Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence - Wednesday 30th March 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:24 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:27 hearing today we're going to hear evidence from the right honourable brandon lewis mp currently the secretary of state for northern ireland but formerly a junior minister in the department for communities and local government

00:00:39 communities and local government yes mr kim so my call mr lewis thank you

00:00:50 good morning minister i understand you're going to take the oath yes there should be a testament on the desk next year could you take that in your right hand please and read the words on the screen absolutely i swear by almighty god that the

00:01:02 i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much please sit down make yourself comfortable

00:01:13 good all right hi yes mr cleveland sir um would you please confirm your name for the record brandon lewis uh thank you mr lewis for attending uh the inquiry today to assist uh with your evidence

00:01:25 uh with your evidence as i've said to all witnesses i will endeavor to keep my questions short and simple sometimes it doesn't play out like that so if any of my questions are unclear please say so and i'll try and remedy the situation

00:01:36 remedy the situation excuse me

00:01:37 excuse me if you could keep your voice up whilst giving evidence that will help the transcriber capture everything you say and everything you say accurately and finally if at any time you require a

00:01:48 and finally if at any time you require a break

00:01:49 break please don't hesitate to say so now you have produced one statement for the inquiry which we can find at clg treble zero three double one two one

00:02:01 is that it yes that's it yeah and if we go to page 35

00:02:05 35 is that your signature yes it is yes uh have you read the statement recently uh yes i have actually yes and can you confirm that its contents are true uh yes

00:02:16 yes apart from your legal team have you discussed your evidence with anyone before coming here today no now the first issue i'd like to uh discuss with you today is the role and structure of the department and between

00:02:29 structure of the department and between the 4th of september 2012 and the 15th of july 2014 is it right that you were the parliamentary under secretary of state of communities and local government in the department of the same name yes

00:02:41 the department of the same name yes that's right yeah and you were responsible for fire and resilience is that right as part of my portfolio that was yes that was part of it uh when you were appointed what was the nature and extent of your knowledge of

00:02:53 nature and extent of your knowledge of fire safety policy um effectively none um yeah no i'd not had any direct involvement in anything to do with fire because even when i was a councillor um

00:03:04 because even when i was a councillor um my council didn't have control of the fire service in that area so it was a separate authority and so you were presumably unfamiliar with the requirements of the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005. absolutely yes

00:03:15 fire safety order 2005. absolutely yes that's correct were you similarly uh unfamiliar with the contents of approved document b yes

00:03:22 yes yes i've never heard of it and on your appointment did officials provide you with briefing materials so that you could familiarize yourself at least in broad terms uh with the nature and extent of the live issues falling

00:03:34 and extent of the live issues falling within your portfolio uh well we had briefly i don't um i think i don't consciously remember having briefings on those areas particular particularly around um the

00:03:46 particular particularly around um the document because that's something that's only really come conscious to me when i've been reading through the papers for the for the inquiry but officials will have at the time as they do for any new minister coming into a role gone through a briefing process

00:03:58 a role gone through a briefing process both papers and in person most of the the um briefing that i remember at the time was around uh the local government side of the role because at the point i

00:04:09 side of the role because at the point i was appointed i was appointed in september

00:04:12 september um sort of the the main issue on the desk at that point was we were just about to start and the department already started work on the local government finance settlement so that was most of that the conversation i

00:04:23 was most of that the conversation i recall were around that and then very quickly moved into the uh the the pain dispute we have with the fiberglass union thank you mr lewis if i could ask you maybe to moderate the pace of your answers sorry make this plea on behalf

00:04:35 answers sorry make this plea on behalf of the transcriber but thank you now that's a fair point my mother would agree

00:04:39 agree when you have been given your

00:04:43 your briefing on appointment do you remember any particular points arising out of fire safety that you were briefed on no now you say at paragraph seven of your witness statement and we can go to that

00:04:55 witness statement and we can go to that which is at clg trouble zero three double one two one forward slash three uh that the dominant areas of your portfolio in 2012 2014 were as you've

00:05:06 portfolio in 2012 2014 were as you've just now indicated local government finance the revitalization of high streets and strikes by the fbu during that two-year period were you

00:05:17 during that two-year period were you aware of or made aware of matters relevant to first of all operational firefighting uh oh well yes in the sense of um that was part of the discussion we were

00:05:29 was part of the discussion we were having

00:05:30 having the fire brigades union about pay and conditions because there was issues around fitness and things like that and obviously as fire minister when you're doing visits you have briefed on how things operationally work but

00:05:41 things operationally work but it wasn't that wasn't a an issue that was at the forefront of the work i was doing even in the fire part of the brief which wasn't um outside of the strikes wasn't the core part of the work i was doing as the

00:05:52 part of the work i was doing as the parliamentary under secretary and when you were the parliamentary under secretary your secretary of state was eric pickles is that right um partly yes yes yes while i was under

00:06:03 partly yes yes yes while i was under secretary yesterday until may 2015. yes and uh from may 2015 onwards greg clarke was appointed the secretary of state is that right that's right yes now you say it paragraph 10 of your statement which

00:06:14 it paragraph 10 of your statement which is just at the bottom of the screen now that in respect of fine resilience aspect of my portfolio i recall being supported at official level on fire policy by dawn eastmead and neil

00:06:26 policy by dawn eastmead and neil o'connor as well as the chief fire and rescue advisor firstly ken knight and then peter holland now dawn eastmead was the deputy director of the fire policy team and neil o'connor was director of

00:06:37 team and neil o'connor was director of the fire policy team is that right uh for the best of my memory yes can you help us how in practical terms how were you supported by dawn eastman eastmead and neil o'connor

00:06:48 eastmead and neil o'connor um in the sense that if we were having meetings particularly and at that time for my memory a lot of the meetings i would have been having around the fire service were related to the fire strike

00:07:01 service were related to the fire strike well there were two things actually we were um selling off um the fire training center so there were discussions around that privatising that and also around what became the fire

00:07:12 and also around what became the fire strikes and the dispute with the fbu and they would have been briefing me on those issues um uh generally present in meetings with the fbu um would have been particularly near o'connor

00:07:23 particularly near o'connor um

00:07:25 um and dawn easton as well particularly on the fire kills campaign which was a campaign we were running uh sort of continually but with a particular focus around the changing of the clocks which is obviously very current after last

00:07:37 obviously very current after last weekend um to promote people's um knowledge and understanding of fire safety and smoke alarms would you receive direct advice from them would donate neil economy or principal advisors yes

00:07:49 principal advisors yes at what extent would you receive advice on fire safety policy or fire policy generally from your special advisors uh don't need that stage for special advisors no it would have been officials

00:08:01 advisors no it would have been officials so

00:08:02 so um as a junior minister the interaction with special advisor would generally have been around in a format where if there was a submission put up to me as a minister if they may

00:08:13 put up to me as a minister if they may well have on it comments from a special adviser around um if they've made any comments on issues but um

00:08:21 but um germany it would have been from the officials would you routinely seek advice from the chief fire and rescue advisor um

00:08:29 um yes yeah yeah i think it's a routinely is a fair comment ken knight was in place when i first came into post we retired fairly soon after i came into post

00:08:40 post and then peter holland and peter would generally be involved in the conversations that i would have yes can you give the panel an idea on what topics would you seek the advice of the chief fire and rescue advisor

00:08:52 chief fire and rescue advisor so well

00:08:55 so well again most of the conversations that i can remember um i don't doubt there were other conversations but uh the conversations that in my memory around that time were around the

00:09:06 around the issue around pain conditions fitness how we were dealing with the fire brigade union in terms of seeking to initially not have strikes and then obviously to end the strikes

00:09:18 end the strikes advice around through that period how we work with the fire authorities to make sure that they can manage through the strikes um to understand and be confident both from my experts and also

00:09:30 from my experts and also where somebody like peter holland before that ken knight but through that the core of that period would have been peter holland would be

00:09:38 would be their expert experience and both of them being you know very very experienced chief fire officers their expertise around understanding that the teams had what they required to

00:09:49 that the teams had what they required to be able to manage through the strikes and

00:09:53 and both at clg itself in the command centers but also working with the fire authorities that they had the resources to be able to cope and to give us the confidence that they were able to manage

00:10:04 confidence that they were able to manage to keep people safe through those through those strikes so the broad thrust of

00:10:09 thrust of the matters on which you'd seek sir ken knight's advice and that of peter holland was industrial relations and

00:10:15 and matters pertaining there too in the main um only yes but that's because that was the

00:10:21 the sort of the main issue that would that was that was being dealt with at the time because it was the acute sort of current um challenge at that point we also

00:10:31 also were would have been having conversations from time to time that came from the back of a review that ken knight had done about the future of the fire service we'll come on to these matters yeah so there would have been conversations around that as well but

00:10:42 conversations around that as well but the the main thing i would have been dealing with on the fire side through most of my my period at clg dealing with fire was the fire strikes and so fire safety wouldn't be a

00:10:53 and so fire safety wouldn't be a prominent feature of those discussions is that a fair assumption yes it is and partly partly because of where the focus was

00:11:00 was and partly because a a fair part of what comes under fire safety is probably more properly dealt with through the building regulations team which wasn't part of my portfolio

00:11:11 team which wasn't part of my portfolio now did the head of fire safety policy louise upton brief you directly on any issue during your time as the parliamentary under secretary um she may well have done but i don't particularly consciously remember that i do remember

00:11:22 consciously remember that i do remember louis so i've no doubt she would have been in meetings with me at some stage yes but the primary advisors were dornie smith and the other con to my memory yes now during your time as permanent uh under secretary were you i should say

00:11:34 under secretary were you i should say parliamentary under secretary were you also supported by the head of the building regulations team brian martin no no

00:11:41 no no because building regs were outside the scope of your responsibility yes they sat with a different minister now between 16th of july 2016 and 11th of june 2017

00:11:52 16th of july 2016 and 11th of june 2017 you were minister of state for policing and the fire service in the home office is that right that is right and in that office you are responsible for amongst other areas um national fire policy including fire safety is that

00:12:03 policy including fire safety is that right uh yes i believe yes that's yeah now you say it paragraph 15 of your witness statement which is a page five of the document on the screen

00:12:14 of the document on the screen that the fire and resilience element of my portfolio as parliamentary under secretary of state for communities and local government had transferred over to the home office on the 5th of january 2016 and so form part of my brief again

00:12:26 2016 and so form part of my brief again when i joined the home office were your responsibilities as minister of state at the home office substantially similar to those you held at clg when you're the parliamentary under secretary

00:12:38 under secretary no

00:12:39 no what was the principle difference well it was a it was quite a different portfolio and in terms of how how it worked in practice because

00:12:54 the idea it's probably worth giving some context they've been discussions for quite a long period of time a number of years actually around trying to bring together the blue

00:13:05 around trying to bring together the blue light services into one place having one minister who dealt with both fire and police and that's what this was the culmination of predominantly because on the thinking and the conversations were because the predominance of the

00:13:17 were because the predominance of the fire services work and moved away from fortunately fires in the home which had dropped quite dramatically over a period to supporting police and working on road traffic accidents in that area and it made more

00:13:29 accidents in that area and it made more sense to have one minister dealing with both and when i was by the time it had moved to

00:13:34 moved to the home office when i went to the home office

00:13:37 office um it was very rather than being part of a brief that included local government who in parts of the country are responsible for the fire service and um i'm working that way through

00:13:48 and um i'm working that way through obviously it was linked to the fire if i was linked to the policing brief the police in brief as paragraph 14 i can sort of see the end of sort of outlines the policing brief was by far

00:13:59 outlines the policing brief was by far the bigger part of the brief and when i was doing fire for the show it was a relatively short period as the outlines there when i had fire at the home office the predominant work at that point

00:14:12 the predominant work at that point was around for memory it was around uh the change in how the chief fire officers organization was working moving it into a format that was much more akin

00:14:23 it into a format that was much more akin to the national police chief's council as well so it's much it was about that sort of structure rather than because obviously we moved past the fire strikes so it was it in

00:14:34 past the fire strikes so it was it in terms of fire and it was also around um it was a

00:14:38 it was a quite a

00:14:40 quite a bit of work in terms of engaging with people in local communities around the fire service becoming part of the police and crime commission as well so the fire side of the role when i was the home office was focused really in those two

00:14:51 office was focused really in those two areas rather than the wider part of the brief as it had been under uh when i was at clg so it while fire safety remained part of your portfolio it wasn't a prominent part of that portfolio no and

00:15:02 prominent part of that portfolio no and again

00:15:03 again if i was

00:15:05 if i was looking at it in an analytical way in that sense i would say that's probably because the building rates again stayed at what was the ndclg now d-luck um and thank you so much it was a

00:15:17 um and thank you so much it was a relatively small part of the brief in terms of the time frame thank you as minister of state did you continue to be advised by louise upton when i was at the home office not that i recall

00:15:27 recall now i want to move on to a separate topic which is briefing and decision making um

00:15:33 making um at the departments you served at first of all by way of preliminary question we've reviewed the disclosure provided

00:15:41 provided by clg and its various names and one

00:15:46 and one consistent theme is that there are when ministerial submissions are put up to you

00:15:50 you we haven't got ministerial submissions that show your manuscript notes or comments on them can you help us understand as to why that would be the case

00:15:59 case well i'm afraid i can't help explain why you haven't got them from my point of view when i was going through the papers it would have been very helpful to have them

00:16:10 very helpful to have them i still today will put handwritten notes on i much prefer having hard copy rather than electronic which obviously when i was first there we didn't have electronic in that format so it was before iphones and things

00:16:22 so it was before iphones and things would come into government but um but the the the benefit of having the original hard copies is that it can give some context so well i've said to you for example i don't recall that

00:16:34 for example i don't recall that there will be um subs where as a minister you will look at the sub and it's a very straightforward uncontroversial response to a letter or something that's not doesn't need a

00:16:45 something that's not doesn't need a great deal of thought and you will literally just tick it being able to see that is an indication that this at the time is a very straightforward thing um if there's no comment on there at all no tick at all it could well be because

00:16:56 tick at all it could well be because it's something that didn't actually come to a minister's box because your private office could take a view that this has copied you out of politeness because you're one of the ministers but actually

00:17:07 you're one of the ministers but actually it's not directly involved in what you're doing and therefore thank you as opposed to having something that was a key issue and therefore you would have written notes on comments on etc and that context would be quite helpful thank you mr liz

00:17:19 thank you mr liz could i politely encourage succinctness um

00:17:23 um i understand it's always helpful to have context but um the questions erected at particular points so it would help us move on during the course of today sure could we go to para page 32

00:17:34 could we go to para page 32 in the statement we're looking at uh on the screen and paragraph 82 in particular now there you say this from the third line onwards even where a submission so it's minister or submission concerned my ministerial

00:17:46 submission concerned my ministerial portfolio if the matter was contentious i would have anticipated the secretary of state giving final approval now in the particular areas of fire and resilience during your time as a junior

00:17:58 resilience during your time as a junior minister can you give the panel an idea of the type of issues that would be ultimately decided by the secretary of state

00:18:04 state um no that that's quite difficult to to do now i mean as i say with hindsight i would say things like the fire strikes the final decisions on what offer we would make

00:18:15 decisions on what offer we would make that would be a discussion between the secretary of state and indeed at that time probably the chancellor okay now i'd like to move to a new topic which is the briefing that you received before the latter house inquest which started

00:18:26 the latter house inquest which started in january 2013 and sir ken knight's report on the emerging issues following that fire now if we can go and stay in your statement go back to page 7 and paragraph 21.

00:18:38 paragraph 21. now the foot of that page that paragraph says this on the 3rd of december 2012 my private office sent me a submission of the same date updating me on the pre-inquest review for latino house

00:18:50 pre-inquest review for latino house which had taken place on 22nd of november 2012. now if we could turn to that particular submission which we can find at hom quadruple zero double one three five

00:19:03 quadruple zero double one three five we can see in the right hand column at the top of page one the very top it was drafted by louise upton and was dated the 3rd of december 2012.

00:19:12 2012. now if we look at paragraph 1 we can see that the submission was and i quote

00:19:18 quote to bring you up to speed with the background and progress towards the inquests into the six deaths which occurred in the lachnal house fire on the 3rd of july 2009 is that right

00:19:29 the 3rd of july 2009 is that right yes yeah see that now before you receive that particular briefing what was the extent of your knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the lack of fire i don't recall particularly having any

00:19:40 i don't recall particularly having any beyond the fact that because it was quite a uh a well-known tragic incident that it happened but i don't have any i didn't have any particular conscious knowledge or memory of it you don't recall any

00:19:51 or memory of it you don't recall any particular briefings devoted to the topic of nightmare could we go to page five

00:19:58 you'll see there the heading the top of the page lachlan has background and in the third paragraph under the heading the submission said this on the 6th of july 2009 the then secretary of state

00:20:09 july 2009 the then secretary of state requested that sir ken knight as chief fire and rescue advisor undertake an immediate review of the circumstances surrounding the fire to provide an independent overview of the investigations relating to the fire and

00:20:22 investigations relating to the fire and to report back on emerging findings urgently

00:20:25 urgently sir ken's report was published on the 6th of august 2009 highlighting various emerging issues including concerns about fire risk assessments in social housing as a result dclg instigated a program of

00:20:37 as a result dclg instigated a program of work to consider and address the emerging issues identified now although you weren't imposed as parliamentary under secretary at the time of publication did you ever read sir ken knight's

00:20:49 did you ever read sir ken knight's report that he prepared which was published in august 2009 uh well no i wasn't even an mp then so i don't recall being aware of it at all at that point when i became parliamentary

00:21:00 that point when i became parliamentary under secretary i may well have been given it to read but i don't consciously remember that now if we could turn to the report which we find at hom quadruple zero one zero nine two

00:21:13 there it is and if we could turn to page 24

00:21:19 sir ken said this in paragraph 2.2 which is in the lower half of that page although investigations are still ongoing it is believed that the fire then spread externally to the 11th floor

00:21:30 then spread externally to the 11th floor where the maisonet directly above became involved in fire this is not unique fire spread caused by the significant heat and flame coming from the uncontrolled the firefighters having withdrawn from

00:21:41 the firefighters having withdrawn from the 9th floor fire on the tenth floor and rising externally up the face of the building now were you briefed in uh december 2012 about the nature of the external fire

00:21:53 about the nature of the external fire spread at latino to the best of your memory not to the bit to the best of my memory no do you remember at that time so we're talking the end of 2012 any discussion or briefing about the role of external

00:22:06 briefing about the role of external panels in the fire no if we can turn to page 25 and if we look at section 3

00:22:14 and it's really the first paragraph of that section which says this

00:22:20 says this although the cause of the fire at latino house has been identified the fire development and fire spread was unusual the initial investigations have not as yet been able to identify the mechanisms

00:22:32 yet been able to identify the mechanisms that caused the fire development and spread

00:22:35 spread now was the unusual nature of the fire spread at lachnal a point that was emphasized to you at the time of this miniserial submission in december 2012. not that i recall no

00:22:47 not that i recall no now the next two paragraphs read thus the principles of fire safety and firefighting in the uk or based on containment of the fire within a compartment it is therefore important

00:22:58 compartment it is therefore important that there is a full understanding of how and why the fire developed and spread to ensure that this principle remains sound it is anticipated that the outcome of the investigations will inform the question concerning the internal passive

00:23:10 question concerning the internal passive fire protection and external fire spread and will be used to provide appropriate guidance on modification and refurbishment premises and to improve operational guidance for fire and rescue services regarding firefighting

00:23:22 services regarding firefighting procedures in such premises now earlier in this model sir ken knight gave evidence that at the time of the major failure at mcnall i'm using his words

00:23:32 words was the failure of compartmentation and the way that the refurbishment of the premises had allowed compartmentation to fail

00:23:39 fail now

00:23:40 now was that a concern that you recall being briefed on in december 2012 either by sir ken or by louise upton or any other official i don't recall that i mean that doesn't

00:23:51 i don't recall that i mean that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't put submissions up or um go through it but as i said because the time

00:24:00 the time the the main focus wasn't in this area so i don't particularly recall this and when something would have been coming up and um

00:24:08 and um around some of these issues the work that that paragraph three outlines is work that you would as a minister you would assume that the officials have taken that into account as part of their um thought process that would lead to

00:24:20 um thought process that would lead to the submission that you've got in front of you but you don't remember at the time either ken or indeed anyone else bringing this matter to your particular attention saying minister we need to think about this no

00:24:31 think about this no simile

00:24:32 simile do you remember any uh concerns or briefing being given concerns being expressed or a briefing given to you um by sir ken or anyone else about um fire

00:24:43 by sir ken or anyone else about um fire risk assessments in social housing and their adequacy not particularly specifically on social housing we did do some work generally around fire risk assessments

00:24:55 generally around fire risk assessments and wanting to ensure that they were done effectively efficiently and that we had and that the um that we were looking at how the safari itself works to ensure that um

00:25:07 works to ensure that um people are doing that in a in a proper effective way but as much for commercial premises hotels and b b's and places like that do you remember what prompted that work was it concerns about the competence of fire risk assessors or was

00:25:19 competence of fire risk assessors or was it something else i don't recall what prompted it um i'm afraid but it was there were discussions on a piece of work being done around how that's managed how that's done and

00:25:30 how that's managed how that's done and that it's efficient and effective

00:25:34 for for commercial businesses i think from memory it was as much about hotels and

00:25:38 and sleeping accommodation as it was about anything to do with social housing specifically but again it wasn't a point that was of particular concern or prominence at this time is that a fair summary that yes that's correct yeah

00:25:51 if we can go back to sir ken knight's report at page 11 and it's really the heading under paragraph 7 which read the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005.

00:26:02 2005. you'll see a subheading italicize their emerging issues and so ken wrote this there is a requirement in the fire safety order to appoint one or more competent persons to assist the responsible person in undertaking the

00:26:14 responsible person in undertaking the preventable and protective fire safety measures within premises however there is no similar requirement for a competent person to be appointed to assist in making a suitable and sufficient risk assessment

00:26:27 suitable and sufficient risk assessment um it is important that assurance be given to both the responsible person for the premises and the enforcing authority that a risk assessment has been undertaken by a competent person particularly in relation to high rise in

00:26:40 particularly in relation to high rise in relation to high risk premises now at this stage were you aware that there was no statutory requirement in the order for a competent person to be appointed to undertake a fire risk

00:26:52 appointed to undertake a fire risk assessment i don't recall being aware of that at the time though if you were aware of it given that you have no background in fire policy would that have struck you as a surprising omission in the

00:27:04 as a surprising omission in the legislation um i'm not sure it would necessarily strike me as a surprising admission what i think what we would be looking at and the way we were focusing on things the time was

00:27:16 we were focusing on things the time was allowing and trusting the experts in the sector to be able to do things so part of the work we suffer was around they are the experts in the field and therefore making sure that there is a duty on building owners to have proper

00:27:29 duty on building owners to have proper safety measures and risk assessments in place and have been having to know where they go to get that advice i.e from development fire authority or whoever an appropriate expert person is would probably be more the focus

00:27:40 probably be more the focus um rather than whether it be required to be statutory um as long as there's a duty there and there's a requirement whether it's in guidelines or primary statutory i think would be a secondary discussion

00:27:53 would be a secondary discussion would you nonetheless consider it from the lay perspective which is essentially what you brought to bear that

00:27:59 that as a baseline requirement a competent person ought to be retained to carry out a fire risk assessment given its importance in ensuring public safety oh yes yeah it's very fair point now if we turn over the page to page 12 we see a

00:28:10 turn over the page to page 12 we see a box

00:28:11 box which is headed areas for consideration and the first bullet point reads thus considerations should be given to conducting a review as to how the responsible person under the regulatory

00:28:22 responsible person under the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 can be assured that their assessment of risk is suitable and sufficient particularly where the premises is of a higher risk this assurance is particularly important

00:28:33 this assurance is particularly important where the responsible person may be relying on using someone else to undertake the risk assessment where appropriate the current fire safety order guidance should be amended accordingly um were you aware of that

00:28:45 accordingly um were you aware of that particular recommendation i don't recall being consciously aware of that night do you recall having any views on that however preliminary or

00:28:56 in the sense yes in the sense that not particularly related in the sense of being to

00:29:01 being to that um

00:29:02 that um box

00:29:04 box area for consideration point but as i said um we were looking at how we made sure that there was a structure whereby the risk assessments were being properly

00:29:15 the risk assessments were being properly carried out it was actually part of a wider range of work around regulations that the government was doing more generally and one of the things we were looking at was making sure that um commercial premises were having

00:29:27 um commercial premises were having proper checks and actually that's and that's we we saw sephora as the as the body that should be um able to advise on that as the experts in fire now sir ken's evidence of the inquiry was that he'd intended to

00:29:39 inquiry was that he'd intended to recommend that article 9 of the order be amended

00:29:43 amended so as to place a duty on the responsible person to appoint a competent person to carry out a risk assessor in high-risk premises were you aware of that

00:29:55 were you aware of that thinking that under underlay sir ken's advice here not that i recall now do you recall any conversation in which he raised this prospect with you as an idea or anything else no

00:30:08 idea or anything else no now louise upton told us that she had used her word potentially informed sir ken's office that any proposed revision of the order would not be looked upon favorably within the department

00:30:20 department would you have considered such a recommendation unfavorably um well i don't i don't see why i would have particularly considered it unfavorably if a submission is put up

00:30:31 unfavorably if a submission is put up my view has always been and to be fair i think this was the wider view across the department if a submission was put up with a recommendation based on the advice of experts then we would we would be taking the advice of experts

00:30:44 the advice of experts that's how submissions work and it would be

00:30:47 be i'd be surprised if we had our officials with all of their experience and an expert like sir ken knight suggesting something that we wouldn't give that very serious consideration with a view to um taking that forward as the appropriate way forward it would depend

00:30:59 appropriate way forward it would depend on the wider context but i would be surprised that somebody would assume we would not look at it favorably when it's coming from somebody with that kind of expertise i think i hope i put this fairly but the

00:31:10 i hope i put this fairly but the impression of rising from louise upton's evidence was that there was a a political predisposition against further statutory intervention in this field

00:31:19 field first of all is that something you recognize

00:31:21 recognize um

00:31:22 um yes well yes in the sense that we would always look at do you require statute and to be fair in government we still do do you require statute to achieve what

00:31:33 do you require statute to achieve what you're looking to achieve can you do it is there statutory powers in place that already allow you to do this through guidelines or regulations rather than having to do primary legislation so

00:31:45 legislation so in that sense that's a fair point but i think

00:31:48 think from my memory and even when i was looking through some of the papers um for the inquiry um i think we had a fairly strong record in dclg both before my time and through

00:32:00 dclg both before my time and through that period um of being very very serious about the work we were doing to ensure fire safety for example the fire kills campaign the work we did on carbon monoxide

00:32:10 monoxide sensors

00:32:11 sensors i think highlights we were looking to do all we could to ensure that um we were working with the experts to keep people safe

00:32:19 safe now at the time that louise upton briefed in december 2012 um had you been made aware of any other research that had raised further concerns about the quality of fire risk assessments being

00:32:30 quality of fire risk assessments being carried out in england um i don't particularly recall that but no i may take you through a few and if sure if you recall any shout out and but if not say so now can we go to dclg's

00:32:42 if not say so now can we go to dclg's review from march 2009 about the effectiveness of the regulatory reform order we can find that at h-o-m-0-46062

00:32:55 you can see there is entitled the initial evaluation of the effectiveness of the rectory reform fire safety order 2005. um were you aware

00:33:06 um were you aware in broad terms you made no good reason to have read this in particular but were you aware in broad terms of concerns expressed by what would describe the stakeholders over the variability in the level of competence

00:33:18 variability in the level of competence evident in the work of independent fire risk assessors or fire safety consultants and that it had led quotes to some demands for a system of accreditation to be put in place to quality assure the

00:33:29 be put in place to quality assure the work of such organizations or individuals i don't particularly recall that specifically there was always and in in that brief ahead of the time beyond fire there was always in a number

00:33:41 beyond fire there was always in a number of sectors uh people in the sector asking for more regulatory powers and that happened in high streets and across local government but i don't particularly remember that specifically

00:33:54 another document was one that was published in december 2010 which i recognized before you entered office from potential just after you entered parliament indeed london assembly's planning and housing committee had produced a report called fire safety in

00:34:07 produced a report called fire safety in london fire risks in london's tall and timber framed buildings if we go to inq trouble zero 147-1

00:34:17 that's the document um do you remember seeing that at all no could we go to page 41 and look at recommendation 7 which is at the top of the page

00:34:26 the page that recommendation said this by 2012 dclg in association with the relevant bodies such as the local authorities coordinators of regulatory services and chief fire

00:34:37 regulatory services and chief fire officers association should draw up national guidance to ensure mandatory minimum standards of competence for training and accrediting fire risk assessors were you aware of that recommendation not that i

00:34:50 aware of that recommendation not that i recall now

00:34:53 um were you aware of the fire futures review which had been launched by i think your predecessor bob neal in july 2010

00:35:00 2010 yes and if we can go to the fire futures national interest work stream report which we can find at fsf quadruple zero double zero three seven

00:35:14 now this was published in december 2010 and if we could go to page 10 in this document and look at the fourth column on the left hand side

00:35:25 on the left hand side it says this there is currently a perceived low level of competency within the sector in relation to fire safety and built environment not helped by the fact there is no common qualifications framework

00:35:36 is no common qualifications framework that covers building and fire safety competencies whilst the fire and rescue services undertake building safety checks no single organization can take on responsibility awareness of fire safety

00:35:48 responsibility awareness of fire safety amongst building designers constructors owners and occupiers this campaign can be taken on by that part of fire uk normally referred to as the industry that part of the sector needs to come

00:36:00 that part of the sector needs to come together more closely be less introspective and there must be a much better dialogue in particular with those outside the core specialist fire safety sector who are not fire specialists but who in practice are responsible for

00:36:12 who in practice are responsible for delivering fire safety in practice eg general design specification construction owners were you aware even in broad terms of the nature of the concerns expressed here

00:36:23 here no but but i don't think it's an unreasonable um concern is it one that you'd heard resonated elsewhere as you after you've taken office as parliamentary under secretary

00:36:35 parliamentary under secretary um not not particularly um as i said there was always um in most sectors in my experience at that point as i say not just in private in other parts of my brief uh

00:36:47 other parts of my brief uh parts of

00:36:48 parts of industry would always were seeking to have some kind of a regulated structure for themselves oddly and appreciate this is a

00:36:59 oddly and appreciate this is a not that on fire but the hairdressers is an example of that where they wanted that which becomes actually a barrier to entry to the industry but i don't particularly remember uh specifically um being lobbied um or uh

00:37:12 specifically um being lobbied um or uh having people outline issues on this particular area um we were as i say the focus for us when i came into this post was in a different part of the brief really

00:37:21 really can i turn to a separate topic now which is a letter that was sent to you by the then commission of the london fire brigade ron dobson who sent on the 11th of december 2012 and it concerned definition of common

00:37:32 and it concerned definition of common parts

00:37:33 parts under the order and fire risk assessor competency as well as a lack of clarity and approved document b now

00:37:41 now the letter is at lfb trouble zero three two one five four on its first page it says this dear minister

00:37:51 minister you will be aware that the london fire brigade has been carrying out an investigation into the fire that occurred at lachnal camberwell on the third of july 2009. in the course of that investigation a number of issues

00:38:02 that investigation a number of issues have come to light that may warrant consideration by your department the issues have been set out below as a number of recommendations appendix one which is attached to this letter provides background information for each

00:38:14 provides background information for each recommendation and if we can skip a paragraph we see recommendation one and this

00:38:20 and this uh commended the following that government provide further guidance regarding a which parts and areas of buildings containing multiple domestic premises can be described as parts used in common common parts and b how the

00:38:34 in common common parts and b how the fire safety order is intended to operate in relation to these premises where the responsible person does not necessarily have control over features affecting common parts and or common fire precautions recommendation 2 that when

00:38:47 precautions recommendation 2 that when the clg sleeping accommodation guide is revised consideration is given as to how the guide might provide greater assistance for fire risk assessors owners and managers as to how they as

00:38:59 owners and managers as to how they as responsible persons might comply with the order with regards to the common areas of domestic premises if we go to the bottom of page one we find recommendation five that government provide further guidance

00:39:10 that government provide further guidance in relation to requirement before the building regulations particularly with regards to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building if we turn over the page we find recommendations seven

00:39:23 recommendations seven that government provide guidance for the responsible person as to how they might assess that the risk assessor has sufficient training experience and knowledge to carry out a suitable assessment

00:39:34 assessment of the risk in complex and high-risk premises

00:39:37 premises that's a long run up to a short question which is do you remember this letter uh yes i do yes and i was one of the things i'd looked at in terms of putting together my witness statement and did

00:39:48 together my witness statement and did you read it at the time it was received i'm sure i would have done yes now if we turn to the ministerial submission that included a draft response prepared by officials to the commissioner's letter

00:39:59 officials to the commissioner's letter we find that at clg quadruple 0-1859

00:40:06 again we can see from the top right that the submission was drafted by louise upton and we can see that it's dated january 2013 and that it had been cleared by dawn

00:40:17 and that it had been cleared by dawn eastmead

00:40:19 eastmead now do you recall having a discussion with either dawn eastmead or louise upton or indeed both about the substance of the commissioner's letter

00:40:29 letter i don't particularly recall having a discussion about it but it is entirely possible that we would have done do you remember thinking about matters more particularly do you remember discussing the substance of the proposed response

00:40:41 the substance of the proposed response no no

00:40:43 would you discuss with officials the substance of a proposed response this type of letter would you scan it and approve it if it didn't uh raise any concerns with you uh and

00:40:55 raise any concerns with you uh and i wouldn't necessarily have a a conversation with officials about it would depend on excuse me the the first is quite likely the first i saw of the ron dobson letter would have been

00:41:07 of the ron dobson letter would have been it would have come to it would normally come to minister in my experience the the letter from ron dobson would have come with the submission and potentially the draft reply all at the same time

00:41:18 the draft reply all at the same time so um

00:41:20 so um what i would have done as a minister is look through that if i'm happy with it i would have likely just ticked it signed it off to say that's fine if i had queries we may whether then had a conversation about it that's the likely

00:41:32 conversation about it that's the likely process it would have gone through when you're looking at um the letters um proposed letters are you most particularly looking out for matters that are political sensitivity

00:41:43 sensitivity is that the primary focus when considering these drafts um not necessarily i mean that that will be something that you would think about but as a as a politician replying to a

00:41:54 as a as a politician replying to a letter it's instinctive it's instinctive and the reality is everything you write you write

00:41:58 you write knowing it's going to end up at some stage as a public document um but in something like this you would also be looking through do i actually you know is the reply reply we're happy with in whatever context

00:42:10 with in whatever context um this would have and i see from the top left this has gone to myself that then house minister and the building meg's minister mark prisk and don foster the challenge with a letter like this i suspect would have been at

00:42:21 like this i suspect would have been at the time that there are parts of the letter that come into each of our individual briefs and therefore parts of that letter that i won't have taken a view on because they're not areas that were my expertise or portfolio

00:42:35 now given that the response went out under your name to what extent did you scrutinize or test officials on the contents of what they were saying

00:42:46 on the contents of what they were saying given that ultimately you were answerable you were the addressee in the first instance and you are answerable for the content uh it's very i i the honest answer i don't recall but it's very likely that not very much in the

00:42:57 very likely that not very much in the sense of

00:42:59 sense of i would have i would have expected to have gone through the letter and the areas within my portfolio would have a view on and i may would be just very happy with the draft given by officials they are you know the experts and you

00:43:10 they are you know the experts and you you you trust them and you're used to working with them a lot as it happens in in certain areas in the parts of the letter that were not part of my brief um i would have to as even though it's gone within my name

00:43:22 as even though it's gone within my name i would have taken you that the relevant teams working for both mark priest and don foster would have gone through that and if they are happy with it it's their portfolio it's their expertise i wouldn't particularly necessarily comment on that in practice therefore

00:43:34 in practice therefore you're tremendously reliant upon the advice and good judgment of your officials in preparing these responses is that a first summary oh yes absolutely yes if we can look um at the

00:43:46 um at the um and so i should just say there is the that to be fair is very fair and good reason in the sense that as ministers you can sometimes be in a brief for a matter of months if you're fortunate for a matter of years officials will tend to

00:43:58 a matter of years officials will tend to be there for longer so you know they're the ones with the expertise and unless there's something expressed or if it's a contemporary source of political concern you won't necessarily raise any doubts or concerns about the

00:44:09 raise any doubts or concerns about the substance correct and probably the longer you are a minister in a particular brief because again then you you after a period of time you develop your own understanding expertise of an area

00:44:19 area and if we could look at that draft response mr lewis lfb trouble zero three two one five three

00:44:28 now um if we turn to page three

00:44:33 uh we can see it was signed by uh louise upton

00:44:37 upton would it be normal in these circumstances for even though the letter was addressed to you and from the commission of the london fire brigade for it to be i put this globally staffed out to a an official to sign and send

00:44:48 send yes yeah that's not that wouldn't be unusual um ma and the reason for that i would admit i i can't remember the detail at that point but i would imagine that the reason would be that ron dobson is not a politician he is an official

00:45:00 is not a politician he is an official he's uh as the chief commissioner and therefore the reply again to it from an official would not have at the time seemed controversial in itself if we can go back in the document to page one and

00:45:11 go back in the document to page one and look at the third four paragraphs on that page

00:45:14 that page um

00:45:15 um ms upton said this in terms of recommendations one and two we've considered previously the extent to which the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 which gives effect to a number of european council directives

00:45:27 number of european council directives designed to improve safety and health of workers at work was intended to apply to premises or parts of premises other than those which could be viewed as workplaces or places to which the public have access

00:45:38 to which the public have access as you know the order specifically does not apply to domestic premises except the extent mentioned in article 3110 although ultimately only the courts can decide we have no evidence to suggest

00:45:50 decide we have no evidence to suggest that the order was intended to apply generally

00:45:53 generally to the structure of a block of flats in brief this is because it would be artificial to delineate the domestic premises for the purposes of the order in such a way that it excludes the structure such as external walls around

00:46:05 structure such as external walls around a flat

00:46:06 a flat we consider this is the case regardless of whether the structure is in property law terms comprised within the lease or tenancy of a flat because considering the variety of possible arrangements and extent to which various combinations

00:46:17 extent to which various combinations might apply in any one building the results are anomalous we therefore do not consider that the order could have been intended to apply in this way and if we go over the page the first three

00:46:28 if we go over the page the first three paragraphs on page two

00:46:35 she recognizes the legend of complexity in the first paragraph second paragraph is following the lack of fire those responsible fire safety and pubs built flats reported they welcome

00:46:45 welcome additional specific guidance on how to manage fire safety and thirdly uh confirmation there was sector developed guidance in place

00:46:56 in place now the impression arising from that draft is it's merely restating what the department had already done is that a fair reading do you think mr lewis um

00:47:05 um yes other than up into the point where in that final paragraph you mentioned starting following the lack on the house fire obviously that does lead into the work that was then being done with the local government association that with the lakers as it

00:47:17 association that with the lakers as it was referred to to about what they were developing and looking at if we go back to page one just look at what was said in respect of recommendation one

00:47:27 would you agree that the thrust of the response was that the department did not plan to implement the lfb's advice and recommendation that the

00:47:38 lfb's advice and recommendation that the guidance be given on the definition of common parts for the purposes of the order

00:47:42 order uh reading that paragraph yes and the department's response and respect of that definition was essentially that it would be doing nothing more is that a fair reading um but yes in the sense that the the

00:47:54 but yes in the sense that the the outline was that the what was there and in place was satisfactory and presumably you were content with that approach uh yes and as i say at the time um what i what i can't recall and this

00:48:06 um what i what i can't recall and this comes back to your i think your opening question around the the way you sub to deal with and being able to see those not being able to see the original notes um it is entirely possible that some of these areas would not have been directly

00:48:18 these areas would not have been directly my portfolio and therefore i wouldn't particularly commented on it and i would have taken the view that the officials working with the relevant ministers would have put that together in a format that was right and would it be fair to say that you had no informed view

00:48:31 say that you had no informed view of the problems flowing from the absence of a definition of common parts yes that's yeah that is a very fair point and you defer to officials on that particular point yes

00:48:42 particular point yes now louise upton told the inquiry that there was a lack of clarity within the department about the scope of the definition or the absence of any definition of common parts

00:48:53 of any definition of common parts was that something she told you about um not not that i recall particularly in this context she i mean i'm not saying she didn't i just don't particularly record in this context there were and

00:49:06 record in this context there were and this coming to that the final paragraph that's on the screen in in in front of me there were conversations in a different context the time because there were issues around

00:49:17 there were issues around ownership

00:49:18 ownership and how you deal with these areas but with example not particularly regards to fire safety but in a different context

00:49:25 context when i was in the housing brief around for example care homes and residential care homes and exactly where the private domain ends and where the common area begins so that conversation in a

00:49:36 begins so that conversation in a different context happened but that was at a later point now when um ron dobson gave evidence the inquiry he essentially said that the concern which underlay recommendation won

00:49:46 won was the rapidity of fire spread at lac north

00:49:49 north was that concern made clear to you by officials when briefing you on the substance of this response do you recall no not i recall now would it have been unusual

00:50:01 would it have been unusual for you to receive correspondence from the lfb commissioner in these terms making specific recommendations for reform

00:50:08 reform um no i don't think so in the sense that um at a couple of levels one is obviously i was the fire minister so for ron dobson as the commissioner he would naturally write to the

00:50:19 naturally write to the fire minister even if it was related to other areas and it would be for for me as the pharmacist who had the relationship with the london fire commissioner um my team would be the ones who would do the work even with

00:50:30 ones who would do the work even with other ministers and other parts department to then compile that to respond um and i would have had quite a lot of engagement with ron dobson as the london fire commission he's the sort of premier fire chief in the in the country

00:50:42 premier fire chief in the in the country as it were so on a whole range of issues rather like the metropolitan police commission they have a wider role than just london and an expertise so i would have had a lot of interaction with ron dobson generally just following on from

00:50:53 dobson generally just following on from that relative to other chiefs bearing in mind that answer did you ever say to ron dobson listen i've seen your letter of december 2012 what in particular was prompting it why have you

00:51:04 particular was prompting it why have you written to me in these terms um not that i recall but that is that's most likely because it was being dealt with as part of the um the work that the department were doing and i was would have been comfortable at the time that

00:51:16 have been comfortable at the time that the department was properly replying responding to the issues he was raising now if we can look at what is said in the in the response in relation to recommendation five and if we go to um page three of the top paragraph

00:51:29 page three of the top paragraph um said requirement b4 of the building regulations and its supporting guidance explicitly state that external walls should adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another

00:51:41 building to another further guidance is given in the bre publication which is quoted there which explains the objectives for controlling fire spread on the external envelope of tall buildings in detail

00:51:53 buildings in detail now the gist of that response is that requirement b4 and its supporting guidance was sufficiently clear about external walls and fire spread is that a fair reading of that paragraph

00:52:04 fair reading of that paragraph yes and um this this paragraph i think falls into category i mentioned that i sort of refer to in a different context which is the sense that because this is explicitly about building regulations

00:52:15 explicitly about building regulations this is not part of letter i would have necessarily had any knowledge of or taken a view on i would have trusted that the official was working through the building regular team which would have been a different minister um whether it's don foster or stephen

00:52:26 um whether it's don foster or stephen williams i can't quite remember the time frame but uh that that is correct and they were happy with it having read it however and noting louise has underlined the word and i actually would say i do think that is clear as well

00:52:40 now could we return to mr dobson's letter lfb trouble zero three two one five four forward slash six and this is the bit of the letter where he sets out a bit more of his uh

00:52:51 he sets out a bit more of his uh reasoning which underpins recommendation five

00:52:55 five and if we look at the penultimate paragraph on page six uh the letter said this the investigation has highlighted that the intentions of building regulations with regards to restricting the spread of fire over the

00:53:06 restricting the spread of fire over the external face of the building may not be fully understood we do not think that approved document b is particularly clear on this matter now bearing in mind what you've said

00:53:17 now bearing in mind what you've said about building regs falling primarily in the sphere of other ministers but do you remember any concern at the time that whilst officials were telling you that b4 was clear

00:53:29 that b4 was clear you've got the head of the largest fire and rescue service in the country saying we don't think it is did that ever give you cause for concern given its general relevance to fire no i don't record it doing so and when i

00:53:42 no i don't record it doing so and when i when you look at the louise upton response and that particular line um around the the phraseology has to say where she underworld the word and even even reading it with somebody without i

00:53:53 even reading it with somebody without i would have taken two thoughts on it one would have been first of all the building makes team are confident they're the experts they have said that this is okay and this is correct and i would have trusted that and the relevant minister i would have expected to comment on it if he

00:54:04 have expected to comment on it if he felt otherwise and also even on reading louise's resupply as i said and when you look at that the paragraph we had on the screen a few moments ago that language to me i have seen today

00:54:15 that language to me i have seen today looks clear now

00:54:22 bearing in mind the strength of the letter and the fact he's written to you do you remember discussing the contents of mr dobson's letter with um sir ken

00:54:34 letter with um sir ken no i don't actually no did it pass through your mind that it'd be useful to have sir ken's views as to whether mr dobson's concerns reflected broader concerns in amongst fire and

00:54:47 broader concerns in amongst fire and rescue authorities uh well i wouldn't have i wouldn't have got involved in an issue around building regulations so that would have been the building regulations minister i mean the other recommendations yeah no i would have it

00:54:58 recommendations yeah no i would have it is very likely at the time that around wider issues around uh the letter i may well have had a conversation with sir knight i just don't particularly recall it

00:55:06 it none is referred to in your witness statement so can we presume that one didn't take place or would that well as i say i have no recollection of those conversations happening at the time but as i say i

00:55:18 happening at the time but as i say i would have been engaging with and talking to whether it's ken knight and others on a whole range of issues of different times so that doesn't mean it never came up but i don't record a specific conversation about it now when

00:55:29 specific conversation about it now when he gave evidence the inquiry mr dobson stated that the hope in relation to recommendation 5 was that the government would provide some additional advice and clarity in relation to the meaning of b4 or even to

00:55:41 relation to the meaning of b4 or even to revise approved document b altogether were you aware of that particular hope held by mr dobson i don't recall being aware at the time obviously i've seen uh what he's said to

00:55:52 obviously i've seen uh what he's said to the committee and i know the government was looking at looking um at doing work to revise approved document b but that's not something i was involved with or or conscious of at the time now now in respect of recommendation seven um from

00:56:04 respect of recommendation seven um from mr dobson's letter which focused on competency of fire risk assessors louise upton's response doesn't deal with that at all um

00:56:13 um first of all are you able to help us as to why there was no response on that particular issue no and uh no and having read it that that struck me and i can't recall

00:56:24 that struck me and i can't recall realizing that at the time but i don't i don't consciously recall the letter from the time i didn't mean it today no and i i'm feel like i'm unable to help with why that is were you aware at the time whether there were any substantive proposals or even

00:56:37 were any substantive proposals or even early thinking about what to do about the concern expressed about the competency of fiery successes as reflected in mr thompson's letter as i said earlier on i yes i do recall um

00:56:48 said earlier on i yes i do recall um having conversations and we were looking at how we

00:56:51 at how we um ensure in the context particularly on as i say commercial premises where people were sleeping and say hotels bed and breakfast those hmos places like that that

00:57:02 that that there was a that property owners understood they had a duty to ensure that they had proper checks and were doing so in an efficient and effective way there was equally a problem at the time if i recall

00:57:13 recall correctly that people were having issues around

00:57:17 around having multiple checks at different times how do we bring this together to make sure that this is done efficiently and effectively with experts and again the chief firebosses and the fire authorities in those areas are probably the best-placed

00:57:29 those areas are probably the best-placed organizations and experts to be able to advise uh local businesses on doing that thank you can we move on to a separate but related sorry to interrupt you mr before we do can i just um

00:57:40 before we do can i just um seek your help on this looking at the letters now you clearly appreciated that there was no draft response to the recommendation about um

00:57:52 recommendation about um fire risk assessors that is that something that you think perhaps you should have noticed at the time yes so that's a fair point yeah and had you done so what would have happened uh well and this is again comes

00:58:03 happened uh well and this is again comes back to the challenge of not being able to have the original documents with comments it may well be there's a handwritten note somewhere asking that very question i just don't consciously recall it

00:58:12 recall it and it may well have been that there wasn't it wasn't involved in the letter because there'd been a meeting or a separate conversation or something else was happening i just don't i'm a favorite call at the moment looking at it as you say

00:58:24 looking at it as you say chairman now not having that context or knowledge of that it seems odd that that wasn't dealt with or indeed from what i can see wasn't particularly followed up as an issue afterwards which

00:58:35 followed up as an issue afterwards which would infer to me that there was something else going on that was dealing with that separately but i i don't know all right thank you very much we'll

00:58:45 we'll follow this particular topic through um so it may become clear as we follow through the documents if we look now the rule 43 letter that followed the latino house inquest and the department's response to the coroner

00:58:57 response to the coroner um if we can get back to your witness statement clg trouble zero three double one two one forward slash nine and if we look at paragraph 26 uh you confirmed that on the 28th of

00:59:08 uh you confirmed that on the 28th of march 2013 my private office was sent notification of the verdicts on the latino house inquest and if we could look briefly at the letter which we find at hom trouble

00:59:19 the letter which we find at hom trouble zero four five eight six five we can see the coroner wrote to the secretary of state himself um nonetheless would you have seen that letter when it arrived um

00:59:30 um quite likely yes now if we can look at page two and the heading uh fire risk assessment pursuant to regulatory reform fire safety order 2005

00:59:41 2005 the coroner said this the evidence seduced indicated that notwithstanding publication of your department's 2006 guide fire safety risk sleeping accommodation

00:59:52 sleeping accommodation and of the local government association's august 2011 guide there remains uncertainty about the scope of inspection for fire risk assessment purposes which should be undertaken in high-rise residential

01:00:03 undertaken in high-rise residential buildings

01:00:04 buildings evidence was deduced which indicated that inspection of the interior flats or maisonets and high-rise buildings was necessary to enable an assessor to identify possible breaches of the

01:00:15 identify possible breaches of the compartment which have the potential to impact on the fire safety of the resident or others it is recommended that government provide clear guidance on first bullet point the definition of

01:00:27 first bullet point the definition of common parts of buildings containing multiple domestic premises inspection of a maze net or flat which has been modified internally to determine whether compartmentation has been breached

01:00:38 been breached inspection of a sample of flats or maize nets to identify possible breaches of the compartment now that again is a long run up to a fairly straightforward question do you

01:00:49 fairly straightforward question do you accept that the clear thrust of the coroner's recommendation was that there remained uncertainty about the scope of inspection and fire risk assessments of high-rise buildings from that letter yes

01:01:00 high-rise buildings from that letter yes would you also accept that there remained uncertainty about the definition of common parts for the purposes of the order is why else would she recommend that the government provide a clear definition of common

01:01:11 provide a clear definition of common parts

01:01:12 parts again in the co in as as outlined in the letter yes i do accept now if we could go back to your statement clg trouble zero three double one two one forward slash nine we look at paragraph

01:01:23 forward slash nine we look at paragraph 27 you say this on the 17th of april 2013 my private office was sent a submission regarding the latino house inquest rule 43 of fire safety recommendations i provide my

01:01:35 safety recommendations i provide my approval on the 30th of april 2013.

01:01:40 2013. now if we could look at that submission which is a hom trouble zero four six zero six seven again top right hand side drafted by louise upton cleared by dawn eastmeade

01:01:52 louise upton cleared by dawn eastmeade and dated the 17th of april 2013. and if we could turn to paragraph three which lies under the heading recommendation the submission said this to you

01:02:03 said this to you that you agree to respond to the coroner's recommendations set out in paragraph 6 below in respect of the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 and fire safety in multiple domestic premises as follows

01:02:16 premises as follows first bullet point highlight the availability of dclg-funded national guidance fire safety and purpose-built blocks of flats july 2011 owned by the local government association on behalf of the housing and

01:02:27 association on behalf of the housing and fire sectors and confirmed that dclg are working with the lfga to consider whether it remains fit for purpose and second bullet point acknowledge that whilst the legislation i.e the fire

01:02:39 whilst the legislation i.e the fire safety order which applies to the common parts of such buildings and the housing act 2004 which applies to individual dwellings into common parts can be complex annex b the guidance which is well known within

01:02:51 the guidance which is well known within the sector is designed to make its practical applications simple we have no plans to issue new guidance but we will with the lga and stakeholders review and if necessary amend the existing guidance

01:03:03 if necessary amend the existing guidance to ensure it adequately reflects issues raised by the inquest now on what basis did you and i mean you not your officials conclude that a review with only the

01:03:14 conclude that a review with only the possibility of a revision was a sufficient answer to the clear and expressed terms of the coroner's recommendation what

01:03:22 what exactly is is i think what the point that's made there in the submission is fair to do a review to assess whether what is already in place is clear enough and works for the sector and to do that working with as i said in

01:03:33 and to do that working with as i said in uh answer a short while ago that work we were doing with the lga who were the who who through as was called laycors had the ownership of um dealing with the majority of fire services but mr lewis

01:03:44 majority of fire services but mr lewis doesn't that answer miss the vital point here that the ministerial submission only held out the possibility of revision which was clearly far short of what the coroner

01:03:55 clearly far short of what the coroner was expecting of government well the coroner is outlining uh is making a point that they feel that they need to review it is obviously then for the government to have a look at that decide having having done a review as we've

01:04:06 having having done a review as we've said here that work with the lga what is necessary and how to do that to if there is a requirement to amend existing guidance which i think is is is a reasonable response well with

01:04:17 is a reasonable response well with respect mr liu should we go back and just look at what the coroner actually said and if we go to clg trouble zero three double one two one forward slash nine

01:04:30 so it's a wrong reference what i'm trying to find is the

01:04:36 sorry hom trouble zero four five eight six five apologies if we turn to page two

01:04:48 and if we look at the bottom paragraph there that could be expanded the coroner was clear and expressed and unambiguous by what she said which is it is recommended that the government provide clear guidance on

01:05:01 provide clear guidance on so a review which

01:05:04 which offered only the possibility of revision i suggest you falls far short of the more direct provision of clear guidance that she was expecting and recommending would you accept that oh yeah no no yeah i don't disagree i i accept that what

01:05:17 i don't disagree i i accept that what the government was proposing is not what we're trying to directly ask for in that letter but my point is that having had the the um corner asked for the government to provide clear guidance

01:05:29 the government to provide clear guidance the definition of common parts the government's looking at whether the governance is in place is good enough and how and whether and how to change that is i think is is a reasonable response but it's not a response what she

01:05:41 but it's not a response what she recommended would you accept that well she's recommending the government provide clear guidance if you look at what the submission says the submission part of it i would make the case to you that part of what the government is saying is to look at whether our guidance is clear

01:05:53 look at whether our guidance is clear enough um

01:05:55 enough um and then take a view about what needs to be amended if it needs to be amended it would be and that through that period there was quite a lot of work done at clg in a range of areas as i've touched on earlier on around improving things for fire safety

01:06:07 for fire safety so

01:06:07 so i think if there was a view that needed to be improved that we would have looked favorably upon that but it's right the government does the work to make that assessment now bearing that in mind when you were considering the ministerial

01:06:18 you were considering the ministerial submission do you remember putting figuratively or literally the coroner's letter on one side of your desk and looking at the proposed response and asking yourself the question have we done what the coroner

01:06:31 question have we done what the coroner was expecting of us uh well i don't particularly recall um consciously having the um [Music]

01:06:39 [Music] the

01:06:39 the the the submission from the uh officials but it certainly would have been a submission i would have had at the same time is that they'd have been together so i've been looking at them at the same time yes

01:06:49 time yes did you discuss this the substance of the submission with either dornie smith or louise upton i don't know

01:07:00 and that again is where having some of the original documentation would help because i would have likely written on it which to discuss or something along those lines but as i don't record a specific meeting on that you said you were likely to have written

01:07:14 you said you were likely to have written uh let's discuss um why do you think that was a likelihood no just something no no my point was if i had had a meeting on it what this is where the original documentation would be useful i don't recall having a

01:07:26 be useful i don't recall having a specific meeting and conversation on this issue the original documentation would be useful because if i had done or if i'd wanted to i'd have likely written on the sub something like i want to discuss this but i don't i don't recall

01:07:37 discuss this but i don't i don't recall that

01:07:38 that now were you aware at this time that a review of the lga had been carried out in 2012 so before this letter and that review had revealed that some stakeholders considered that there

01:07:49 some stakeholders considered that there were

01:07:50 were gaps in that guidance including respect to flat entrance doors vulnerable people personal evacuation plans and the competency of fire risk assessors i don't recall being aware of that at

01:08:01 i don't recall being aware of that at the time i've seen it through the documentation obviously for the inquiry is that the type of information which you would rely upon officials to give to you uh yes particularly where the guide

01:08:12 you uh yes particularly where the guide is prayed and aid even if

01:08:15 even if you let me finish this question in in relation to the effectiveness of the government's response to the coroner's recommendations yes even um even if it's in the context of an official saying this is our draft reply

01:08:27 official saying this is our draft reply and this is the reason for it i would expect to to have it to put in that format yes because when you see a submission you would you work on the basis that your officials who are as i said earlier

01:08:38 your officials who are as i said earlier effectively the experts you're dealing with this um in issues generally will have taken those issues into account and you you have to work on that basis because they're the ones with the expertise

01:08:48 expertise now did you discuss the proposed response with your secretary of state eric pickles before it was sent not that i recall particularly even though he was the addressee of the coroner's letter well as i say not i

01:09:00 coroner's letter well as i say not i don't recall him a particular meeting about it he would if there was a reply for myself or comments from myself and assad they would have then the way the system was they would have then gone up to the secretary of state's office

01:09:11 to the secretary of state's office in the same way that they're doing the department i'm in now when i when i see a submission if it's gone to a junior minister when it comes to me it will have the junior minister's comments on it for me to consider now a review was uh conducted by the lga

01:09:25 now a review was uh conducted by the lga of its guidance in around june 2013. we've heard from louise upton that there was little substantive response to that review although there was robust endorsement from its

01:09:36 there was robust endorsement from its authors which was construed by the department as an indication that the housing and fire sectors were content that the guidance remained appropriate for purpose first of all were you aware of the fact

01:09:47 first of all were you aware of the fact of the review and its conclusions um i don't i mean i know there was review done but i don't recall being consciously aware of it particularly

01:09:59 can i now turn to a separate topic which is the

01:10:02 is the response provided by the fire sector federation to uh coroner's letter which was addressed to them and if we go back to your witness statement clg trouble zero three double

01:10:13 statement clg trouble zero three double one two one forward slash two one paragraph 54 of your statement at the top of the page you say this on the 24th of may 2013 my private office received a

01:10:25 of may 2013 my private office received a submission regarding the fsf response the coroner and the latino house inquest and an invitation to discuss taking forward the findings of the focus on enforcement review

01:10:36 of the focus on enforcement review i addressed this review later in my statement the fsf response to coroner explained that they were focusing on the immediate questions of competency and effectiveness in carrying out fire risk assessments

01:10:47 assessments the submission recommended that i quote propose a meeting to discuss the synergies between cfo and the fsf stated objectives of supporting proactively

01:10:58 objectives of supporting proactively regulatory compliance and enforcement to better support businesses can you remember did you read the fsf's response to the coroner um i may well have done i don't remember

01:11:09 um i may well have done i don't remember it now but i may well have done at the time

01:11:11 time were you aware that the coronet asked the federation to consider whether it had a role in clarifying uh the scope of fire risk assessments and in particular providing further training for fire risk

01:11:22 providing further training for fire risk assessors

01:11:23 assessors uh again i don't particularly recall that at the time but um as i said i can see it as part of the documentation for the uh

01:11:32 the uh inquiry yeah but it doesn't bring any particular bills no if we can uh stay on page 21 but look at paragraph 57 of your statement where you say that you set up a meeting

01:11:44 where you say that you set up a meeting with paul fuller who's on the 10th of july 2013 and fire risk assessor competency was a proposed a gender item for discussion and you say in the second sentence this

01:11:55 in the second sentence this the submission to my office dated the 8th of july 2013 briefing me for the meeting noted that the fsf had recently published a sector developed competency standard for commercial fire risk

01:12:07 standard for commercial fire risk assessors and that cfo were encouraging fire and rescue authorities to make the details of competence assessors available locally it recommended that i query how the fsf scheme and that of c4

01:12:19 query how the fsf scheme and that of c4 could work together now at the time so thinking march april 2013 what did you know were you aware of the fact of the uh competency standard

01:12:31 fact of the uh competency standard uh i don't recall at the time being particularly alert to that night you say not particularly aware of it well as in i'd not no no no not not that i can remember now

01:12:42 no no no not not that i can remember now thinking back to 2013 no um were you aware of the substance of sifoa's involvement in that proposal that's referred to here only in the sense of

01:12:53 sense of i can't recall what i was aware of at the time but in preparing for looking at the documentation preparing the witness statement

01:12:59 statement one of the um things i was that i am aware of and i i think i was aware of the time was there was also quite a crossover between fsf and sephora itself this was one of the issues around how

01:13:11 this was one of the issues around how you have these things working together in an efficient and a proper way bearing in mind you actually if i remember correctly i think at the time paul was on both boards um

01:13:20 um and and so that side of it was i was aware of yeah so if we can look in the normal course you received a briefing for the meeting and we have that briefing at home zero

01:13:31 briefing at home zero seven 478

01:13:31 seven 478 forward slash one

01:13:36 again drafted by louise upton this time cleared by brian nash and dated the 8th of july 2013 if we could turn over the page to page 2 in paragraph nine it says this

01:13:47 it says this fire sector federation and see foe cfo fuller in his role as deputy chair of the fsf sent you a copy of the fsf's response to the current in the latter house inquests which sets out a number

01:13:59 house inquests which sets out a number of actions it has initiated in response to the recommendations these include one the development of competency for fire risk assessors for sorry for risk assessors including in the housing

01:14:10 assessors including in the housing sector two to advise on changes the next iteration of approved document b the fire safety element of the building regs and three the rollout of a fire safety awareness and publicity program targeted

01:14:21 awareness and publicity program targeted on the fire sector and those involved in building design construction refurbishment given the fsf commitment to apply its influence at the national level to articulate a core concept of integrated

01:14:33 articulate a core concept of integrated fire safety we suggest you our cfo fuller for his view on how these will be taken forward in tandem with the relevant enforcing authorities eg fras fire rescue authorities local

01:14:44 fire rescue authorities local authorities who enforce housing legislation and building controlled bodies if we could look below the proposed agenda items which are on page four

01:14:55 see item two c phone the fire sector federation the bullet points say fire risk assessor competency advice information sharing building on success through wider engagement

01:15:06 engagement and then

01:15:07 and then the question was how do you see the fsf and c4 working together to ensure those needing fire safety advice get consistent information on which to base their decisions can you remember now what was the gist

01:15:19 can you remember now what was the gist of the gist i should say of the discussion on fire safety rather fire risk assessor competency yes and i would just say you read out one of those questions would have been

01:15:30 one of those questions would have been draft questions officials would have suggested you you can use the minister to get a conversation doesn't mean i've necessarily used them you don't follow it as a script it's more of a prompt it's more i mean different ministers

01:15:41 it's more i mean different ministers with different approaches for me they're more of a

01:15:43 more of a a prompt but um yeah i mean this this is that meeting and that part two is on the screen at the moment around five risk assessed competency advice and the

01:15:54 assessed competency advice and the paragraph we just looked at i think it's exactly the point i was referring to a short while ago where we were talking to the sector around these issues of how you ensure that risk assessments have been done properly they've been done

01:16:05 been done properly they've been done efficiently particularly as i say in my mind the focus actually was around bed and breakfast hotel accommodations places like that because obviously you

01:16:16 places like that because obviously you have got and there was conversations at the time

01:16:18 the time there's a huge number around the country of small privately owned hotels not necessarily the big chains and therefore ensuring that people have confidence that they are being properly

01:16:29 confidence that they are being properly risk assessed and that the owners understand either they have a duty and also that they to their to their customers obviously and also that they have access to getting um that advice from experts so

01:16:42 getting um that advice from experts so it was that work and obviously as the um

01:16:45 um sub um around this outlines paul phil had a particular role across both organizations which meant you could bring this together and that was also part of the conversation make sure this is joined up

01:16:56 is joined up do you remember any particular discussion about the national housing fire safety group's development of qualifications for risk assessors and mr fullwood cited this in his response to the

01:17:07 cited this in his response to the coronet do you remember that being a topic of discussion not not specifically no but as i said that doesn't mean it wasn't i just don't recall it so that is possibly a convenient point

01:17:18 point if i may uh suggest a break until half 11 that will allow us to keep on track to allow mr martin uh to start his evidence clean it too you want to truncate the uh break a bit do you yes

01:17:31 truncate the uh break a bit do you yes well it's louis we have a break during each session and now is the time to take it um i'm going to say half past 11 it's slightly shorter than we usually have but there we are that'll keep us moving

01:17:43 but there we are that'll keep us moving um the only thing i have to say now is when you're out of the room please don't discuss your evidence or anything related to it with anyone okay understood thank you very much would you like to go with the action thank you

01:17:58 [Music]

01:18:02 good thank you mr canoe how fast you live thanks

01:31:29 let's ready to carry on hope uh yes tim thank you thank you very much yes mr kenneth mr lewis can we turn to a new topic which is the enforcement review of the rro that was carried out in 2012.

01:31:40 the rro that was carried out in 2012. now you refer to this in paragraph 54 of your statement and you exhibit the review to that we see it at hom treble 0 2 6 04 5.

01:31:56 it was carried out by what was then the department for business innovation and skills in the second half of 2012. what was your department's involvement in that review

01:32:07 in that review um

01:32:09 um not you know at a ministerial level but the departments on something like this would have been working across bayes and the dclg officials now in a letter to stephen o'brien mp dated the 11th of february 2013

01:32:22 dated the 11th of february 2013 which we can find at clg trouble zero one three zero one five

01:32:32 we can see that in the final paragraph on that page in the last sentence that you informed mr o'brien thus the review process is nearing completion the outcome will help inform the fire sector

01:32:44 outcome will help inform the fire sector and how it can proportionately support business and commerce achieve compliance under the fire safety order can you help us how and in what ways did you expect the review uh to inform the

01:32:56 you expect the review uh to inform the fire sector to comply with the order oh well that would to be found that would have depended on what the outcome was it was being led by bays i've responded as the fire minister but as it says in there that's a that was a bayes

01:33:08 says in there that's a that was a bayes lead issue so and i wasn't directly involved at a ministerial level now if we can look at page 19 and the summary of the review and if we look at the first substantive

01:33:19 and if we look at the first substantive paragraph we see that the topic of commercial third-party fire risk assessors was discussed and it says many small businesses are using commercial providers to carry out their risk

01:33:30 providers to carry out their risk assessments with little assurance available on the quality of their service

01:33:35 service moving further down it says this it's halfway in the first paragraph however it is clear that many businesses use commercial third parties

01:33:46 third parties to carry out the risk assessment until recently no certification or accreditation existed in relation to these services and none are currently required in the market meaning that in

01:33:57 required in the market meaning that in effect anyone can offer their services some businesses reported overselling by assessors there were also equipment suppliers and a number of fire professionals question the quality of some commercial providers in practice a

01:34:10 some commercial providers in practice a third party assessment offers no guarantees to a business and sometimes they will found find that a fire protection officer will ask for a for additional measures beyond those identified in the bought in fire risk

01:34:23 identified in the bought in fire risk assessment and if we could move further down

01:34:26 down the page to the second paragraph and halfway down that the review concluded it should be noted that some business

01:34:37 it should be noted that some business bodies are not in favor of accreditation for third parties seeing this as another regulatory step identifying the risk that it may squeeze some smaller operators out of the market and also

01:34:48 operators out of the market and also because they think it may in time lead to businesses having to use a third-party assessment and therefore lead to increased costs for small businesses a number of fire industry professionals nevertheless felt there was a good case

01:35:00 nevertheless felt there was a good case for certification and accreditation now would you agree that on any view this is another example of concerns being expressed regarding the adequacy

01:35:11 being expressed regarding the adequacy of commercial fire risk assessors yes i think this is exactly this again is part of the point i was making excuse me before the break um around the work we were doing with the fire sector and ensuring that

01:35:24 the fire sector and ensuring that property owners understood that they needed to have and where they could get good expert advice now did you read the review when it was published i may well have i don't recall but i may well it's

01:35:35 have i don't recall but i may well it's likely i would have done did this particular finding resonate with you or can you remember it being the subject of discussion with officials um i don't consciously recall um this finding but

01:35:46 consciously recall um this finding but as i said we were having wider conversations and this may well have been part of what was feeding into my mind and others around the conversations we were having at the time with sephora and others around ensuring that

01:35:58 around ensuring that as i say business owners and property owners

01:36:01 owners knew where they could seek and how they could access good quality expert fire assessment advice now can we look at louise upton's proposal for a national excuse

01:36:14 for a national excuse are you okay yeah no no find us um for a national regulator for fire safety which was made in july 2013. now she told us that the recommendation we've just looked at prompted work for a

01:36:25 we've just looked at prompted work for a proposal for a national regulator for fire safety now if we could turn to the development of that proposal and we find first of all a ministerial submission at hom trouble zero four six zero three six

01:36:40 trouble zero four six zero three six now we see from the top right uh corner it was uh written by tani uh nisbet jones national fire policy it's dated the 8th of july 2013

01:36:51 it's dated the 8th of july 2013 and it was entitled fire government response to the night review and in paragraph one it says this this submission seek your views on the scope and ambition of the government

01:37:02 scope and ambition of the government response to facing the future the night review it sets out the arrangements for cross-government involvement and a proposed timetable for publication in october um do you remember this particular submission

01:37:14 particular submission i don't consciously remember this particular submission but i do recall conversations and and let's say the face in the future the night review work yes well if we look at page four and we should find annex a

01:37:26 should find annex a which is excerpts from dawn eastman submission of the 7th of june sr statement blue lights work and government response to the night review now at the very bottom of this page

01:37:38 now at the very bottom of this page there is a title above paragraph two which reads work streams falling out of government response in italics and if we turn over to page five

01:37:49 and if we turn over to page five the last bullet point on that page says this

01:37:52 this the scope for creating a national regulator for establishing and overseeing local approaches to supporting compliance and enforcement of the fire safety order this could provide a consistent framework for the delivery

01:38:04 a consistent framework for the delivery of fire protection services including the provisional advice and development of appropriate technical standards addressing many of the concerns businesses have raised do you recall

01:38:16 do you recall this particular proposal uh no

01:38:20 uh no do you recall discussing the proposal at all with tani nesbitt jones uh not that particular part of it i mean i would have had a conversation around the the general sub and the and we had a number of conversations around the night review

01:38:33 of conversations around the night review um a lot of the focus um at the time from my memory around the night review was actually we could see on this page here was a bullet point a few uh further up on that from from the one you just referenced which was around the retained

01:38:45 referenced which was around the retained and on-call firefighters um and there was brief conversations around fi mergers but that wasn't something we were seriously looking at well let's see if we can um prompt a memory if we can get hom trouble zero four six zero five

01:38:58 get hom trouble zero four six zero five nine

01:39:03 and if we could look at the very bottom of the page there's an email from tani nesbitt jones 17th of july 2013 at 3 52 to your office and if we go to page two

01:39:14 to your office and if we go to page two of this exchange and the sixth bullet point

01:39:18 point and she says this the minister was not keen on the idea of a national regulator but further work should be done to scope the option now

01:39:27 now why were you not keen on the proposed national regulator well so i don't particularly well i don't recall where i was at the time on it but i

01:39:38 where i was at the time on it but i would imagine it would have been because of the the wider issues around looking at how we make things efficient effective with the schemes that we already have with safari rather than creating another body

01:39:50 safari rather than creating another body um

01:39:52 um for for the sector on top of what we already had and that's why i think that's probably why i would imagine the time i would have said i want to see further work for how this would fit if we're gonna if we're going to look at something like this how do we ensure it doesn't just become another layer of

01:40:04 doesn't just become another layer of regulation that doesn't deliver anything meaningful over and above what we've got and the capacity to deliver through the machinery that's already there so it's a generic objection rather than a considered evaluation of the advantages

01:40:16 considered evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the of the proposed well i think the point in that paragraph about further work needing to done to scope the option is about would be about seeking um details on that particular option if it's something we were going to look at but you clearly formed

01:40:29 to look at but you clearly formed sufficient view not to like the idea given what i wouldn't consider jones reports yeah conceptually it's unlikely i would be attracted to creating another body on top of bodies we already have in existence i've been more into looking at

01:40:41 existence i've been more into looking at how we use the bodies we've got now we know that louise upton was commissioned to make a start on developing a range of options and we know that she produced a paper in december 2013 on the proposed national

01:40:54 december 2013 on the proposed national regulator for fire safety we don't need to go to that but do you recall any substantive discussion with either tani nisbet jones with louise

01:41:05 either tani nisbet jones with louise upton or dawn eastmead on the advantages or disadvantages of the national regulator model um no though that doesn't mean they didn't take place and i should have said earlier on just

01:41:17 and i should have said earlier on just to

01:41:18 to explain the reality is back in that period in that particular role it's likely that in any given day i would have been having meetings on different issues about pretty much solidly all day every on on half hour every half an hour

01:41:30 every on on half hour every half an hour so within a lot of other meetings a whole range of things have been discussed wouldn't necessarily have been the

01:41:36 the the core focus but i don't particularly remember a specific meeting on this but as i say because the scale of number of meetings would have been having in any given day over three four days a week when in london it's possible that that would have

01:41:47 it's possible that that would have happened no the proposal did not progress do you know why it did not progress

01:41:52 progress um no i mean looking at the um looking at the paragraph that's in front of me it could well be because the further work came to a conclusion that the the bodies we already had are able to deliver what we need but i don't

01:42:04 deliver what we need but i don't particularly recall where you've uh required officials to carry out further work how would you keep a track on that further work being done would you just rely upon officials providing it to you uh essentially yes um

01:42:17 uh essentially yes um yes you'd be you'd rely on officials um coming forward with that work once i had the chance to obviously do the work you're relying partly on your own memory that there is something you've asked to be done and it hasn't come back yet

01:42:29 be done and it hasn't come back yet after a period of time in the department we also used to run a a sort of spreadsheet we called it the grid

01:42:39 grid across a range of it across the whole department that would have been tracking key things whether it would have got i don't think it would have gone down to the detail of this but there are certain things would have been on that grid and therefore would have been kept in on whether they

01:42:51 would have been kept in on whether they are green amber red in terms of time frame there would also be a reminder that

01:42:55 that around the particular should need to be chased up or decisions to be made now if we can look at the proposal

01:43:03 hom trouble0046039

01:43:12 and if we go to page two and it's really the first line of the second paragraph from the head of the page the paper says this minister's expectation has been that the fire sector will step up to the plate

01:43:24 sector will step up to the plate and work together to deliver a strong self-governing sector now the general thrust of the paper is that that have not happened first of all do you recall seeing this particular paper

01:43:36 particular paper uh no but it's it's likely i did um

01:43:41 um can you remember why you continued to support the concept of a self-governing sector uh when the evidence was building up that it wasn't stepping up to the plate to the extent required

01:43:52 plate to the extent required um because generally across government at the time we were particularly um thinking

01:43:59 thinking fire at that point effectively formed part of the local government family it came within the local government association in many parts of the country it was governed by county councils as still is actually

01:44:10 county councils as still is actually through local authorities so it formed part of the local government family and we were always looking at how we devolved power away from central government to to local authorities and to fire

01:44:21 to local authorities and to fire authorities as the experts as the people closest to the residents that they serve to to function and obviously through fire particularly with the chief pharmacists association and through the lga's

01:44:33 and through the lga's um

01:44:34 um structures for fire that they were the competent bodies to be able to manage your money and that's what they need to be empowered to do and encouraged to do and that was that was always our

01:44:45 that was that was always our focus across a range of areas now on the assumption that you maintain an open mind on these matters can you help us what would it have taken to have shifted your preference for a sector-led

01:44:57 your preference for a sector-led approach to one of regulation i'm thinking particularly in the area of the competency of uh fire risk assessors um

01:45:06 um i i don't know i mean i i that's a hypothesis it's quite difficult to answer sort of eight nine years on from where we were well we would have looked at that what i would have done would have been looking at um

01:45:17 have been looking at um looking at whether we think the sector is able to manage something whether fresh and obviously there's a difference between guidelines and regulation and what the sector already has powers to do um and whether the government needing to

01:45:29 um and whether the government needing to take uh primary statutory um powers to do something is moving away from the focus of what we're looking to do whether it actually adds anything to the powers that they already have

01:45:40 the powers that they already have but given the overall thrust of government policy at the time which you've summarized for us today can you give us an idea though of what would have been required in terms of event in terms of level and

01:45:52 terms of event in terms of level and noise of complaints regarding for example fire risk assessor competency for the government to have taken the decision that regulation was now justified and that the sector-led approach had failed

01:46:05 approach had failed um well i think you'd look at it we would be looking at on individual cases as we did with things like the carbon monoxide testing program which we obviously

01:46:14 obviously issued through clt for a different part to my own portfolio but there's a range of areas where we were through that period

01:46:21 period particularly in building rigs planning in other areas bringing in regulations so where we felt it was a the right thing to do and it was uh the the only way to deliver something then we weren't shy of doing that if it

01:46:33 then we weren't shy of doing that if it would have been on a case-by-case basis on a particular issue well bearing in mind that answer let's look at page three of this paper and in particular under the heading implications which is in the bottom half of that page the first paragraph

01:46:45 the first paragraph under that heading says this without an effective sector-wide holistic approach to fire safety it seems that the government's policy of standing back to allow the sector to fill the space

01:46:56 allow the sector to fill the space vacated by government is risky the paper then goes on to identify six particular risks

01:47:03 risks first the government's reputation on public safety no one has any certainty on standards benchmarks for appropriate levels of safety in non-domestic premises and the policy of allowing the

01:47:15 premises and the policy of allowing the sector to fill the gap is criticized secondly the cost of compliance for business varies unacceptably according to the advice available and the approach of the enforcing authority turn over the

01:47:27 of the enforcing authority turn over the page

01:47:29 page thirdly the courts and or government are increasingly asked to arbitrate in disputes between businesses increasing the perception of sector failure and a lack of interest in appropriate public safety standards

01:47:41 safety standards fourthly pressure grows for legislative change including the introduction of prescriptive fire safety standards which may be attractive to some but not others fifthly the lack of a nationally agreed

01:47:54 fifthly the lack of a nationally agreed competency standard for fire safety officers means fras are increasing unable to deliver their advice audit and enforcement standards effectively sixthly and finally there is no

01:48:06 sixthly and finally there is no organization with a strategic oversight of emerging technological developments commissioning research and promoting the need for proportionate standards benchmarks and working with industry both clients and fast sector

01:48:18 both clients and fast sector professionals as well as the enforcing authorities to develop appropriate and credible guidance and enforcement policies

01:48:26 policies now given the cumulative weight and power

01:48:31 and power of those six risks that the paper had identified why did you hold fast and persist in rejecting the idea of a national regulator for fire safety well as i said

01:48:42 regulator for fire safety well as i said to you i don't particularly recall this

01:48:45 this this document i'm not saying i didn't see at the time but i have no recollection of uh i don't recall the document and what i don't know at the moment is and what i haven't been able to see is what um

01:48:56 to see is what um these are projected possible risks of course what they would have also been i suspect at the time would have been advice around actually doing it this uh the way that we were doing it i mean in terms of working through the sector

01:49:08 terms of working through the sector we think we can manage these risks with uh with various outcomes and with various actions potentially um including through the conversations we have with the sector itself so as i say that i don't have because i haven't got those

01:49:19 don't have because i haven't got those um that submission in front of me but what there appears to be as an absence of evidence that uh you asked officials tested officials asked questions of officials

01:49:30 questions of officials regarding this analysis to satisfy yourself

01:49:34 yourself that the position that a regulator wasn't required remained true now why didn't you ask those questions of officials well again that comes back to one of the issues of not having the original documentation i may well have

01:49:46 original documentation i may well have asked that very question in a submission i don't know because i can't see those original comments in a submission and as i said i have no i don't recall seeing this document now we know that the national regulator wasn't set up

01:49:59 national regulator wasn't set up were you content for that proposal to wither on the vine given

01:50:05 given a predisposition against further regulation in this area well in the sense that at the time obviously we took a decision that we as you say that that wasn't going to be progressed we took the we obviously took the view at the time that

01:50:17 obviously took the view at the time that there was um sufficient structure and the work we were doing with the sector to to manage these issues again not having the ability to see um the original questions that may have

01:50:28 the original questions that may have been asked and comments we may well have made on those submissions i can't really comment for that i don't have access to the comments we would have made directly at the time on these issues but you don't recall

01:50:39 don't recall concern at least that the sector-led approach was failing

01:50:44 failing i don't know i don't recall there being a

01:50:46 a particular concern about a sector-led approach failure and actually the focus was on working with the sector so the sector could take things forward in a positive way now we know nothing happened in relation to the national regulator but given that this proposal

01:50:58 regulator but given that this proposal flowed from the findings of the focus on enforcement review what did you require to be done to ensure appropriate standards of competency on the part of fire risk assessors

01:51:09 assessors in what sense do you make well ensuring that the concerns expressed in this document was addressed well i say without seeing the the submissions without having that front to me i can't

01:51:20 without having that front to me i can't recall what the conversations would have been and the submission comments would have been at the time do you recall doing having any thoughts at all about the particular issue of the competency standards of fire risk assessors

01:51:31 standards of fire risk assessors no at the time as i said earlier on the the

01:51:34 the the conversation we're having around this were around working with safoa around how we ensure that um the work they were doing to engage with uh property owners and business owners

01:51:45 property owners and business owners around ensuring that they had access to and knew how to source the the advice that they needed to to fulfill the work they needed to do for risk assessments but but again this was

01:51:56 risk assessments but but again this was not

01:51:57 not one of the key areas we were working on at the time now let's look at how these matters developed over time and next can we turn to the reply you gave to james cleverley

01:52:08 james cleverley in october 2013 to correspondence you'd receive from him if we go to clg trouble zero two 301

01:52:15 two 301 forward slash ten

01:52:22 in paragraph thirty um here you refer to your response to mr cleverley's letter of the 26th of september 2013 which had enclosed a letter from commissioner dobson as he then was asking for an

01:52:33 dobson as he then was asking for an update

01:52:35 update on the recommendations he'd made in his letter of 11th december 2012 they're the matters we discussed earlier this morning

01:52:42 morning now if we can turn to the letter to james cleverley that's lfb trouble zero five eight treble nine

01:52:54 uh this is your response to him dated or

01:52:58 dated or date stamped earlier 16th of october 2013 and if we look at the second paragraph of your reply on page two

01:53:08 and there you say this finally your letter notes that london fire brigade did not receive a response in respect to the recommendation that the government provide guidance to the responsible person on how they might

01:53:19 responsible person on how they might assess that risk that the risk assessor is competent to carry out a suitable assessment of risk in complex and high rise premises fire sector federation published in february 2013 the competency criteria

01:53:31 february 2013 the competency criteria for fire risk assessors that had been developed and agreed by the fire safety sector these criteria which have been adopted by by a number of certification bodies was published alongside guidance

01:53:42 bodies was published alongside guidance for responsible persons looking for help in finding an independently certified competent fire assessor to help them comply with their duties under the fire safety order the guide is available on the federation's website and my

01:53:54 the federation's website and my department has along with the chief fire officers association encouraged individual fire and rescue authorities to make it available to the public on their websites first of all do you recall

01:54:06 first of all do you recall the substance of this response um well obviously in preparing for the uh inquiry i've gone through this um gone through the the correspondence and yes i mean that letter would have been

01:54:17 yes i mean that letter would have been for me and i recorded in that sense yes now bearing in mind what's set out there um

01:54:23 um by this stage can we just go through what the department at least were aware of first that ken knight had identified fire risk assessor competence as a concern

01:54:33 concern in his latino report in july 2009 secondly there were the lfb's concerns about fire risk assessor competency from its tall and timber buildings a timber-framed building's report the

01:54:45 timber-framed building's report the issues raised in the future the national interest work stream report in the fire futures review and that was december 2010 and you had commissioner dobson's letter of 11th of december 2012

01:54:58 dobson's letter of 11th of december 2012 and by this stage you also had what the department at least had the benefit of the findings of the focus on enforcement review now given what at least your officials

01:55:09 now given what at least your officials were aware of um can you help us as to why you remained content to leave competency of fire risk assessors to the industry rather than intervening intervening by way of regulation to

01:55:21 intervening by way of regulation to ensure competency um well yeah i mean to an extent in the sense of uh with with this letter for example that would not have um that would not have come up and i

01:55:33 um that would not have come up and i don't recall that letter come out to be signed in the context of his reply to a letter um and as you have just fairly done outlining all of those you know following this issue this issue this is sure this comment is commented on these

01:55:45 sure this comment is commented on these dates we think this is your appropriate response this would have come up with james cleveland's letter and then this is a draft reply so as a minister you would assume that the officials have done that work and taken into account in terms of putting

01:55:56 taken into account in terms of putting this forward in the context of what we were looking at i think this reinforces the point i was making i think in my last answer actually around the work we were focused on doing this work with the sector um and also how you work to

01:56:09 sector um and also how you work to ensure nothing this is i would say is the point being made in the latter part of that paragraph with um those private landowners and business owners to be

01:56:21 to be educated about where they seek that guidance and that guidance and advice risk assessment is coming from the experts which is the fire sector itself based on that um fsf publication in in february of 2013

01:56:33 fsf publication in in february of 2013 that that would have been the right and appropriate response and as i say again at this point this was this would not have been the key issue and this would have been this would this would not have been the sort

01:56:45 would this would not have been the sort of main issue that i was dealing with even the department more widely in terms of fire um generally by this stage um remember that thinking about the data this letter we would have been much more focused this would have been very much

01:56:57 focused this would have been very much a dealing with the letter rather than the the conscious issues we'd have been dealing with in fight but much more at that time focused around um the the the strikes the dispute we were having with the fbu

01:57:08 having with the fbu and so again even at this stage you've been prime minister for some time by now

01:57:15 by now that you were content to defer to officials on these matters because your focus was diverted elsewhere yes and and but equally um i would say that as as i've said a few times this morning we

01:57:27 i've said a few times this morning we were focused on the look in the bodies we already had in the sector and how can we work with them to deliver what needs to be done to get the right outcomes rather than on um taking a more central approach to things

01:57:38 taking a more central approach to things when our entire ethos was about moving um more to devolving power away from central government rather than bringing it in but was there in reality we're dancing around the

01:57:49 in reality we're dancing around the truth here which is that there was an aversion to increased regulation even in the face of failure by the industry to remedy the problems about competence of

01:58:00 remedy the problems about competence of fire risk assessors i don't think that's fair actually in the sense of i think from memory if you look through the amount of

01:58:07 amount of guidance

01:58:08 guidance publications regulations that were brought through clg and a whole range of areas around building rights but particularly on fire and i've mentioned

01:58:18 carbon monoxide testing and obviously the smoke alarm work we were doing i think we were very focused uh in terms of ensuring that we were not shy of doing what we felt was right i think just in this in this area the view

01:58:29 think just in this in this area the view was you know as we were looking to continually devolve away from central government working with the experts in the field was the right way to do it but uh mr lewis wasn't the problem that the message that was coming back from those

01:58:40 message that was coming back from those who were

01:58:41 who were knowledgeable in this field is that the sector was not doing the job um well as i say in the conversations i've as i recall them with um sifo and the fsf at that

01:58:54 them with um sifo and the fsf at that time they were actually quite um focused on how what they can do to to to run this area i don't particularly recall them saying that this wasn't something they could do

01:59:05 they could do but yeah

01:59:06 but yeah all right

01:59:08 now i'm mindful of what you've said about your responsibility for the building regulations could we though just look at the final paragraph on page one of this response

01:59:19 one of this response we said we have also commissioned a range of research to inform a future review of the building regulations part b the chief fire officers association and others are involved in a research program to support the next iteration

01:59:30 program to support the next iteration and individual fire and rescue authorities will have the opportunity to feed in comments at the consultation stage we plan to publish a new edition of approved document b in 2016

01:59:41 document b in 2016 2017. now do you remember having any uh informed or considered view as to the timing and the appropriateness of the timing of any further review of approved document b no

01:59:53 approved document b no and so in relation to this you'd sign it off because the officials who are responsible to form that view uh

01:59:59 uh yes actually slightly more than that in the sense of um

02:00:03 um if i was consciously thinking about i would yes the officials would have done that but also i would assume that the building rig's minister would have seen this and be happy with that comment

02:00:15 seen this and be happy with that comment as well i don't recall having a conversation with him about it um and as i said actually until i went through the documentation for um the inquiry i don't consciously recall ever being aware of approved

02:00:26 recall ever being aware of approved document b as it happens it's not something that ever um that i was directly

02:00:31 directly ever having a conversation or thought about

02:00:34 about when she gave evidence the former deputy commissioner of the lfb rita dexter um said that she felt that the lfb were not pushing at an open door in their communications with the department about

02:00:45 communications with the department about their broader concerns about proof document b fire recessive competency and the rest of it um had she hit the nail on the head there that basically the government was not

02:00:56 that basically the government was not minded to intervene by way of regulation notwithstanding the evidence first of all of failure in relation to fire risk assessor competency and the persistent concerns about clarity of approved document b well on

02:01:08 document b well on the fire risk assessment so we had a view about how we developed that away from central government in terms of approved document b um i don't know what reaction because i wasn't that wasn't my area um so i can't

02:01:20 wasn't that wasn't my area um so i can't particularly comment on that other than if the go if the department had said which it had done that it was doing a full review of approved document b um from the building very side of it with a view to publishing a new edition then i

02:01:32 view to publishing a new edition then i would actually suggest that the the department of tech review that it didn't need updating it was doing that work and doing that detailed work behind that on building modes but so that wasn't my part of the portfolio so i'm probably not able to help too much

02:01:44 probably not able to help too much further on that now can we move on to a stock take meeting and a refusal to attend that meeting regarding the latino recommendations on the 30th of october 2013. and if we go

02:01:56 the 30th of october 2013. and if we go to clg quadruple zero zero double six one forward slash four

02:02:05 uh this is an email chain and we see uh page four the bottom email on that

02:02:12 on that uh ch on that page rather sent it to 5 32

02:02:17 32 and we can see that on the 18th of october 2013 eric pickles and the other recipients of rule 43 letters from the coroner were invited to a meeting on the 30th of october 2013

02:02:28 30th of october 2013 by harriet harman mp quote to take stock of the progress that has been made and harriet harman was the mp for peckham at the time is that right yes yes do you recall this

02:02:41 right yes yes do you recall this particular invitation um no other than seeing it as part of going through the documentation for for the inquiry now can we look at the advice that you and mr pickles received about the

02:02:52 and mr pickles received about the meeting hom trouble zero four eight double one zero

02:03:04 again top right corner we can see it was judged by louise upton dated the 24th of october 2013 cleared by dawn eastmeade we can see a paragraph one in the last

02:03:15 we can see a paragraph one in the last sentence the advice was we suggest that the invitation is declined but the secretary of state offers an update on the actions that the department is taking to address the outstanding issues

02:03:26 taking to address the outstanding issues do you recall considering that advice and considering whether you should in fact attend the meeting um

02:03:33 um no i don't um but looking at the submission itself um

02:03:41 but i would have taken the advice of it for i suspect there was a would have been

02:03:45 been a couple things if i was thinking about this consciously would have been first of all there would have been a potentially dire issue about i can't quite remember what the timeline was between this and the actual meeting um and whether literally die wiser

02:03:57 um and whether literally die wiser filling as i said earlier on the the the diary in dclg was often completely chock-a-blocked for quite a long way in advance so putting things in was always quite challenging on a for a range of issues particularly if i'm ever

02:04:08 range of issues particularly if i'm ever credited this from the previous uh page that we had on the screen was i think the hareham was looking for a wednesday morning wednesday morning was always set aside for there was a series

02:04:19 always set aside for there was a series of in department meetings both what we call prayers but in meetings we had with outside bodies the lga um and a few other groups so it would have clashed with that but equally the the

02:04:30 clashed with that but equally the the responsibilities going from the that final sentence um there that sort of where it says but the secretary of state offers an update that would have been quite

02:04:39 quite normal and still would be that a secretary of state would respond to somebody of harry harmon's standing with her

02:04:45 her position and experience in parliament rather than a junior minister and he declined to attend and um you had no role in the decision regarding attending that meeting no i think correct yes now following that meeting you were sent a parliamentary

02:04:56 meeting you were sent a parliamentary question by harriet harman which you detailed at paragraph 31 on page 10 of your statement and if we go to clg trouble zero three double one two one forward slash ten

02:05:09 forward slash ten you say this on the fourth of november 2013 i answered a written parliamentary question from harriet harman regarding the latin house coroner's recommendations this response referred ms harman mrs harmon to the local

02:05:21 ms harman mrs harmon to the local government association's guidance for the rationale of the state put principle it confirmed that following the conclusion of previous inquests the local government association had been assured that there was a high level of

02:05:33 assured that there was a high level of confidence in the existing guidance this answer to the parliamentary question was prepared by my policy team and signed off by spads though i approved the answer i have no

02:05:44 though i approved the answer i have no conscious memory of the exchange it was not a contentious matter at that time and as such it would be unusual for me as a minister to adjust the answer uh before approval

02:05:55 before approval now if we can turn and look at the question itself hom quadruple zero 0-2157

02:06:03 0-2157 and it's the top of the page in the first question

02:06:08 to ask the secretary of state for communities and local government with a reference to the recommendation of judge kirkham following the conclusion of the latville house firing quest when he expects to provide clear guidance on the

02:06:19 expects to provide clear guidance on the scope of inspections which should be undertaken in high-rise residential buildings for fire risk assessment purposes

02:06:26 purposes and then below in the last paragraph on the page your response to ms harman is

02:06:32 is this

02:06:33 this following the conclusion of the inquests relevant partners have assured the local government association that there is a high level of confidence in existing guidance my department therefore continues to make it available on the

02:06:45 continues to make it available on the fire safety pages of the government's website to help the owners of purpose build blocks of flats to understand and discharge their fire safety responsibilities under both the housing act 2004 and the registry reform fire

02:06:57 act 2004 and the registry reform fire safety order 2005. now

02:07:01 now i appreciate your evidence that the answer was prepared by spads but what assurances had been given and by whom

02:07:10 by whom to the local government association about the existing lga guide do you know i don't know um sitting here today no that may well have been there may have been information around that in the

02:07:21 been information around that in the submission because when a parliamentary question um comes to the minister like this it will have some background information around it um to explain the answer and that that may well be answered in that

02:07:33 that that may well be answered in that but not that i'm not that i recall i'm aware of who that would have been now if we can stay on this page we can see at the very top is the second question which ms harmon posed which was this to ask the secretary of

02:07:45 which was this to ask the secretary of state for communities and local government with reference to the recommendation of judge kirkham following the conclusion of the latino house firing quest whether he has published consolidated national guidance in relation to the state of principle and its interaction

02:07:57 state of principle and its interaction with the get out and stay out policy including how such guidance is disseminated to residents do you recall if you took the reference to consolidated national guidance

02:08:09 to consolidated national guidance to be a reference to the national operational guidance known as generic risk assessment 3.2 no

02:08:16 no as it no i don't recall do you have any knowledge of those matters at all or any recollection of those matters not consciously no

02:08:28 were you aware and that let's put the rationale underpinning my question were you aware of the recommendation from the coroner that gra 3.2 be revisited um

02:08:39 um i i

02:08:40 i i i can't recall being particularly aware of that so i wouldn't necessarily have been thinking about that in the context of responding to that question unless it was part of what was in a sub sitting behind the the draft response what was the extent

02:08:52 the draft response what was the extent of your knowledge about the work that has been carried out by the department on gra 3.2 i don't recall anything you're i don't recall what work was going on

02:09:04 going on could i now turn to the stephen hunt inquest that was carried out in june 2016.

02:09:10 2016. now mr hunt was a firefighter who died attending a fire in manchester on the 13th of july 2013. the inquest concluded in may 2016 so roughly three years after the event

02:09:23 roughly three years after the event at that time you were the minister of state for policing and the fire service which included fire and resilience as we discussed earlier now do you recall the stephen hunter inquest at all uh yeah yes i mean not

02:09:36 inquest at all uh yeah yes i mean not not in detail but i remember the case do you recall that the jury found that inadequate fire risk assessments which have been carried out between 2009 and 2011 was one of the factors that

02:09:48 2011 was one of the factors that probably contributed significantly to the death of stephen hunt uh no i don't recall that

02:09:55 if we can look at the recommendation which was made by the senior coroner nigel meadows in a prevention of future death report dated the 8th of june 2016 and your response which we can find at hom

02:10:07 response which we can find at hom trouble zero 43186

02:10:13 now this appears to be a draft of the letter that you sent to the senior coroner

02:10:18 coroner mr meadows in response to the coroner's prevention of future death reports is that a correct assumption to make um yes yeah yeah looking at it yes

02:10:32 now if we can we've got a copy of the signed front page of the letter which is hom trouble zero double sorry treble three eight four

02:10:46 and if

02:10:49 now can you help me with whether the letter would have substantially changed for any reason between the draft that we first looked at and this one

02:10:59 um no

02:11:01 no no no if we look at page six

02:11:12 thank you we see one of the recommendations made by the coroner is at recommendation nine and he commended the following it is suggested that the secretary of state for the home department considers

02:11:23 for the home department considers measures to ensure that one fire risk assessors are adequately trained and qualified says to be competent in the role and two the responsible person has the means to verify the competence of any

02:11:35 means to verify the competence of any person holding themselves out to be a fire risk assessor first of all do you remember that recommendation uh not consciously no the response provided by your department

02:11:46 the response provided by your department um is set out below in unemboldened text and it said this the government makes available guidance to help responsible persons comply with fire safety legislation

02:11:58 fire safety legislation this guidance is clear that where a responsible person is unable to apply the guidance to their particular premises then they should seek expert advice from a competent person the government has worked with the fire

02:12:09 the government has worked with the fire sector including cfoa to develop a set of criteria against which the competency of those offering commercial fire risk assessment services could be assessed and independently certified

02:12:20 and independently certified these criteria were published in 2013 by the fire risk assessment competency council alongside a guide to choosing a competent fire risk assessor this guide updated in 2014 includes details of

02:12:33 updated in 2014 includes details of organizations holding registers of companies or individuals whose competency to carry out fire risk assessments has been independently assessed by certification and or professional body

02:12:45 professional body now the criteria that was being referred to here was the fire risk assessor competency council's competency criteria which was published in the 21st of december 2011. first of all do you

02:12:58 of december 2011. first of all do you recall that level of detail um

02:13:02 um no no i mean i as i say i recall this the the um the fact that we were we were referring back to um

02:13:14 we were referring back to um the the structures that that are in place that the government has approved but not not in the context of um applying to that letter that you showed me a few moments ago

02:13:25 showed me a few moments ago do you particularly recall reviewing and considering the proposed response to the uh coroner's recommendations um i'm not sitting here today no i don't

02:13:36 um i'm not sitting here today no i don't particularly um recall what the process we would have gone through back at that point now do you recall whether

02:13:44 whether you remembered the pre-existing concerns about the competency of fire risk assessors that being raised back in 2013 and whether that rang any bells when you came to consider this particular recommendation um no i don't

02:13:57 particular recommendation um no i don't um as i said and our position would still have been that we were um our role was around having that structure as outlined in that paragraph we just looked on the previous page um

02:14:10 we just looked on the previous page um that the the sector has those experts there and we make sure that uh property owners and that are alert to and aware of where they can seek that advice should they require it if they don't have that competency within their

02:14:21 have that competency within their organisation can you help us as to it may well be you've answered this slightly but why notwithstanding the concerns that had now been expressed for many years about

02:14:33 now been expressed for many years about the competency of fire risk assessors why you concluded there was no need to consider further measures when necessary um well

02:14:42 um well what i can't recall is what um what further work we were doing behind the scenes and if we were given further consideration and we would all of these things

02:14:51 things to one extent or another all of these things would always be kept under some form of review but at any given point we would look at it and even at that stage there clearly we were of the view that there is still enough of the the structure is there

02:15:03 enough of the the structure is there and actually our role is around supporting the sector to make sure that as i say those property owners or the the relevant person the duty of care if they don't have that expertise within

02:15:14 if they don't have that expertise within the organization knows where they should look for

02:15:18 look for people who are properly qualified to do that work and part of that work is ensuring that they are have easy access to understand who is properly qualified as opposed to who is not now can we take it though that um you have no particular

02:15:31 it though that um you have no particular recollection of the reasons why but the conclusion was that no further measures were required uh that's not beyond what i've just outlined though as opposed to putting a

02:15:42 outlined though as opposed to putting a gloss on the responses yes are you able to assist the panel with what were the detailed reasons as to why there was no need to consider further measures to allow responsible persons to

02:15:55 measures to allow responsible persons to verify the competence of a fire risk assessor would be able to help us with that and not i don't think so beyond what i've already said in terms of the work we were doing with the sector and the sector's own work on this and so again this is an example where

02:16:07 again this is an example where uh you would defer to the advice and knowledge of the officials who are briefing you is that fair uh both the officials who are briefing us but ultimately that also encompasses the expertise of

02:16:18 that also encompasses the expertise of the of the experts in the field which would be effectively through safari um and organization groups like that um the chief officers themselves clearly you've had one coroner at lachnall

02:16:29 lachnall raising

02:16:32 raising broad terms concerns about competency virus successors you have another coroner the senior coroner mr meadows here raising nearest dammit the same concern did that not prompt in your own mind

02:16:45 did that not prompt in your own mind questions

02:16:47 questions of your officials and questions of those in the sector from whom you were taking advice as to whether intervention was now necessary and desirable it may as i say this comes about too i i

02:16:59 it may as i say this comes about too i i i don't recall looking at it or being alerted at that point in time in that cumulative sense that you've just outlined quite fairly it is possible that at the time when a

02:17:10 it is possible that at the time when a submission came in around this issue that we myself or any other minister made but in this resource would have been myself may well have raised those questions i don't have access to that um information at the moment i don't consciously recall particularly

02:17:22 consciously recall particularly challenging in that way because our as again even at that point in time our fact that that's not where our focus was on other areas as i said in the opening remarks

02:17:31 remarks earlier this morning around fire um and therefore we would have been comfortable with the position the government's taken based on the advice from the experts and our officials that that process is one that's still competent well we've seen

02:17:42 that's still competent well we've seen that well i'm sorry mr can you just just help me with this if you could miss lewis i do understand the difficulty you have in not having uh the original paperwork to

02:17:53 to stimulate your recollection and i understand that there may be occasions when you did write notes or

02:18:00 notes or raise questions for your officials and that you can't remember now one way or the other but if you did could we expect to see that reflected in the subsequent conduct of your officials

02:18:12 subsequent conduct of your officials uh i would like to think so yes yes in the sense of if um even if it was in a handwritten note to a submission saying that can we look into this or can i have some further advice on this you

02:18:24 i have some further advice on this you would expect that there would be that further advice or at some stage in the future there'd be a response to that in terms of some work from officials as i say i don't i'm not i don't consciously recall that um because i think we were

02:18:36 recall that um because i think we were for my memory we were confident that comes with the work we were doing with the sector that the the right way to do this was still with the experts in the sector yes but the reason i ask the question is because

02:18:47 question is because it might follow that if we do not see any

02:18:50 any uh action being taken by your officials which ordinarily one would imagine would be recorded in some way and we might infer that you did not make any such note or raising oh yes yes no that that

02:19:03 note or raising oh yes yes no that that that is absolutely right and that's why i say it's equally and i would say more like from my memory that we were comfortable with the advice we were getting and the work we were doing with the sector that those sector-led experts were still the right people to to to

02:19:15 were still the right people to to to manage this thank you

02:19:17 thank you yes

02:19:18 yes the chairman's slightly stolen my thunder and the question i was going to ask you we've seen no evidence that any further work was done so can we take it that you didn't ask the questions as i say it's i would if if i had made

02:19:30 as i say it's i would if if i had made that kind of request i would expect to see something come back from officials but as i've also said and just answering the chairman as well my conscious uh recollection is as far as it goes is we

02:19:41 recollection is as far as it goes is we were comfortable with the work we were doing with the sector was still the right way to progress so notwithstanding the cumulative weight of the concerns that have been expressed now by two coroners dealing with fatalities

02:19:53 fatalities in which they'd raised concerns about the competency of thyroid successes nonetheless you remained content that intervention wasn't required yes

02:20:05 and from your personal point of view that

02:20:08 that result was as a result of a predisposition against intervention in this field um and as well yes in the sense that we were always still at that point looking

02:20:19 were always still at that point looking at how we devolved power from central government even in 2016 as much as uh when i was in dclg and at a time where we were trying to empower um police and crime commissioners to take fire on and

02:20:30 crime commissioners to take fire on and therefore work and safoa had just restructured in the process if i remember correctly restructuring itself to be a much more um structured body in the way that the police commissioners were

02:20:40 were and therefore having that expertise and empowering them to do that works and at the end they are the fire experts so i'm sorry i mean that way we've still seen the logical way i'm sorry to interrupt you though mr lewis in relation to this

02:20:52 you though mr lewis in relation to this i asked the question again what would it take to shift the presumption you had against regulation in order to intervene particularly to

02:21:04 in order to intervene particularly to deal with the issues of the competency of fire risk assessors when you've had two separate coroners in addition to persistent concerns over many years about competency of fire risk assessors

02:21:15 about competency of fire risk assessors what would it take for you to intervene by way of regulation set against that background well the decision for us in a very simplistic sense would seem to me to have always been around the decision between whether government taking

02:21:27 between whether government taking central control of setting up a regulation as opposed to government advising people and

02:21:33 and accrediting people to be the experts where companies and businesses should go which of course if you and i'm just trying to explain this as clearly as i can even if you regulate even if government puts in regulations it won't

02:21:44 government puts in regulations it won't necessarily stop what would colloquially be referred to as cowboys offering services that are not good enough as opposed to those accredited experts who are able to do the job correctly and properly and therefore the focus for us

02:21:56 properly and therefore the focus for us i would i would say would always have been around making sure that we are doing everything we can to encourage and educate people around where to get the correct advice from the experts who will ensure that they are following the guidelines correctly regulating wouldn't

02:22:08 guidelines correctly regulating wouldn't necessarily change that and actually some people might argue could make the problem

02:22:13 problem make the problem worse in terms of how how companies interact that's a very high level response mr lewis we've got a practical problem here they've been this yeah but that is responsive so let me

02:22:24 yeah but that is responsive so let me just

02:22:25 just let me finish the question there's persistent concerns here about the ad competency of fire risk assessors supported by conclusions made by two coroners one the senior coroner in

02:22:37 coroners one the senior coroner in manchester nothing was done in order to regulate when you had a cumulative weight of evidence that something needed to be done

02:22:46 done why in those circumstances was greater weight attached to an ideological presumption against regulation rather than taking action when it was plain the sector-led approach was not working well

02:22:59 sector-led approach was not working well i would my point would be it wasn't just an ideological thing around devolving it was also around what is practically can make a difference and practically making a difference is making sure that the right experts

02:23:10 right experts who have that understanding expertise are available to the organizations that need that advice to get their fire risk assessments done correctly but it wasn't working was it this is the point we're dancing around mr lewis which your your

02:23:21 dancing around mr lewis which your your answers aren't grappling with it wasn't working well the question you're asking is why we made the decisions at that point in time and my answer is that's why we made the decision we made at that point in time as i said to you earlier

02:23:32 point in time as i said to you earlier on that

02:23:33 on that when we were looking at those subs in that way i wasn't i don't i'm not aware of looking them in that commun cumulative way as you've just very fairly outlined but that's why we made decisions we did at the point we made

02:23:44 decisions we did at the point we made them

02:23:46 them can we look at another document um inq trouble zero 146 double nine and this was a letter sent by to the then

02:23:56 then home secretary amber rudd by matt rack who remains the general secretary of the fbu and the letter was sent on the 3rd of october 2016. the letter was entitled fbu comments on the

02:24:07 letter was entitled fbu comments on the home office response to the coroner's letter regulation 28 report on action to prevent future deaths stephen allen hunt now although it's addressed the home secretary given your portfolio would you

02:24:19 secretary given your portfolio would you have seen this letter when it was received at the home office uh i would expect so yes

02:24:26 now i think you're the one who responded to it we can go to the response but we can take it from that that you would have seen and read this letter if i responded to i would have seen it yes because again the the draft response

02:24:37 because again the the draft response would have come concertina with the um initial letter now if we can go to page five um it's a long letter from mr rack if we go to page five

02:24:46 page five and paragraph nine the subheading is response to concerns about fire risk assessors mr rack wrote this the fbu finds the home office response unsatisfactory

02:24:59 home office response unsatisfactory we do not question the veracity of the description of steps taken but we do question why those steps have failed and why the home office proposes neither any new steps initiatives to

02:25:10 neither any new steps initiatives to address the failings of the measures in place nor any steps to assess whether the guidance for choosing a competent fire risk assessor has had any discernible impact the document a guide to choosing a

02:25:21 the document a guide to choosing a competent fire risk assessor was first published in february 2013. the incident where stephen hunt was killed occurred on the 13th of july 2013 is over three years since its publication and uh two

02:25:34 years since its publication and uh two years since it was updated [Applause] do you recall that particular concern expressed by the fbu at the time um

02:25:42 um no i don't know is that the type of concern that you would have expressly discussed with for example peter holland um

02:25:52 um potentially i i don't particularly recall

02:25:55 recall um but but possibly certain if i'd have had a conversation around the dr a draft response

02:26:01 response possibly yes do you remember forming a considered view of the merits of the point the fbu is making here uh not sitting here today no no

02:26:11 no if you had asked officials for advice on whether his criticisms were well made presumably there would be email correspondence to uh demonstrate that yes

02:26:23 uh demonstrate that yes and absent any such correspondence we consume you may you ask no questions uh potentially depending on as i say this would have come to me in the context of this would have been his letter and there would have been a draft

02:26:35 letter and there would have been a draft reply to it potentially now we know that um peter holland who was the chief fire and rescue advisor by by this stage met matt rack on the first of september 2016 to discuss the concerns and that you

02:26:48 to discuss the concerns and that you wrote a letter in response to mr rack on the 8th of november 2016 which referred to that particular meeting now um the letter is inqu001470

02:27:04 you can take it from me for these purposes that the letter does not specifically address the concern that mr rack had raised regarding competency of fire risk assessors do you know why that particular concern

02:27:16 do you know why that particular concern was not

02:27:18 was not addressed in this response no

02:27:23 now if we look at page one of the letter and the second paragraph second sentence um you said this i've been advised that at the meeting he offered to progress your request for a task and finish groups i

02:27:34 request for a task and finish groups i think that's mr holland offered to progress that request to address the issues you raised and workers started in earnest to progress this um can you help us was that

02:27:46 um can you help us was that task and finish group in fact set up um i don't know i would i mean i would imagine it would have been if it's in a letter like this i would imagine it would have been set up

02:27:58 would have been set up fairly swiftly um my experience with peter holland is he's um

02:28:02 um very uh assiduous and therefore that would have been done but i don't i don't recall

02:28:07 recall do you have any recollection as to the composition of that group no it's chair no

02:28:14 no regularity of its meetings no no no none at all and no recollection of the the work it carried out even in broad terms not sitting here now without looking at any sort of feedback of paperwork that came out of it

02:28:28 um sir i've reached the end of my prepared questions for right um um i'd be grateful for the usual break if that's yes convenient well lewis when council gets the end of

02:28:40 well lewis when council gets the end of his prepared questions we have to have a short break just to enable him to check he's not left anything out and also to enable those who are following the proceedings but from other places can suggest questions

02:28:53 from other places can suggest questions that they think possibly we ought to put to you so

02:28:56 to you so we'll uh break now for quarter now we'll come back at costa one at that point we'll see if there are any more questions for you all right thank you thank you would you give the ashland please

02:29:14 thank you very much course the one then please uh thank you

02:44:32 you ask mr lewis to come back in

02:44:44 please all right mr lewis well we'll see if there are any more questions for you yes mr clear just a few missiles um

02:44:55 we discussed before the last break that if you had asked any questions or required further work to be done we'd expect a consequential email chain from officials and if there was no such chain

02:45:08 officials and if there was no such chain then we can take it that no such questions or concerns were made by you do i fairly summarize your position yes now can you help us when i say for example immense up is put up to you you

02:45:20 example immense up is put up to you you make notes on it um do you know what happens that ministerial submission once you return it to your private office um well until this

02:45:31 until this process of the inquiry i'd always assumed that that one what happened was the private office would take the comments advice occasionally verbal but generally it

02:45:42 occasionally verbal but generally it will be something that's written on the sub

02:45:44 sub feed that into officials as part of the either the decision or for work for them to do to come back and then i the bit i've always assumed is that that was kept somewhere um which obviously is not

02:45:56 kept somewhere um which obviously is not the case

02:45:57 the case and so you can't help us to where those documents are kept and if so where and for how long and the rest of it no i as i said i had always assumed that they were kept in some kind of storage or

02:46:09 were kept in some kind of storage or uh

02:46:10 uh archive by by the department but as i found out in preparing for the inquiry that's not the case and you simply return those documents once you've completed work on them

02:46:21 them oh yes what yeah so in when i was in that particular role for example for memory i would have had two big boxes as we call it the red boxes so

02:46:31 boxes so sorry to demonstrate has but about this deep sort of two piles like that most evenings of submissions or letters to sign or things like that once you've done them they go back to the private office and that's normally

02:46:43 the private office and that's normally the last you would see them as a minister

02:46:45 minister now

02:46:46 now one the one of the topics we repeatedly came back to during the course of the morning was

02:46:53 was evidence

02:46:54 evidence gradually occurring regarding concerns about

02:46:57 about the competency of fire risk assessors and

02:47:01 and why nothing was done to remedy or answer those particular concerns or nothing we'd say effective this was a question in broad terms that was put to melanie dawes who's previously the permanent secretary

02:47:13 previously the permanent secretary at the department is the reality that it took a multi-fatality event such as grenfell to focus proper attention on the issues that had been discussed in

02:47:24 on the issues that had been discussed in the

02:47:25 the decade before the grenfell fire uh but in a in a practical sense that's clearly happened

02:47:34 happened tragically obviously with the situation with grenfell the context i would i would give to it though in terms of what was happening at the time

02:47:43 the time would be as i said to you earlier on i don't recall having subs put to me and i don't recall thinking about these decisions at any given point in response to any particular letter with the conscious thought process of

02:47:55 with the conscious thought process of that cumulative um set of things that have happened in that previous point been in mind from memory from earlier on some of those letters are several years apart and i've done different jobs in between as well so you don't you look in

02:48:07 between as well so you don't you look in the context of the letter you've had in the response you're given necessarily not necessarily cumulative but also and i would make the point more succeeded i made just before the break

02:48:17 break which is

02:48:18 which is even if you are looking at where the government should regulate the focus we would have been looking on is will the regulation would a regulation also make a difference and in the context of the questions you've been asking me that's around would the sector be under

02:48:31 around would the sector be under regulation making sure it's getting that direct device of course our work was around making sure the sector knew where to get that direct device so it was about what practically gets the outcome rather than

02:48:43 rather than regulation itself wouldn't necessarily solve the problem was what was going on would have been going through our minds uh mr lewis my final question is this bearing in mind what you now know and bearing in mind uh the work you did

02:48:55 and bearing in mind uh the work you did preparing for this inquiry is there anything you would have done not at all or differently during your time as minister with a responsibility for fire

02:49:05 for fire um

02:49:06 um i can't say that i would necessarily change the decisions i made at the point i was at but looking at it today i think you would be um i would like to think a couple of things one is more

02:49:17 think a couple of things one is more consciously thinking through challenging potentially some of the questions even in areas that are because my name's on a letter even though somebody'll be in my portfolio digging into that a bit more and you

02:49:28 digging into that a bit more and you would look more accumulatively at that process as you have fairly outlined through the course of this morning in terms of um how you're dealing with something

02:49:36 something i'm still not as i i if you're looking particularly the question you're asking earlier on around uh whether you regulate i would still be looking at what and i'd still do today i would look at what is the outcome we're looking to

02:49:47 at what is the outcome we're looking to achieve and how do we best achieve that that's a fair challenge um but yes i think as you as you work through a career let alone look at something so tragic um

02:49:57 tragic um as greenfield you will always look back and think you'd like to think about what you could do differently to avoid ever being in that situation again mr lewis those are all the questions i have for you thank you for attending to give evidence today no thank you my

02:50:09 give evidence today no thank you my pleasure and andy's right ms lewis i should thank you on behalf of all three members of the panel it's been very helpful to hear what you have to tell us and we've learned a lot from hearing your evidence and it's uh we're grateful to you for making the time in nedad a

02:50:22 to you for making the time in nedad a very busy schedule to come and give us uh the evidence that you've given so thank you very much indeed thank you sir it's important to do all we can to to learn lessons so i'm very happy to do what i can well thank you very much and

02:50:33 what i can well thank you very much and now of course you're free to go thank you very much thank you

02:50:45 thank you very much mr canoe we have

02:50:49 we have mr martin back at two o'clock i think you do yes good thank you we'll rise now and we'll sit again at two o'clock when we see mr martin thanks thank you

02:51:19 you