Eric Pickles (former Secretary of State) continues evidence on Lakanal House response. Explains he 'only acts on submissions', waited for Rule 43 letter rather than investigating deaths of 6 people including children, and signed response promising LGA review without following up on outcome.
00:00:28 would you ask little pickles to come back in please okay
00:00:45 good afternoon good afternoon norfolk is ready to carry on i hope yeah absolutely thank you very much yes mr miller mr chairman lachlan house okay the inquest um
00:00:57 inquest um when it was happening did you receive any briefing about the evidence that was given in it before the letter before the letter no right so
00:01:08 no right so did you know about it did you know that the inquest was happening before the letter
00:01:13 letter uh only by reading newspapers oh i see so you never got any briefing from anybody in your office or any senior official well it was happening only to say that's
00:01:24 only to say that's what it was concluded we would be getting a a letter but no details sorry just so i can answer that question when you say only to say when it was
00:01:35 when you say only to say when it was concluded we'd be getting a letter did somebody tell you that you would be getting a letter after the end of the inquest um
00:01:43 um before it is finished um let me rephrase the question because i think it's made well you okay were you told that you would be getting a letter from the coroner before the before the
00:01:54 from the coroner before the before the inquest was ended i think
00:01:57 i think i was told that i probably would get a letter right and you were told that where you even before the evidence was finished
00:02:08 before the evidence was finished i think i was told that even before it started right right but it wasn't a formal submission it wasn't saying we think it was going to happen because of you know abcd it was just you know we're
00:02:20 you know abcd it was just you know we're likely to get one right and who told you that
00:02:23 that well i think i think the bigger part i think the um permanent secretary but it wasn't a formal thing telling me it was just it's just likely to happen i understand now
00:02:34 just likely to happen i understand now um did you yourself take any steps to find out or ask your officials to find out and report back to you uh any of the details of what had happened at the latin house fire
00:02:46 happened at the latin house fire i waited for the letter to come i was aware uh because i'd obviously talked to
00:02:54 talked to ken knight about the fire and i was aware of it as a news item
00:03:02 after the conclusion of the inquest uh you got valletta as you refer to the rule 43 letter let's look at your statement about that page 13 paragraph 45 okay
00:03:14 now um this actually takes you before that and you say here uh
00:03:20 uh as i stated above prior to the coroner's rule 43 letter and indeed before the inquest itself the department had already commenced addressing the issues understood to have risen from the latter house fire what work had the department
00:03:31 house fire what work had the department carried out to address the problems thus far identified that arisen at the latin house fire can night review and the commissioning of the research
00:03:45 and the commissioning of the research but as to the details of that that's as much as i knew and
00:03:53 and did you think that that work was going to address the issues uh which arose during the inquest and which were the subject of recommendations by the coroner or or was
00:04:05 recommendations by the coroner or or was it reactive to the ken knight review report we saw dated 30th of july 2009 the latter the latter i see had anybody explained to you
00:04:19 had anybody explained to you the reasons why the fire proved to be so fatal
00:04:27 this is purely from memory what stuck in my memory that may have said other things but as i understood it that um the fire jumped out of
00:04:39 that um the fire jumped out of compartments where you would normally expect it to be contained and in particular he jumped from the frames of the the windows
00:04:50 the windows that was my understanding i also said it was very unusual but of course the thing that really stuck in my memory and
00:05:01 stuck in my memory and and sticks every time you look at it is the uh
00:05:05 the uh how young
00:05:06 how young the victims were i mean i think the oldest was 34 and the youngest was less than a month and two two families just wiped out it was
00:05:16 was hideous
00:05:18 hideous did that
00:05:20 did that fact which struck you that has stuck in your memory prompt you to investigate yourself even out of personal curiosity what it was that had caused
00:05:32 what it was that had caused a fire of such ferocity and extensive fire spread
00:05:38 to be helpful i think
00:05:42 i think this is kind of a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works or how or how a secretary of state works i wouldn't consider anything
00:05:54 i wouldn't consider anything without a submission so
00:05:57 so in short if you want to know have i seen something there will be a sub it will be considered and i'd be offered to take advice now i think
00:06:08 i knew that it was coming i knew the letter i knew the letter would be coming and i knew that i would receive advice on that uh on that letter and i knew that that
00:06:20 uh on that letter and i knew that that would be the appropriate time for me to act it isn't a lack of curiosity it's just i only act i can only act uh on on submissions it has to be a kind
00:06:32 uh on on submissions it has to be a kind of
00:06:33 of in a way a regulation on me because in truth as i explained at the earliest morning
00:06:41 morning the power of the department is the power that i personally hold so it has there has to be due diligence there has to be a way in which is it's connected so it will be very unusual for a secretary
00:06:52 it will be very unusual for a secretary of state to go out on a fishing trip to find out individually what happened because i can only act on a submission does that tell us that secretaries of state
00:07:04 us that secretaries of state never act of their own initiative no that would that's not what i'm saying and that's not close to what i'm saying what i say is that secretary of state have to act in due process
00:07:17 have to act in due process and if they don't act by due process then the actions of the secretary of state are subject to judicial review right
00:07:25 right and
00:07:27 and when you say you only ever act on a submission are there instances or times when you seek a submission yes right was this one of them
00:07:39 yes right was this one of them no because i knew the letter will be coming before the letter came did anybody
00:07:43 anybody explain to you or brief you about whether or not the construction particularly the exterior wall at latino house complied with the building regulations no
00:07:55 were you aware that lachlan house had undergone refurbishment work before the fire yes from the newspapers from the newspapers
00:08:10 now let's look at the rule 43 letter okay
00:08:13 okay uh clg401870
00:08:18 we can see that it's dated the 28th of march 2013 yeah addressed to you yep as secretary of state now first do you remember reading it at the time of course yes
00:08:30 the time of course yes now you'll remember therefore that the coroner made recommendations under four headings in bold type on the letter and if we go to page two uh you can see under the heading five risk assessments
00:08:42 under the heading five risk assessments pursuant to regulatory reform order
00:08:46 order 2005. yes
00:08:48 2005. yes fire safety order 2005. and i'll read it to you it says the evidence adduced indicated that notwithstanding publication of your department's 2006 guide fire safety risk sleeping accommodation and of the local
00:09:00 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 buildings evidence was induced which
00:09:12 buildings evidence was induced which indicated that inspection of the interior of flats or mesonets in high-rise buildings was necessary to enable an assessor to identify possible breaches of the compartment which have the potential to impact on the fire
00:09:23 the potential to impact on the fire safety of the resident or others it is recommended that the government provide clear guidance on and then there are three bullet points at the foot of your screen the first bullet point the definition of
00:09:34 the first bullet point the definition of common parts of buildings containing multiple domestic premises second bullet point inspection of a masonette or flat which has been modified internally to determine whether compartmentation has been breached
00:09:47 compartmentation has been breached third bullet point inspection of sample flats or masonettes to identify possible breaches of the compartment now just pausing their lord pickles do you agree that it's clear from that letter that the coroner was
00:09:59 from that letter that the coroner was concerned that notwithstanding publication of the 2006 sleek sleeping accommodation guide and the 2011 lga guidance there remained quite uncertainty about the scope of
00:10:10 uncertainty about the scope of inspection for fire risk assessors in high-rise residential buildings yes yes
00:10:17 yes yes where you were aware at the time march 2013 that that very issue had been raised before by ron dobson the then london fire commissioner in a letter to brandon lewis on the 11th of
00:10:29 letter to brandon lewis on the 11th of december 2012. shortly before the inquest started no
00:10:36 now we don't need to go to your statement but in it at paragraph 59 page 18 you say that louise upton sent you a submission dated the 13th of may 2013 providing a suggested response to the coroner on
00:10:48 suggested response to the coroner on this point yes yes let's go to that clg402889
00:10:54 let's see the first page first of all there it is from louise upton cleared by dawn east meade to you
00:11:02 to you 13th of may blacknell house dclg responds to the coroner's rule 43 recommendations and if you look at the recommendation that you agree to respond
00:11:13 that you agree to respond as proposed at annex b
00:11:17 and a paragraph eight on page two if you go to that please it says this the lga plan to undertake a quick review with the housing sector to ensure this guidance adequately addresses the issues
00:11:29 guidance adequately addresses the issues the coroner has raised dclg officials have offered to assist the lga where appropriate as part of this process we will consider whether it may be helpful to define the term common parts which is
00:11:40 to define the term common parts which is used extensively in the guidance to describe those areas which fall within the scope of the fire safety order but which in terms of these regulations relate only to those areas which constitute a workplace or which provide
00:11:51 constitute a workplace or which provide access to or from one now again pausing there was it was it your understanding at the time reading this document reading that paragraph that a review of the lga was to be
00:12:02 that a review of the lga was to be undertaken by reference to whether the term
00:12:04 term common parts required definition yes but i think i can remember whether it's this some submission or a later one there was a separate
00:12:15 separate um appendix that talked about the issue of uh common parts uh which related to the 2004
00:12:26 uh which related to the 2004 housing act and its relationship to the eu director director of which um
00:12:33 which um i think said that's hmm that's been getting me get around i i i think said that the directive didn't apply
00:12:44 that the directive didn't apply uh to
00:12:45 uh to um
00:12:47 um areas that were residential and the
00:12:50 and the 2004 act
00:12:53 2004 act uh actually gave an ability to be able to look at the whole building but it was one of the issues that i wanted
00:12:59 wanted to see resolved but but it explains it in an enormous detail actually i don't know whether it's on this this sub or not i can't remember um what did you understand the review
00:13:11 what did you understand the review the quick review to entail
00:13:14 to entail well on the common parts to resolve if there was a conflict between the 2000 and 4 housing act and the eu directive
00:13:25 directive i mean the important thing that i wanted to ensure and i think the coroner wanted to ensure that there should be no uh impediment to
00:13:36 that there should be no uh impediment to that process and when people were making assessments with regard to the common part to which i take things like hallways and exterior doors and and lobbies that there will be
00:13:47 doors and and lobbies that there will be a consistency of approach that's my understanding but it may be
00:13:53 it may be after all this period of time i got that wrong
00:13:56 wrong did that review take place i believe so what was the outcome remember
00:14:01 remember that would have been reported to the um the appropriate um minister did you ever see it
00:14:12 i can't be certain but i i saw a reference to it uh in the papers would you not want to see the outcome of a review
00:14:21 a review promised
00:14:22 promised or the subject of advice that you promised to the coroner i would want to know the outcome of review if there were if it was uh delivered less than what the coroner
00:14:33 delivered less than what the coroner wanted
00:14:34 wanted i would only become involved if the process
00:14:38 process within the department wasn't being followed through properly now you respond to the coroner by letter of the 20th of may let's let's look at that hm 3-0 is 4607
00:14:52 and i'll read the relevant part of of this to you on on this issue the lga
00:15:03 it starts on that topic four paragraphs down with the words the first point i can see it and it reads as follows the first point i would make is that following the fire
00:15:14 i would make is that following the fire officials from my department worked closely with the local government association to identify the concerns of housing providers across all tenures about delivering and ensuring the safety of their residential buildings we
00:15:26 of their residential buildings we provided the local government association with grant funding to develop in partnership with the housing sector and the enforcing authorities detailed national guidance on the risk assessment process and the range of issues to be considered if the risk of
00:15:38 issues to be considered if the risk of fire to residents of purpose-built blocks of flats including high-rise is to be assessed and managed adequately the guidance published in summer 2011 takes a practical approach to ensuring
00:15:49 takes a practical approach to ensuring that those responsible for the safety of residents and others in purpose-built blocks can take a comprehensive and pragmatic approach to managing risk effectively within the context of the housing act 2004 and the regulatory
00:16:00 housing act 2004 and the regulatory reform safety order 2005. the guidance is available on both the local government association's website and the fire safety pages of the government's website this fulfills my duty under article 50 etc
00:16:13 duty under article 50 etc and then if you go to page two okay it says in the second paragraph down the housing sector's feedback on the impact of this guidance has been very positive and
00:16:24 and i consider that it addresses sufficiently those issues which have been highlighted in your rule 43 reports however we are not complacent i fully support the local government's association's proposal to consider with
00:16:35 association's proposal to consider with my department and other partners whether there are any implications for the guidance arising from your rule 43 recommendations which may need to be addressed in a revised document my officials are engaged with the local government association on this matter
00:16:48 government association on this matter now just
00:16:49 now just on the passages i've read to you did you specifically approve those passages i found the letter yes
00:16:58 yes but that i regret to say it doesn't necessarily mean that you read and understood and approved the full contents can i take it that you did having signed the letter in light of that if the words on the document
00:17:10 words on the document um have the normal uh an ordinary meaning yes right now do you agree that your response left open the possibility that the lga's review would prove would
00:17:21 that the lga's review would prove would prompt or might prompt a revision to the lga guide
00:17:25 lga guide yes yes do you agree that other than that
00:17:28 that nothing else needed to change in respect of that document i think it was important to gather the uh important to gather the facts
00:17:42 now the coroner as you know had raised expressed concerns i've shown you that notwithstanding the existence of the lga guide the matters she'd raised needed to be addressed not least clarification of common parts yes
00:17:54 common parts yes yes
00:17:55 yes and that's why um
00:17:57 um officials said that they would discuss with the lga and other relevant bodies that through the lga
00:18:09 through the lga to
00:18:10 to address that question but how could it be
00:18:13 be that left simply to a revision of the lga which is after all guidance albeit section 50 guidance uh to redefine something in the fire safety order i
00:18:24 something in the fire safety order i think
00:18:25 think my
00:18:26 my unless i've misunderstood i think the um coroner asked for clarification
00:18:33 if it would be necessary to move on to that then the lga would have made a recommendation did you take steps to ascertain the outcome of the review of the lga guide that had been promised
00:18:44 that had been promised that would be a matter that would come to the prime minister and not to me and if i did consider it it would be a matter of record because i sub would
00:18:55 matter of record because i sub would have come up to him
00:18:58 after sending this letter did you yourself take any steps to determine whether the issues raised had in fact been addressed as promised um if i did that will be
00:19:09 promised um if i did that will be part of a sub and i would have taken advice on it so does that tell us that if it's in the documents yes and if it's not in the documents no i don't understand that statement
00:19:22 i don't understand that statement well i've asked you whether you took any steps to determine whether the issues raised had been addressed or not and you said if i did that would be part of a sub and he would have taken advice on it can we take it
00:19:33 have taken advice on it can we take it from that answer that if the answer to my question was yes you did take steps that would be documented and if you didn't and if it wasn't documented that tells us that you
00:19:44 wasn't documented that tells us that you didn't take steps if i did take steps it would have been subject to a sub it it's more than probable that it went to the fire minister
00:19:55 to the fire minister and i would only have been uh i would only have been involved um if there was something that the private office felt i should be involved with uh on this
00:20:07 i should be involved with uh on this right so
00:20:11 what was your general approach then that having signed this letter and sent it off
00:20:15 off unless a submission came up to you about anything in relation to what you had promised that wasn't going to be delivered
00:20:24 yes that's right i'm sorry i think i i apologize i think i interrupted your question and that was you did i'm just seeking to work out how this worked am i right in thinking that having signed off this letter and sent it out
00:20:35 signed off this letter and sent it out unless a submission came back to you about it or about further steps to be taken by you or your department on it you wouldn't you wouldn't have anything
00:20:46 you wouldn't you wouldn't have anything further to do with what you had promised i would only be um
00:20:53 um i would only be contacted by officials via a sub
00:20:59 via a sub if we weren't going to deliver what i promised
00:21:02 promised now let's look at the um penultimate paragraph on page two please okay we can scroll down to that it starts with the word finally and it says finally in relation to building
00:21:13 says finally in relation to building regulations i have noted your concerns about the difficulties that some of those involved in the inquests had with the interpretation of approved document b i can assure you that my department is committed to a program of simplification
00:21:25 committed to a program of simplification however the design of fire protection in buildings is a complex subject and should remain to some extent in the realm of professionals uh
00:21:35 and i'm going to come back to that paragraph okay in due course i just want you to know it's there just above it um there's a sent there's a paragraph about sprinklers which starts you've suggested that my
00:21:46 which starts you've suggested that my department encourages providers of housing and high-rise multi-occupied residential buildings to consider retrofitting of sprinklers um
00:21:55 um and then it goes on my officials have recently written to all social housing providers about this following the rule 43 recommendation from the coroner of the recent inquest into the firefighter deaths which occurred at shirley towers in southampton in april 2010 and i
00:22:07 in southampton in april 2010 and i attach a copy of that letter for information now just on that paragraph does that mean that you didn't or your officials didn't write again whether to social housing providers or anybody else in response to the latin or
00:22:19 anybody else in response to the latin or coroner's recommendation that's correct and that's what it says and they
00:22:25 and they let her why is that because they've written relatively recently about this it's the same problem
00:22:37 now was it not worth writing again to say here's another coroner uh asking about sprinklers which would give weight and uh heft
00:22:49 uh heft to
00:22:50 to the problem so that social housing providers might know that actually
00:22:56 actually um
00:22:57 um sprinklers
00:23:00 were an important matter to consider i certainly did want um [Music]
00:23:07 [Music] uh landlords to make a decision with regard to whether sprinklers would be
00:23:14 be appropriate or not now that that is true and you make a reasonable um a point
00:23:23 a point um
00:23:27 i don't know why
00:23:30 i didn't think it was appropriate but it see
00:23:33 see when i got the letter it seemed uh a reasonable uh way of going about think i think
00:23:40 i think i'd have such a long discussion about the
00:23:43 the efficacy
00:23:45 efficacy of um retrofitting um
00:23:50 um sprinklers um uh two buildings that have been predominant in my mind
00:24:00 when you say the efficacy you mean the lack of efficacy no i don't i mean
00:24:05 i mean i i mean exactly what i said well if that's like i'll clarify i mean um in terms of putting sprinklers in i was told it was not as some
00:24:16 told it was not as some as straightforward as being suggested uh that in some uh buildings uh because of the nature it would um
00:24:25 would um it would affect the compartmentalization of the building it would um it would uh in many ways perhaps break through that complementation it also
00:24:36 through that complementation it also said there were a number of older buildings that were subject to asbestos and it would disturb that and it was much better to be done on a
00:24:46 on a um
00:24:47 um on a building by building process and that seemed to me to be extraordinarily sensible yes that's basically what the earlier letter
00:24:57 letter uh suggested and that it was it was that was it was predominant in your mind yes yes and who told you who told you that
00:25:06 that conversations well um the the chief fire officer because i wanted um a way i wanted an understanding why the
00:25:18 a way i wanted an understanding why the coroner had not recommended retrofitting full stop but rather than just to encourage it and as uh as you aware i had quite interest in sprinklers
00:25:31 had quite interest in sprinklers but i thought that the line that was pursued
00:25:34 pursued uh by the
00:25:36 uh by the fire officer was consistent with a line that um
00:25:40 that um uh ken knight uh as felt and that seemed to me to be enormously reasonable that a property by property
00:25:52 property by property uh decision should be made now i understand the inquiries come to a different view and of course i respect that
00:26:03 well um now that you refer that to the chief fire officer and we know ken knight was um in post as such until 2013 i think but i can't remember exactly when but do you mean cain knight in your
00:26:14 when but do you mean cain knight in your answer uh
00:26:16 answer uh say again
00:26:18 say again um
00:26:19 um do you mean ken knight in your answer i think what i said was that the uh the existing that it was certainly it was the view of um
00:26:30 it was a view of ken and it was also the the view of his successor this was a consistent view right
00:26:39 you'll recall that the coroner also made recommendations about approved document b yeah and let's go back to that please clg four zeros one eight seven zero uh and let's go please to page three second
00:26:51 and let's go please to page three second bold heading in that document building regulations and approved document b yeah and i'm going to read all of this to you i know it's familiar to the panel because we've seen it a number of times but it's important you see it word by word and it says this
00:27:05 see it word by word and it says this uh during these inquests we examined approved document b 2000 edition
00:27:10 edition incorporating 2000 and 2002 amendments adb
00:27:14 adb i'm aware that adb has subsequently been amended
00:27:18 amended and believe that a further amendment is due to be published soon the introduction to adb states that it is intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations however adb is the most difficult
00:27:29 however adb is the most difficult document to use further it is necessary to refer to additional documents in order to find an answer to relatively straightforward questions regarding the fire protection of properties of materials to be incorporated into the
00:27:41 materials to be incorporated into the fabric of a building it is recommended that your department review adb to ensure that it and there are three bullet points first bullet point provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4 of
00:27:53 guidance in relation to regulation b4 of built the building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building
00:28:00 building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to where the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection second bullet point is expressed in words and adopts a format which are
00:28:11 words and adopts a format which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just to professionals who may already have a knowledge of building regulations and building
00:28:23 building regulations and building control matters third bullet point provides guidance which is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock and not only to those engaged in design and construction of
00:28:35 engaged in design and construction of new buildings
00:28:38 now first
00:28:40 first when the coroner says
00:28:43 says that she understands that a further amendment to adb was to be published soon what did you understand her to be referring to
00:28:54 the revision of um of approved document b and those were the revisions were they that were projected for april 2013 at the time were they
00:29:07 that i couldn't answer um that i don't know right did you ask i didn't realize it was a conflict was i i thought that but that they were
00:29:18 was i i thought that but that they were a reference to i mean i've consistently said that i thought that b was going to be um reviewed at the end of 2015
00:29:29 reviewed at the end of 2015 and um
00:29:31 and um hence the promise for it something to come out
00:29:35 come out in the financial year um 1617.
00:29:39 1617. well um
00:29:40 well um what did you understand when you received this letter that the further amendment due to be published soon was
00:29:50 i thought that was a reference to the revision that would take place of um
00:30:00 approved document b which was lined up by officials for the end of 2015.
00:30:10 the end of 2015 what was that
00:30:17 that was the revision that would take place for
00:30:21 place for approved document b which
00:30:24 which was due to be considered the end of 2015 and published in 2016 2017 and related to the
00:30:35 and related to the research that had been uh commissioned earlier and was due to report in 2015.
00:30:46 is that clear
00:30:50 well was it clear to you at the time that was my assumption
00:30:58 did somebody tell you that or is it just an assumption somebody could well have told me that but i've no clear recollection of that right just to say that i'm clear since
00:31:10 right just to say that i'm clear since you asked me the question um let me see if i can understand the facts at the time
00:31:16 time did you think that the further amendment due to be published soon was an amendment of approved document b based on the research to be published as it was in the end in february 2015
00:31:28 february 2015 based on the matters identified by the chief fire rescue advisor to ken knight in his july 2009 report yes i thought i thought that would be right that an important con
00:31:40 right that an important con consideration to be taken uh when it was revised i mean that was one of the reasons why it was delayed i was told that there
00:31:51 it was delayed i was told that there wasn't capacity within the department to do it earlier and it was a very complicated thing to do
00:32:02 thing to do but it was also as you will see from the submission i was also told that actually that there wasn't a great deal of confusion about this
00:32:13 confusion about this that the
00:32:15 that the expert witness had um
00:32:19 had um confused the um the coroner and i was told that mr martin had had to take the stand in order to try and clarify things but nevertheless
00:32:31 clarify things but nevertheless as i said earlier i looked it i couldn't make head and a tale of of what he was and
00:32:36 and i felt that the coroner's desire to have a clearer document which was in line with uh government policy of having things in plain english seemed to me to be
00:32:48 plain english seemed to me to be eminently sensible now lord because we've strayed quite a long way
00:32:52 long way from the question i'm sorry the question then rephrase the question please i'll ask the question again i will i'll do that okay the words in the third line i believe that and believe that a further amendment is
00:33:03 and believe that a further amendment is due to be published soon when
00:33:06 when and you read that did you think as i think you've told us but please clarify for us that the further amendment due to be published soon was an amendment which
00:33:19 published soon was an amendment which reflected the research done in response to sikken knight's lachenal report well not until the research was received
00:33:30 well not until the research was received i mean
00:33:31 i mean you're asking me about what i thought at the time
00:33:34 the time yes i'm just saying please let me just make this point you're asking me what i thought at the time yeah i have no real clear recollection of what i thought of the time what i'm looking at is the document
00:33:46 what i'm looking at is the document which i've i've re-looked at again several times before this inquiry and that's the interpretation i have now i i have that interpretation as opposing
00:33:57 have that interpretation as opposing knowing what did eventually happen um so i don't really know what was in my mind at that time so if i am
00:34:07 am in any way misdirecting you it's entirely unintentional all right now moving down then to the middle of that paragraph where the coroner says this
00:34:18 paragraph where the coroner says this however adb is the most difficult document to use was that the first time when you read that that you had heard the guidance being criticized
00:34:34 i can't think of any other occasion that i wouldn't rule it out um
00:34:40 um [Music]
00:34:44 in in seeing the preparation you'll see that the suggestion that the coroner might have
00:34:55 coroner might have inadvertently been confused by the expert witness was
00:35:01 was something that was repeated
00:35:04 repeated um in at least two subs that i i saw one from um uh mr martin and the other from miss
00:35:16 uh mr martin and the other from miss upton
00:35:17 upton and i
00:35:20 i think though i can't be sure that certainly affected my judgment in terms of the importance of doing this just exploring that a little bit a little bit more
00:35:31 more are you is it your evidence that when you read the words adb is the most difficult document to use you
00:35:40 you treated that with some um
00:35:43 um and skepticism given that you were also being told by your officials uh that the process of cross-examination at the inquest had confused matters
00:35:55 at the inquest had confused matters i think yes but i think in a respectful way i wasn't going to dismiss the um the coroner's views but nevertheless it was very much the
00:36:06 but nevertheless it was very much the forefront of the mind i mean i was said that i shouldn't worry there wasn't any there wasn't any real issue of terms of safety people know
00:36:17 issue of terms of safety people know these kind of things and you know we will sort this out because i did press quite hard back as to whether or not we could accelerate the process
00:36:29 accelerate the process rather than waiting for it in 2016
00:36:34 perhaps to do it a little earlier um i i i pressed the uh the the um permanent secretary uh support um uh
00:36:46 permanent secretary uh support um uh very hard on that uh but his view was that it wasn't um appropriate and that um you know the team had these reservations but but the job will be done and
00:36:58 done and um
00:36:59 um sir bob was someone who uh i respect and still remain uh respect is a a very competent officer i wouldn't have been able to achieve
00:37:10 been able to achieve half the things that was achieved without suborb
00:37:16 i'm referring to the clarity of approved document b okay because the building regulations division's responsibility wasn't it
00:37:23 wasn't it it was yes so did you make any inquiries with um or through your secretaries of members of the department as to whether the
00:37:33 the view that approved document b is a most difficult document to use was one shared in the industry yes i asked sir bob about that and his um
00:37:44 um his response was the the team thinks that while you have to sit with lots of things on your knee for those who know what they're doing there wasn't really a problem but it
00:37:55 there wasn't really a problem but it will be sorted out when we did the uh when we did the a larger piece of of a complete rewriting um of um approved document b
00:38:07 um of um approved document b right
00:38:09 right now let's look at the first bullet point then okay um provides clear guidance uh in relation to regulation of b4 of the building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building and
00:38:22 external envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether proposed work might reduce existing fire protection did you accept or did you reject that proposal accepted that proposal
00:38:35 accepted that proposal you're you're sure about that oh i'm certain about that if if i hadn't accepted that uh that it would have been in my letter
00:38:46 uh that it would have been in my letter um if i'm silent about it i accepted it right
00:38:52 right and were you confident and forgive me why wouldn't you look at that well that is a rhetorical question that is not for me to answer nor pickles well it was a rhetorical question that i
00:39:03 it was a rhetorical question that i wasn't directing at you but it would seem a logical not too but it leads to an actual question okay were you confident in your mind at the time that your officials understood that you were accepting that recommendation in full
00:39:15 accepting that recommendation in full yes
00:39:16 yes what gave you that confidence because i
00:39:20 because i asked
00:39:22 asked the
00:39:23 the permanent secretary have we done everything that the um the coroner wants us to do and his reply was yes we are
00:39:35 and his reply was yes we are and that's a reassurance i received throughout and i was also further reassured
00:39:42 reassured uh that the uh
00:39:45 uh the coroner didn't challenge uh that part of the letter or say just a minute i'll be looking at external i think she accepted that and there was no suggestion from members
00:39:58 and there was no suggestion from members of parliament that this was anything other than accepted that this
00:40:03 this this landed as we sometimes called it without controversy there was general consensus that what was done was was reasonable what knowledge did you have at the time you received this letter
00:40:15 you received this letter of the the dangers of external fire spread on high-rise buildings i uh been aware of what happened at lachlan which as it was explained to me
00:40:26 lachlan which as it was explained to me that windows have been fitted inappropriately and to breach the the compartment and moved
00:40:36 and moved from uh from flats um
00:40:39 um jump from from one floor to another that was my
00:40:44 was my understanding uh did you ask your officials whether the
00:40:51 the external fast bread that you've just described it the jumping from one floor to another was
00:40:58 was um
00:40:59 um an experience replicated anywhere else in the uk or overseas they told me this was a very rare event they made no reference to any event that
00:41:10 they made no reference to any event that had taken place overseas and who told you that the windows had been fitted inappropriately the um
00:41:19 the um i can't be 100 certain but i think the permanent secretary but he'd be acting in good faith uh um
00:41:27 with information from the team he wouldn't know that independently now i asked you earlier about overseas fires and i gave you a short you did short selection of a much much longer list of exterior
00:41:39 longer list of exterior uh high-rise fires involving acm clouding with the pe core the inquiries expert mr jonathan sacular has told us that the fires in the uae and in dubai later were very well
00:41:51 and in dubai later were very well covered in the uk news media and technical press at the time um did you put you did well d did you put the lack of house fire together in your mind with those fires no
00:42:04 were those fires ever brought to your attention at all by any official or any secretary no
00:42:14 how did your department specifically address
00:42:18 address the concern raised in that first bullet there
00:42:21 there um about the spread of fire over the external envelope of a building
00:42:34 i thought we commissioned a series of work um
00:42:38 work um to deal with that what was that well because i'd accepted the coroner's recommendation i expected that the
00:42:51 i expected that the department would would um start that process i mean they got the impression that they were quite worried about it even though they assured me it was quite a rare event
00:43:03 a rare event what gave you the impression that they were quite worried about it they said they were quite it was a serious thing i mean how can it not be a serious thing uh
00:43:12 uh two families and an individual are wiped out
00:43:16 out um
00:43:17 um in indeed so uh
00:43:19 uh but
00:43:21 but um
00:43:21 um did your where was your official concern something that arose as you understood it from a particularly nasty case of non-compliance
00:43:33 nasty case of non-compliance or a concern that these fatalities had occurred despite compliance no they the former former you were you clear about that in your own mind at the
00:43:44 clear about that in your own mind at the time yes what had led you to believe that lacking all the fatalities that latino house were as a result of non-compliance i was told that the windows were were not um
00:43:57 were not um uh installed according to building regulations did you take steps to find out precisely how
00:44:03 how that was so
00:44:06 i made the reasonable assumption that the
00:44:11 that the uh that the department would have this in hand and if it was a case as you say that the windows were not installed according to the building regulations
00:44:23 according to the building regulations did you ask yourself the question well if
00:44:26 well if if this is a simple case of non-compliance why is it necessary to review approved document b at all um
00:44:34 um no that never occurred to me because i thought they were good and compelling reasons to renew
00:44:41 renew uh to re-look at document b because some
00:44:48 quite a bit of public money have been spent in
00:44:51 spent in various um research uh streams to look at it
00:44:56 at it um the corridor made a reasonable suggestion uh that you had to look at too many different pieces of paper she was also saying that actually should
00:45:09 she was also saying that actually should be understood by people who weren't technical
00:45:13 technical it was the government's policy to produce things that were technical so i think i've given you four good reasons why that should happen did you think at the time that the
00:45:25 did you think at the time that the recommendations made by the coroner here these three recommendations had anything to do causally with the deaths at lachen house or nothing to do with the deaths at latino house but were
00:45:36 with the deaths at latino house but were something that had just arisen during the course of the inquest and were required for better regulation i
00:45:45 i wouldn't have liked to to uh to separate uh what
00:45:51 uh what she was suggesting between the the deaths and the things that came out of
00:45:57 of the inquiry so i don't think i've made that judgment i thought she made some very sensible unproportionate
00:46:08 suggestions do you think her recommendations
00:46:16 were causally connected with the deaths or something that had just occurred to her as as
00:46:23 her as as better regulation as i said earlier i don't think i would have the um the capability to be able to dissect
00:46:34 able to dissect uh them um the chin of causation in some of these can be quite along and they seem to be to be
00:46:43 to be quite reasonable things to do and the
00:46:47 and the you know for ex for a clear example it was clear that the refurbishments may have contributed so i thought they provide guidance which is of assistance to those involved
00:46:59 which is of assistance to those involved in the maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock and not to only those engaged in design construction seem to me to be an eminently sensible thing to do and again did your department
00:47:10 and again did your department specifically address the concerns raised in respect of attention being paid to the proposed work
00:47:17 work reducing fire existing fire protection by
00:47:21 by uh
00:47:22 uh accepting the recommendation i accepted the recommendation yes now
00:47:30 let's look at the second bullet point please
00:47:33 please it's a recommendation that adb is expressed in words and adopts the format which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just
00:47:44 refurbishment of buildings and not just the professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control matters did you accept or reject that recommendation yes it was easy to accept that recommendation
00:47:55 that recommendation as it was in line with existing government policy which was to try and produce as many documents in plain and understandable english
00:48:07 in plain and understandable english we had uh
00:48:08 we had uh completed a similar exercise with regard uh to the national planning uh framework and uh i would be sympathetic to that
00:48:19 and uh i would be sympathetic to that what work did you or those in your department undertake to address that recommendation that recommendation would be picked up in the
00:48:30 picked up in the general amendment to um
00:48:36 to document b um
00:48:39 um when
00:48:40 when the um when the department did it and as i've i think said to you quite a number of times that was scheduled to report
00:48:51 that was scheduled to report in 2016-2017
00:48:59 we're going to come back to that date in a moment that's good well we'll see but um
00:49:05 um did any
00:49:07 did any minister or any official in the department ever tell you either in writing or in discussion that the version of approved document b that the coroner had been concerned with
00:49:18 been concerned with was the 2000 version amended in 2002
00:49:24 and the further amendments made in 2006 had remedied the problems which had revealed themselves at the fire
00:49:35 at the fire no but i expect they would have told me if the amendment in 2006 hadn't
00:49:41 hadn't um
00:49:43 um remember the problems
00:49:53 well that would depend wouldn't it upon whether you were told or had given thought to whether that the fire at latino house was as a result of non-compliance or as a result
00:50:04 result of non-compliance or as a result of compliance with defective and inadequate regulation wouldn't it no it would depend on whether or not the coroners coroner's recommendations have been added to that will be the test in terms of
00:50:17 that will be the test in terms of um whether or not a sub would have come up
00:50:24 that generally was only contacted when things went wrong not when things were going according to plum yes indeed and and what i'm seeking really to get to the bottom of is whether you that you understood
00:50:35 you that you understood that the rate that um any problems in the regulations which might have existed in 2000 or 2002 had been cured in 2006 such that lachen couldn't happen now
00:50:49 was that something you were told or or led to believe no i think that will be a that would be an enormous jump uh to say uh just by changing those regulations
00:51:01 changing those regulations uh that lachlan would have been uh impossible i'm not entirely sure i never believed anybody that said that
00:51:12 all right let me try it slightly differently one more time okay i'm sorry did you understand that the problems um
00:51:20 um well any problems which had existed whether as a lack of clarity or readability particularly with respect to external fire spread in the 2000 or 2002 regulations
00:51:31 regulations uh had been addressed in
00:51:34 in 2006. i wouldn't have expected the readability to be addressed in 2006. i would expected the readabilit the readability to be addressed in a more fundamental rewrite
00:51:47 in a more fundamental rewrite that
00:51:48 that officials promised me uh for the beginning of 2016 2017.
00:51:56 2017. i'm so sorry little pickles to do the stupid one no i don't i really don't mind
00:52:01 mind yourself were you led to believe at any time that the regulatory regime which had governed the refurbishment of the of lachen house had been improved
00:52:13 had been improved in any relevant way relevant to the causes of the fire there in 2009
00:52:22 i don't remember receiving those assurances and i would not have anticipated matters relating uh to the
00:52:34 to the um readability to be addressed until towards the end of the parliament right now can i just show you then in light of that what richard harrell told the inquiry day 243 please page 77
00:52:46 inquiry day 243 please page 77 and line four
00:52:56 and
00:52:59 that this is a a question from uh me asking him about the coroner uh the coroner's recommendations uh and at line four you can see i put the first
00:53:10 line four you can see i put the first bullet to him and i read it out down to line 13. okay you can see can you see that well i can see does this if we look back up
00:53:17 back up at the first again this is at yeah exactly okay that re that reads down to line 13 okay i'm quoting to him the first bullet point from
00:53:26 from the coroner's recommendation and then i asked the question at line 14 uh what was it your understanding when you were head of technical policy that this recommendation had been accepted
00:53:37 this recommendation had been accepted uh or rejected by the department uh what i understood was that the department's position was that the amendments to adb 2006 had addressed this recommendation
00:53:48 had addressed this recommendation now um
00:53:50 now um leaving aside whether that's an answer to the question or not uh was your understanding as he says it was his understanding that the 2006 version of the proof document b
00:54:02 the 2006 version of the proof document b had addressed some of the coroner's concerns
00:54:07 no i don't think i was right uh briefed or
00:54:11 or informed um anything relating to that right
00:54:17 right and i
00:54:19 and i the information i've got i i can't make a uh constantly judge as to whether that's a position or not what was your understanding at the time of whether or not the
00:54:30 of whether or not the recommendation made by the coroner involved technical changes to the to approve document b as opposed to
00:54:39 to simplification well um
00:54:43 well um she was wanting uh us to look at the spread of fire and exterior of the building that might have involved some
00:54:54 building that might have involved some changes
00:54:55 changes i don't know i don't have the technical expertise but i would expect
00:55:00 expect expected um officials to look at that she expressed a view with regard to the alteration of older buildings maintenance of older buildings
00:55:12 buildings maintenance of older buildings i don't know whether that would have involved
00:55:14 involved so i think the short short answer to is no i don't think i would have been persuaded i think i was expecting all those things to be picked up in due course
00:55:25 picked up in due course and i would have thought it would have been more than just just um simply readability right the readability i don't think you know we'll be satire now
00:55:41 and finally let's look at the third bullet point of the coroner's letter if we could please get back to that it's at clg401870
00:55:50 page three there it is provides guidance which is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock on not only those engaged in design and construction of new buildings
00:56:00 buildings did you accept or did you reject that recommendation i accepted our recommendation and what work did your department undertake to address that recommendation
00:56:11 undertake to address that recommendation for the reasons i've given before that it's not something that would be considered at my level i'd only be consulted if we weren't fulfilling what the coroner was told
00:56:23 coroner was told on the various occasions when i asked whether or not things were going okay i always received positive reassurances from the permanent
00:56:34 positive reassurances from the permanent secretary who were asked to take an interest
00:56:37 interest in the uh coroner's um letter
00:56:42 letter now i think you were aware and tell me if you weren't that but at the time there were a large number of high-rise buildings particularly in london which required refurbishment in order to bring them in line with part l of the building regulations which is
00:56:54 of the building regulations which is thermal performance did you know that yes i could see that uh occasionally drive in on the a 13 and you could see that happening
00:57:06 yes uh
00:57:09 uh and uh if
00:57:11 and uh if you look at the third bullet point which is which is guidance in relation to the refurbishment of older housing stock did your department ever provide that guidance
00:57:21 guidance this is i'm sorry i i hope you don't think i'm being rude it's the same answer previously that wouldn't be considered at my level it would only be considered at my level
00:57:32 it would only be considered at my level if the guidance wasn't provided if the um the director general and the private office felt i should be informed that there was a problem going
00:57:43 informed that there was a problem going on
00:57:44 on and i received no indication that there was a problem well the reason i ask amber pickles is and we'll see it when we come to it is that your letter in response of the 20th of may 2013 made no reference
00:57:57 of may 2013 made no reference at all to this third bullet point piece of recommendation that's why i asked the question i understand but i was quite specific
00:58:08 specific about those areas where i was in disagreement and that related to the information box
00:58:17 box if the letter is silent then the letter accepts
00:58:23 accepts um that the the recommendation i think
00:58:27 i think to have rejected the um the coroner's recommendations by a sleight of armed or by silence would not be uh an honorable thing to do
00:58:39 would not be uh an honorable thing to do very well let's then turn to the submissions you did see first please clg-401871
00:58:51 and i say you did see that this is actually this is don foster right this is a yeah it is it's from brian martin to don foster 11th of april 2013 to secretaries to all ministers ps
00:59:03 to secretaries to all ministers ps permanent secretary see list at end is this a submission that you would have seen
00:59:13 not necessarily i've seen however i think
00:59:18 i think uh when i received the final submission i would have had the views of of don and i think and i think brandon
00:59:30 and possibly one other yes and we can see i think later that you did get to see this in the following month about a week before the letter went out okay um
00:59:41 okay um but that so let's i think assume that you did see this okay i'm happy to make that assumption um i just want to ask you the ps there before the slash does is that your private secretary
00:59:52 private secretary and it says secretaries to all ministers ps permanent secretary does that come into your private secretary's office no it's ps it's uh secretaries to all ministers
01:00:03 secretaries to all ministers ps to the permanent secretary permanent secretary as a private secretary as well that's the that's the permanent secretary's private sector yeah and there's a there should be a list what it says is a little bit at the end so it will actually tell you exactly your side
01:00:15 will actually tell you exactly your side there there is we can go to that and but i don't think the names would necessarily mean anything to you but um we can look at page three if you'd like no no it's intellectually i'm in your hands uh now let's go then to the
01:00:26 hands uh now let's go then to the summary further down page one please okay if we go back to that uh
01:00:32 uh and it says this submission seeks your views on the coroner's rule 43 recommendations specifically regarding building regulations following the inquest into the fire at latin house and and under the recommendation it says
01:00:44 and and under the recommendation it says this
01:00:45 this that you agree to respond to the coroner's recommendations at annex a page three regarding building regulations as follows a acknowledge that the guidance in approved document be fire safety can be difficult for
01:00:57 be fire safety can be difficult for inexperienced people to apply b commission a review of guidance currently provided by the replacement window competent person scheme operators to their members to ensure that there is proper understanding of the scope of the
01:01:08 proper understanding of the scope of the schemes and where fire protection requirements affect window installations c
01:01:12 c set up the government's intentions to issue a revised approved document be in 2016 to 17 following a full review of the fire safety aspects of building regulations this would use the department's new style guide for easy to
01:01:24 department's new style guide for easy to read approved documents and take account of current research which is due to deliver in 2015. now can i take it that 11th of april 2013 it's only
01:01:35 2013 it's only a fortnight or so after the letter comes in that this was the first submission made
01:01:40 made to you or that you would have eventually come to you they would all come together yes now looking at a let's have up at the same time please the actual recommendation made by the coroner um clg four zero is one eight
01:01:53 coroner um clg four zero is one eight seven zero page three
01:01:58 um so we've got um the recommendation on the right hand side of your screen little pickles and on the left hand side we've got the recommendation made in the submission
01:02:11 in the submission and
01:02:12 and you can see that the coroner specifically says that adb was a very difficult document to use and she asks that it be made intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies
01:02:24 to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just professionals but if you look to the left of your screen you can see that you're being recommended sorry you're being advised to respond to the
01:02:35 you're being advised to respond to the recommendations acknowledging that the guidance and approved document be fire safety can be difficult for inexperienced people to apply the first question is when you got as you eventually did this
01:02:47 when you got as you eventually did this submission did you compare the advice you were being given by your officials about how to respond to the recommendation with the recommendation itself
01:02:57 yes and i would have looked at c and i would have thought that that recommendation was picked up in that did you note that the coroner didn't say
01:03:08 did you note that the coroner didn't say that it's difficult for an experienced people to apply but that it was most difficult
01:03:13 difficult without qualification and hence made the recommendation that it was intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction that's compatible with the government's policy of making things easy to read
01:03:30 yes my question was really whether or not you
01:03:34 you um you noticed
01:03:37 that the acknowledgement was acknowledging something that the coroner hadn't said
01:03:49 i'm not entirely sure i would have thought that was terribly important what i would have thought was important um was
01:03:57 um was and c
01:03:59 and c and uh looking at b and c looks like um
01:04:04 um well it certainly looks like two have been incorporated so
01:04:13 so did you read c is essentially a response to well now you tell me this and when you read c which of the three bullet points did you think it was a recommendation to
01:04:25 did you think it was a recommendation to respond to i thought it was responding to
01:04:31 to bullet point two
01:04:36 right
01:04:38 well it's clearly not applied to one or three
01:04:44 you didn't think it was it was applying to
01:04:47 to one
01:04:52 well not related to the the spread of fire over an external envelope indeed yeah he didn't
01:05:03 right now looking at b commission a review of guidance currently provided by the replacement window confident person scheme operators etc
01:05:13 etc uh
01:05:15 uh what what recommendation was that advice directed to it wasn't did you notice that at the time yes and um
01:05:28 and um i think it makes clear in my letter that we decided to do this as um additionally and the sub certainly made that clear that we're doing it additionally
01:05:39 additionally i just picked up from um from evidence and i didn't think it was unreasonable to do something that um
01:05:51 do something that um came up in evidence but the coroner didn't uh specifically um mentioned and certainly she was gracious enough not to raise any
01:06:03 was gracious enough not to raise any objection to us doing so
01:06:07 i should just mention at this point to ask you at this point were you aware then are you aware now that the coroner has no jurisdiction to engage in a debate with you about her recommendations
01:06:19 recommendations i think um she wrote back about the sprinklers um
01:06:25 um and
01:06:26 and i wouldn't have regarded
01:06:29 regarded a um a further inquiry as a debate looking at uh c coming back to that then
01:06:40 it says set out the government's intentions to issue a revised approved document be in 2016-17
01:06:47 following a full review of the fire safety aspect etc uh and then in the last line it says take account of the current research due to delivery in 2015. i think just confirm for us that those are
01:06:59 confirm for us that those are or the pieces of research generated
01:07:03 generated by instruction in 2012 based on
01:07:08 based on originally based on the ken knight report from july 2009 i think that is right and therefore by definition that current research due to deliver in
01:07:19 that current research due to deliver in 2015 was not and could not have been in response to either the evidence that lachen or
01:07:26 lachen or the inquest at lachen or all the recommendations to to have come out of it
01:07:31 it no but i thought
01:07:34 in terms of explaining why there will be a
01:07:38 a delay
01:07:39 delay uh in um approved document b that was um a relevant thing uh to be said and as um you will see
01:07:51 as um you will see in the letter i um
01:07:54 i um i i informed the uh confident that's the case having gone through each of the recommendations and each of the advise the advice about the responses do you
01:08:05 the advice about the responses do you agree that the advice to your junior minister about how to respond to these recommendations really more very little resemblance to the recommendations themselves i don't think they were of the first
01:08:16 i don't think they were of the first order of quality
01:08:20 why did you sign what did you do with that advice then when you when you accepted the coroner's recommendation
01:08:27 if we go to page two of this submission we can see considerations which submission we're talking about uh i'm so sorry let's get the let's remove the recommendations from the screen and concentrate on
01:08:39 screen and concentrate on uh
01:08:41 uh clg408171 if you could just have that up please
01:08:44 please and under considerations there can we blow that up thank you um there are three paragraphs we should look at there during the inquest there was considerable attention paid to alterations that had been made to the
01:08:55 alterations that had been made to the building during its lifetime this included replacement of the window system in 2006. this system took the form of a series of frames that formed windows doors and wall panels the fire spread both up and
01:09:06 wall panels the fire spread both up and down the outside of the building and this was found to be exacerbated by the incorrect specification of the wall panels the work had been carried out by a window installation contractor that was registered with the fencer competent
01:09:17 was registered with the fencer competent person scheme this was the first scheme of its type and was still in its infancy when the work was undertaken the contractor issued compliance certificates for its work which were taken as evidence of compliance by the landlord london borough of southwark at
01:09:29 landlord london borough of southwark at the inquest it was acknowledged that the offensive scheme did not extend to the certification of the wall panels and the panels themselves did not meet the guidance given in approved document b unfortunately the expert witness
01:09:40 unfortunately the expert witness appointed to advise the inquest gave confused and conflicting evidence on what was required by building regulations at the time this was to some extent due to the process of cross-examination and it became necessary for me to give evidence to clarify the situation
01:09:53 clarify the situation now
01:09:55 now did you note from that when you did read this in the may of that year that it was the work that it was done to the existing building in latino house that was the focus of the inquest as opposed to the original building
01:10:07 to the original building yes i i thought it was uh i had to understand it whether correctly or incorrectly that it was these were replacement windows part of a
01:10:18 these were replacement windows part of a refurbishment that compromised the compartment um
01:10:24 um within the flats which then unusually spread elsewhere that was my understanding if the fencer scheme as described did not extend to the certification of wall panels and the panels used at latino were not compliant
01:10:36 panels used at latino were not compliant with adb
01:10:38 with adb did you ask yourself or any official what was the point of extending the fencer scheme given that it wouldn't address the problem of non-compliance
01:10:50 i don't think i received a a sub
01:10:53 a sub to that effect and i don't think i had the technical knowledge to have made that judgment but i think you accept as you've told us just to be clear
01:11:04 you've told us just to be clear reviewing the fencer scheme didn't address the specific recommendations made by the coroner as opposed to evidence perhaps which would emerge during the course of it no i mean
01:11:14 no i mean that was that that's pretty clear in in the sub that this was something that came out of evidence and it seemed reasonable um if i hadn't have
01:11:26 um if i hadn't have taken that action it's possible that some other inquiry or this i might be asked why i hadn't accepted the officer's recommendation to do that now i've read to you the the
01:11:37 do that now i've read to you the the paragraph
01:11:40 about confused evidence when you read that were you concerned that the expert appointed to advise the inquest
01:11:48 inquest mr david walker racs did not understand the building regulations or at least had become confused by them yeah it wasn't it wasn't the former suggestion is the way in which
01:12:00 suggestion is the way in which um
01:12:02 um the the way in which the cross-examination had taken place it's not a suggestion that the man was incompetent it was just a suggestion that the
01:12:12 that the way uh in which the cross-examination are taken person i understand as a coroner's it's not as quite as disgust discursive or as courteous as you as you are
01:12:25 you as you are in this process did you were you aware of the evidence that brian martin gave to the inquest himself
01:12:32 himself no other than he he gave the evidence yes did you at any time meet brian martin or any other officials or junior ministers with knowledge of the approved documents to go through the evidence that brian martin gave i don't believe
01:12:43 that brian martin gave i don't believe i've ever met mr martin right
01:12:49 and nor would i my level
01:12:55 looking at paragraph 10 where it says given the confusion in court it is unsurprising that the coroner has criticized the clarity of the guidance in approved document b and it's called for it to be made clearer
01:13:08 is it that which meant that you took the coroner's recommendation with a little bit of a pinch of salt no it would not be fair to say i took it with a pinch of salt that would be
01:13:19 it would explain why i felt that it wasn't immediately urgent to be addressed and could wait for
01:13:30 for a comprehensive review but um coroner's not people that you should lightly uh dismiss so i think i would way back roll back well
01:13:42 i think i would way back roll back well from pinch of salt i think that wouldn't be
01:13:45 be an unfair unjust characteristic characterization or eye attitude all right
01:13:52 what did you take to be the relevance of
01:13:57 of paragraphs nine and ten so far as it referred to confused and conflicting evidence at the inquest to the recommendations that you were being
01:14:07 being nine uh tells me that um defense scheme wasn't working terribly well and they were going to try to um address it
01:14:18 address it i've seen some subs you shoulder the cross-examination of the the examination of stephen that did not have a happy conclusion
01:14:29 a happy conclusion um
01:14:31 um with regard to 10
01:14:36 there was a small degree of re i mean there was a small degree of reassurance that this might be
01:14:44 easier to accommodate than i might have thirst for but no more than that
01:14:52 easier to accommodate the coroner's concerns right is but that but it's a marginal thing
01:15:00 thing i mean it clearly did affect my mind it did affect my judgment on it but i don't think he'd affected it detrimentally to um to the extent that i rejected what the coroner was said did it occur to you
01:15:12 the coroner was said did it occur to you that the confusion of the inquest might have arisen from confusing or unclear language in the statutory guidance itself as opposed to a conflict of evidence about it that's not what the sub says
01:15:24 that's not what the sub says no but it occurred to you that that might have been the case i think that would i mean i'm not being flippant but you've got to offer some degree of trust of what you're in front of me i am looking at every submarine saying
01:15:36 i am looking at every submarine saying is this mum lying to me um there was nothing within it i'd already heard this story that would have been a um a problem so it probably played into uh played
01:15:47 so it probably played into uh played into the narrative but i certainly didn't dismiss the coroner's
01:15:53 coroner's recommendation particularly as it was in line with government policy to have much much clearer understanding
01:16:04 have much much clearer understanding of
01:16:07 of my
01:16:08 my brief look at it seemed a pretty difficult thing to understand mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you well it's time to have a break for the afternoon
01:16:19 time to have a break for the afternoon pickles we'll take the break now we'll come back please at 25 to 4. okay and as before please don't discuss your evidence with anyone thank you thank you very much would you care to give the usher please thank you
01:16:43 thank you mr millett 25 to 4 please
01:35:44 last little pickles to come back in please
01:36:07 right ready to carry on dog pickles i am thank you very much thank you yes mr yes lord piggles can we please go to your witness statement page 17 paragraph 56
01:36:19 and you say at paragraph 56 as to the submission dated the 11th of april 2013 from brian martin the essence of the advice was to the effect that a complete rewrite of approved document b would be
01:36:30 rewrite of approved document b would be a significant project and that it was therefore recommended that this be done as part of a fuller review ministers were informed that significant research had already been commissioned to feed into the future edition of the approved
01:36:41 into the future edition of the approved document and that this research work would not be completed until 2015.
01:36:48 now we've seen the 11th of april 2013 submission from brian martin to don foster
01:36:53 foster it it it doesn't address anywhere external fire spread or work that might reduce existing fire protection as recommended by the coroner take it from me that that is the case
01:37:04 take it from me that that is the case because i haven't shown you the whole document but my question is why is that why did it omit anything on external fire spread or work that might reduce existing fire protection what in the sub
01:37:17 yes you mean yes in the sub i don't know i i wasn't the author of the so i have no idea why
01:37:26 idea why he left it out uh i since
01:37:30 i since i'm pretty certain it wouldn't be by any slight of harm that he didn't think it was important to do particularly as i accepted the coroner's recommendation well did
01:37:42 the coroner's recommendation well did you notice uh
01:37:45 uh the the
01:37:47 the the uh the sub did not address something that the coroner had specifically recommended namely
01:37:54 namely uh that attention be directed to external first bread but the um
01:38:04 i accepted the um the coroner's recommendation i said that not just to be tedious and repeating it but it doesn't matter that much in terms of what the official said
01:38:18 of what the official said in me arriving at a decision i made a decision that we would accept the coroner's recommendation well um
01:38:27 well um forgive me the the submission doesn't simply say we advise you to respond to the coroner and tell her that all three bullet points are accepted as recommendations in full does
01:38:40 accepted as recommendations in full does it
01:38:41 it that would have been a simple thing to do and
01:38:43 do and could have been done but that wasn't done was it it wasn't on i can't give you a reasoned explanation why that should happen
01:38:56 i am confident that it wouldn't have been a sleight of hand because
01:39:02 because an admission from a a sub
01:39:06 a sub to um
01:39:07 to um a
01:39:08 a a minister a parliamentary secretary wouldn't trump the secretary of state accepting
01:39:15 accepting the coroner's um recommendation all right now
01:39:20 right now looking at it slightly differently was it your intention in your um in your capacity as secretary of state to address the question of external fire
01:39:32 to address the question of external fire spread
01:39:33 spread and also the question of uh work that might reduce existing fire protection in the fuller review to which you refer here in your statement
01:39:44 i would expect it to have been addressed in the
01:39:49 in the fuller
01:39:50 fuller in the fuller review but if there was any urgency
01:39:57 urgency if there was a felt to accelerate that i would have been supportive of the officials doing that if the officials felt that that should
01:40:09 if the officials felt that that should have happened then i would have expected them to speak to their respective line managers and i would expected that then to arrive on my desk
01:40:20 on my desk i don't want to get i just i just say this because it might save a lot of time the people that work in the private office are really bright they're the really the top people they're there to to spot problems that are taking place
01:40:32 to spot problems that are taking place they're there to ensure that the place runs
01:40:35 runs efficiently i explained obviously that in terms of taking the decisions that there has to be a degree of due diligence
01:40:43 diligence so
01:40:44 so i would expect them not to
01:40:49 to sort of say oh it's all a bit too difficult and i really can't ask and i don't want to get into a fight over this if it's a matter of public safety one i would have a duty to act had i
01:41:02 one i would have a duty to act had i been told was happening but i also believe that there is a duty of care to ensure that i'm faced with that difficult decision well why didn't those in your private
01:41:13 well why didn't those in your private office bright as you say they were point out to you uh that in going back to the coroner in the way
01:41:19 the way um that you reflect here paragraph 56 of your statement you weren't picking up every single piece of the recommendation that the coroner had made and you should do i have already
01:41:30 and you should do i have already answered that question and i've said that i only really went into any details where i respectfully rejected the coroner's um
01:41:41 coroner's um recommendation the fact i didn't mention something i wouldn't do it by sleight of hand and said oh well if we don't say this in such and such a thing we don't need to do it
01:41:53 thing we don't need to do it i publicly accepted the recommendation and i think the consensus around the building wasn't accepted that recommendation and i think the consensus
01:42:05 recommendation and i think the consensus within parliament in opposition benches um was that we accepted that nobody at any time until now until
01:42:16 until now until today as suggested to me that i didn't accept the coroner's uh recommendations except for those are that single item where i did a disagreement and also to
01:42:29 where i did a disagreement and also to issue
01:42:30 issue a regretful apology that i couldn't do the review before
01:42:35 before 2016-17
01:42:40 i see the problem we have lord pickles is that neither in the submission that i've been showing you nor in your statement here nor as we'll come to see in a moment any of the submissions which led up to your letter of the 20th of may or your letter
01:42:53 letter of the 20th of may or your letter of the 20th of may is there any reference to your accepting the recommendation specifically in relation to external fire spread so what were we to make of that well what is the reader to make of that
01:43:05 well what is the reader to make of that what the reader made of that was what i thought the reader made of it when it was delivered that i had concerns with regard to the
01:43:16 that i had concerns with regard to the information box and that i regretted um
01:43:21 um not being able to deliver the review before uh 2016-2017 but that accepted the
01:43:31 the coroner's
01:43:32 coroner's recommendations i don't think i needed to go through every single one of them i accepted her recommendations except the point you're making
01:43:45 except the point you're making that
01:43:47 that she can't enter into a debate but i think given that she wrote to me on sprinklers uh if she felt that i hadn't re i hadn't accepted those three very important
01:43:59 accepted those three very important points it would have been included uh um in the letter i think if anybody um saving yourself right now had suggested
01:44:10 saving yourself right now had suggested uh to me that i hadn't accepted those recommendations either by parliamentary question written or oral or by
01:44:20 or by by debate i would have said most affirmatively that i had accepted those recommendations the thought that i hadn't accepted the recommendation had not crossed my mind
01:44:33 not crossed my mind until
01:44:34 until a little earlier today with your suggestion looking at the fourth line in paragraph 56 and we can go back to the ministerial submission if you like but it says there ministers were informed
01:44:46 it says there ministers were informed that significant research had already been commissioned to feed into the future edition of approved of the approved document and that this research work would not be completed until 2015. now
01:44:58 now that i think you confirmed to us was to the best of your understanding at the time the seven work streams which had been commissioned in 2012 so before the inquest arising out of sir ken knight's
01:45:11 inquest arising out of sir ken knight's report
01:45:12 report in 2009 at lachnall my question is did you know that none of those seven work streams looked at the external spread of fire
01:45:24 looked at the external spread of fire over the external envelope of a building as specifically recommended by the coroner no but the corridor recommended it so it would seem reasonable that the
01:45:36 it would seem reasonable that the department would
01:45:40 would work towards addressing that problem because clearly it is an important problem and the reason why i would expect the
01:45:50 the department uh to do that was because i had accepted the coroner's recommendations
01:46:00 well
01:46:04 did you think at the time without questioning it that the significant research already commissioned covered the entirety of the coroner's recommendation
01:46:15 of the coroner's recommendation specifically including the external spread of fire over the envelope of a tall building no because we obviously would need to pick up things
01:46:26 pick up things from
01:46:28 from what the coroner said so did you think then that although the seven work streams didn't cover external fire spread they'd be amended and the res the research would be revised
01:46:39 res the research would be revised so is to be added to but if those if that research did not relate to the external spread of fire i can't see how they could be
01:46:50 fire i can't see how they could be amended but i would have anticipated um
01:46:54 um other research to be commissioned and that wouldn't require my consent to do that
01:46:59 do that it's an integral part of due diligence once the coroner's recommendations had been accepted and as i i i hope i've made clear
01:47:11 and as i i i hope i've made clear they were accepted uh parliament thought they were accepted um there was no suggestion until i walked into this room today in my mind that i hadn't accepted them
01:47:26 let me see if i can get at this in an even more focused way at the time april may 2013
01:47:34 may 2013 when you were told that there was significant research already commissioned to feed into a future edition of approved document b did you think that that had already covered the question of external fire
01:47:45 covered the question of external fire spread
01:47:46 spread or do you think that the research didn't cover it but now new research needed to be undertaken in order to do so i thought
01:47:55 i thought that um
01:47:57 that um a series of research has been commissioned that will report in 2015 [Music]
01:48:04 [Music] i thought that the coroner's concerns with regard to the external spread of fire
01:48:12 of fire within
01:48:14 within buildings with a bigger pattern outside buildings would be addressed but not been technical i had no idea how easy that would be to address but if
01:48:25 but if additional research had to be commissioned that would not have required my explicit consent because i'd already
01:48:36 my explicit consent because i'd already accepted
01:48:38 accepted the coroner's um recommendations
01:48:51 i need an answer to the question and i'm not and it may be my fault i'm not really confident i'm getting it okay do you think you were told that there was this research which had already been commissioned did you think that covers external fire
01:49:03 did you think that covers external fire spread or did you think it doesn't and therefore we need to do it i had no reason to suppose that it did include
01:49:12 include external fire spread right the fact that they didn't include external fire spread would
01:49:22 would would not have precluded additional research
01:49:26 research um being um commissioned research was commissioned periodically i mean
01:49:33 mean i haven't paid that much attention to what happened in the next administration but because i listened to what you were one of your um sessions with rob walton it's clear that
01:49:46 sessions with rob walton it's clear that research was commissioned by the um
01:49:50 um by my
01:49:51 by my the administration in which i served this this kind of thing i would expect things
01:49:59 things those kind of things to happen because i had accepted the um
01:50:05 the um the coroner's recommendation i mean there has to be some degree of trust
01:50:13 trust that um officials will follow what the secretary of state has agreed to
01:50:20 agreed to now going back to paragraph 56 of your statement
01:50:24 statement you
01:50:25 you say there
01:50:28 six lines down towards the right hand side of the page you say it was proposed that the approved document would then be revised and consulted upon in light of the outcome of these research projects and
01:50:39 outcome of these research projects and that the department would expect that a revised approved document could be published during 2016-17 i recollect querying the time scale to meet the permanent secretary and being informed that the research was
01:50:50 informed that the research was substantial and that the issues were complex which was why the revision date was projected ministers stated that the intention was that it would be published in an easier to read style albeit it would necessarily still contain
01:51:01 would necessarily still contain technical materials now the ps at the time is bob kurzlek i think wasn't it yeah permanent secretary yeah permanent yeah ps i said it's permanent yeah number
01:51:11 number don't forgive me i haven't been productive but you'd never refer to the permanent secretary of the ps i'm sorry permanent secretary pop but bob kerr's leg yes yeah yeah did you pose your question to him or to other officials at this meeting
01:51:24 or to other officials at this meeting to bob which other officials were present
01:51:27 present uh i mean as he put it it was this was a team's view now given that um you know i've seen the subs and the subscribers with what bob was saying
01:51:40 subscribers with what bob was saying and without getting sentimental this was a man who i'd absolute uh trust in finest civil servants i've ever worked with
01:51:51 with and by which time we've grown used to working with her i took it at face value because i did not believe that my permanent secretary would um
01:52:03 would um say something that wasn't to the best of his belief true what led you to query the timetable because it seemed a long time what did you understand was meant by 2016-17
01:52:15 2016-17 that we would see something in 25 16
01:52:19 16 but of course um as you kind of understand on this kind of thing there has to be uh
01:52:25 uh consultations there has to be um you know revision there has to be first draft so i would anticipated of starting to receive
01:52:36 receive reports in terms of how that was going to go
01:52:40 to go uh
01:52:42 uh certainly by the summer of um of uh 15
01:52:47 of uh 15 um definitely by the autumn but the fact that we'd received the uh researched promptly i would have thought substantial things
01:52:59 i would have thought substantial things could have continued even if additional researchers have been commissioned by the department wasn't available um
01:53:08 um and even if it was an unpublished form they could still move it forward
01:53:14 now some of the witnesses to the inquiry have told us that 2016-2017 meant
01:53:20 meant end of march 2017 in other words the end of the 2016-17 financial year other witnesses have told us that to them it meant sometime between the 1st of january 2016 and the 31st of december
01:53:31 january 2016 and the 31st of december 2017. what did it mean to you it meant that we would do it as expeditiously in the financial year 1670
01:53:43 1670 but it wouldn't have been possible to deliver it in 1617 even if it was very late in 17
01:53:54 very late in 17 unless you saw um specific progress
01:54:00 progress um
01:54:00 um in um in in 15 and
01:54:04 and i mean i think we could explain i had a tracker and the track was purpose built for this kind of thing you know um um the consultation first draft issues to be considered
01:54:17 draft issues to be considered um you know when were they expected to lay before parliament all that kind of thing so
01:54:23 thing so you know when you when you're dealing with a truck you reap from right to left and sort of the extreme end of the left would have appeared who told you at the meeting with the
01:54:36 who told you at the meeting with the permanent secretary that the quotes issues were complex as you put it public secretary if the permanent secretary
01:54:44 secretary is speaking to the secretary of state other officials do not tend to interrupt him
01:54:52 him did anybody i don't mean that rudely in any way but i mean there is a hierarchy and you don't undermine your boss so it was the permanent secretary oh yes right absolutely because i did ask the
01:55:03 right absolutely because i did ask the permanent secretary to uh to check the letter to make sure that we had um fulfilled all the um all the all the uh requirements of the
01:55:16 all the all the uh requirements of the um
01:55:17 um of the coroner um you know this was my first coroner's letter
01:55:22 letter i wanted it to be done correctly i didn't want things to fall through the cracks did he tell you what the the complex issues were
01:55:35 what the the complex issues were no
01:55:36 no did you ask
01:55:38 well it didn't in a kind of way so it was kind of difficult to get things together you had to move up and down the the the process but
01:55:49 but it's not a lot lack of curiosity um
01:55:53 um i'm not technical it's my job to kind of deliver things if someone i trust absolutely says it can't be delivered until um
01:56:02 um 2016-2017
01:56:05 2016-2017 i'm not going to start insulting him by saying well let's just go over thing i'm not entirely convinced this is right i pushed back really quite hard and to say you know what can we do can we do anything uh intermediate but but
01:56:17 we do anything uh intermediate but but he said you know in order it was complex in order to do it properly um that we um we needed to take a little bit of time on and given that the um these work
01:56:28 on and given that the um these work streams weren't reporting to 2015 i didn't think the chief executive was being
01:56:35 being have a good pardon the permanent secretary was being unreasonable
01:56:42 did he or any other ministers or officials offer you any reasons for the four-year time frame they were suggesting to you in making amendments to approve document b well given that's the um
01:56:55 well given that's the um the work stream weren't due to report until 2015.
01:57:03 that seemed to me to be if not conclusive a fairly substantial part of the um of the jigsaw that was necessary to put together
01:57:15 put together but in my mind i certainly wasn't thinking in 2000 the end of 2017 given that i've made a uh
01:57:26 given that i've made a uh a commitment to the coroner i think forgive me i'll just make this final justice half a sentence life would have been extraordinarily difficult for a politician if it wasn't clear that the
01:57:39 if it wasn't clear that the uh that promise was going to be fulfilled
01:57:43 fulfilled now you told us that you pushed back quite hard and asked whether you could do anything intermediate yeah did you ask him whether
01:57:54 did you ask him whether the
01:57:55 the coroner's recommendations could be met
01:58:01 more quickly put on a fast track and leave the other matters which were the subject of the research reports to be published in 2015 to the 2016-2017 track
01:58:14 2016-2017 track not in those words why not
01:58:17 why not because i haven't finished my sentence not in those words but i did ask whether it would be possible to deal with um
01:58:28 document b in a in a partial way and what he said was no i'm afraid it's actually quite complicated everything kind of interlinks together
01:58:40 kind of interlinks together and
01:58:41 and i think it will be extraordinarily difficult to do that and might lead to more problems of uncertainty were we to do that were we to do that um
01:58:53 were we to do that were we to do that um and i don't think that you know that's that's not
01:59:00 unreasonable now brian martin told us and i don't need to show you the transcript it's it's day 256 of page 198 lines 14-16 um
01:59:11 um that although you accepted this is what he said although you accepted can i wait to see some of are you pretty honest well i can't if you like let's do this i think you'd be nicer if you forgive me all right
01:59:21 all right day 256 page 198 lines 14 to 16.
01:59:39 we're looking at a document and
01:59:42 and this is his answer in a slightly different context but what i wanted to put to you was the point in the middle of the answer at line
01:59:50 line 12 i think the point we were trying to make was that we accepted that the approved document should be improved and had plans to do so what the secretary of state rejected i guess was that this
02:00:01 state rejected i guess was that this needed to be done immediately is that right no no i mean this is a grade seven you can't guess my mind
02:00:14 now we'll get back mr i think the witness might find it helpful to read in from line eight okay thank you to seventeen okay sorry because i think you get a better context
02:00:26 because i think you get a better context okay thank you
02:00:51 okay okay would you like to put your question again or another question okay
02:01:01 yes my question is uh was it your approach or your view that the the revisions to approve document b did not need to be done immediately no
02:01:12 no i think it would be fair to say the revisions could not be done immediately it was my wish that it would be done as expeditiously as possible but that it was technically impossible
02:01:25 but that it was technically impossible to do it immediately or technically difficult or insurmountably difficult to do it so no i didn't that would not be a fair um
02:01:36 um recollection and and and for the record um i initially misunderstood chairman um uh what mr martin was saying and it's clear to me he wasn't trying to
02:01:47 and it's clear to me he wasn't trying to second guess and i'm most grateful for the
02:01:51 the for the an opportunity to read it further
02:01:59 um let's go to your statement please page 14 paragraph 48.
02:02:06 you say that i was keen to ensure that all of the coroner's recommendations were properly addressed i've been a councillor in bradford at the time of the brantford city stadium fire and was acutely aware of the horrors of fire and the need to do everything possible to
02:02:18 the need to do everything possible to avert future tragedies
02:02:23 given that how was the timetable that you sent back to the coroner which was a timetable which would finish in let it be assumed march 2017 for the sake of argument
02:02:35 sake of argument consistent uh with working as fast as possible to avert future tragedies i don't think it is inconsistent at all as we um
02:02:46 as we um as answered to my last question if it had been possible to do that it would have been feasible to have done the revision quicker
02:02:56 quicker i would have authorized it doing quicker
02:03:00 quicker it was clear from the advice that i received from officials that it wasn't possible to do it quicker
02:03:09 quicker and and to do a thorough job you will also recall my earlier answer when we looked at the possibility of being able to accelerate part of it the advice
02:03:21 the advice again that was also said that he wasn't so i don't think he's inconsistent um with that um
02:03:32 you know profit uh fire was one of the major parts of my life because of the bradford experience oh yes
02:03:45 so does it come to this lord pickles that you were led you were given to believe by bob kurzlik and perhaps he in turn on the advice of his officials
02:03:56 officials that only a a drains up full review of adb could address the coroner's recommendations and that had to take until 2016 to 2017 because of the complexities involved
02:04:08 complexities involved i think that's close to what was um uh was said
02:04:12 was said i think you missed out the point was that that because it was complex and because it was difficult and because it wasn't under lapping it was very difficult if you like to break the guard you're knot
02:04:23 you like to break the guard you're knot in order to do like a mini uh a mini exercise and
02:04:31 you know i think that would have been um i still think that would have been the truth uh i still think that is i thought it was the truth at the time i believe
02:04:42 it was the truth at the time i believe it is the truth even seeing uh what happened
02:04:45 happened um but what simply happened what may or may not have happened is the undertakings that i gave to the coroner uh weren't um
02:04:57 uh weren't um weren't followed with the speed on the precision that i would have hoped now let's turn to what happened in may 2013.
02:05:09 may 2013. we looked before at louise upton's 13th of may submission on a different topic let's get back to that okay clg four zeros two eight eight nine
02:05:20 and this came to you from louise upton we looked at it before i think you got you
02:05:25 you confirmed you'd read it at the time uh and if we go to the bottom of page three this time okay we can see um i'm sorry can i get back to the foot of page one just to pick something up with
02:05:36 page one just to pick something up with you
02:05:37 you for the page one you're given um uh recommend a set of recommendations on on
02:05:43 on the on handling the recommendations if you like and if you see annex f don foster submission on building regulations issues there's note that there now if we go to page three please we can see in this document
02:05:55 three please we can see in this document there's a headache building regulations yes yep paragraph 15 let's read it it says unfortunately the expert witness appointed by the coroner to advise the inquest gave confused and conflicting evidence on building regulations
02:06:07 evidence on building regulations etc and this you'll see it replicates what you'd seen earlier in the 11th of april submission to don foster which was exhibited or annexed to this document
02:06:18 exhibited or annexed to this document turn the page to page four
02:06:22 and just run your eye down paragraph 16 and 17
02:06:26 and 17 or 16 so like 60 okay 16.
02:06:35 and that replicates as i think you'll agree
02:06:37 agree uh
02:06:39 uh the 11th of april 2013 submission to don foster as well uh
02:06:45 uh yes uh
02:06:46 yes uh indeed i've referred to this a couple of times
02:06:49 times uh during the morning and i think once in the afternoon session indeed uh exactly that's by way of background and then look at 17 together with me he's it says this after it says a full review of the approved
02:07:01 it says a full review of the approved document would require significant resources and have a disruptive effect on the construction industry now those words were added by brian martin
02:07:12 martin uh the week before this submission was sent to you and they
02:07:18 and they they are added over and above what was said in the submission to don foster a paragraph 11 that we saw earlier uh
02:07:27 uh did you notice that at the time do you think yeah i don't think uh i'm not i'm not sure it had a material view i don't think i had a material effect on
02:07:38 i don't think i had a material effect on my
02:07:39 my determination to accept the coroner's
02:07:44 coroner's recommendation
02:07:47 did you notice as i said did you notice the additional consideration namely that a full review of approved document b would have a disruptive effect on the construction industry
02:08:01 yes i think that's probably true about any regulatory um
02:08:08 um taking in fact just about anything that government does i'd say they increasing national insurance will have a disruptive effect of the uh construction industry and would of course one would regret it but it has to
02:08:20 course one would regret it but it has to be a balance isn't it between safety and um ensuring that the construction industry is as
02:08:29 is as stable as content that if you recall when we
02:08:35 we started i talked about the binary that i didn't accept there was a binary nature between deregulation and regulation and these things are a fine balance but
02:08:46 and these things are a fine balance but i mean safety's got to come first doesn't it did you query what the disruptive effect would be on the construction industry um
02:08:58 i don't think
02:09:01 i would have minded that there was a disruptive effect on the construction industry we would have i might at some stage once we decided to
02:09:13 i might at some stage once we decided to sort ways in which we might be able to minimize the disruption
02:09:18 but it would not have been a material consideration in dealing with matters of fire safety
02:09:30 it's as you can see one of the reasons one of the two reasons why the
02:09:37 the advice goes on to say instead that is
02:09:41 that is instead of a full review of a pr of the approved document we propose to seek confirmation from fencer and other scheme providers etc etc and you read that did you think that
02:09:52 and you read that did you think that that was sound advice namely that because in part of the disruptive effect on the construction industry of a full review of the approved document your department was going to do something much lesser
02:10:04 something much lesser no i thought we were going to do something
02:10:06 something [Music]
02:10:09 [Music] in addition as
02:10:12 as a kind of stop gap in order to give an indication of the of
02:10:18 of the of of a destination of travel
02:10:23 travel um
02:10:26 i mean um
02:10:30 this almost looks like he's been written by a politician but you tell me of obviously he doesn't but why do you say that
02:10:37 that well i don't know it's i've seen one or two things um from miss upton that about the um [Music]
02:10:49 [Music] the red
02:10:51 the red tape challenge on this in terms of of the construction industry and it's kind of put together if the construction industry is going to be disruptive we can't do it well it's a balance
02:11:03 well it's a balance it's a
02:11:05 it's a a
02:11:05 a a decision that you've got you've got to make
02:11:09 make if you're going to do things in order to put up something sensible that's going to ensure the kind of um of tragedy long term that we saw at
02:11:20 of tragedy long term that we saw at latino
02:11:21 latino um
02:11:23 um that uh you know a small child is gonna be snuffed out before he got a chance then
02:11:29 then there would be a degree of construction so
02:11:34 i'm just a little i mean i'm sure she's a fine officer but i'm just
02:11:40 i'm just from the advantage of hindsight i'm just a little irritated by that sentence well it comes to be fair to lose up to actually was inserted by brian martin as he told us in his evidence
02:11:51 he told us in his evidence well
02:11:53 well i'm very sorry to hear that i maybe
02:11:58 maybe i'm being oversensitive but i just
02:12:04 sometimes you get things in submissions that are put in because they'll please you
02:12:10 you you know but they have there is an assumption about what you like and that's something you've always got to be
02:12:18 to be on your guard with but i have to say
02:12:24 that sentence jars a little bit to me well did it jar at the time i think it did
02:12:29 did did you go back to your officials and say i'm sorry yeah i didn't think it was worthwhile you mean you've got to you've got to draw a balance sometimes uh
02:12:39 uh i can only think of a relatively few times where um i had to sort of um tick off officials for cannibal for stepping the line politically and that's
02:12:51 stepping the line politically and that's probably the right side of the line it's just irritating it's not it's not a thing that you'd want to raise or be on someone's record well you see it's a reason which you're
02:13:04 well you see it's a reason which you're telling us jarred with you at the time but nonetheless formed the basis for doing something different from a full review why didn't you go back to your officials no because i'm not taking that advice
02:13:16 not taking that advice no because i accepted the the um uh the uh coroner's advice and my um
02:13:26 um permanent secretary knew i was accepted in full advice and i knew we were we were going to do um a full review of um of of document b uh the fencer stuff came up
02:13:39 uh the fencer stuff came up in
02:13:40 in [Music]
02:13:42 [Music] evidence uh at the inquiry it seemed reasonable for me for to to do those um and to do that would be to suggest
02:13:53 um and to do that would be to suggest the direction of travel and suggest at least we could do something uh in in the meantime but no it was not meant to not to go towards a full room and i don't think
02:14:05 towards a full room and i don't think the
02:14:06 the officials were seriously
02:14:09 seriously suggesting that they um were at that time attempting to uh undermine my eventual decision
02:14:20 my eventual decision and we'll come to see what you decided when we look at your response to the coroner in a moment
02:14:34 in reality how much
02:14:37 how much of the department's reluctance to launch a full review was based on these economic concerns
02:14:47 in my discussions with the permanent secretary and the decision to delay the review of um
02:14:58 of um until
02:14:59 until 2016 2017
02:15:02 2016 2017 i can
02:15:03 i can i can recall no discussion about the economic circumstances of the nation i'm pretty much talking about that you're not talking about the resources of the department talking
02:15:15 resources of the department talking about the economic circumstances of the nation right is that correct
02:15:27 i think that is what you had in mind isn't it
02:15:29 isn't it the
02:15:30 the question i'm being asked to answer was well you were being asked to clarify your question yeah that's a lot i was not expecting to answer the question i was asking i was simply seeking clarification of what you were asking me
02:15:41 clarification of what you were asking me i'm about to answer you on the basis of a disruption to the economy well i think and particularly the construction the construction yeah yes it's well
02:15:55 i want to be absolutely clear the disruption to the construction industry and the economy was not discussed directly
02:16:06 was not discussed directly or indirectly formally or informally right in light of that can we then look at what mr martin told the inquiry day 257 page 139
02:16:29 would you want me to now read from well i'm going to give you a bit more of a run-up this time okay so let's go back to page 138.
02:16:51 hmm
02:17:08 i'm sorry lord pickles in order to give you the full context we have to get back a page okay and it's taking time to come up page one three eight
02:17:17 eight oops it's gone there we go now i'm looking at paragraph 17 okay of the document we were just looking at here with brian martin this was his
02:17:29 here with brian martin this was his evidence right yeah and i i read it to him at lines 15 to 21 and then the question starts at 9 22.
02:17:40 and then the question starts at 9 22. now quite apart from the fact that the coroner had not recommended a full review of the document which we've been through already that second assertion there that a full review of the approved document would have
02:17:51 document would have if we turn the page to 139.
02:17:56 a disruptive effect on the construction industry quotes unquote had not appeared had it in your original submission to don foster of the 11th of april answer i think you're correct yes
02:18:07 think you're correct yes question we can compare the two but as a matter of documentary can you explain why that wording was added and then he says this i'm not sure that i can it may well be that someone had suggested some extra
02:18:18 that someone had suggested some extra text certainly the government at that time was very focused on because this was the coalition government for some financial crisis so ministers were very focused on
02:18:29 so ministers were very focused on avoiding anything that might impact on the economy in a negative way
02:18:35 now do you agree with that no no not in any way were you aware that submissions were being made to you by officials which were tailored uh to appeal to you based on then their
02:18:50 uh to appeal to you based on then their absence of negative effect on the economy and in particular in this context the construction industry
02:18:58 if that is the case i'm extremely disappointed because you need to tell the truth to authority
02:19:06 authority no point kidding them around and i know that
02:19:11 that they've had their problems since leading office
02:19:15 office but it's certainly my view that david cameron and nick clegg were decent in decent people and would not have compromised safety
02:19:25 so i think if i'd gone to them and explained the situation that we needed to do this i i don't think they would have been
02:19:36 i i don't think they would have been they would have pushed back i might have looked at ways in which we could ameliorate it i might have looked at ways in which we could cushion it i might have looked a words in which would kind of face it in i might have ensured
02:19:48 kind of face it in i might have ensured that there was plenty of consultation and ensuring that that construction was consulted i mean i'm very aware the construction industry
02:19:59 construction industry i mean i've played a a a small part in bringing that construction industry
02:20:08 industry back from the floor so i understand that but
02:20:13 but you know life is never simple
02:20:15 simple binary choices
02:20:19 i think i did say earlier when i was little and slightly irritated that sometimes officials
02:20:27 officials attempted to just to try and give a view and particularly if they don't come from the particular political background that you are they often have a cartoon view of what a
02:20:38 they often have a cartoon view of what a conservative is now let's look at the response to the coroner okay clj clg 402788 please
02:20:57 now and that's the first page of it it's dated or at least there's a date stamp of the 20th of may 2013. yes to madame do you remember who who wrote this letter would you know who wrote this letter
02:21:08 letter i
02:21:10 i uh i no i don't know who wrote this letter
02:21:14 letter but i know that he went through a filtering process with a permanent secretary because i wasn't i didn't want to sign it
02:21:23 it until he'd had a very close look at him i mean i recruited bob largely because of his enormous experience with in housing
02:21:35 experience with in housing he i mean it's a cliche but he'd likely forgotten more than most people knew and i wanted to make sure that it kind of that it was um one a comprehensive response to the um
02:21:49 one a comprehensive response to the um to the coroner save those bit that single bit that they objected and two that is stacked up uh
02:21:59 uh i think you told us earlier that this was the first time you'd ever received a letter from a coroner is that correct i believe that to be correct i can't recall
02:22:08 recall um
02:22:09 um seeing a 43 letter before right was it the last time was this the only one you ever received i think so yeah right um can we take it that you were satisfied well
02:22:21 you were satisfied well let me back up can we take it that you read this letter carefully before you signed it i did yes and can we take it that you were satisfied with its contents um i was um
02:22:32 um i was um i was satisfied with by its contact with the reassurance that the permanent secretary
02:22:40 secretary was happy with the contents
02:22:43 and were you satisfied that it sufficiently addressed the points that the coroner had made the recommendations that she had made uh i i believed that i had
02:22:54 believed that i had responded to the coronary i think upon the coroner um i believe that i accepted her recommendations i've seen
02:23:04 i've seen nothing
02:23:05 nothing [Music]
02:23:06 [Music] in parliament or for members of parliament to suggest i hadn't and i think if i hadn't accepted the recommendations in full
02:23:16 in full that there would have been quite a an uproar in parliament there would have been debates there would have been questions there would have been emergency
02:23:26 emergency sessions called so i think people were generally
02:23:30 generally um
02:23:32 um of the view that i i had accepted the coroner's recommendations now there are i think only two paragraphs in this letter that deal with the building regulations and the proof document b
02:23:44 regulations and the proof document b those are those appear on the bottom of page two if we go to the house right and you say this finally in relation to the building regulations i've noted your concerns
02:23:55 regulations i've noted your concerns about the difficulties that some of those involved in the inquests had with the interpretation of approved document b i can assure you that my department is committed to a program of simplification however the design of fire protection in
02:24:07 however the design of fire protection in buildings is a complex subject and should remain to some extent in the realm of professionals we've commissioned research which will feed into a future review of this part of the building regulations we expect this work
02:24:18 building regulations we expect this work to form the basis of a formal review leading to the publication of a new edition of the approved document in 2016-17
02:24:24 2016-17 the revision would be drafted in accordance with a new style guide for approved documents aimed at ensuring the guidance is capable of being more easily understood and
02:24:33 and that the need to cross-reference is reduced now just pausing there you say in your statement and perhaps we should just have that up
02:24:44 should just have that up at the same time if it's easy to do that or not if it's not
02:24:48 not page
02:24:49 page 18 paragraph 60.
02:24:53 your statement clg three zeros one nine four seven one page eighteen
02:25:02 power sixty there you say i responded to the coroner in a letter dated 20th of may 2013. i consider that the contents of the letter reflected the advice which i'd received from officials within the department
02:25:13 so can we take it that you the the paragraphs that you uh that i've just read to you you you were
02:25:19 were clear at the time in your mind reflected the advice that you'd received from your officials
02:25:25 officials the advice that i wanted from my officials
02:25:28 officials was actually quite a simple one with regard to this letter which was
02:25:33 which was have i accepted the coroner's recommendations in full do i need to do anything else do i need to say anything else save of course
02:25:42 course where we where i um i
02:25:47 i rejected one of the recommendations which of course was a kind of
02:25:54 it was on balance it was a decision on balance
02:25:57 balance i recognize that the um that the inquiries come to a different view but i think i did it in a in a recent way not a country where
02:26:17 did you receive advice or did you receive the advice from your officials that you wanted
02:26:24 i received the advice from my permanent secretary
02:26:31 that's the letter accepted all of the of the covenant of the um
02:26:39 the um coroner's recommendation save those the item which i objected to
02:26:47 to and whatever junior officials have put into subs whatever junior officials may have said whatever junior officials may have advised
02:26:59 advised the decision was to accept the coroner's recommendation did you so we don't you know forgive me one point when the decision is made
02:27:10 one point when the decision is made that is the decision we don't then start to unpick uh decisions further down the line where people have said that might not be wholly consistent with that
02:27:21 wholly consistent with that it's it's not that kind of process it is a decision and a decision was made to accept the coroner's recommendation and until i
02:27:31 until i wrote
02:27:33 wrote walton's room today i wasn't aware anybody felt that i hadn't accepted the coroner's recommendations in full did you make any changes to the letter
02:27:44 did you make any changes to the letter or a draft form of the letter before you signed it
02:27:47 signed it uh yes which was that it was a typo it was not significant right now i think it's right isn't it the the letter to the coroner and let's go back to it uh
02:27:59 and let's go back to it uh clg402788 page two
02:28:03 was a blend
02:28:06 a blend if we turned back to page two a blend uh of the of parts of the various submissions that you'd receive from your officials in the april and may of 2013 wasn't it
02:28:17 wasn't it i don't find that surprising yeah but is that right well i don't know um i i don't think i had the um it wouldn't be normal for me to sort of
02:28:30 it wouldn't be normal for me to sort of do a process whereby so i could i see that it's been cut and this has been cut and paste from this and this has been cut in pairs i don't think i've i felt that the
02:28:41 i don't think i've i felt that the letter to the coroner was a wholly original piece of work i accepted would contained
02:28:49 contained language that were termed elsewhere um i hope that answers the question when you say that you considered that the contents reflected the advice that you'd received from officials
02:29:01 you'd received from officials how did you arrive at that opinion i accepted the advice of the chief of the permanent secretary i see all
02:29:11 i see all my other officials are esteemed and worthy and i respect them and to tell the truth though
02:29:20 though it was a pleasure to work with with the department but it was the advice
02:29:27 advice of the chief of the permanent secretary that i
02:29:33 that i accepted someone i had complete trust in and someone who i to this day believed honorably and gave me good advice
02:29:42 advice so do i take it from that answer that you didn't study the text of the draft you were being asked to sign as against the ministerial submission of the 13th of may the final one that had come from
02:29:54 may the final one that had come from louise upton i wouldn't have regarded that as
02:29:57 that as being more important than the advice of my permanent secretary very well mr mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much um
02:30:08 yes i think it is thank you very much um before we close the evening can you give us all a little bit of an idea of progress on likely progress tomorrow
02:30:19 yes i think we'll be i think we'll run up to the late morning probably beyond the morning break right thank you
02:30:26 thank you well lord pickles i'm sorry that we haven't managed to finish your evidence today so i'm going to have to ask you to come back
02:30:32 come back to give us some more evidence tomorrow but the reason i sounded out mr miller is i think we can say with
02:30:40 say with quite a high degree of certainty that we'll get you away before lunchtime tomorrow well that's extremely car but i have to say uh the staff behind the scene have been extremely obliging and very helpful and
02:30:51 extremely obliging and very helpful and uh
02:30:52 uh and
02:30:53 and you know i've been well looked after but thank you for your care to say i'm pleased to hear that and i'm sorry we've perhaps kept you longer than you were expecting to be no no but um it's perfectly okay this
02:31:04 but um it's perfectly okay this gentleman issue there is one matter i just want to raise through you with the witness yes before he rises or we all rise for the evening and that's this um lord pickles you've mentioned a number
02:31:16 lord pickles you've mentioned a number of times during the course of your evidence this morning of seeing a document which to the best to the best of your recollection uh made it clear that uh the building regulations
02:31:29 that uh the building regulations and a proof document be and and the fire safety yeah i'm going to try and find regulations were exempted yes please okay
02:31:36 okay now what i'm going to ask you to do is is by way of exception to the purder rule whether the witness could be could give instructions to the government legal department who
02:31:47 to the government legal department who are here in the room so that they can find the document because
02:31:53 because our researchers have found nothing to do so yes okay i will do that right well thank you very much thank you for raising that mr millet um well i was about to ask you or pickles not to talk to anyone including your lawyers about
02:32:05 to anyone including your lawyers about your evidence while uh we have this break in your evidence but um you you do have permission to speak to them to help them identify the document which you obviously have thank you
02:32:17 obviously have thank you um but only that and otherwise please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when you're out of the room that's very kind thank you very much indeed thank you very much and we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning thank you thank you
02:32:48 thank you very much mr millet 10 o'clock tomorrow