledged draft but it was a much more in the form of a draft document rather than a sort of set of headings so the period between those two dates incorporating within it
01:39:01 those two dates incorporating within it discussions which we had with Minister Wharton and which led us to um helpful obviously helped us in terms of where things he thought we wanted he would want it to address
01:39:12 would want it to address the need to actually work up what were sort of you know ideas into something more substantive and a bit of internal sort of thinking
01:39:23 and a bit of internal sort of thinking further thinking those are the sorts of things that were happening at that point during this period in the sort of last quarter of 2015 in the first quarter of 2016
01:39:35 2016 um which eventually led to the um
01:39:39 um submission which is referred to in in mid-march and what other issues were you considering okay
01:39:47 okay I mean is this sorry this took longer than any originally expected alongside the need to do with other issues I'm very sorry I'm very sorry um so
01:39:57 um so when I wrote this I think I had in mind that there were a number of other urgent things which both the division generally and myself in particular were
01:40:09 generally and myself in particular were having to deal with around um the housing and what became the 2016 housing and planning Act which were parliamentary driven by parliamentary deadlines right
01:40:21 parliamentary deadlines right now if we go on please to page 28 of your statement as the leadson and look at paragraph 108 you list there yes uh What uh actions
01:40:33 you list there yes uh What uh actions have been taken in relation to ADB as at the 14th of June 2017 the data central tower of fire yes and and summarizing them I think they are threefold would this be right fire safety issues had
01:40:46 this be right fire safety issues had been included in the building regulations discussion document yes and then the second one over on page 29b Research into the usability of ADB had been undertaken and published yes and
01:40:58 been undertaken and published yes and initial drafts of revised ADB had been prepared and submitted to the Publishers for a plain English edit yes looking back at ritual Richard Harrell's steps for formal review that we discussed a
01:41:09 for formal review that we discussed a moment ago in his in paragraph 17 in his statement
01:41:14 statement uh if we just have that back on the screen please clg30 is one nine four eight seven page five there it is at the foot of the page and over the page can you just point out to
01:41:26 over the page can you just point out to us where had the review of ADB got to in those steps by the 14th of June 2017.
01:41:35 um so
01:41:39 so it's not quite a question of saying we've got as far as this in this in this um in this sequence of events because about what we would have done so the research
01:41:47 research well just just going through it yes so policy development so that that was that had happened in relation to the ideas and the discussion document which for which we did have a you know there was a discussion in in BRAC about research yes
01:42:00 discussion in in BRAC about research yes we had done it to inform the technical proposals
01:42:04 proposals um development of impact assessments no we hadn't done that that is absolutely right a preparing job for the approved documents or we didn't have a final draft of the approved documents but that work had had was underway with the um
01:42:17 work had had was underway with the um with the plain English edits um and also we had done the usability work as well just to you know as a sort of Benchmark as it were again switch to think about the changes that were being
01:42:29 think about the changes that were being made
01:42:31 made um in the in the drafting of the approved documents so I think we sort of we're in that that area though it wasn't as I say quite as you could say we definitely got to this point and we hadn't started that stage as it were
01:42:43 hadn't started that stage as it were right
01:42:44 right um had there been policy development in collaboration with an industry working group
01:42:48 group um well yes because there was the bright I mean
01:42:52 I mean um there were discussions in Maine Brack and then B it was a meeting of the the BRAC BRAC Part B working group in whenever it was January 2016 I believe
01:43:03 whenever it was January 2016 I believe or February 2016. yeah and but you hadn't alongside that done any development of the impact assessments um not at that point in time so the one
01:43:14 um not at that point in time so the one thing you could have done in parallel you hadn't done uh yes correct now I think um
01:43:22 yeah yeah uh no public no no public consultation obviously yeah some work on approved documents but not the final not the final version uh anyway and some work will no work with lawyers on
01:43:34 work will no work with lawyers on necessary changes um well the I mean the position that we'd have had with lawyers would have been
01:43:40 been um when we had got a final version of the approved document as I just think I mentioned earlier we would have wanted to clear that with lawyers to make sure that we were happily saying stuff that was legally correct and we weren't as it
01:43:51 was legally correct and we weren't as it were inadvertently or whatever extending the scope of the regulation so we hadn't got to that stage either with our legal colleagues thank you now um I want to look at a few matters which occurred in the period October 13 to June 17.
01:44:04 the period October 13 to June 17. starting in October 2013. we know that Stephen Williams became the minister with responsibility for the building regulations on the 7th of October 2013. uh uh you may not remember that but yeah
01:44:18 uh uh you may not remember that but yeah um what was the process for bringing a new Minister who was coming in not as a result of a an election um
01:44:27 um up to speed with current matters such as the building regulations and current topics in relation to them so um as I said earlier it would depend to an
01:44:38 said earlier it would depend to an extent on the nature of the changes as to whether that process of briefing new ministers was completely as it were run through a central process which would have been organized by our Central strategy team or whether
01:44:52 strategy team or whether um individual policy teams would have in effect sort of briefed their minister in a sort of ad hoc bilateral basis now I can't remember the process for Minister
01:45:03 can't remember the process for Minister Williams
01:45:05 Williams um given that this was his I think his first ministerial posting that would have sure been some Corporate Central
01:45:15 Central familiarization helping him understand how the department worked the overall strategy for the Department um he had obviously other responsibilities besides building regulations right can I ask you to see
01:45:28 regulations right can I ask you to see his second witness statement of the inquiry please at CLG 3034291
01:45:38 there it is and if we gave police to page three paragraph six
01:45:44 uh
01:45:47 he says that I do not believe although I cannot state with absolute certainty that I ever read nor was shown h.m Coroner's rule 43 recommendation letter did you ever show him the letter
01:46:02 um I can't say with certainty that I did right
01:46:07 right it might I would respect what he says here right well if he's right about that can you account for it ah
01:46:19 well I think we probably would have explained to minister Williams in briefings the um the recommendation from
01:46:29 from um uh from the from the coroner's report and how that was being dealt with um
01:46:35 um but whether we would have actually shown him the letter that I can't recall was it not of the first importance to show him both the coroner's rule 43
01:46:46 show him both the coroner's rule 43 recommendation and the Secretary of State's response to it um
01:46:51 um that was obviously important information um
01:46:57 I accept that that was really really important anything that would that was important information um I cannot recall the circumstances in which um
01:47:06 which um or what within the exact briefing that he was provided but I will you know I'd accept what he said except what he said here
01:47:21 foreign
01:47:24 a number of points in your statement to seven work streams and they're described I think by Mr Martin in his statement and for reference purposes it's paragraph 45 on
01:47:35 reference purposes it's paragraph 45 on page 15. as work streams that he'd commissioned in 2012 reported in February of 2015. um but because of perda before the
01:47:47 um but because of perda before the general election in 2015 and subsequent reading in time for new ministers after that wasn't approval wasn't sought for it until December 2015. that's the chronology he gives us yes do you agree
01:47:58 chronology he gives us yes do you agree with that like certainly yes I think that's absolutely I think that's the chronology right now um I mean the only um
01:48:07 thing I would add a good comment on that any comment I would make on that and Mr Martin would have to provide more information on that is whether there was a period after he
01:48:18 whether there was a period after he received the reports from the bre where there may have been some touring and throwing with the bre um because there may have been issues on draft which needed to be clarified I don't know whether that happened or not
01:48:29 don't know whether that happened or not so there may have been some a period of time as I say where there might have been an iteration with bre in terms of finalizing the research reports that is not an unusual situation for a research report yeah now
01:48:40 situation for a research report yeah now I just want to identify the seven work streams with you see sure so I can ask a question about them for our purposes we have them in his witness statement to paragraph 65 to 81 from page 22 we don't
01:48:53 paragraph 65 to 81 from page 22 we don't need to look at that because it's lengthy but in summary do you agree work stream one was about periods of fire resistance correct period work stream 2 was maximum fire compartment sizes correct work stream three was roof voids
01:49:06 correct work stream three was roof voids cavity barriers and fire stroke smoke dampers correct work stream 4 fire protection of basements and in car Parks right well between five sprinkler provisions
01:49:18 provisions correct yes work stream six space separation correct yes and work stream seven means of Escape for disabled people yes yes that's my reflection I've just given you a list of the seven work streams can we agree that none of those
01:49:29 streams can we agree that none of those seven work streams specifically addresses external fire spread and the dangers posed by the use of combustible materials on buildings over 18 meters uh not in the way that you've described them to me and I think that's correct
01:49:40 them to me and I think that's correct but why is can I ask you I think you both need to slow down a little bit I'm sorry photographers having a little bit of difficulty I think this afternoon why is that
01:49:51 those were the issues which had been identified in 2012 as requiring further work to understand the details of the particular issue or
01:50:04 the details of the particular issue or problem which had come to come to our attention
01:50:10 so these were my understanding and recollection of these is that these were technical areas where there are a number of technical
01:50:21 where there are a number of technical questions
01:50:23 questions which needed further work to understand better
01:50:28 better prior to working out or determining whether we would have needed to make changes to approved document be as a consequence so these for example could
01:50:40 consequence so these for example could have led to significant changes to the substance of the guidance in approved document B depending on what the research said and then depending on what options ministers
01:50:53 then depending on what options ministers would agree to in terms of taking that forward so I think that these were separate
01:51:02 separate from they would certainly in my mind they were separate from a an exercise of clarification and simplification um
01:51:12 um the latter is much more it's a question of getting this right rather than this this the right thing in the first place if you see what I mean the last the seven work streams were where we don't
01:51:24 seven work streams were where we don't really know what we need to do about this we might need to do something very very significant about it but we don't know at this point in time and those seven work streams were addressing issues in that category as opposed to a
01:51:37 issues in that category as opposed to a category where it's more about sort of simplification stroke verification right from that answer do I are we to take it that
01:51:46 that seven work streams having been begun in 2012
01:51:52 2012 remained separate from the exercise of a full-blown review of approved document B well they would have fed in the intention was for those to feed into the
01:52:03 intention was for those to feed into the fall right depending on what they what they uh what they recommended or what they suggested does that explain why none of those seven work streams addressed the concerns in respect of the unusual fire spread scene at lacknell
01:52:15 unusual fire spread scene at lacknell um
01:52:17 um I think so I would have anticipated that if there were issues about the fire spread at lack and all
01:52:28 all which were of significantly unusual that it left
01:52:33 it left experts scratching their heads and really not knowing what had happened there then that might have been another they might that would have been something that would have been taken account of in new research or would have been thought about as a
01:52:44 would have been thought about as a matter needing to be researched without understanding the detail of that or the technicalities of that and I wouldn't want to comment on that I can assume that it was not felt that that was an area that needed
01:52:56 felt that that was an area that needed the degree of in-depth research which the area is covered in that program did why was an extra work stream not added to investigate the first of the
01:53:09 to investigate the first of the Coroner's recommendations under recommendation for so the
01:53:17 so the um the research was commissioned in 2012 so predated the coroner's letter as I've tried to say I would have seen a distinction to be
01:53:29 I would have seen a distinction to be made between issues where possibly you know frankly we might not sure we didn't quite know what the question was let alone what the answers were so this is about helping us doing research which actually helps us understand what the
01:53:41 actually helps us understand what the question is and that would be um sort of research which the seven work streams referred to were seeking to cover
01:53:53 referred to were seeking to cover as opposed to a piece of work which was about taking the guidance that we have not changing the substance of what is in that guidance but looking at how it's
01:54:07 that guidance but looking at how it's set out in the approved document dealing with issues of clarification and simplification that exercise does not to my mind now and would not
01:54:20 does not to my mind now and would not then needed then require the degree of in-depth research that was needed for those other issues having said that of course you may say
01:54:31 having said that of course you may say well what about the usability study exactly so that was a piece of work which we thought would be helpful to ensure that um not only do we have the coroner's
01:54:43 um not only do we have the coroner's inquests view on you know where that approved document be worked as a document
01:54:50 document recognizing that she was particularly focused on section 12 but actually asking a wider group about the document as a whole and whether that works and that was the the usability study so
01:55:02 that was the the usability study so yes that was a research piece of work but it wasn't the same it wasn't the same type of research as the research for the seven work students I'm sorry that's been a very long and convoluted answer but I I'm trying to draw a
01:55:14 answer but I I'm trying to draw a distinction between these different sort of strands of work there are two there are a number of strands in the recommendations one is usability as we've discussed but the other was a specific recommendation in relation to
01:55:25 specific recommendation in relation to the adequacy of approved document B on external fast bread wasn't it yes indeed but I'm but what I'm saying is that or what I'm trying to say forgive me if I'm not um communicating this very clearly
01:55:37 not um communicating this very clearly is that I was certainly not advised that that was an issue which needed the level of in-depth research to determine what was needed to be done as was the other issues which were
01:55:50 as was the other issues which were covered by the seven work streams I followed thank you now on those seven work streams and the research we don't I think need to look at the documents but take it from Me by all means disagree with me please
01:56:02 Me by all means disagree with me please if if this is incorrect but is it right that your department chased special advisors to ministers for the publication of that research uh in a period between May and December
01:56:15 uh in a period between May and December 2016 and again in January and March 2017. uh we certainly chased the clearance of those documents over a considerable period of time did any of that chasing spell out to you in clear
01:56:26 that chasing spell out to you in clear terms that without publication of those reports the the work on any review of approved document B couldn't be progressed well I was certainly a worry yes
01:56:37 worry yes and in fact did that not indicate that the commitment made to the SEC by the Secretary of State to the coroner in his letter of the 20th of May 2013 was clearly not going to be
01:56:48 of May 2013 was clearly not going to be met well it certainly compromised that timetable yes right the reports that I think had been in the hands of the department since February 2015. why couldn't the department start work on the review of approved document
01:57:01 work on the review of approved document B in the absence of their publication well
01:57:05 well um we I mean we had because we had got the issues papers which which have been drawn up and discussed with the black working group and we had got the um
01:57:16 and develop those into questions for um for the discussion document for which would enable us to then go to a sort of a fuller engagement process with with
01:57:27 a fuller engagement process with with with stakeholders so that had happened and then obvious and then alongside that we had we had we were doing the work the plain English edit for example of the approved documents so we were doing
01:57:39 approved documents so we were doing things but the fact that we didn't have the research published necessarily inhibited our ability to sort of progress and pull
01:57:51 our ability to sort of progress and pull together all of the various strands of work in fact it's right that the research wasn't published before the grenfell tower fire it wasn't no indeed published only in February 2019. I
01:58:03 published only in February 2019. I believe that is the case yes do you agree that delays in publishing This research were wholly unacceptable well I it was it was certainly not something that we felt comfortable with
01:58:14 something that we felt comfortable with and you know and it's very unusual for research
01:58:18 research you know any research to take that long to be go through a publication process and what had gone so wrong well I
01:58:27 well I I don't know um did you investigate well I think you've mentioned the various number of communications that we had with um with ministers offices and
01:58:38 with um with ministers offices and private office and spads offices to try and get those through the system I have got no idea why it took so long to get through that system from your perspective was the problem that The
01:58:51 perspective was the problem that The Minister's end and their special advisors end rather than the department then
01:58:55 then well I can't comment because I don't know exactly what happened it was a source of considerable frustration to Mr Martin and Mr Harrell it placed Mr
01:59:06 Martin and Mr Harrell it placed Mr Martin in quite a difficult position I know because you know you know doing I mean as you will know um the fire safety world is quite a small world and so people knew about the fact that this research was underway so
01:59:18 fact that this research was underway so I know that he was placed in some very difficult situations where people were saying what's what's going on you know what does it say and he was not able to provide clear answers because he basically didn't have the authority so
01:59:29 basically didn't have the authority so to do without their research being in the public domain so it was it was a very difficult um
01:59:37 um I feel that we tried hard I feel looking back on it then it was escalated because Mr Quartermaine raised it I know in discussions he had when some of his meetings with with the ministers with
01:59:49 meetings with with the ministers with Minister barwell who I mean it was got passed through why it got held up I really sorry I can't sorry but we'll come to that communication I think in due course
02:00:00 communication I think in due course in your evidence let's move to 2015. can we look please at clg130-6856
02:00:07 and we'll need the native version of this document which is an Excel spreadsheet and it's a forward plan I'll wait for it to come up on the screen
02:00:25 right
02:00:32 there it is now um you can see that uh well you can't see from this but take it from me this is sent to you under cover of an email of the 30th of March
02:00:43 cover of an email of the 30th of March 2015 by Richard Harrell and uh that is at clg1006853 I don't think I need to show it to you but looking at this you can
02:00:54 it to you but looking at this you can see that the part B research if you look at Part B the research was due to be completed uh in the second quarter uh sorry the end of first quarter of 2017
02:01:06 sorry the end of first quarter of 2017 yes and the review of Part B was due to completing the second quarter of 2018 yes that's what that is saying yes yes would it have been very clear to you at
02:01:17 would it have been very clear to you at this point so 30th of March 2015 when you've got this document that Eric pickles is commitment to the coroner was not going to be met
02:01:29 coroner was not going to be met I don't think necessary at this point in time
02:01:34 time um I mean this was just an indicative um forward plan put forward by Mr Harrell with some indicative Resource allocations as a basis for discussing
02:01:46 allocations as a basis for discussing potential options for the prep for the forward program
02:01:51 so well indeed but yeah looking at it on its face if you compare the commitment made by Eric pickles to the coroner
02:02:02 made by Eric pickles to the coroner which means 31st of March 2017. this document told you that in fact that deadline was going to be to be missed by a year and a quarter well
02:02:17 by a year and a quarter well um
02:02:19 there's two comments I'd make to that the first is that this was based on an indicative Staffing allocation and of course it was open to me and and to discuss with with others
02:02:31 discuss with with others um
02:02:32 um you know whether that word resourcing was neat was right and whether we actually could put more resources into that so as I said this was an indicative plan rather than a the final final uh
02:02:43 plan rather than a the final final uh plan
02:02:44 plan um
02:02:45 um I think that um this also reflected a fact that um you know the review of Part B may end up to be quite a longer process so there may be elements of the
02:02:57 process so there may be elements of the part B review which we could complete including particularly the clarification simplification work in line with with the Secretary of State's commitment there may be then a further work that
02:03:08 there may be then a further work that might be needed thereafter which is what was being suggested here taking it Beyond into 2018. well there's two aspects I think prompt two further questions but first did you go and ask
02:03:21 questions but first did you go and ask for further resources so that this plan could be
02:03:25 could be um reigned in so as to enable government to deliver the promise of a revision to ADB by March 2017. well um I mean it would be
02:03:39 March 2017. well um I mean it would be quite helpful if you were able to scroll down because I can't work out from this um document as it currently is as to what the sort of overalls is there anything at the bottom of the spreadsheet which talks about the overall Staffing position because that
02:03:51 overall Staffing position because that would help me right okay
02:04:09 and sorry could you just scroll back through because I think I just want to check this covers the whole program
02:04:18 okay so this is not counting part L sorry could you scroll back down I just wanted to check whether part L was included in this that is not no it's not no it's not so this is this is this is part B and to
02:04:32 so this is this is this is part B and to some extent uh about all the others as well as you can see yeah yeah yeah um
02:04:38 um so I'm trying to the reason I'm asking these questions is I just wanted to try and think through my own mind at the point that this was prepared which was March did you say 2015. but it came to you on the 31st of
02:04:49 2015. but it came to you on the 31st of March 2015. the Staffing there whether that was an actual reflection of resources we had at that point in time or or not you're the one who forgive me
02:05:00 or or not you're the one who forgive me it raised the question of of whether or not this was something which would provoke you to consider whether you needed further resources so I'm just a really yeah so yes whether you did something about that as a result of
02:05:11 something about that as a result of seeing that um well um novel I'm trying to work through in my own mind what this document is actually telling me about the position then so is it something that is saying
02:05:23 then so is it something that is saying this is what we've got and this is what we can deliver with what we've got or is this actually saying something about whether we need extra resources or not let me show you the email then because it might that might help okay thank you
02:05:35 it might that might help okay thank you um CLG one triple zero six eight five three
02:05:47 uh and it's from him to you yeah as I say 30th of March 2015. and perder tasks yeah and uh if you look about two thirds of the way down the email yeah uh he
02:06:01 of the way down the email yeah uh he uh says
02:06:03 uh says um I also want to get a slightly firmer grip on work planning for the various teams we are already committed to certain outcomes and I think it's useful to map out what other pressure stroke issues might
02:06:14 other pressure stroke issues might emerge and the resources that might be needed I have attached a sketch plan that I want to see to each team Etc uh and then he says c3xl files attached okay okay so yeah okay so this
02:06:27 attached okay okay so yeah okay so this is that thank you for showing me this because I think this is this is helpful to me now to understand um I mean it's you know this one this was a bit of sort of you know blue skies thinking we were running up to the um
02:06:38 thinking we were running up to the um March 2015 election um sorry the May 2015 election so you know where we likely to be and uh what might we need to be doing in resource
02:06:49 might we need to be doing in resource terms I think this helps me answer your question because at this point in time there would have been no decisions on budgets until we knew what the new government wanted to do so the budget
02:07:00 government wanted to do so the budget planning process which would have enabled me to make a bid for extra resources or whatever would have been still been quite a number of months off at this point in time so that's thank you that's that's helped that can I just
02:07:12 you that's that's helped that can I just cut to the point then right did this document tell you that the date of the 31st of March 2017 was very unlikely to be met well I wouldn't say it was unlikely to be met it certainly flagged up that there would have been there were
02:07:23 up that there would have been there were challenges in meeting that yes I said that did you flag the ministers so they were aware of the possible or even likely slippage in the already generous timetable for the completion of the part
02:07:34 timetable for the completion of the part B review not at that point in time because that was um at the point at the end of the coalition government so we would have been something that we would have needed to deal with with the new ministers right did you
02:07:45 ministers right did you um well I think um that refers back to the briefings that we provided with Minister Wharton uh when he took up uh post later that summer where we provided
02:07:57 post later that summer where we provided briefings including I think in one of the briefings references to the 2016-17 commitment yes that we were looking to include and Achieve through the very through the work we were doing yeah and
02:08:08 through the work we were doing yeah and we'll come to that and we'll come to that shortly I hope shortly um April 15 so the month after we see an email from Brian Martin to you at clg30 is 19270.
02:08:20 is 19270. now I'm still there so let's look at that it's dated the 29th of April and uh
02:08:28 uh he says yeah Bob yeah Richard asked me to produce a list of ongoing technical policy issues now becoming known as the Worry List attached as the beginnings of the list which has been partially populated as always I'm trying to
02:08:40 populated as always I'm trying to balance usefulness with red tape any thoughts before I get the rest of the technical team to populate it now the list itself is at CLG 3019271 and again it's in Native format
02:08:51 3019271 and again it's in Native format if we can have that up please
02:09:02 yeah now um under Part B you can see the only issues that are listed are sprinklers fire spread in Timber Frame MMC Extra Care housing fire safety and
02:09:14 MMC Extra Care housing fire safety and ADB infraction risk yeah yes yes and if we look closely at timber frame stroke MMC at row nine you can see um that there's a question what's the
02:09:25 um that there's a question what's the issue yep and it's changes in technology relating to Thermal performance driving wider use of combustible materials you see that yes column C where's the pressure coming from yes insurers fire
02:09:36 pressure coming from yes insurers fire brigade Etc also manufacturers of non-combustible products what is stroke could be done introduce a Gateway for new tech viable question or just keep an eye on things amending ADB
02:09:48 just keep an eye on things amending ADB as we go what happens if we don't act bigger building fires exclamation mark mostly economic loss but there are some safety concerns too now
02:09:59 now um first of all did you read this yes you did uh did you ask Mr Martin about what the safety concerns flagged in this spreadsheet were
02:10:10 spreadsheet were um I don't remember what conversations we would have had about it but um I can see from the just reading across the sorts of things that he was concerned
02:10:21 sorts of things that he was concerned about with this yeah did did you know that there were concerns out there in the industry including bodies like cwct
02:10:33 the industry including bodies like cwct uh
02:10:35 uh that by this time had expressed disquiet about the clarity of approved document B specifically in relation to the use of combustible materials in
02:10:48 to the use of combustible materials in modern methods of construction I don't believe that there were um I don't believe I was aware of the worries of the cwct right
02:10:59 of the cwct right specifically were you aware more generally
02:11:02 generally that there were concerns in Industry about ADB and external fire spread B4 which were not in this list including the use of combustible insulation materials well I think um I think that
02:11:14 materials well I think um I think that this had possibly been raised in or mentioned in letters from the appg right by this point so I would you know in general terms but I think um it at this
02:11:25 general terms but I think um it at this point in time there was a worry about a technology that was developing but um I was not aware of concerns raised
02:11:36 um I was not aware of concerns raised that
02:11:39 that um there were problems or there were perceived to be problems with the guidance which might compromise the way in which
02:11:48 in which the use of those materials was would be managed
02:11:53 managed in building work just to be specific were you aware of concerns in the industry
02:12:01 industry about the use of combustible insulation on materials over 18 meters and the use of combustible cladding materials on buildings over 80 meters including specifically aluminum Composites I was
02:12:13 specifically aluminum Composites I was not aware of specifically a concerns like that I was the issue had been raised sorry I should also reference back to
02:12:22 back to um the discussion which representatives had or the presentation rather which representatives of the Fire Protection Association I believe had with BRAC and think in early 2015 when
02:12:34 with BRAC and think in early 2015 when the issue was generally raised but it was raised as a general issue rather than a specific concern about a specific use of a specific product I was not aware of concerns about a specific
02:12:45 aware of concerns about a specific product
02:12:46 product now you can see what happens if we don't act yes Mr Martin writes building bigger building fires yes was that not a concern to you well I mean of course that's um that was
02:12:59 well I mean of course that's um that was an issue and that's why you know that was the whole purpose of this exercise was to try and tease out those sorts of issues so that we were in a position to register these as things that we would
02:13:11 register these as things that we would need to address in future changes to the approved documents now He suggests that what could be done is as an alternative keep an eye on things amending ADB as we go yes why wasn't
02:13:23 amending ADB as we go yes why wasn't that a possibility
02:13:27 um
02:13:29 sorry could I'm
02:13:33 column D yes yes I can see what he's saying now yes and why wasn't it a possibility to to amend ADB as you go well we could have done that
02:13:45 well we could have done that um I mean when this was drawn up in March or April spring 2015. of course we already had a plan in mind for the review of ADB
02:13:56 review of ADB so I think it's if your question is well could we have done something even more quickly than that well I've accepted that was a possibility but I think at this point in time we were
02:14:07 think at this point in time we were reaching or hopefully we thought and we can no doubt discuss whether our thinking was optimistic that we would be able to pull together the various strands of work to to deliver the you
02:14:20 strands of work to to deliver the you know a revised version of ADB within a reasonable time frame did you raise the issues in this Worry List with ministers at the time not with ministers at the time because I don't there weren't ministers in place at the time because
02:14:31 ministers in place at the time because it was at the time of the election but um I think I would need to refer back to the advice I mean the next stage we put form in a nice touristers was in
02:14:44 we put form in a nice touristers was in the advice put to James Orton so I'd have to answer that question in relationship to the advice but to James Wharton well let's look at that May 2015 yeah we know that the conservative came
02:14:56 yeah we know that the conservative came conservative government came to power and Greg Clark succeeded Eric pickles the Secretary of State for the Department yes yes and I think James Wharton was appointed parliamentary under Secretary of State responsible for building
02:15:08 of State responsible for building regulations correct yes and I think you met James Wharton for an introductory meeting on the 26th of May 2015 quite possibly yes yes we have an email to that effect do you remember whether you told him about the lacknell coroner's
02:15:20 told him about the lacknell coroner's recommendations and the response of his predecessor I didn't I can't remember it would have been a very high level introductory meeting I don't know how long it took I think I probably probably
02:15:31 long it took I think I probably probably would not have mentioned it because as I say it was very much a you know I'm in charge of building regulations you're in charge of building regulations that's um you know say hello to each other it was
02:15:42 you know say hello to each other it was that sort of a meeting that sort of a meeting Mr Walton says in his statement second statement of paragraph 29 which is at
02:15:49 is at clg303428 9 page 12 as follows that the current system of building regulations was working well the number of fires had fallen substantially over the years and
02:16:00 fallen substantially over the years and that this was attributable in part to the building regulations did you tell him that I think that's probably what we would have we may well have included that in the briefing right yes but you don't remember telling him about
02:16:11 but you don't remember telling him about the lack of Corona's recommendations and the Secretary of State's response to it no I mean I don't know whether the comment that you referred to from Mr Walton's statement might have referred
02:16:23 Walton's statement might have referred back
02:16:24 back to uh to briefing that we provided at the time
02:16:29 but I do not recall that I mentioned at that introductory meeting the local house fire and the um sorry the the response
02:16:41 fire and the um sorry the the response to the coroner's report now you sent let's go to clg30 is one two one nine two seven five clg30 is one nine two seven five this is
02:16:53 clg30 is one nine two seven five this is an email
02:16:54 an email well it isn't it's an it's the attachment to an email you sent on the 28th of May 2015. yes uh from you to uh the um to James Watson in effect yeah
02:17:05 the um to James Watson in effect yeah and it's entitled building regulations forward look yes you see the minister requested a forward building relation building regulations issues correct and a paragraph five you say towards the
02:17:16 and a paragraph five you say towards the foot of the screen we will advise also in due course on issues for building regulations in response to government deregulation policy including opportunities for further simplification
02:17:27 opportunities for further simplification the timing of this is as yet unclear however
02:17:30 however and attached to the submission was a table
02:17:34 table which is uh referred to on page one of paragraph four you see that the attached table
02:17:41 table um just above I see there was a reference to the rep that's where the reference is now we can see the table itself it's clg30 is one nine two seven six
02:17:52 the next document in the series uh yes and this is headed building regulations yeah so key decision stroke issues June to October yeah and in this
02:18:03 issues June to October yeah and in this fall down yes are the issues is fire safety yeah see that yes and in the decision column it says publication of the discussion document on technical changes to fast safety Provisions in
02:18:15 changes to fast safety Provisions in building regulations particularly changes needed to follow up previous government commitments to the coroner after the lateral house fire yes did you provide the minister with a copy of the coroner's letter
02:18:27 of the coroner's letter not with this document no why is that because this document was intended to give the minister an overview of all of the various issues that um he on building regulations which he
02:18:38 um he on building regulations which he had looked for to help him start to understand his portfolio so it was not a um
02:18:46 um it was not a document that was seeking his view on how any of those specific issues were going to be dealt with would it not have been helpful for him to understand
02:18:57 understand uh the background to the need for a discussion document and the given particularly here the fact that you've referred to previous government commitments to the coroner
02:19:09 government commitments to the coroner after the Lackland house fire why not give him the recommendations and the Very government commitments which are referred to well we could have done that but we the same
02:19:20 we could have done that but we the same could have been said about all of these items in this table about further information that could be provided to fill out the decision description decision
02:19:29 decision um all all the timings so um
02:19:33 um I was asked to provide a a short sharp concise forward look to give the minister the opportunity to understand the sorts of
02:19:44 opportunity to understand the sorts of things that would be coming across his desk in the future that was the whole point of this exercise hence the hence the time frame there it was not a document that was intended to expel out
02:19:55 document that was intended to expel out to him exactly what it is that each of these issues and each of these decision require decision points is going to need to cover it with these we would cover those when we put up the specific advice
02:20:07 those when we put up the specific advice looking at the right hand column under timing yeah the timing for the discussion document was said to be end June the previous government committed to taking forward changes needed in response to lack of house fire in 2016
02:20:19 response to lack of house fire in 2016 stroke 17 we would like to issue the discussion document before the summer recess yes were you being entirely candid here about the likely time frames with the minister
02:20:30 with the minister um we were being optimistic hmm yes so not entirely candid no I don't accept that I mean we can have a long we have a debate about um whether we were too optimistic and I
02:20:42 um whether we were too optimistic and I would accept criticism of being too optimistic but I think there's a very very big difference between saying this is what we would like to do which was what was being said here and the inference that I take from what you said
02:20:54 inference that I take from what you said to us about us not being candid which I do not accept right we've seen Richard Harrell's forward plan Excel spreadsheet which had the review of Part B at least on it looks as if it was current resourcing
02:21:06 looks as if it was current resourcing extending well into 2018 why wasn't that clearly highlighted in the key issue because as I said in my discussion in our discussion of that that was a an indicative plan which Mr Howell produced
02:21:17 indicative plan which Mr Howell produced with a view his view not my view his view about the resourcing implications of of the of a of a wide-ranging plan of work which would which were indicative
02:21:30 work which would which were indicative and the basis for a discussion rather than a this is exactly what this is this is this is what is going to happen this is the only thing we can do why didn't you tell the minister that um this was a an optimistic assessment
02:21:43 um this was a an optimistic assessment of the time frame um because at this point in time as this makes clear we would have been expecting to have put further advice to the minister before
02:21:56 the minister before um the summary Society before mid-july which would have spelled out um the um what exactly we were proposing to do by way of a of of work on Part B
02:22:10 to do by way of a of of work on Part B so the detail of how long this might take what we've got the scope Etc would have been covered in that advice not in this advice now in your statement to paragraph 72 you tell us at page 20 that you'd plan
02:22:23 you tell us at page 20 that you'd plan to publish a self-standing discussion document on fire safety in the summer of 2015. so which this is refers yes indeed to take account of the research that had been had reported in the first half of
02:22:34 been had reported in the first half of that year yes and to provide a platform for inviting views yes the discussion document I think is this right would be to determine the scope of the review yes
02:22:46 the review yes and given that you knew in May 2014 that the guidance in ADB was out of date as I think been seen did you now consider this to be an urgent task
02:22:58 this to be an urgent task the discussion document well the discussion document on the way we were expecting to be able to issue that discussion document you know if we'd
02:23:09 discussion document you know if we'd been able to issue it at this point in time then I think that it would have been we would have had a the ability to complete the work um in terms of what was needed by way of
02:23:20 um in terms of what was needed by way of revising ADB to take account of the issues in the discussion Document Plus the clarification and simplification works within the 2016-17 time frame I was reasonably confidence at this point
02:23:33 was reasonably confidence at this point in time summer 2015 that that was achievable it would have been tied but I believe it would have been achievable right okay now you agree I think is an important step in the review process that Brack would have had to have established a working group to
02:23:45 established a working group to scrutinize and advise on the any proposals for review we as far as we can see from the documents Mr leadson the proposal to establish a brat working group wasn't
02:23:56 establish a brat working group wasn't made until a BRAC meeting in June 2015. is that right if that's what the documents say then I would accept that yeah yeah we could we can look if we need to at clg30 is one nine two nine
02:24:08 need to at clg30 is one nine two nine four which are the minutes of the 17th of June 2015 uh meeting at paragraph eight but would you take it from me that that is that is what it says I would of course take it from you that's what it
02:24:19 course take it from you that's what it is um I mean you had to have a recollection which differs I don't know um
02:24:24 um hmm
02:24:26 hmm no I mean I'm sorry I mean it might just possibly help me if you were able just to draw up the relevant section of the minutes if that's possible just so I can just see that yes of any discussion at that point that
02:24:38 of any discussion at that point that would have helped me certainly and Mr chairman I should just say one or two questions left on this topic before an actual break point yes all right I'm happy to stop now but it might leave
02:24:49 I'm happy to stop now but it might leave things hanging in mid-air uh well uh I'm happy to I'm happy to be guided by you chair but um you know to avoid a cliffhanger then I'm
02:25:00 you know to avoid a cliffhanger then I'm happy I don't think this is exciting I think we can go on a little bit longer but I think five minutes would be enough plenty more than that okay we've always nice to see the documents here I have to show him the document
02:25:12 here I have to show him the document it's CLG uh three zeros 19294.
02:25:20 uh and if you look at the first page you can see that it's a meeting of BRAC on the 17th of June 2015. yep I don't think you're present
02:25:31 you're present gosh yes that was my um no sorry um the reason for that is that these are the former members of BRAC plus the formal observers from the devolved
02:25:42 formal observers from the devolved administrations we would not list officials as attenders because officials sort of would come in and out depending on the nature you know for their bits of the agenda so
02:25:53 the agenda so um the fact that I'm not listed doesn't mean to say I wasn't there and if this is indeed the meeting which minister Wharton attended then I certainly was there because I remember that
02:26:05 that so I think I'm not going to pretend I wasn't at this meeting now I wanted to show you because it forms the basis of the question but page eight paragraph 10.4
02:26:20 uh uh there you have it it was confirmed that a review of Part B was still planned although this had yet to be signed off by the new ministers
02:26:31 signed off by the new ministers on the assumption that a review of Part B will go ahead yeah BRAC members were asked to express an interest in taking part in a Part B working group yeah and you then have the yeah volunteers yeah
02:26:42 you then have the yeah volunteers yeah expressing an interest okay now uh this is
02:26:47 is um the 17th of June 2015 yeah and this is therefore uh two years and one month after the commitment made by Lord pickles to the coroner in his 20th of
02:26:59 pickles to the coroner in his 20th of May 2013 letter yeah can you explain why it was that no discussion at BRAC uh about forming a Part B working group
02:27:10 uh about forming a Part B working group took place in the two years to date because at this point in time we would we would feel we would consider that we had with the research having reported
02:27:21 had with the research having reported that we would have the a substantial Suite of issues that it was worth forming a BRAC working group to consider with as opposed to um and so that is why we did not feel
02:27:35 um and so that is why we did not feel um it was only at this point that we felt it was worth um setting up a specific BRAC working group to help with the develop the proposals from the research and turn
02:27:47 proposals from the research and turn them into a document which in Jude course would be issued for public consultation I thought you did have the research by this point did you not we did yes it just hadn't been published
02:27:58 we did yes it just hadn't been published the research had not been published no but um we would I mean obviously I mean BRAC we would often discuss things with BRAC which had not been
02:28:09 things with BRAC which had not been published so we would certainly have not had a problem with certainly discussing with BRAC the findings from the research and indeed I'm pretty sure there may have been some discussions in Maine
02:28:20 have been some discussions in Maine Brack about the findings from the research as well as in the part B working group so you know that was the fact that we hadn't published the research would not have inhibited us setting up a brand working group
02:28:31 setting up a brand working group uh and when it says the review of Part B was still planned though this this had yet to be signed off by the new ministers why was that given the commitment that had been made by the secretary because we were respecting the
02:28:44 secretary because we were respecting the fact that we did have a new ministers admittedly pretty much of the same conservative government you know conservative ministers there were different government and we were respecting the fact that it was
02:28:55 respecting the fact that it was absolutely opened I don't think it would have happened for new ministers to say we want to do something different had any progress been made with the black working group by the time of the grenfell tower fire so the back working
02:29:06 grenfell tower fire so the back working group met
02:29:07 group met and discussed and commented on a version of the relevant parts of the discussion document
02:29:14 document and that was a few months after this I can't remember the exact date but there will be documents about that which would have been provided thank you very much Mr chairman is that
02:29:26 thank you very much Mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes I think it probably is thank you very much well there we are uh Mr ledson I think we've done enough for today I keep sure you feel we have anyway um but I'm afraid we're going to have to ask you to come back of course more
02:29:38 ask you to come back of course more questions tomorrow um we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning of course and in the meantime please don't discuss your evidence or anything to do with it with anyone else of course all right thank you very much would you go to the ocean
02:29:49 you very much would you go to the ocean please
02:29:51 please foreign