Lord Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (2010-2015), gives evidence on deregulation policies, fire safety oversight, and building regulations during the Coalition government. He admits never knowing about cladding issues and describes tensions between deregulation agendas and safety priorities.
00:00:24 hmm
00:00:32 [Music] good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:39 hearing today we're going to hear evidence from lord pickles who at the time in which were interested was the secretary of state for communities and local government yes mr millet yes mr chairman good
00:00:50 yes mr millet yes mr chairman good morning uh i now call lord pickles please
00:01:04 good morning lord pickles good morning i understand you're going to take the oath i am there should be a testament there right you know the drill would you read the words on the screen please i swear by marty god that the evidence i shall
00:01:15 by marty god that the evidence i shall give
00:01:16 give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much would you like to sit down and make yourself comfortable please thank you
00:01:34 yes mr millionaire twitter ready mr chairman thank you good morning to you good morning members of the panel lord pickles good morning to you good morning can i start by thanking you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with our investigations we're
00:01:46 us with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you uh during your evidence can i ask you please to keep your voice up so that the transcriber who sits to your right can get down everything you say slowly and clearly so we have a nice
00:01:57 slowly and clearly so we have a nice clean transcript can i also ask you please not to nod or shake your head but say yes or no as the case may be as it may be
00:02:06 may be can i also please just mention that i during the course of my examination you may misunderstand my question you may want me to put the question in a different way i'm happy to do that
00:02:17 i'm happy to do that uh also if you need a break at any other time other than the scheduled times we're going to take mid morning and mid afternoon then let us know and we can take a short break all right
00:02:27 all right now um
00:02:28 now um you've provided one witness statement to the inquiry and i want to show it to you please it's at clg 3019 four seven one
00:02:39 yes i can see that on the screen thank you uh it's dated the 16th of january 2019. could we go to page 25 please could could i just is it possible to increase the font size yes of course
00:02:53 can we do it yeah so you should most of the time when we see documents lord pickles they often come up initially quite small print okay generally the passage that we're going to look at you'll find will be
00:03:05 to look at you'll find will be um increased in science yes i may have spoken out of terms of no not at all you're quite right to raise the point but it will generally be done okay so my apologies
00:03:14 apologies now on page 25 you'll see a statement of truth and a date 16th of january 2019 and between the two a signature is that your signature it's my signature have you read this witness statement recently
00:03:26 you read this witness statement recently yes i took the opportunity of reading it over the weekend very good and do you say that the contents of it are true yes thank you and before coming here today have you discussed this statement or your evidence generally with anybody
00:03:39 your evidence generally with anybody only with the legal team from the department to get various documents but not
00:03:43 not the substance very good now um if we go please to page one of this statement paragraph five you tell us that you were a member of parliament for brentwood and onga from
00:03:54 parliament for brentwood and onga from 1992 until 2017 is that right that's absolutely correct and can you set out for us your in brief if you can your education and working life before you became an mp
00:04:05 became an mp uh before i became an mp i was a consultant in employment practice i also did some work for now defunct conservative
00:04:17 now defunct conservative newspaper and local government um
00:04:22 um and i was
00:04:24 and i was a council of bradford between uh 79 and i think 891 i
00:04:35 i was chairman of the education committee chairman social services and eventually leader of the council and at paragraph two on page one uh you say that you held the position of
00:04:46 say that you held the position of secretary of state for communities and legal government from 12 may 2010 to the 11th of may 2015. that was the coalition government wasn't it
00:04:56 it that's correct yes and i think he was succeeded
00:04:59 succeeded by greg clark as secretary of state after the 2015 election is that right that is correct before your appointment as secretary of state am i right in thinking that you had no involvement in
00:05:10 thinking that you had no involvement in that department that would be correct we'd be in opposition um i did do the uh the job um for a brief time uh a shadow
00:05:21 brief time uh a shadow but for the year and a half before the election i was chairman of the conservative party so i i never i didn't even know where the department was when i was um
00:05:31 i was um uh appointed no and that you learned soon afterwards yeah fairly soon yes now had you had any government response governmental responsibility in a shadow capacity
00:05:44 in a shadow capacity for fire policy before you became secretary of state no did you have any experience in any capacity in relation to fire safety at all
00:05:56 at all no other than putting down parliamentary questions and i did front a a demonstration of sprinklers
00:06:07 a demonstration of sprinklers by
00:06:09 by west midlands fire authority at anglia ruskin university in the late 90s now on your appointment did you receive
00:06:21 now on your appointment did you receive any kind of induction or handover uh from either the outgoing minister or anybody within the department uh no the outgoing um uh
00:06:34 no the outgoing um uh that would have been very unusual i have to say
00:06:37 to say but of course there was an induction pack and a series of get to meet people uh over that over that period most of them were entirely new to me
00:06:50 most of them were entirely new to me people i've never met before yeah now can we go to paragraph 11 of your statement on page three you say there uh
00:06:58 uh as secretary of state i had overall responsibility for the leadership and strategic direction of the department during the period of the coalition government formed by the conservative and liberal democrat parties following
00:07:09 and liberal democrat parties following the election on 6 may 2010 i was required to have and did have an overview of the work being done by the department however for obvious reasons i could not have a detailed understanding of every element of that work although i
00:07:21 of every element of that work although i did become directly involved in the detail of certain specific issues that's correct in brief what was the strategic direction
00:07:31 direction as you put it of the department as you saw it in 2010 uh i'll happily do that but can i explain my powers um which i can do very quickly
00:07:42 um which i can do very quickly yeah i mean the basically two kinds of powers one that relates to me person which have a discretion and there are those that relate to my office
00:07:51 office so for example i outside the crown estate i held uh the ownership of all government buildings
00:08:00 buildings and um
00:08:01 and um in terms of um planning the planning authority the planning inspectors have no powers they that powers come from my office but within that i do have a discretion
00:08:13 but within that i do have a discretion in terms of calling and you know retained powers for for appeal so
00:08:19 so that's why government departments are able to move but in terms of priorities clearly uh the big thing was uh localism which was trying to devolve
00:08:30 localism which was trying to devolve power from from the center down to uh local authorities uh and behind there was a residual worry with regard to the number of houses that
00:08:41 with regard to the number of houses that were being built we also had a community cohesion and
00:08:48 and it was a very difficult time and we were trying to
00:08:52 trying to move things along there in terms of involvement of uh muslim and and jewish and other um faiths and um religions so those those
00:09:03 faiths and um religions so those those were the basic strands but for the first couple of years i think localism and getting the localism act which was the largest act uh passed
00:09:14 uh passed in the parliament getting that through the process and getting it implemented thank you now when you became secretary of state in may 2010 were you provided with an overview of the work being done
00:09:26 with an overview of the work being done by the department at the time yes you know in quite a a hard dock way obviously it was a new government
00:09:39 obviously it was a new government so we weren't necessarily going to continue with the policies of the previous labor government though in truth when in government it's
00:09:50 though in truth when in government it's not like campaigning you have to have a pragmatic view in terms of not throwing well the baby out with the bathwater i mean there were quite a lot of things that labour had done that i agreed with
00:10:01 agreed with who provided you with an overview of the work being done my
00:10:07 my [Music]
00:10:09 [Music] permanent secretary and also the office of my my private office would coordinate and put um uh briefings together
00:10:24 but my my permanent secretary was leaving he would have been appointed uh to become permanent secretary in scotland so one of the first things that i was involved in was recruiting
00:10:35 i was involved in was recruiting the new permanent secretary right
00:10:40 did you make decisions at the time about which
00:10:44 which areas of work being done by the department required your close attention yes obviously localism was something that was very important
00:10:55 important and also
00:10:58 and also even though it was may we needed to get ready for the revenue support grant um that's an extremely complex piece of
00:11:09 um that's an extremely complex piece of of work and it was pretty much on its knees
00:11:13 knees and in terms of the importance of the department it's roughly slightly over a quarter of all public expenditure uh comes through the department so it's quite a big uh
00:11:24 quite a big uh quite a big organization as i think you've heard of the ministers it's being secretary of state is pretty much full on long hours lots of reading
00:11:35 lots of reading lots of lots of boxes to go through but i did volunteer for him as part of your introductory work and decision making did any of the officials
00:11:46 decision making did any of the officials in the department bring to your attention
00:11:48 attention any current issues or work being done in respect of the building regulations or the approved documents no
00:11:58 no um
00:11:59 um they didn't but we i did take a decision fairly early on in terms of responsibilities of of government ministers and
00:12:13 of government ministers and i was
00:12:14 i was determined that that the housing minister and the person principally responsible for building regulations would be separate
00:12:24 separate my reasons i'm sorry
00:12:27 i'm sorry my reasons for that sir was because i knew there would be a lot of pressure on for a new build and i wanted to put some creative tension to ensure that
00:12:39 put some creative tension to ensure that decisions on uh building regulations would be separate i so happened that that
00:12:46 that i had the added bonus of having a liberal democratic was very interested in the subject and i thought again it would
00:12:53 would act as a break and remove temptation by doing so a liberal democrat very interested in in which subject housing or building regulations building regulations i'm sorry i should have met that clap and
00:13:04 sorry i should have met that clap and who was that at the time of yours oh that was andrew stone anderson right and he remains very knowledgeable on this agenda yes um at the time did anybody bring to your attention any
00:13:15 did anybody bring to your attention any issues or work being done in relation to fire safety no
00:13:20 no um
00:13:22 um i was
00:13:25 once the
00:13:27 the red tape challenge started i was
00:13:32 i was very determined that it would be extend from the
00:13:36 from the fire regulations would be exempt from that process when you say the fire regulations what do you mean by that um i mean
00:13:44 i mean the various i'm not sure i understand what you you mean by that i mean what i mean by that is fire regulations um
00:13:53 um those the that the previous um labor government had gone through a process of of deregulation oh do you mean when you say fire regulations
00:14:05 mean when you say fire regulations the fire safety order i think so yes well i think so i apologize for not being clear on that no no it's it's a it's not because there obviously are some things that relates to fire
00:14:17 that relates to fire within uh within document b i understand that
00:14:22 that we'll come we'll come to that okay i'm sorry to jump ahead but um in asking the question i just wanted to understand whether you meant the regulatory reform for a safety order yeah i i did and i apologize for not
00:14:33 yeah i i did and i apologize for not making that no no that's all right now um let's move on to how the department worked can we go please to paragraph 12 of your statement just below 11 in the middle of your screen where you say this
00:14:44 middle of your screen where you say this i should also emphasize that the department was not and is not an operational one it works with local authorities housing associations fire and rescue services and other local bodies the department's role is to guide
00:14:56 bodies the department's role is to guide and assist those local bodies in discharging their legal responsibilities at a local level now when you say the department was not it is not an operational one what do you mean by that it doesn't it doesn't
00:15:09 mean by that it doesn't it doesn't in itself
00:15:11 in itself um
00:15:12 um produce a direct service to the public it's a recognized term within within government we offer advice we offer encouragement
00:15:24 we offer advice we offer encouragement we can control budgets but we can't uh we don't ourselves directly provide a service to the government the largest budget will of course be
00:15:35 the largest budget will of course be local government and that's provided by local authorities around the country we were of course a default department so i had no
00:15:46 department so i had no say
00:15:48 say in scotland or in wales except for some some reserve matters which i never reserved piled which i never used
00:15:59 how did your department as you say guide and assist local authorities and discharging their legal responsibilities specifically in relation to the building regulations
00:16:10 regulations oh we um we would offer um
00:16:14 um we would offer guidance we will work very closely uh with the local
00:16:21 local government association
00:16:25 we would try to keep those building regulations up to date and andrew understood the last summer that is
00:16:37 understood the last summer that is was
00:16:38 was very keen
00:16:40 very keen uh
00:16:40 uh to um to look at the regulations and to and to bring them up to death so do we take it from that that your department had at least a degree
00:16:51 department had at least a degree of oversight of how the regulatory systems
00:16:54 systems particularly those relating to the building regulations were working in practice
00:17:01 practice we would
00:17:03 we would i
00:17:04 i wouldn't i would anticipate i don't know for certain but
00:17:09 but we would keep in very close contact with the representatives of uh local government and i think through that
00:17:18 that would perhaps pick up if there was any particular problems we would hold regular um uh seminars we would often uh parnish with the local government
00:17:30 parnish with the local government association which wasn't very far from our own uh headquarters and they were extraordinarily good at organizing this kind of thing you say you would keep it close contact
00:17:41 you say you would keep it close contact with local government what about industry
00:17:44 industry persons carrying out the work for the purposes of the building act i'm sure that took place but
00:17:53 but i i personally wasn't involved my
00:17:58 my limited recollection on this is those various seminars that the local government association would
00:18:05 would undertake
00:18:07 undertake would include representatives beyond local government was it your understanding that the department was required to monitor how the regulatory system particularly the building
00:18:18 system particularly the building regulations was being enforced i don't think i specifically knew that i think i assumed that will be the case
00:18:28 the case because otherwise how would it be able to
00:18:31 to change
00:18:32 change regulation and working on that assumption which team within your department did you understand or assume was doing that the secretary of state you
00:18:43 the secretary of state you tend to only see the people at the at the top so you i generally only saw um except for in very limited circumstances i would
00:18:53 i would only see the director-generals occasionally you see a a a director i knew it to be in what would be peter scofield's
00:19:04 what would be peter scofield's directorship and and i did have a limited i need to receive um some subs from mr martin who i think worked on building regulations and uh someone in the fire
00:19:17 regulations and uh someone in the fire team
00:19:18 team forgive me if i've not got a name right but i think it was louise upton does
00:19:26 if it's the person you're thinking of then it's that is correct yeah okay
00:19:32 and but i wouldn't see mr martin on a regular basis at all in general terms lord pickles how did you ensure that the department carried out those functions those oversight and
00:19:43 out those functions those oversight and monitoring functions effectively during during your time as secretary of state well there are two routes there's obviously the permanent secretary who i would see on a
00:19:55 who i would see on a very regular basis and my um
00:19:59 and my um ministers
00:20:01 ministers below me i think i had two or three ministers of states and and then below that parliamentary secretaries in terms of generally ruining the
00:20:13 in terms of generally ruining the department because obviously we were in coalition and i wanted to have a very clear message both to the um
00:20:23 um ministers
00:20:24 ministers and also to officials we used to meet on a wednesday morning what is called prayers
00:20:34 prayers which is
00:20:36 which is which became more structured under myself
00:20:39 myself and we would review progress on various key issues look at what was happening uh contemporary after a while
00:20:50 after a while uh
00:20:52 uh the suggestion of of um uh officials i introduced a tracker um that was designed it was essentially very elaborate um excel spreadsheet but
00:21:04 very elaborate um excel spreadsheet but that was essentially to look up at big projects and it was predominantly used uh for legislative purposes likes to say getting acts of parliament to him
00:21:15 getting acts of parliament to him but far more importantly ensuring that um
00:21:18 um the secondary legislation the statutory instruments were in place that's one of the problems that all governments face and it would deal also with big announcements white papers and the like
00:21:31 announcements white papers and the like but obviously not everything went on the tracker who was the custodian of the tracker
00:21:36 tracker my private office was the
00:21:40 was the coordinator of the trucker but each of the uh director generals own their bit of the tracker right and uh
00:21:51 right and uh you say each of the director generals owned their bit who owned the bit of the tracker to do with building regulations oh that would have been
00:22:01 have been uh peter schofield peter scofield and so far as you understood it uh those in his team under him would they have access of course yes i mean it was a two-way thing i mean the idea
00:22:14 was a two-way thing i mean the idea of prayers was to receive messages and and to hand down messages but i would also expect the um the relevant minister
00:22:25 the relevant minister to also have a big say in in what was like
00:22:30 like i do understand that there was regular meetings within each within each directorate to make sure that when the
00:22:41 that when the composite
00:22:43 composite tracker was available on the wednesday morning that you know everything looked okay and [Music]
00:22:51 [Music] they wouldn't get a difficult time for me not that i always have a very difficulty with anymore
00:23:00 now looking at paragraph 13 of your statement we will come back to the question of of the tracker later in your okay i think but looking at paragraph 13 on pages three and four if we can just
00:23:11 on pages three and four if we can just scroll to four we can see that you not work with a number of junior ministers in the department and you list them uh
00:23:19 uh in letters a to j you list 10 during the period 2010 to 2015. was that a large number a particularly large number of junior ministers for a department the
00:23:30 junior ministers for a department the size of yours in a five-year period no i mean the average length of stay of a um
00:23:40 say um a parliamentary secretary will probably be 18 months or so i'm interested probably slightly longer
00:23:51 probably slightly longer um
00:23:53 um secretary of state three years right how did you ensure in general that junior ministers acted in accordance with the strategic direction of the department as you wanted it to be
00:24:05 department as you wanted it to be well i did two things obviously the prayers was a central process uh but i made sure that i uh
00:24:16 that i uh had a structured meeting with each um [Music]
00:24:21 [Music] junior minister um
00:24:24 um at least once a month and also i tried to create a degree of informality i'd often drop in and see how they were doing rather than i did find
00:24:37 rather than i did find sometimes the formality of
00:24:41 the procedure is rather irksome and i prefer to to go and see people rather than have them sort of drummed in to come to see me when you say people you mean junior
00:24:52 when you say people you mean junior ministers i mean junior ministers but i also main um uh director generals so i wanted to try and create it um it was going to be a very difficult time and obviously you want to um foster
00:25:05 and obviously you want to um foster teamwork
00:25:07 teamwork so you would you would try to you know accompany people so for example uh during the fire strikes um when they were on we always had the minister of the department to take
00:25:18 minister of the department to take executive decisions i would occasionally i would occasionally join them there's no need for me to be there but it's just a question of of trying to uh to work with people and get the best out of them right
00:25:30 right now
00:25:31 now just building on that answer and your um approach of wanting to use a more informal um
00:25:41 direction does that mean that you would sometimes as it were try to jump the species barrier between you and your private office on the one hand and the department's officials on the other
00:25:53 the other no
00:25:53 no no i would never do that because that would undermine the private office right i mean i think you've had discussions about the private um office but the secretary of state is quite different
00:26:04 secretary of state is quite different in some respects you have a principal private secretary and then you have i think i had four um private secretaries they would um
00:26:15 um mirror
00:26:16 mirror and layers closely with individual directorates and we'll be talking to the director general and talking about what things would come to me in addition to which obviously i had
00:26:28 in addition to which obviously i had responsibilities as a cabinet minister i'd be on certain cabinets subcommittees and they would they would they would shatter that process
00:26:37 process and those occasions when i was at cobra they would also do that
00:26:44 do that so you know as a cabinet minister you you have a responsibility beyond
00:26:50 beyond your department and occasionally the prime minister would
00:26:55 would uh
00:26:56 uh give me
00:26:57 give me special tasks to to do was there a time when you felt it appropriate as it were to go through the door into the department and talk to
00:27:08 the department and talk to peter scofield or any other of the more junior officials about particular matters
00:27:12 matters i would never undermine peter scofield as just an example i would never go below peter scofield to a junior official i thought what right that would have been extremely bad uh practice but
00:27:24 have been extremely bad uh practice but people would um we're talking about peterson was an exceptionally talented mum but if he wanted to see me you know it would sometimes arrange uh
00:27:35 you know it would sometimes arrange uh with the um with the office to pop in on sami so it wouldn't be unusual um we started quite early and went quite late
00:27:45 late and occasionally would come across him and the other director generals on the and the permanent secretary would occasionally meet with me my rooms uh in the house of commons because
00:28:00 thoughts need to be taken and i physically needed to be present to do so
00:28:07 to do so very well we'll come back to that topic in a little bit more detail later i'm just returning to the track how
00:28:14 how did you allocate the work of the department amongst the various junior ministers at your disposal well i think you'll see um uh on uh 13 i give them
00:28:26 uh on uh 13 i give them a rough
00:28:27 a rough uh breakdown but if we're talking about we started i had two principal ministers of state um
00:28:37 um one was
00:28:38 one was was was grant shaps and he had housing and principal responsibility for local government and the other one
00:28:49 and the other one was greg clark and he had responsibility for planning and decentralization now both these were colleagues who were have been in the shadow cabinet with me
00:29:00 have been in the shadow cabinet with me when i was party chairman and normally would have expected themselves to be secretary of state and i did
00:29:09 and i did i tried to ensure that there was a a collegiate atmosphere as a not too you know put too far apart i wasn't loading over anybody right my colleagues where was the role of principal minister
00:29:21 where was the role of principal minister of state a formal one or just a way of you you making no no but it is a minister said mr state is is quite important the secretary of
00:29:32 is quite important the secretary of state
00:29:33 state minister of state which is a limited number and then parliamentary secretaries but of course you need to understand the coalition government
00:29:44 coalition government that's the formal structure but the informal structure is that with the liberal democrats they had a wider reach and a greater importance than a parliamentary
00:29:56 importance than a parliamentary secretary would normally have because ultimately they could get decisions kicked up to the quad
00:30:04 the quad which
00:30:04 which i was always keen to avoid and i
00:30:08 i i thought i was extraordinarily lucky with um
00:30:12 with um uh with andrew and then and then with don of people who kind of understand some system
00:30:21 and who was the minister of state responsible for uh building regulations well um
00:30:32 this is where the um informal structure is becomes important is that it was a responsibility of the minister
00:30:41 minister of state
00:30:42 of state it may theoretically of um
00:30:46 of um fallen within greg clark was a kind of understanding that we wouldn't that the principal contact between
00:30:54 between what was happening and what was going to be decided would be
00:30:59 be andrew and then darwin
00:31:02 and that if there was a problem that would come to me and it would be regarded as a uh as an issue we had to address i mean one thing that i did do which i think was important is i
00:31:13 did do which i think was important is i didn't
00:31:14 didn't caucus ever with the conservatives uh by ourselves would to exclude the liberal democrats because there needed to be a degree of trust yeah now we see in the list here uh
00:31:25 uh that
00:31:26 that the it's the first three andrews donald don foster both under secretaries of state yeah uh and stephen williams yeah and under secretary of state had
00:31:37 and under secretary of state had responsibility including responsibility for the building regulations yeah everybody else i think in your list had a variety of responsibilities including local government and housing
00:31:48 including local government and housing and planning people would stand in uh people would so we wouldn't be uh andrew would reply on things relating to
00:31:59 andrew would reply on things relating to your local government do debates relating to local government um when at that kind of level you you're not as confined
00:32:10 as confined uh to um
00:32:12 uh to um silos as it appears on the chart so there is actually no way in which i would have put together say the
00:32:22 the financial settlement for local government without
00:32:26 without andrew or don's active participation and active agreement how did you decide who should have buildings building regulations um responsibilities or briefs
00:32:39 responsibilities or briefs it went to the initial choice was to andrew
00:32:45 andrew because i think as i briefly said earlier i wanted to separate it from housing and i suppose then
00:32:56 and i suppose then both don
00:32:57 both don and
00:32:59 and and then stephen stepped into that initial decision that was made
00:33:04 was made in 2010.
00:33:06 in 2010. now did andrew stanley have any particular experience in building regulations he certainly had a degree of enthusiasm it's not quite the same it isn't quite the same thing
00:33:18 it isn't quite the same thing um
00:33:19 um i have listened to him subsequently at various various debates and now in the laws talking about building regulations and he certainly had a greater knowledge
00:33:31 and he certainly had a greater knowledge than i currently have uh but
00:33:35 uh but i'm afraid uh the way in which the the political system works is that you don't necessarily get ministers who have a an in-depth knowledge
00:33:48 who have a an in-depth knowledge of a particular subject and if i'm being really blunt that isn't a bad thing a minister who thinks they know about something is actually sometimes quite
00:33:59 something is actually sometimes quite dangerous
00:34:01 dangerous you are heavily reliant upon um the
00:34:05 the officials
00:34:07 officials and there has to be a degree of trust in fact there has to be a high degree of trust
00:34:12 trust between um officials and our ministers my relationship with um my permanent secretary but i had three
00:34:24 my permanent secretary but i had three but for the bulk of the period it was um uh bob kersley was an extraordinarily close one and you relied on their on their judgment you would test their judgment you would ask
00:34:36 would test their judgment you would ask them questions but but by and large if you
00:34:41 you well i have seen departments i have seen uh
00:34:45 uh ministers that were just simply at war with the civil service how did you ensure that junior ministers were sufficiently briefed and up-to-date on matters of concern to the department
00:34:57 on matters of concern to the department um
00:35:00 i would ensure that they had a knowledge beyond their um their brief through prayers uh and through general discussions
00:35:11 general discussions uh on the tracker in terms of the their their knowledge
00:35:19 i i you would see the briefing pack that they
00:35:22 they were given and uh i don't think um [Music]
00:35:27 [Music] i'm giving you away secrets
00:35:30 secrets is that their private office would report to my private office if there was a particular problem and occasionally there were sometimes you'd have a minister who
00:35:41 sometimes you'd have a minister who wasn't very good at some clearing the box clearing the letters and signatures and sometimes
00:35:51 you had a
00:35:52 had a problem about ministers who had difficulty making decisions again that was one of the reasons why the tracker was so good because you on big issues you would be able to
00:36:06 force the pace
00:36:10 and you told us that you met your junior ministers
00:36:13 ministers once a month at least elise and the director generals of once a month and the director generals were those discussions formally recorded no
00:36:25 no i don't believe so
00:36:27 who did you understand during the five-year period you were secretary of state to have been the key official or officials within the department responsible for fire safety
00:36:39 responsible for fire safety the person that i would look for would have been the chief fire officer
00:36:45 officer and
00:36:46 and i i had
00:36:47 i i had [Music]
00:36:48 [Music] two first ken knight and then peter holland um
00:36:56 were they attached to the department yeah
00:36:59 yeah but attached as an official or as a an exterior independent advisor i don't think they were independent i thought they were i always felt they were working for me
00:37:11 did you have any particular uh special advisors or spads who advised you about fire safety no
00:37:19 no uh i only um
00:37:24 we were pretty um parsimonious i only had two spots for the whole department i think there are five now but uh i would have regarded of having a spat
00:37:36 i would have regarded of having a spat to give me advice on uh on virus exclusively on fire that's quite a luxury quite a luxury uh can you name the spads
00:37:49 uh can you name the spads yes yes sir i had three i i had two sort of the whole period um uh the the first one was mr sheridan westlake
00:38:00 westlake and um
00:38:02 and um then i had charles kenningham he stayed for a while and then went on to number uh number 10. and zoe thorogood all of these three people i was um
00:38:15 all of these three people i was um very familiar with i'd worked with sheridan probably for 10 years in various capacities before i was party chairman i was deputy
00:38:27 before i was party chairman i was deputy chairman had responsibility for local government and sheridan worked with me there zoe was my one of my media officers at central
00:38:38 one of my media officers at central office
00:38:39 office and
00:38:40 and giles cunningham who went to be a media officer at number 10
00:38:45 10 also
00:38:48 worked for me and they were my choice right
00:38:51 right did they ever have calls to give you any advice on
00:38:54 advice on fire safety or the building regulations or approved document b they would give me advice on work uh done
00:39:06 on work uh done by
00:39:08 by the appropriate officers they would occasionally they would occasionally give me advice on some some of the submissions would go to them
00:39:21 leaving aside the connections with local government that you've told us about already what was your understanding about how the department's officials kept up to date with current topics problems controversies in the
00:39:33 problems controversies in the construction industry that involve the building regulations and the approved documents
00:39:40 documents i never had cause to inquire
00:39:44 inquire on that
00:39:45 on that the short answer is i don't know but i think i made a reasonable assumption that they would keep
00:39:54 oppressed and and certainly you know when we had various discussions i had some real concerns about
00:40:05 wooden framed
00:40:09 uh construction which uh i i've noticed in the bundle of documents that i i looked at so you would have discussions on and off about various things
00:40:21 on and off about various things but um
00:40:23 but um i can't recall any of them coming to see me and saying that there was a particular problem
00:40:30 problem what were your concerns about wooden framed construction this is about 2012. there had been this a series of fires
00:40:42 a series of fires they
00:40:44 they there's something really honest i saw it on television and i made inquiries and i can see as
00:40:50 as [Music]
00:40:51 [Music] in preparation i saw the soap i can't remember the sub but i i saw the sub in prep being preparing for this uh uh
00:41:01 uh you know the inquiry and um
00:41:04 and um from recollection um i i got assurances that there was nothing to be concerned about and and that's i think that is the model of documents which
00:41:16 of documents which if you don't have i'm sure i could write to you and point that out now can we go please to page five of your statement paragraph 15 and you say there
00:41:29 it was routine that most submissions from officials sent to junior ministers would copy in the private office of the secretary of state my private office took decisions on a case-by-case basis as to which policy
00:41:40 case-by-case basis as to which policy submissions were of significance and whether i needed to be consulted in addition to junior ministers this reflects the standard and ongoing practice of delegation to ministers within whitehall departments yeah just
00:41:52 within whitehall departments yeah just just pausing there is it right that you would not read every submission copy to your office but only those which your office drew to your attention that is absolutely correct right and who was it in your private office that would decide
00:42:04 in your private office that would decide which submissions you should see in which you shouldn't or wouldn't you may recall i gave you a brief description of the um
00:42:14 the um of the way it was organized so if say something came in that related uh to a particular directorate that was being
00:42:25 a particular directorate that was being shadowed by one of my principal secretaries they would make a decision they but ultimately they would contact the principal uh a private uh secretary
00:42:37 the principal uh a private uh secretary who ultimately would make the decision but i think as time goes on um you get they get you they got used to system mans
00:42:48 system mans they were i don't i can't imagine there would be many debates it was either obvious i should see it or i shouldn't if there was a problem i'd usually get over a discreet warning
00:43:01 over a discreet warning from your pps yeah
00:43:05 right so is the answer to the question that the decision about whether you should or shouldn't make a decision was one
00:43:14 one in the first place made by one of the is this right the four private secretaries or if
00:43:22 or if uh accelerated to the pps the principal private secretary yeah that person it's also a kind of a geographic thing they sat immediately
00:43:33 they sat immediately outside my office and we'll be working together i mean closer than we are sat now so they'd be you know so in a way it would they work things out
00:43:44 they work things out um the spuds on the other end were entirely separate i was very keen that the spots would be physically in a different place from from the private office
00:43:56 from the private office i just felt that was i mean there are some things that are political and some things that aren't political and
00:44:03 and i always felt it was important never to involve the private offices in anything that was political and what criteria were used by the ps's
00:44:15 and what criteria were used by the ps's or the pps as the case might have been to decide whether policy submissions were of significance such that you should see them i think the short answer would be experience
00:44:27 experience i think the longer our longer answer is they would know where they would know the general direction of where we were going
00:44:37 going they had a pretty good
00:44:40 antenna for knowing when things were were going wrong
00:44:46 but it did rely on the private office of the of the ministers also perhaps if there was a problem
00:44:56 problem uh giving a warning and how did you as secretary of state ensure that policy submissions of significance were always brought to your attention
00:45:07 brought to your attention uh by instruction it was um an implicit uh
00:45:11 uh instruction that would see things that was important that were important for me to see yeah for example the uh localism acts um
00:45:22 the uh localism acts um greg enjoyed an enormous degree of autonomy was very interested in that but ultimately i needed to do the final uh final sign
00:45:33 i needed to do the final uh final sign off but i did it in a very collaborative way because this was massively important for the uh for the coalition if you took say for example something like um
00:45:47 say for example something like um troubled families i would
00:45:49 i would be
00:45:50 be i would probably sign up most things on that because it was very complicated it was quite controversial and ultimately i'd be at the dispatch box having to defend it if things go
00:46:02 box having to defend it if things go wrong
00:46:04 wrong obviously when i was seconded forward of a better word on flooding there was a period when one of my colleagues um
00:46:15 of my colleagues um required to have um an operation and then a long recuperate took over part of the department
00:46:26 part of the department relating to farming and the environment um i'd be taking decisions there that normally um um
00:46:34 um a junior would be taken so before rihanna proms and that kind of thing and how would you know if matters of significance for your decision were missed by your pps's or pps your ps's or
00:46:45 missed by your pps's or pps your ps's or your pps
00:46:47 your pps well so missed by the pps and um
00:46:51 and um i wouldn't know but
00:46:55 in government and
00:46:58 in the world of politics you can mess up for a while but ultimately it comes to the service
00:47:09 i think also what i probably should say is the people who work in the private office
00:47:14 office these are the the brightest of the bright uh it's not like a normal um civil service job they work extraordinary long hours
00:47:26 extraordinary long hours for an extraordinary long period and it's seen as a route for promotion most of the directors
00:47:35 directors would have worked in the private office at some time in another in a past government so these were people these were not administrators these were very sensitive and clever
00:47:47 these were very sensitive and clever people
00:47:48 people and i never felt they ever let me down
00:47:57 just examining the decision-making process however is it also right that before a significant matter a policy question of significance got to your
00:48:10 question of significance got to your your office um
00:48:13 um that would have to be escalated up through the department and and cleared by a senior official oh of course absolutely i mean obviously
00:48:25 oh of course absolutely i mean obviously we won't we'll we'll put it to one side like now for a moment but
00:48:31 but on
00:48:32 on something like that it would be cross department so you would get the opinion of the minister responsible for say for fire or you get the responsibility if you get
00:48:44 you get the responsibility if you get rid of for housing you get the woman responsible for um building rags you would get and they would look at it and they would give you a recommendation
00:48:55 and they would give you a recommendation so what it was so where things were you know outside the individual sub-department responsibilities that's principally
00:49:07 principally when it was required and i think by and large it was
00:49:13 it was they would consult me mainly i think on strategic issues
00:49:21 and occasionally if there was a somebody
00:49:25 somebody messed up and said something stupid a dispatch box a kind of political issue which might actually not be that important but you know for the good running of the department they would
00:49:36 department they would want to be able to do because it sometimes it it affected the credibility of individual ministers now two things okay from that little pickles first
00:49:47 first does that tell us that there might be decisions of significance which your officials in the department would decide should not be
00:49:58 should not be sent to you for decision but which you would never know about of course right i mean by and large everything is copied to me
00:50:10 is copied to me um uh so say for example you get letters would come into members of power from members of parliament to me
00:50:20 to me i would never see them the only people i would reply to are the only people that would be consulted for replying to would be
00:50:28 would be fellow cabinet ministers chairman of select committees and privy counsellors and they would always get a personal letter back from me
00:50:39 personal letter back from me if it was a senior member of parliament then the ministers of state would reply
00:50:48 on the question of ministers if
00:50:50 if your officials decided that there was a decision that needed to be made by you would that necessarily always go through the junior minister or
00:51:00 or or perhaps and the minister of state before it got to your desk oh yeah it would yeah i mean if it was forgive me because i had a little bit but obviously if it
00:51:11 i had a little bit but obviously if it was a sudden emergency that whole process would be truncated
00:51:17 truncated but i wouldn't take a decision without having the advice of my ministers i mean that way i think would be very bad for morale and would undercut them
00:51:29 bad for morale and would undercut them in the same way i wouldn't have sought to undercut the director generals or the directors was it the case that with submissions that were to your attention for decision you would read them in full
00:51:41 for decision you would read them in full or would you read only those parts which you were directed to read
00:51:48 um i think i'd read them in full and during your time as secretary of state did you ever have calls to think that there were matters which were not being brought to your attention
00:52:01 no i want to turn next to the building regulations and the associated guidance first were you aware during your time as secretary of state that the building regulations primarily imposed
00:52:13 regulations primarily imposed what is called a functional or performance-based requirement or set of requirements
00:52:21 i'm not sure i understand the question i am aware of the changes that took place in the 1980s if that's what you're referring to about the change from
00:52:32 referring to about the change from prescriptive to a different regime but i don't really understand what you're asking me what i'm asking you is whether you understood that the regulations didn't prescribe how to do something they
00:52:43 prescribe how to do something they required
00:52:45 required a specific outcome yeah well that was a change that came in the 1980s yeah i did i did understand that yes i'm sorry i just didn't understand what you were asking now did you want did you become
00:52:56 asking now did you want did you become familiar at any time that you were secretary of state with any specific functional requirement as i call it in the building regulations relating to fire safety
00:53:08 other than discussions with the
00:53:14 with the chief fire officer i i knew that a whole set of um
00:53:22 of um research had been commissioned following uh candidates work on on lachlan
00:53:32 lachlan i knew that it was the intention gradually to update i knew that the research will be coming in
00:53:44 will be coming in in
00:53:45 in 2015
00:53:47 2015 and i knew that it was the intention to
00:53:54 as far as possible to put them into um plain english so that you didn't need to be an expert to understand that was that
00:54:05 an expert to understand that was that was going on can't think of anything else that um that was particularly brought to my attention now that answer was compendious
00:54:16 compendious and it might describe the entirety of your of your knowledge about this particular topic during five years but let me see if i can be a bit more specific okay i'm sorry i didn't i didn't mean to i'm
00:54:27 didn't mean to i'm i'm answering to the best of my ability and i um
00:54:32 and i um i thought i'd try and give you a comprehensive view of what it was on so i apologize no no i'm not being critical i'm just identifying the ambit of what we're doing can i just be a little bit more specific did you at
00:54:43 be a little bit more specific did you at any time become familiar with the specific functional requirement in the building regulations relating to fire safety as opposed to structural safety
00:54:53 safety or
00:54:54 or um
00:54:56 um thermal insulation and and matters of that nature no no
00:55:01 no were you aware of the architecture the basic
00:55:05 basic shape of the building regulations namely that oh yeah yeah yeah absolutely namely that they they provided what i call a functional requirement an outcomes-based requirement but were underpinned by
00:55:17 but were underpinned by statutory guidance yes i think i didn't understand that you did i understand that the lettering and the different different functions you did yeah were you ever provided with any with any kind of introduction or
00:55:29 with any kind of introduction or briefing about the building regulations the approved documents and their interrelationship
00:55:37 and not within the department though i did attend um a seminar on the changes uh as a counsellor did anybody it's a very long time ago
00:55:48 did anybody it's a very long time ago did anybody ever tell you or did you otherwise know perhaps that the approved documents were no longer being reviewed and updated on a regular basis as of 2010
00:56:00 as of 2010 yes that was the purpose of andrew's principal work right did you ever have cause to read any parts of approved document b
00:56:11 approved document b on fire safety while you were secretary of state
00:56:19 i'm not sure i couldn't rule it out where you were wearing general justification i think i'm sorry i'm no it's my fault
00:56:31 it's my fault i'm sure you'll come on to this but there was a question of whether or not um
00:56:36 um [Music]
00:56:38 [Music] document b was confusing which went to the center of what the um um
00:56:47 um the coroner said and i wasn't entirely clear what the heck that meant and i did look at that particular section
00:56:55 section i'm not um i don't have any technical uh technical uh expertise uh i like i mean i i couldn't work out whether it was confusing or not if i'm honest
00:57:07 was confusing or not if i'm honest but um but i'm sure we'll come on to that so when you read it you didn't know whether it's confusing or not exactly i mean i could see both sides if i was honest and
00:57:18 honest and that's why i think it was probably the sensible i think the uh coroner's views were sensible run but i'm sure we'll come on tonight we will but while we're on it could do you
00:57:29 but while we're on it could do you remember which part of a proof document be you read no do you remember what it was about
00:57:36 no not not after this distance now no do you remember being aware or having any kind of familiarity perhaps with any
00:57:47 any guidance relating to buildings above 18 meters
00:57:54 just in general terms only so far as it related to sprinklers right so nothing to do with not not on external fire spread or the use of combustible materials oh the only um
00:58:06 combustible materials oh the only um the only uh was that would be the lightning and the problems with the windows right
00:58:15 right were you ever aware of the particular dangers posed in high-rise buildings by the use of combustible materials in the external wall buildup no and
00:58:26 no and when i did become aware after i was secretary of state i found that really shocking and when was that this would be i suppose what um
00:58:37 this would be i suppose what um [Music]
00:58:40 [Music] 19
00:58:42 19 2017 2018 so after grenville oh yeah absolutely um were you over aware of serious high-rise fires in the uae in 2012 or 2013. no what about the lacrosse
00:58:56 2012 or 2013. no what about the lacrosse building in melbourne in 2014 no i'm afraid not and no neither was it brought to my
00:59:02 to my attention by the relevant officers if anybody had used the expression acm or polyethylene core or cladding panels between 2010 and 2015
00:59:14 between 2010 and 2015 would you have understood what they meant no
00:59:18 meant no uh
00:59:19 uh and uh
00:59:21 and uh i don't know how relevant he is but there wasn't a single question about cladding
00:59:27 cladding in the whole of the five years that i was secretary of state from parliament which is generally a pretty good indication if there is a
00:59:38 a pretty good indication if there is a problem right nobody spoke to me about cladding
00:59:43 cladding and i mean i'm i'll go as far as saying nobody spoke to me about cladding directly indirectly formally or informally and
00:59:55 and were you aware that your own officials had looked into the question whether a fire such as happened in dubai in 2015 and about 2015 high-rise buildings with a
01:00:07 high-rise buildings with a clad in acm panels with a polyethylene core could happen here in england and wales and it satisfied themselves without guarantees of course that it could not
01:00:19 guarantees of course that it could not no
01:00:21 i want to turn next to different topic and we'll come back to this topic in due course when we look at deregulation is where we go next can we start with bob ledson's witness statement please at clg three zeroes one
01:00:34 statement please at clg three zeroes one nine four six five page eight
01:00:39 now you'll recall um it's hard if you don't it's not on my it's not on my screen oh it's right
01:00:48 right it's on ours well i'm just going to ask someone just to check it's online now right oh you've got thank you thank you
01:00:55 thank you um so just just forgive me what am i looking at right let's go to page one and i'll show you okay
01:01:05 this is the witness statement of bob ledson dated 16th of november 2018 to to the inquiry now you'll recall and tell me if you don't that he was the deputy director with responsibility for the building regulations from june 2011
01:01:18 regulations from june 2011 to june 2019 obviously you can't speak for anything after may 2015 in that respect but do you recall him
01:01:27 i'm sure he would have been at meetings and
01:01:31 and i hope he'll accept my apologies but i don't remember him right now let's go to page eight please paragraph
01:01:40 which paragraph sorry 29 okay which should be on the screen in front of you tell me if it's not um he says there during 2011
01:01:51 um he says there during 2011 during 2011 to 2017 there were two main policy influences on the department's work on the building regulations deregulation and energy efficiency
01:02:03 and energy efficiency now my first question is do you agree i've no reason to disagree right now is it right that the the two key to regulatory policies
01:02:14 regulatory policies in operation in the years 2011 as far as you're concerned 2015 were the one in one out policy and the red tape challenge um
01:02:26 um yes
01:02:27 yes but um
01:02:31 i can't see it was very omniscient
01:02:35 it's not one in one ounce or two in two hours
01:02:39 hours in a day
01:02:40 in a day or a week
01:02:42 or a week or a month it was over a period and uh
01:02:48 and uh if we were to take this um entirely serious once we'd granted local authorities general power of competence
01:02:59 general power of competence there were so many regulations that had been gone by then we could have regulated uh till four
01:03:09 four months without even touching these figures right well it wasn't uh i mean i think it's kind of important to understand the difference between sort of campaigning and and governing
01:03:22 of campaigning and and governing um
01:03:24 um you rightly corrected me about the uh you know the various fire regulations but
01:03:29 but i've seen in preparation for um for this uh minutes of agreement between the uh minister f uh for um
01:03:41 the uh minister f uh for um government policy and with andrew still that any
01:03:45 that any review of um of building regulations wouldn't touch upon matters relating to safety um
01:03:56 um so they are there but i think i've been misleading the um the inquiry if i suggested that that was a
01:04:07 a big factor in limiting the ability to do things right let's see if we can approach it step by step okay i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm jumping it was a lot of my apologies um is it right the one in one out policy
01:04:19 is it right the one in one out policy was introduced on the first of january 2011 yeah
01:04:23 2011 yeah and extended to one in two out on the 1st of january 2013. and i think later although i think you would gone by then march 2016 one in three out yeah
01:04:34 three out yeah do you know whose idea this policy was oh um it's not an uncommon policy um um mr brown has something um similar in his
01:04:46 mr brown has something um similar in his administration then you'll see it right across europe and right across america it's the idea that all governments regulate too much and we must make
01:04:58 regulate too much and we must make a big effort to to deregulate and indeed it is important but i think it's really important to kind of understand that when you're in government i never really regarded it as a binary
01:05:10 i never really regarded it as a binary choice
01:05:12 choice right
01:05:13 right so
01:05:14 so it isn't like you say regulation bar deregulation good you've always got to bear in mind what you're trying to do
01:05:26 bear in mind what you're trying to do and sometimes i do get i did have concerns and you do get concerns when people go on these kind of things
01:05:33 things that
01:05:34 that deregulation is an end in itself and it isn't
01:05:38 isn't deregulation is about making the situation better i am a small uh state conservative but there has to be a degree of pragmatism there are some things
01:05:50 pragmatism there are some things the government does that need regulation
01:05:55 now just approaching the policy is it right that the one in one out was an administrative policy whereby no new regulation would be introduced this is just in very broad
01:06:08 introduced this is just in very broad terms no new regulation would be introduced without a compensating reduction in regulation being made um over a period i mean it would be i have to say
01:06:19 have to say there was nothing there was no political structure within the organization that we've gone through where ministers will be asked to say well
01:06:28 well we want to do this on um i don't know i don't want to be flipping but we want to do this on ice cream vendors in in exchange for doing this on fire regulations or
01:06:41 doing this on fire regulations or there was no body that would adjudicate that it was over a period and given we had a reputation because there was i suppose a very low hanging fruit
01:06:53 fruit um of um
01:06:55 um of um of a deregulating authority the center by large didn't bother us very much right now were you always confident that your officials understood
01:07:06 officials understood deregulation in exactly the way you've just explained it to us yes because i mean we may certainly our prayers meetings would have been very clear i mean the uh
01:07:17 would have been very clear i mean the uh you may want to talk about the exemption um on
01:07:23 um on on fire
01:07:25 on fire it looks quite polite the minutes but it was far from a polite uh experience it was a a major tussle that involved
01:07:36 a major tussle that involved a lot more than those meetings and kind of
01:07:40 of a major
01:07:41 a major uh triangulation of the issue from both the uh liberal democrat side the conservative side and the officials i mean there was a a uh
01:07:53 a uh i think a six months gap from bob's initial letter to eventually deciding was the case and that was a very intense battle
01:08:05 that was a very intense battle so
01:08:06 so so
01:08:07 so senior officials would be aware of that and i'm sure those messages were passed down this helps the purpose of prayers was it your view that the one in one out
01:08:18 was it your view that the one in one out policy applied to approve document b in other words fire safety as regulated by the building regulations and the statutory guidance given
01:08:29 given the
01:08:32 the minister that i've seen of the meeting between andrew and the
01:08:43 minister for government policy i wouldn't have thought it would have been finished in any way on anything related to um
01:08:54 on anything related to um to safety
01:08:55 to safety that isn't to say other extremists wouldn't have been considered but i would have been very disappointed if that was the case
01:09:06 if that was the case and
01:09:09 and my readout that i got some understanded the process don
01:09:16 don issued
01:09:18 issued the government's response and
01:09:22 and the briefing that they got it was clear that it didn't in any way impinge on um matters relating to safety i'm sorry if that was a bit long are you referring though when you say it
01:09:34 are you referring though when you say it didn't impinge on matters relating to safety to
01:09:38 safety to the impact or effect of the the regulatory policy on the first safety order specifically or on any matters any regulation relating to fire safety i'm talking
01:09:50 relating to fire safety i'm talking about two things i'm talking about the agreement that was reached with regard uh to for short-term fire safety and sec which was between the minister
01:10:01 and sec which was between the minister for
01:10:04 for government policy and
01:10:07 and bob neal
01:10:09 bob neal and i'm talking about agreements with regard to how building regulations would run which was uh successfully negotiated with andrew stunnell so there are two
01:10:21 with andrew stunnell so there are two separate things um um which are not quite in parallel but close right but we'll come back to that okay i'll find just to work out how it went
01:10:32 just to work out how it went in general did it work this way the government's government departments proposing new regulation or guidance to show that there was deregulation elsewhere producing an equivalent net cost to business
01:10:44 cost to business um in savings which was twice the amount of the cost of the introduction of the new regulation no
01:10:51 no no it was over a period don't forget that there will always be an impact assessment so you might have you might get something like that
01:11:03 i mean was any account taken well let me try it this way was the policy
01:11:12 designed to create a metric whereby everything was reduced to a standardized economic unit and then a comparison made so that you knew what the one was going in and the one going out
01:11:23 in and the one going out it sounds like the kind of thing that the
01:11:27 the minister for government policy would really like was it like that in practice i i have no recollection of
01:11:38 in practice i i have no recollection of of
01:11:38 of anything like that happening
01:11:43 i mean i don't want to sound disrespectful to my own government but that's all right that probably has been good for me um
01:11:55 you know there are there's a world of difference between campaigning and the reality of government i am saying something like that
01:12:06 i am saying something like that didn't happen but i cannot recall somebody walking into my office or receiving a sub um that would say we can't do this because we can't find
01:12:18 we can't do this because we can't find a bit of regulation to uh to remove for it
01:12:23 it um
01:12:23 um [Music]
01:12:26 i hope i don't sound dismissive but sometimes i did get very impatient at uh
01:12:37 uh it's wanting to take things to
01:12:42 to and into for the sake of kind of an intellectual study rather than some of the practicalities yes um
01:12:52 do i detect this in your answer that actually
01:12:57 actually and i'll be colloquial if you don't mind for a moment that the the derogatory policy had been coined as a manifesto promise to appeal to the health and safety gone mad voter contingent and then had to be
01:13:08 mad voter contingent and then had to be worked through an apparently scientific metric based on value for money well i think i must have if i'm if if i have to follow your colloquialism um i think i might have missed the memo
01:13:20 um i think i might have missed the memo on on this matrix on the matrix but not the first part uh
01:13:26 uh that's that's that's that's a view you had but it's not this but it's not like it's an uncommon policy i mean i think the present government have got something similar i think if you went to look at the
01:13:38 i think if you went to look at the christian democrats in germany they have something
01:13:42 something similar for all i know you know other countries in the world everyone likes to think we're over-governed and indeed we are over-governed and indeed there was a push to try and uh give power um
01:13:54 uh give power um locally
01:13:55 locally but was there within my department a structure which went to ministers in which we had to make decisions in terms of on a one form basis and it was one
01:14:06 of on a one form basis and it was one for one two four one three four whatever there was never it was never an absolute it was over a period what was the period
01:14:17 what was the period well that's the great thing about the period it was more than a month right more than maybe more than six months might even have been a year no pickles i'm getting the impression
01:14:28 no pickles i'm getting the impression from what you're telling us that uh deregulation or if you even more specifically one in one hour one in two hours
01:14:36 hours was fine as a policy announcement for political reasons but didn't actually inhibit the work that ministers felt they
01:14:46 they needed to do is that fair yeah i wouldn't put it quite in in those terms i think i will put it in a way that yes we did want to deregulate yes we did want to create a smaller scheme
01:14:59 we did want to create a smaller scheme of things but it wasn't a binary choice that
01:15:02 that there was always the possibility of regulation and we didn't stick to regulation i mean you say you'll come back to the the you know they do we did on on fire but
01:15:15 do we did on on fire but that was resented and right up to almost the end of the coalition
01:15:20 coalition um you've taken evidence about the carbon monoxide and the um
01:15:30 and the smoke alarms but even right at the last
01:15:33 the last from the center they were wanting to um
01:15:37 except small uh small landlords uh which
01:15:43 uh which we refused to do i mean we sweetened it by finding a fair chunk of money to give them out free but nevertheless that obligation is on
01:15:54 obligation is on we took regulatory uh
01:15:57 uh powers with regard to cigarettes and uh combustion of um what they call those things are not cigarettes the um
01:16:08 i'm so sorry i can't remember what they called
01:16:12 called people papers uh there was a a problem with the safety of that and we were very kind of conscious that you know quite a lot of fires were caused by cigarettes and electrical
01:16:23 caused by cigarettes and electrical faults so we were prepared to regulate there now isn't we didn't thought
01:16:28 thought it isn't that we thought the deregulation was a silly idea no we didn't it's a it's a good thing to do but it should never be just for itself it should be about trying to achieve a name i think i'm
01:16:39 trying to achieve a name i think i'm happy with that description i don't want to sound as though we were cynical it's just it never the red you know the red tape challenge in terms of
01:16:49 of when you were wanting to regulate never got in the way and i think that was clear
01:16:57 clear from ministers and it wasn't a cynical thing it's just a practical thing when you're when you're governing you've got to be pragmatic
01:17:07 pragmatic and deal with the situation rather than the ideology yeah thank you very well i hope that clarifies yes thank you is that a convenient moment yes it probably is mr toilet thank you
01:17:18 yes it probably is mr toilet thank you very much uh no pickles you probably know we have a break during each session and this is a good time to have the morning break so we'll stop now um and we'll resume please at 25 to 12. okay
01:17:30 we'll resume please at 25 to 12. okay and uh i have to ask you as i've asked all the other witnesses please don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone when you're outside the room okay all right thank you very much thank you yesterday would you go with her please i will
01:17:50 [Music] thank you mr millet 25-12 please
01:34:16 would you ask little pickles to come back in please
01:34:38 right little pickles ready to carry on absolutely thank you very much yes thank you mr chairman um can we please go back to bob ledson's witness statement where we were clg three zeros
01:34:49 statement where we were clg three zeros one nine four six five page eight and have a look please of paragraph 29 a yep where he refers to the one in one out rule
01:34:57 out rule and then he says in the last sentence there there was no exemption for building regulations from these rules do you agree with that
01:35:07 no so he's wrong because i believe so i hesitate this is a general i'm not familiar with
01:35:18 this is a general i'm not familiar with but in the context of the
01:35:22 of the agreement between the minister for um government uh policy and uh andrew stunnell
01:35:34 and uh andrew stunnell there was a clear understanding that matters relating to safety there'd be no concentration on so i think they are excluded from that envelope
01:35:45 envelope but that but it wouldn't mean that other aspects of the building regulations um uh wouldn't be exempt but i don't know whether i made it
01:35:58 but i don't know whether i made it clear enough and if i didn't look i'll apologize i cannot remember a single occasion where
01:36:05 where we had to scrape round to find a regulation to to scrap in order to impose a new one the general power of competence just created an enormous gap we could have
01:36:17 created an enormous gap we could have really
01:36:19 really doubled the size no no i don't i don't want to sound flipping but we could have seriously been able to do things and um i cannot understand why this would in any way be um
01:36:30 any way be um a problem
01:36:32 a problem um
01:36:34 um if but if it was a problem and uh this official felt that they had to be winning one out from building regs then i take responsibility because that clearly was not
01:36:45 clearly was not um
01:36:46 um was not the attention uh that senior officials knew that would not be the case um
01:36:54 um i'm sure mr lebson believed what he says and i'm sure he's not seeking to in any way mislead and neither am i well are you able to explain
01:37:05 explain how it came about that bob ledson the deputy director was under the impression which was not your impression which was that there was no exemption for building regulations from the one in
01:37:17 for building regulations from the one in one-out rule i can't forgive me because this is the only bit of um
01:37:23 of um i've seen does this relate to a ah a specific uh period yes well by generally um
01:37:32 2013 andrew have moved on so he should have known uh that um
01:37:39 um i don't know what the point is is making and
01:37:43 and i frankly
01:37:45 i frankly do not understand right because i i never found this was not something that actively we ever
01:37:57 we ever came across because we had such enormous amount of credit to the deregulating ministry
01:38:04 ministry a practical problem wouldn't perceive and i would have assumed that message had reached him but i'm not aware of ever meeting this gentleman
01:38:12 gentleman you say you had an enormous amount of credit as is it at the deregulating ministry or as it um sorry i don't understand what you're saying but i i didn't understand your
01:38:23 saying but i i didn't understand your your
01:38:24 your questions
01:38:25 questions you asked me a question i'll uh yeah you said a moment ago you had an enormous amount of credit we had okay we had enormous amount of credit for the center because we had a because of the localism act which was an
01:38:37 because of the localism act which was an enormous piece of of um of of deregulation um and people generally trusted us not to drag our feet but as i
01:38:51 not to drag our feet but as i said before the break i never regarded it as a binary
01:38:56 a binary and had
01:38:58 and had um officials come to me and said or ministers and come to me and say well secretary of state there's a bit of a problem here we wanted to do things
01:39:09 problem here we wanted to do things in building regulations but the william won out
01:39:15 is causing us a problem i think i would have told them to just plow ahead
01:39:23 can i show you please hom hom402080
01:39:33 now this is something called the star chamber internal briefing pack building regulations you see that and it's dated may 2012
01:39:44 and it's dated may 2012 and if you go please to page three at the top
01:39:47 the top it says narrative introduction dclg is a deregulating department we have reduced regulation in all the areas we are responsible for
01:39:58 areas we are responsible for in housing and construction theme and are looking at what more can be done would you agree with that statement of description of the dclg
01:40:11 this is the kind of thing i think we might have said though i don't remember this
01:40:14 this document
01:40:19 now why would you have said it why would you have said dclg is a deregulating department if by way of exception to that
01:40:30 by way of exception to that the the regulatory agenda did not apply to the building regulations i don't think i said they didn't apply to uh could we be
01:40:41 to uh could we be precise i think what i said and if i misspoke i apologize uh that's um matters relating to safety uh uh would
01:40:53 uh uh would be i would not be a part of that deregulating agenda now all things relating to um the building regulations don't necessarily relate um
01:41:05 necessarily relate um to safety i i hope i've been clear
01:41:10 and i think i've also talked about the not being a binary nature but was it generally true that the dclg was a deregulating department as this document said
01:41:21 department as this document said yeah by and large um
01:41:24 um but again could i draw you back to the general power of competence and the
01:41:31 and the localism
01:41:32 localism agenda
01:41:34 agenda uh localism act a bigger pardon by doing that just by the fact of doing those an enormous numbers of regulations disappeared
01:41:45 disappeared um the general power of competence because rather than having to look for a specific piece of legislation in order for local authorities to be able to justify doing something they were able to do it out of their own
01:41:57 able to do it out of their own cognizance and the nature is a whole raft of of um regulations uh disappeared so it wasn't a kind of a hand-to-mouth
01:42:08 so it wasn't a kind of a hand-to-mouth existence of trying to find individual things to to deregulate in order to regulate just like i've got your understanding at the time clear
01:42:19 understanding at the time clear that the
01:42:21 that the the localism act was 2011 was it yeah 20 uh 2011 was the look uh the localism act and then there's a period of about
01:42:34 seven months because it was a record of bringing the secondary legislation most of that secondary legislation will would have reduced
01:42:45 will would have reduced what the um the narrative here would have recognized as deregulation now you said that the as a result of that if i got this right the gist of it is that having got the localism act through
01:42:57 localism act through that gave you an enormous amount of credit
01:43:00 credit when it came to the deregulatory um
01:43:04 um policy all those responsible for administering it and the second part of what i said as well
01:43:10 well the general power of competence which of course was part of the localism output in itself was quite uh significant it actually gave us it would have given us an enormous headroom with regard to
01:43:22 with regard to winning one out two into out uh um um
01:43:27 uh um um whatever did that message that you had an enormous headroom with regard to one in one out two in two out as you call it
01:43:40 two in two out as you call it get filtered down to your officials responsible for the building regulations it was certainly clear at the level of which i would meet people which will be the director and
01:43:51 people which will be the director and deputy director i i apologize to mr dobson if if i if i ever met him but i'm not aware i ever did i certainly received subs from him
01:44:03 received subs from him but
01:44:04 but i'm not aware of of meeting him i would principally meet with a um
01:44:12 with the director uh with the director general i saw where the the civil service operates but i would hope that those messages will be clear were you aware
01:44:24 were you aware of the pressures that civil servants felt to deliver on the deregulating policies at the time that would be right across government yeah were you aware that officials in your
01:44:36 were you aware that officials in your own department felt those pressures acutely
01:44:39 acutely notwithstanding the enormous amount of headroom that you had achieved through the passage of the localism bill
01:44:46 i was not aware that they faced such pressure
01:44:50 pressure and i can think of no real reason why uh they should feel that pressure
01:44:58 mr figured me because that pressure wasn't there i'm so sorry i apologize for interrupting you
01:45:08 um can we please look at mr harold's evidence to the inquiry day 243 page 43
01:45:25 and we probably need to start at the bottom of page 42 this is a q a this is evidence for to the inquiry from mr harrell okay on day 243. but sorry i don't want to
01:45:37 but sorry i don't want to who is it
01:45:39 who is it right uh well richard harrell reported to bob ledson from 2013. thank you now um
01:45:49 now um and he was responsible for brian martin okay let's say that you've got that line in your head now he says the bottom of 242
01:45:58 242 uh well there's a question at the bottom of twofold 242 uh from ms grange queen's council at line 22 right give us a flavor of what those discussions were that
01:46:09 what those discussions were that reinforced it that's about the red tape challenge answer well there was just the general you know there was a there was a general sense that regulation was bad turnover and even where there were proposals to do something that was
01:46:21 proposals to do something that was regulatory in terms of introducing something that was attractive to ministers or something they might want to do when they recognize that it was regulation they would pull back from that generally because that was not the way they preferred to drive change
01:46:34 way they preferred to drive change that was his evidence are you able to explain and did he give um a specific example because of it it says because i could
01:46:45 because of it it says because i could have read this book well it's about nick bowles
01:46:49 yes of course
01:47:02 so we had an informal discussion with mecca and
01:47:05 mecca and i see that um
01:47:08 um my question having shown you the part i wanted to show you was whether you were one of those ministers or understood that you were um
01:47:16 um who was trying to drive change through deregulating uh through a deregulatory agenda and therefore acting as a disincentive to any change to the regulations
01:47:27 to any change to the regulations building regulations and guidance that officials wanted to make well i'm not sure why nick is having this
01:47:35 this this discussion but the short answer is of course i wanted to deregulate i mean would it be would it be helpful if i went through the process that would have happened
01:47:46 the process that would have happened if we wanted to uh to regulate because i will be asked a number of questions from the center and i don't mean this in any way um
01:47:58 i don't mean this in any way um in a pejorative sense but
01:48:02 but to regulate it's not like we're in the court of
01:48:04 court of henry viii to regulate or to put things through parliament is a very chancy and difficult thing to uh to achieve i'll go through that if you want but
01:48:16 i'll go through that if you want but just to say the questions that will be asked of me is
01:48:19 is why
01:48:21 why why does the present system not work why how
01:48:25 why how what
01:48:26 what attempts have you made to change the present system why would regulation only regulation work isn't there another way of powers that we already have to to to
01:48:37 to deal with to do that now these are com these were common questions and
01:48:44 and i don't see that kind of structure in that kind of discussion
01:48:49 and i don't think a kind of an informal chat
01:48:52 chat as opposed to we've got a problem we need to sort this out we can't do it any other way which is
01:49:02 which is the kind of thing that you would see when we did decide to regulate that's the kind of
01:49:09 the flavor of the sub we would have got on
01:49:13 on carbon monoxide alarms or or on smoke alarms you had to go through a process and i don't think that is a bad process to go through
01:49:24 process to go through but
01:49:25 but i i i mean i don't mean this rudely to the gentleman but i think a kind of little informal chat and a good in in um a minister's office is not
01:49:36 a minister's office is not to my way of thinking really properly exploring um government policy but i haven't read the whole of it so i may be jumping to the
01:49:47 whole of it so i may be jumping to the wrong conclusion well i'm just showing you a portion of quite a lot of the evidence that we heard from a number of officials in the department at the time on this precise topic yeah and i will be looking at others in in in
01:49:59 and i will be looking at others in in in a moment so i am going to repeat the question
01:50:02 question but were you aware that officials felt during the period from certainly from 2011 to the end of your time in may 2015 that they were working in a policy environment where regulatory
01:50:13 environment where regulatory intervention was a last resort well that isn't a bad thing isn't it is that that yes it will be a oh no no that is not a yes
01:50:26 it will be a oh no no that is not a yes it would not be that would not be a bad thing what would be a bad thing is if we say we're not going to regulate no matter what case you put up that would be bad
01:50:37 what case you put up that would be bad but to have a a system where say we're not going to jump straight into regulation that strikes me as being a good thing i hope i'm clear on that point
01:50:49 were you aware that officials were working in a policy environment whereby regulatory intervention in matters of fire safety and so life safety was a last resort
01:51:01 no and that shouldn't be given that's the agreement that we'd reached that's the the agreement had been put together by um
01:51:11 by um uh by bob neal i mean it was a quite a live and important uh topic and certain by that time you've been
01:51:21 been resolved and i can't believe anybody involved
01:51:25 involved in the service would not have gone through six months of very intensive lobbying um of of government at which
01:51:38 um of of government at which officials were used uh the liberal democrats were using the conservatives were used and i was personally involved in i mean that was a
01:51:49 i mean that was a very big change and by no means certainly we would get it it was a whole six months of um very difficult negotiations
01:52:01 negotiations if you felt it was helpful i could take you through but but if not i'm happy to move on well i'm just really seeking to understand how it could come about that
01:52:12 that the officials in the department felt they were working in a particular environment let me show you another piece of evidence because we have this transcript up on the screen can we please go to page 102
01:52:24 and look at lines 19 to 20 there this is um again part of richard harrell's
01:52:32 harrell's uh evidence uh and uh he uh said uh
01:52:39 uh that line uh uh 16 we can pick it up i think in the case of our division okay the process for amending or changing regulation was becoming so onerous that we were working
01:52:51 becoming so onerous that we were working hand-to-mouth to try to cover the scope and ground that we needed to that was his evidence and does he give an example
01:53:02 evidence and does he give an example well it's a general comment he's making in response to it to a question but that's his evidence and are you able um to say whether you can agree with it disagree with it or justify it or we'll
01:53:14 disagree with it or justify it or we'll say whether it's unjustified could i crave you indulgence and see the question yes of course can you get back to page 242 and you'll pick it up at line 14.
01:53:33 and spend some time
01:53:49 hmm and could you go back to the the point you were yes can we go to page two
01:53:54 two 102. yeah very large and complex at the top of the page
01:54:15 good lord no i can't explain that it seems to me extraordinary
01:54:22 for getting onto lucky well i was assured that things were progressing uh assured
01:54:34 repeatedly but i but i had made an assumption that most of that work will be taking place
01:54:43 place at the back end of 2015 and moving into 2000 and
01:54:50 sixteen and seventeen um
01:54:56 i thought i ran the department reasonably and that people could tell me when things were going wrong in fact you know the the i asked my private office and
01:55:10 i asked my private office and the larger uh conglomerate of uh director generals i really only had two things i wanted from i always gave the same speech which was loyalty and tell me when things were going wrong
01:55:22 going wrong and i promised that i would not seek to blame them if things were going wrong try and sort it out and i think i can say that i succeeded in doing that i had taken over from
01:55:34 in doing that i had taken over from people
01:55:35 people who shouted at officers who threw things about
01:55:38 about i i can safely say i never raised my voice to a single officer in the whole last five years that there just seemed to me a way in which that should have been properly
01:55:50 properly put up
01:55:51 put up to the minister or to me
01:55:54 or to me i mean the minister after all has got a vested interest in delivering all this they are
01:56:00 they are um ambitious people they want to succeed and um
01:56:07 and um you know i thought i would have heard about this but
01:56:12 uh it's a matter of some grief to me that they didn't well we'll come back to some more of that in a moment but let's then look at the red tape challenge now okay am i
01:56:23 the red tape challenge now okay am i right that was launched in 2011. i think that's probably about right yes and i think we're still in place when you left post i think so and i think there's a variation of it going on now and i think there was a variation of it
01:56:35 and i think there was a variation of it before we arrived and am i right in thinking it was a cross-government policy designed to essentially crowdsource the views of from businesses organizations and the public on which regulations should be
01:56:47 public on which regulations should be uh retained scrapped or improved yeah yes
01:56:51 yes now um the word challenge there was that in was this uh
01:56:56 uh in relation to departments competing with each other
01:57:02 [Applause] i think strictly also in two parts i think strictly speaking the challenge related for the public to challenge um the regulatory environment and that was it
01:57:14 environment and that was it but i will be misleaving you if there wasn't a degree of what might be described as sibling rivalry between various government departments i'm sure that is the case let's get another challenge just relate
01:57:25 let's get another challenge just relate to the uh the public the challenges to the public the challenges from the public to us i see
01:57:34 i see right
01:57:35 right so the public would challenge government yeah yeah
01:57:38 yeah yeah now let's go then to the question about competition inq3015133
01:57:47 um this is a document published by the department for business innovation and skills in december 2014 so during your time as minister as secretary of state
01:57:58 as secretary of state and it's called the ninth statement of new regulation better regulation executive
01:58:03 executive and if we go to page eight there we can see a table he did table two depart departmental regulation and deregulation from january 2011 to july 2015
01:58:14 from january 2011 to july 2015 and if we look at the second apartment down on the left we can see your department department for communities and local government and if we go along the table we can see that your department made a net saving
01:58:25 that your department made a net saving to business over the parliament of 201 million pounds wow
01:58:32 so then let's go to page 10 you say wow did you not know that well we're talking about what um we're talking about getting things quite
01:58:43 we're talking about getting things quite close it says regulation deregulation from january 2011 to july 2015 but july have been sucked well this is a december 2014. so there's an
01:58:55 this is a december 2014. so there's an element of uh presumably an elephant projection in uh yeah but it it's it's that's the period in the document did you ever see this document at the time do you think no i'm not aware of that right let's go to page 10
01:59:07 right let's go to page 10 uh we can see there the league tables table three departmental net regulation from january 2011 to july 2015 and there's a ranking as you can see uh
01:59:18 and there's a ranking as you can see uh and
01:59:19 and uh it shades from green bright green to a more insipid green down at cabinet office level and then a pale food standards agency and then pink ministry
01:59:30 standards agency and then pink ministry of justice and then increasingly uh red until you get to the treasury of the bottom of the league table 14th and you can see that your department
01:59:42 and you can see that your department comes forth uh with a net regulation saving of 201 million 0.52 pounds
01:59:49 pounds um now
01:59:52 does that tell us that there was competition between departments for top spot
01:59:58 spot no
01:59:59 no and anybody knew anything about government would tell you
02:00:07 we were enormous we were an enormous department close to a quarter to a third of public expenditure so for
02:00:17 so for i mean i almost said this but for us to save
02:00:22 201 million pounds wouldn't have been that hard i mean the treasury i mean it's i suppose it's nice to port full of the tree but the treasure is a tiny
02:00:34 tree but the treasure is a tiny department uh so
02:00:37 uh so i'd be quite interesting to see a comparison against total budget i mean look at the department of work and pensions and health
02:00:47 health and safety executive i mean that is just enormous i mean there are some states in the former uh eu that wouldn't have a budget even
02:00:58 eu that wouldn't have a budget even approaching that so for them to make those kind of savings
02:01:03 savings necessarily wouldn't be that hard but you take somewhere like say the food standard agency or even better the ministry of of justice which is my new the cabinet office
02:01:15 which is my new the cabinet office which
02:01:16 which barely
02:01:19 as i did real big function and doesn't really do
02:01:23 really do very much by way of employment i look at the size of the um of the education department so i kind of understand why these things come out i'm i'm no longer an active politician so
02:01:37 forgive me if i have a rather jaundiced view about this but i'd be interested to see a projection against total budget and as a as a percentage
02:01:48 a as a percentage of total budget um i hope that is helpful did anybody ever sit down and work out how much this exercise cost regulating deregulation reviewing
02:01:59 cost regulating deregulation reviewing the results putting together a league table like this
02:02:06 i don't know but i hope they had a good time doing it was this the sort of thing that you as secretary of state were in charge of driving forward so far as your department in fourth place
02:02:17 in fourth place yes but i i um if there was a cup to get it would be nice but i'm not entirely sure how justified that will be i'm just trying to help the inquiry i'm not this is not
02:02:28 to help the inquiry i'm not this is not cynical but i think we you need to kind of understand how sometimes these things that
02:02:34 that people put out a puff piece don't necessarily match um the reality right
02:02:41 right and we call it a puff piece uh
02:02:44 uh i mean it's a it's a document from um
02:02:47 um the minister of state for business enterprise and energy at the time was the right honourable matthew hancock mp i i i withdraw the remark puff piece it was entirely unjustified and i regret you as well
02:02:59 you as well that may be a matter of the panel but um let me ask you this um stephen williams who gave evidence earlier this week told us and for reference purposes it's day two five
02:03:10 reference purposes it's day two five nine page eight yeah line seventeen eighteen that you were keen to please the treasury yeah was that a fair observation uh any um ambitious um
02:03:23 uh any um ambitious um secretary of state wouldn't want the uh treasury as an enemy sir it is a government um within go within government um but i saw
02:03:34 within go within government um but i saw stephen some uh evidence but yes i mean i i didn't got him a way to antagonize the treasury though i did personally antagonize i think the chance on a
02:03:46 antagonize i think the chance on a number of occasions how important was it that your department made financial savings under the red tape challenge not as important as the financial savings within the general envelope
02:04:00 savings within the general envelope of
02:04:01 of the the economic position we came in at a very difficult time famously where the
02:04:08 the chief secretary said all the money was gone so
02:04:12 gone so in terms of the kind of money that had to be saved these are relatively small sums compared to the amount of money that came out of the
02:04:23 the amount of money that came out of the revenue support grant or particular or even the capital programme um which was
02:04:32 which was which was in a very difficult position in the first few years mr miller just said that we understand correctly this table we're looking at would it be right to read it as
02:04:44 would it be right to read it as identifying the net saving to business or to the country at large flowing from deregulation by these departments rather than cutting costs of
02:04:56 departments rather than cutting costs of the department uh yes
02:05:00 uh yes they would i mean i haven't shown the witness of the full statement it's long but the answer is yes it's a league table of savings made from deregulation and you get that i i
02:05:11 deregulation and you get that i i perhaps it may help but the the point of the savings here are calculated to be savings to the public at large yes or the whole business or whoever's getting it it's
02:05:22 business or whoever's getting it it's really a question for the witness but let me show you page seven uh page nine so sorry if we can go back a page um this is what mr hancock sets out as annex c the ins and outs for the for
02:05:34 annex c the ins and outs for the for each department that make up the totals above and the totals above in the table i showed you before uh
02:05:42 uh and that there's some detail about what they don't include 19 outs that haven't yet been validated and validated regulatory measures on the fast-track process are included in the account of the million each
02:05:53 account of the million each agreed by the rpc as uh the maximum cost for measures the leak the table below shows the department's net savings over the parliament in the form of a league table
02:06:02 table uh and one gets a bit more of the flavor of it to chairman from the rest of the report but the answer is yes and we can see on this page uh the head is part of the heading equivalent net cost of
02:06:15 equivalent net cost of all right thank you and i think i don't live i think the point i'm making is
02:06:20 making is that if you've got an enormous budget enormous responsibility by the nature of you doing anything the savings are likely to be rather large but if you were in a position like the
02:06:31 but if you were in a position like the food agency which is relatively small what they've achieved might have been much more impressive in real terms and what they'll all be achieved i mean
02:06:42 i mean this is this is kind of difficult for me because i mean normally you you kind of sent out to make a political view but my view is i've got to be as helpful as i can and i've got to tell you what the reality is rather than
02:06:54 reality is rather than rather than sometimes the fantasy of government is um leave aside the usefulness or otherwise of the the league table um were there specific targets for
02:07:05 were there specific targets for uh
02:07:07 uh these kinds of savings equivalent net cost of business that you had to meet as a department
02:07:15 well i was a strategic head of the department um
02:07:20 um and most positive flow from me [Music]
02:07:24 [Music] i'm not aware of this document and i can't
02:07:27 can't say i'm aware of any uh
02:07:31 uh sort of scrabbling around to make savings or to produce something for it i mean it's possible it happened at a lower level to me but um
02:07:42 this is the first time i've seen this document
02:07:46 document um
02:07:47 um i mean i'll certainly look at it when i leave the inquiry um but
02:07:55 um but i have to say sometimes you need sometimes when you see statistics you need to see them into some kind of context
02:08:03 context now let's move to your statement please okay um page eight paragraph um 30. and uh you this is under the heading excluding fire safety from deregulation
02:08:14 excluding fire safety from deregulation reviews you see that yes i come now yes good and the page eight paragraph thirty you say this and i'll read it all to you one of the priorities of the coalition agreement was the streamlining of
02:08:26 agreement was the streamlining of regulation through the red tape challenge review the department was responsible for the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 the fso and it was strongly felt that the
02:08:37 and it was strongly felt that the challenge should not be applied to the fso and so i took steps explicitly to exempt the fsa from the scope of the initiative this was for a number of reasons firstly the matters covered by the order
02:08:48 firstly the matters covered by the order included safety requirements that had the potential to affect life and death it was clearly right that there should be legislative provisions to govern such matters
02:08:57 matters secondly the order's regime was itself the product of a very substantial and prolonged deregulation exercise under the previous government leading to many legislative provisions being repealed
02:09:08 legislative provisions being repealed and a streamlined content being contained within the order after prolonged discussions including prime minister bob neal writing to oliver letwin cabinet minister for government policy on 15 june 2011 and follow up at official
02:09:21 june 2011 and follow up at official level the cabinet office agreed in december 2011 that the fsa would be excluded from the red tape challenge my department was quite forceful in ensuring that this happened
02:09:32 ensuring that this happened now this touches upon some of the answers that you've given earlier this morning but it's right to think isn't it that the fsa regime had effectively already been through at what you might call a red tape
02:09:43 at what you might call a red tape challenge during a deregulation exercise under the um under the blair government sure
02:09:49 sure as i said that um i think it might have yes it probably wasn't it might have been brown by that time i'm not sure but yes he had been through a process but i mean
02:10:01 a process but i mean this comes back to the the the question of what you do when you're in government it seemed to me that it hadn't been in place for that long it needed to be bedded down it seemed to
02:10:12 it needed to be bedded down it seemed to be reasonably settled the advice that we were getting from the sector through the chief fire officers that people were generally very happy with it
02:10:23 happy with it and it just seemed to me that it would be pointless going through something again for the state of
02:10:34 again for the state of intellectual consistency
02:10:38 i would also say my newfound frankness that's pretty sure at the end of the process had we gone through this one there would have been an enormous row
02:10:49 row two it would have been disruptive to the the service and three you wouldn't have done anything in the end so it struck me that was needed to be done but
02:10:59 done but getting us from that position did require an enormous amount of work i like proper um
02:11:08 sort of triangulation of of of the problem and uh it looks very polite but it wasn't even vaguely polite right
02:11:17 right polite or not it's right to think isn't it that the exemption that you've ex described in that paragraph was temporary wasn't it with an expectation that it would be considered again at some point in the future no i've seen
02:11:28 some point in the future no i've seen the thing it was suggested that in 2016
02:11:35 when it would have been embedded for 10 years we might have a relook
02:11:42 but
02:11:45 when you get a government to essentially do a
02:11:51 do a a kind of a u-turn on what is regarded as an important policy
02:11:59 you must always say ensure that you save face
02:12:03 face with the people that you've persuaded to do the u-turn and i think the letter which you'll see in the uh i've seen in the bundle on
02:12:14 in the uh i've seen in the bundle on you
02:12:14 you you will see what it explicitly talks about um
02:12:18 about um we're looking at 2016 was to be able to come to an agreement with a degree of dignity on both sides however i have to tell you uh that when
02:12:30 however i have to tell you uh that when i left office we've made no attempts to start to look at fire and we would have had to have led plans to do it in 2016 in 2015.
02:12:43 do it in 2016 in 2015. now
02:12:44 now leaving aside the fso which is what you've referred to in this paragraph
02:12:51 paragraph um
02:12:53 um although the heading of this part of your
02:12:57 your statement is excluding fire safety you only refer to the fsa but we see nothing here about the building regulations or approved document b why is that
02:13:09 i can't answer you why it wasn't included
02:13:15 included but what i can say is what we did which i referred to earlier this morning which was
02:13:22 which was which was
02:13:23 which was i mean i've seen it in the documentation it's there um
02:13:29 for you to see that we came to an understanding that when we looked at uh
02:13:35 uh building regulations that things like safety would not be a priority and you don't need to sort of kind of take
02:13:46 take my aspirations on this the consultation went out uh by undo stunthall by the time in which the government had by the time in which the government had to
02:13:58 to respond
02:14:00 respond donald taken over and
02:14:04 and a part of that was that actually we hadn't impinged upon safety at all i mean i'll happily wait if you want to bring that up well are you saying that there's a
02:14:15 well are you saying that there's a document which enshrined an agreement yeah absolutely or i've seen a breed out of a meeting i've seen that right i think i know what you're talking about we may come back to that industry of course that's good but was it your
02:14:26 of course that's good but was it your understanding that approved document b was exempted from the red tape challenge um forgive me you asked me that question
02:14:37 um forgive me you asked me that question before the break and i corrected you on that
02:14:41 that and i said that it was that we will prioritize ensure that safety wasn't involved
02:14:47 involved but of course other aspects of um
02:14:52 of um of the of the document would be subject to and this is about building regulations generally you will also see um in those documents
02:15:04 those documents a discussion with the education
02:15:10 education ministry concerning noise in schools and whether or not it will be appropriate to follow that from the
02:15:17 from the building regulations in so yes we were doing all those kinds of things but um
02:15:25 um the question that you asked me before um the break i think i'm consistent in my answer
02:15:32 answer well
02:15:33 well i'm sure it's my fault pickles but it could be my fault i mean let me let me ask the question again and see if i can understand it was it your understanding during the time that you were secretary of state that approved document b
02:15:44 document b which is one of the parts of the statutory guidance documents under the building regulations dealing with fire safety was exempted from the red tape challenge no i'll repeat my answer that those are
02:15:56 no i'll repeat my answer that those are matters that related to safety uh would not be would not be touched that that we were that we were looking for rationalization
02:16:07 for rationalization in the process of be but in particular with b what the information that i was given uh before
02:16:17 uh before lachlan house was that we were going to be going through um
02:16:22 um the process of the building regulations which be will be part of which we would try
02:16:28 try and ensure that they were more understandable i was told in order to achieve that a whole series of research have been put together which will be ready for 2015
02:16:42 together which will be ready for 2015 and then the serious work would start in terms of that rationalization this was before
02:16:48 before um
02:16:50 um a lachnal
02:16:52 a lachnal we received the lachlan letter
02:16:56 letter um and andy and it played into that i hope that's clear now well when you say
02:17:03 say no related to safety what do you mean by safety
02:17:08 i mean things that relate to safety that threatens life threatens life did were you aware that something like 70 percent of the building regulations is about life safety
02:17:22 i would not demur from that whatsoever and therefore it would have enjoyed a high level of protection
02:17:33 enjoyed a high level of protection right when you say it would have enjoyed a high level of protection were you absolutely clear that it was clear to all the officials that approved document b which is all about life safety and any other aspect
02:17:45 about life safety and any other aspect of the building regulations themselves about life safety were
02:17:50 were clearly exempt from the red tape challenge well the top team
02:17:56 team um
02:17:58 that's helped
02:18:02 helped andrew negotiate this would have been actively involved and andrew was a very talented guy but i can't believe you would have achieved this without help from people
02:18:14 achieved this without help from people doing this at a um
02:18:18 at a um at a level at a support on level seven or that kind of thing people that um
02:18:24 um that would not be part of the top team i can't believe that that wasn't that was achievable i do understand that
02:18:33 that i mean we can go on to this if you desire that there was always continuous pushback from the center
02:18:46 but the message from the top team was clear
02:18:51 was clear i i don't have the
02:18:55 ability to be able to deal with junior ranked officers i expect the process of from that kind of message to be taken
02:19:07 from that kind of message to be taken care of by officials these are people that i never met it's not that i was too snooty or i didn't want to meet them but at my level
02:19:18 but at my level these are people that i would not normally meet i would only meet the director generals and uh and the directors are you aware of any document by way of guidance protocol
02:19:31 document by way of guidance protocol policy statement strategy document or anything like that which
02:19:35 which you knew was in the hands of your top officials
02:19:39 officials which clearly delineated and exempted fire safety in the building regulations and statutory guidance from the red tape challenge all the other deregulatory
02:19:50 challenge all the other deregulatory agendas yeah i have no memory of it all i have is a recovery of memory having seen that
02:20:03 document within the within the selection of documents i looked in order to prepare a prepare here
02:20:15 a prepare here right the difficulty i've got lord pickles standing here is that i have to guess what document it is you're referring to and i don't want to do that
02:20:23 do that so maybe we'll maybe we'll we'll have a thing can come back to you that's okay during the day but let's park that then for the moment um now i want to show you what bob ledson said in his evidence
02:20:35 ledson said in his evidence uh about about applying for exemptions first question before i do does it surprise you that no exemptions for the life safety parts of the building regulations or the statutory
02:20:46 building regulations or the statutory guidance were ever even considered by the building regulations division within the department
02:20:53 i don't find it surprising i found it astounding
02:21:00 right now let's see what bob ledson said in his evidence about this um day 241 please page 76.
02:21:13 and
02:21:17 at line seven
02:21:20 uh i asked the question as follows of bob lepson do you remember did you or anybody else in your department ever consider even a tr even trying to apply for an exemption for the building
02:21:32 for an exemption for the building regulations or the approved documents answer no
02:21:35 answer no question and why was that answer frankly i don't think we would have got one frankly there's a judgment which you make in this state as to whether is it a fight worth having
02:21:47 whether is it a fight worth having now um
02:21:49 now um what's your reaction to that apart from the intense impatience i i just find that i just find that
02:22:00 i could no i don't want to this is someone i don't want to come to him in any way but what's the point in holding that kind of job if you don't let those
02:22:14 my view might be put simply it was a politician's throat to take
02:22:20 decisions you don't help the politician to take a decision unless you confront them with the reality now you showed me uh something a few moments
02:22:32 you showed me uh something a few moments ago
02:22:33 ago uh from uh with a conversation with nick balls which looked rather informal i have to say but if i was doing this job if it was me
02:22:44 but if i was doing this job if it was me and i had the cut i would make sure that we faced up to reality
02:22:49 reality if this reality is that we need to need to regulate or we need to there is a problem
02:22:55 problem then it is appropriate for them to speak to their higher line management i don't know when
02:23:00 know when in any of this whether they spoke to their higher line management and when they're spoken to the high la management for that management to take it forward now i'm going on in his evidence
02:23:13 now i'm going on in his evidence and i'm not going to read it all out to you but it is for our purposes pages 76 line 15 to 80 line 13 i'm summarizing i hope accurately he said he didn't even think to ask for
02:23:25 he said he didn't even think to ask for an exemption from the building for the building regulations or approved documents because first he would have to go to you and then you in turn would have to make a case um
02:23:36 um in to your opposite number secretary of state within the beis whose department was responsible for these decisions and the net annual equivalent cost of business was the key
02:23:47 equivalent cost of business was the key deciding metric not life safety i've summarized his evidence do you agree with that well that's my job
02:23:55 job i mean
02:23:57 i mean the process being secretary of state is to
02:24:02 between colleagues is to deliver this kind of thing there's an enormous amount of horse trading that would would go on but again
02:24:11 but again i repeat the point it's the responsibility of of politicians to take decisions you're not giving these didn't help us
02:24:22 these didn't help us by not facing up to to the reality i would have expected that to go up through line management and i would have expected to have a discussion i
02:24:33 have expected to have a discussion i would have expected the permanent secretary to come and say i think we've got a bit of a problem here we need to do something about it now i am saying
02:24:44 now i am saying that i would have agreed with um is this still mr lebson yes yeah i'm not saying i would have agreed with mr lebson
02:24:56 agreed with mr lebson but i think i'm entitled to have had a chance
02:24:59 chance to do the right thing or do the stupid thing
02:25:04 did you know that officials within the building regulations division we're operating under an assumption that the deregulation policy whether it's one in one out one in two out or
02:25:15 it's one in one out one in two out or the red tape challenge would also catch even a clarifying amendment to the statutory guidance in support of the building regulations
02:25:26 no
02:25:28 i can definitely answer that well no i i didn't
02:25:31 didn't and i would have regarded it as being ludicrous
02:25:35 ludicrous and wholly disproportionate were you aware and i suspect the answer flowing from your last answer is no but correct me if i'm wrong about that that officials were working on the basis that
02:25:46 officials were working on the basis that any change to the guidance in the approved documents supporting the building regulations needed to be the subject of a regulatory impact assessment because there would be a potential cost to industry of simply
02:25:57 potential cost to industry of simply reading the new guidance um
02:26:01 um to the best of my knowledge you wouldn't do that on individual things it will be against the whole document it's quite expensive to do that i got used to seeing the regulatory assessments and we um
02:26:13 assessments and we um we extended and put them out on an awful lot of things but no that seems to me to be right holy wrong and um
02:26:26 well forgive me for saying this i don't find it very convincing well that's great respect not a matter
02:26:36 but i think i am entitled to my views did you understand at the time that it was envisaged that the regulatory policies would apply with full vigor to parts of the building
02:26:48 full vigor to parts of the building regulations which were concerned with light safety no no
02:26:54 do you know whether there were any checks and balances in place so far as you understood the position to ensure that life safety was not unacceptably compromised by these deregulatory policies
02:27:09 there wouldn't have been any point in exempting fire if we went through a back way
02:27:16 back way and achieved the same kind of
02:27:20 disruption that i was seeking to avoid to achieve this this is entirely contrary
02:27:26 contrary to what i would have wanted it is
02:27:31 it is entirely contrary to what i would have dealt with had unknown
02:27:36 unknown i i just
02:27:39 i i just i found this incredible evidence were there any policies in place to ensure that departments such as yours uh
02:27:49 uh uh
02:27:50 uh observed their obligations to safeguard life
02:27:53 life including under article two of the um human of the european convention on human rights and we're properly prioritized
02:28:07 i can't think of anything that brings to mind
02:28:13 but i would hope that would be the case i mean that's the very nature of
02:28:22 of government in order we're there to protect citizens not to make life difficult for them or to put them at risk yes there's a as a broad statement that that might make people might find that
02:28:35 that might make people might find that self-evident but my question is is a functional one were there in fact any positive policies in place at the time to ensure that the departments such as yours
02:28:47 departments such as yours discharged their our obligations to protect life including under article 2. i'm not aware of anything but i'm not aware of anything that didn't exist
02:28:59 didn't exist i have
02:29:01 i have no recollection
02:29:04 what that situation is i cannot recall at any occasion where i was asked to make that kind of judgment some people might think that it was so
02:29:15 some people might think that it was so obvious that it went without saying but we knew at the time of the view that it was so obvious that it didn't that it went without saying in respect of fire safety and
02:29:26 saying in respect of fire safety and particularly the approved documents supporting the building regulations given
02:29:33 given what we'd gone through to ensure that the changes that were taking place with our initial review that
02:29:44 anderson started and don foster finished i think that will be correct
02:29:49 correct given that i was expecting the major change in uh document b to take place after 2015
02:30:01 after 2015 when the research was that was taking place um
02:30:06 um i think the short answer is yes i wouldn't
02:30:09 wouldn't have made that assumption
02:30:12 well let's look at that activity the review um which took place i think between 2011 and 2013.
02:30:20 and 2013. do you recall this was announced by andrew stunnell yeah at the time i think i've just said that yeah and he set out the program of works i think in december 2010
02:30:31 think in december 2010 to parliament and did you remember authorizing that
02:30:36 i knew it was happening i may or may not technically have authorized him and do you recall that the bulk of that program was deregulatory in nature yes i think it was yes and that's
02:30:48 yes i think it was yes and that's certainly what he told parliament on the 16th of december 2010
02:30:54 and do you remember that he said to parliament that part of the deregulatory element was in order to reduce burdens on the building control system but also to look at compliance with the
02:31:05 but also to look at compliance with the building regulations and reasons for non-compliance i don't hear anything that i would have objected to right would you remember that that was what he said no no no no
02:31:17 that that was what he said no no no no no i don't remember that is what he said i have no recollection whatsoever of this
02:31:23 this um
02:31:23 um it's just it's a long time ago and i don't remember him saying that on my think i need to be accurate i don't doubt he said it it sounds very reasonable and i think i
02:31:35 sounds very reasonable and i think i would have agreed with it right and can you tell us how your department was seeking to reduce burdens on building control officers no i couldn't not at my level right my level
02:31:47 not at my level right my level would not come anywhere near me and therefore is it right at your level you didn't know how your department was taking steps to ensure that reducing burdens on building control
02:31:58 reducing burdens on building control officers did not adversely affect protections of life safety i would expect my
02:32:06 expect my minister
02:32:07 minister and my officials to warn me if that was the if that was the case and do you know how your department monitored
02:32:16 monitored monitored whether the enforcement of building regulations by building control officers was adequate no
02:32:23 no but forgive me because i just had a little thing from that at no time did anybody raise with me that there was any problem with that
02:32:36 right did you can you tell us whether your department learned anything particular one way or the other about compliance whether it was good bad average
02:32:47 average if it did
02:32:49 if it did i cannot recall it reporting back to me um
02:32:54 um that is to say that it might not have done but i have no recollection of that at all
02:33:00 at all did you at any time during the building regulations to regulation review andrew stunnell's review finishing in 2013 conduct any in-depth review of technical standards required by the building regulations or
02:33:12 required by the building regulations or have that done well i hope that happened but not at my level it's not this is not something that would
02:33:19 would ever have come to me
02:33:23 not in detail necessarily but let me ask it slightly differently to your knowledge did the department conduct an in-depth review of technical standards required
02:33:34 review of technical standards required by the building regulations i can't recall anybody talking to me about it
02:33:39 about it that isn't that isn't to say that it didn't happen but i have no recollection of that occurring
02:33:47 occurring it does sound to me just be something that might sensibly be done
02:33:53 can i invite you to go back then with me to bob ledson's statement
02:34:01 six clg-3019465 page ten paragraph thirty four he he says here stop i haven't got 34 yes i have now sorry i pegged your button he says here
02:34:13 he says here uh
02:34:14 uh this led
02:34:15 this led and that's the the program we've discussed already this led to the 2011 to 13 review of building regulations the review was a comprehensive exercise in terms of coverage but did not involve an
02:34:26 terms of coverage but did not involve an in-depth review of all of the technical standards the aim was to identify quotes quick wins on quotes for deregulation and system improvement
02:34:37 and system improvement is that correct if it was i wasn't aware of him right i mean bearing in mind what i've talked about the um the informal power structure the
02:34:48 the informal power structure the importance of the liberal democrats um
02:34:53 i i didn't go out of my way to interfere in what andrew wanted to do were you
02:35:00 were you right would you align yourself with that policy aim namely to identify quick wins for regulation well it depends if if that went side by side with doing something of substantial
02:35:11 side with doing something of substantial i might but i can't see the point of quick wins unless you have an objective in mind
02:35:22 well um suggests quick wins might be short simple
02:35:28 simple cheap deregulation which had a high saving in the
02:35:35 annual net cost savings to business
02:35:40 well i mean that's that's that's one definition but i i i don't know if there was something substantial that that was um
02:35:49 um what's happening in uh in parallel as a result of the review do you remember did anybody in your technical policy team bring to your attention any emerging
02:36:01 bring to your attention any emerging problems or disputes or controversies where the regulation or guidance needed to be update updated or amended the technical team would not speak to me
02:36:12 the technical team would not speak to me but they would go to their line manager who would eventually talk to the director general or possibly even a director level and they would inform me of that did they
02:36:24 inform me of that did they i am not aware of that i don't i don't believe that to be the case
02:36:30 case are you familiar with something called the seven work streams or the seven areas where research was required which eventually produced uh report seven reports
02:36:41 report seven reports uh these are ones that are that's um
02:36:44 that's um reported in february 2015. yes
02:36:50 2015. yes i knew they were happening but i didn't know the details um this was something that
02:36:55 that i think came out of ken knight's review of lachnal i was told that they were essentially in order to um
02:37:07 um amend uh
02:37:09 amend uh approved documents uh b who told you that do you remember uh yes um uh ken
02:37:17 ken uh i told me that also uh uh sir bob told me that and i think uh i had it repeated uh by peter
02:37:28 uh by peter and i think i've also seen it in the documents
02:37:32 documents that i looked at in order to prepare for these these hearings and what did the 2011 to 2013 review end with
02:37:42 with was there a report or document
02:37:47 document yes there was a there was a um there was a document yes i think don
02:37:53 don produced a document now i want to turn next to the fire futures review okay and we'll come back possibly to deregulation later but okay
02:38:04 possibly to deregulation later but okay um and
02:38:05 um and that's
02:38:07 that's it starts with clg 3019471
02:38:14 and this is your statement page five paragraph 16
02:38:20 uh where under the heading departmental priorities and fire governance under the coalition you say this in july 2010 bob neil mp as minister responsible for fire safety announced
02:38:32 responsible for fire safety announced the fire futures review now first did you did you play any part in commissioning that review well it couldn't have been um they require my permission to do it it seemed a reasonable thing to do
02:38:44 seemed a reasonable thing to do um we were wanting to make a number of changes that reflected where fire was going and fire and rescue services were going
02:38:56 and fire and rescue services were going which was what well there'd been a a general reduction in the number of domestic fires but they'd also been a big increase
02:39:08 a big increase in what you might call car accidents and then and civil contingencies um
02:39:15 um the um
02:39:17 the um it's acutely aware that firefighters have paid a very important um part uh in dealing with uh seven seven
02:39:29 uh seven seven um we seem to be moving into a world where that kind of thing was more likely it was a trend that we were seeing in other european nations and
02:39:41 other european nations and we thought it would be good to um to do with the review there were also some problems
02:39:46 problems also with regard to
02:39:49 duplication and problems of procurement and inoperability when you say paragraph 18 uh
02:39:56 uh the fire futures review which took the form of four reports was published in december 2010 and the government's response to it was published on 12th of april 2011. yeah did you read the reports when they were
02:40:08 did you read the reports when they were published
02:40:11 published yes i'm sure i did uh uh
02:40:16 uh uh i've certainly read the executive summary but i don't recall them being that
02:40:23 that large
02:40:24 large but i don't think at this stage i'd be able to
02:40:28 able to be able to to
02:40:30 to run
02:40:30 run [Music]
02:40:31 [Music] any detailed consideration after the period of years let's look at fsf6037
02:40:44 this is entitled decentralization in the fire sector empowering and protecting the citizen workstream chair brian robinson's president association for specialist fire protection
02:40:56 fire protection and this was one of the reports published in december 2010 can we go to page 10 please and look at the fourth paragraph down on the left hand side and let's have that blown up for you
02:41:08 and let's have that blown up for you that's the regulatory framework oh they they're currently saying there is currently a perceived low level
02:41:14 low level and it says there is currently a perceived low level of competency within the sector in relation to fire safety and built environment not helped by the fact that there is no common qualifications framework that covers building and fire
02:41:26 framework that covers building and fire safety competencies whilst the frs undertakes building safety checks no single organization can take on responsibility for awareness of fire safety amongst building designers constructors owners and occupiers this
02:41:39 constructors owners and occupiers this campaign can be taken on by that part of fire uk normally referred to as the industry
02:41:44 industry that part of the sector needs to come together more closely and be less introspective and there must be a much better dialogue in particular with those outside the core specialist fire safety sector who are not fire specialists but
02:41:55 sector who are not fire specialists but who in practice are responsible for delivering fire safety in practice eg general design specification and construction owners
02:42:03 owners do you remember reading that at the time i don't remember reading that at the time but it looks reasonable when you aware of those concerns in generally in general terms even though
02:42:14 generally in general terms even though you may not have read this at the time
02:42:18 i can't recall i'm sorry
02:42:21 i'm sorry this is important and forgive me but i i genuinely don't remember this
02:42:29 were you in even more general terms aware that one of these four reports had raised concerns about levels of competence among those working in fire safety and a built environment
02:42:44 i don't recall was that not something that you should have known it might be that i knew at the time
02:42:54 time but you asked me if i recalled it and i don't recall it i mean i can only answer honestly it's been a long time and i i don't remember this but
02:43:06 i i don't remember this but again
02:43:07 again this level of detail is not something that would come to would would normally come to me that's what the fire minister is there for yes but would it not have been your responsibility to know the
02:43:19 been your responsibility to know the point
02:43:20 point that this paragraph is making
02:43:27 i'm not sure it would be it would be my responsibility when a um
02:43:34 a form of work was being put together in order to address this yes
02:43:42 would it not also have been a responsibility to know
02:43:47 to know in outline or bullet point terms at least the output including this paragraph i didn't hear that question i'm sorry would it not have been your responsibility also to know at least in
02:43:58 responsibility also to know at least in outline
02:43:59 outline the output of the work including the point being made in this paragraph what do you mean output result outcome
02:44:08 outcome i would expect the outcome to be reported to me yes yes now
02:44:13 now can we go back to your statement please um page 5 paragraph 18
02:44:21 where we see and i've read this to you that the government's response was published on the 12th of april 2011. did you have any involvement in drafting the response
02:44:34 i have no recollection of this at all let me show you the document hm i mean i may have but i have no recollection of it no fair enough let me show you the document it might help hom three zeros four five nine nine nine
02:44:48 uh let's look at that um that's the response government response the first page is not terribly informative but if we go down to page two we can see that it's published in april 2011 as you
02:45:00 that it's published in april 2011 as you can see from the foot of the screen and if you go to page three you can see the contents introduction by bob neal the context community focused fire and rescue service conclusion and then annex
02:45:11 service conclusion and then annex summary of far futures ideas and
02:45:16 and does that list of contents ring a bell with you
02:45:20 with you and it's not unfamiliar but it did it it doesn't bring with me any
02:45:27 any detailed knowledge of the report i recognize the fire service college and i recall that we took action on that
02:45:37 on that i
02:45:38 i noticed the cross sector collaboration and we were very keen to see that happen between the blue light services and i see local and national
02:45:50 and i see local and national uh resilience and i think that was one of the things that we regarded as being very important plus local decision making did you read this response when it was published in april 2011 i think i will have done
02:46:02 april 2011 i think i will have done right um now can we go to page 10 then paragraph 18 of the
02:46:08 of the report it says this this is under the heading cross sector collaboration the sector has already begun to show leadership in this area and can build on initiatives such as and if you look at the third bullet point down the work of
02:46:20 the third bullet point down the work of the fire risk assessment competency council which is developing an agreed competency standard for those offering commercial fire risk assessment services just pausing there we can't say that could you just tell me where that is oh
02:46:31 could you just tell me where that is oh sorry i'm just going to see that's the last third point yeah yes let me read it please
02:46:36 please yes the work of the fire risk assessment competency council which is developing an agreed competency standard for those offering commercial fire risk assessment services
02:46:46 services now just on that were you aware at the time of the work the general work of the competency council no
02:46:57 were you aware at the time that
02:47:00 that that council i'm sorry the department your department had conducted a review in march 2009 on the effectiveness of the rro the regulatory reform fire safety order
02:47:11 regulatory reform fire safety order 2005.
02:47:13 2005. no
02:47:15 were you aware that ken knight i think you are or were had produced a report in july 2009 on the fire at lateral house yes yes let's go to that then um
02:47:28 let's go to that then um hom401092 page 11 there's a heading
02:47:38 to be fair to you and those looking let's go to page one just to identify the report itself there it is it's the report from sir ken knight dated the 30th of july 2009
02:47:49 30th of july 2009 um sir ken was asked about it when he came to give evidence uh this module of this inquiry and uh if we go to page 11 in this which is where i wanted to go with you paragraph 7
02:48:00 paragraph 7 under the heading regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 emerging issues there is a requirement under the fire safety order to appoint one or more competent persons to assist the responsible person in undertaking the
02:48:12 responsible person in undertaking the preventable and protective fire safety measures within premises however there is no similar requirement for a competent person to be appointed to assist in making a suitable and sufficient risk assessment it is
02:48:24 sufficient risk assessment it is important that assurance be given to both the responsible person for the premises and the enforcing authority that a risk assessment has been undertaken by a competent person particularly in relation to high risk
02:48:36 particularly in relation to high risk premises
02:48:38 premises were you aware when you read this report as you tell us you did of a concern about risk assessments not being undertaken by a competitive person particularly in relation to high-risk premises forgive
02:48:49 relation to high-risk premises forgive me i don't think i said this is the 2009. yes oh no i didn't raise this the 2009 i was aware of it but when this was before we came into office
02:49:00 office i mean
02:49:01 i mean ken took me through it right
02:49:04 right but by way of a um by way of a a conversation in terms of the things that we needed to do i cannot remember whether he referred to this
02:49:14 this or not
02:49:16 or not but what i what i can say is to be to be frank is this kind of detail is not the kind of detail that the secretary of state would look at this is a decision
02:49:29 look at this is a decision uh for a a junior minister to move forward let's take it in stages okay because
02:49:36 because you say
02:49:37 you say you told us before this morning that sir ken had taken you through this report
02:49:43 no that to ken had taken me through the current issues at which he mentioned the report he didn't take me through it page by page that would that will be quite
02:49:54 by page that would that will be quite wrong to suggest sound i'm sorry sorry i understood your answer just a moment ago and you said i mean ken took me through it that you went through the report no no okay ken took me through the uh issues i apologize i should be
02:50:06 issues i apologize i should be a little bit more formal in what i'm saying i don't know sir ken
02:50:10 sir ken took me through some contemporary issues that would that we're looking at he mentioned the the stream of research that was taking place and he also said that the
02:50:24 and he also said that the time was right to start looking at some changes uh within the fire service to match the reality on the ground what were the circumstances in which
02:50:35 were the circumstances in which ken knight took you through the issues
02:50:38 issues on which he had reported in 2009
02:50:43 i can't remember in detail but it was um
02:50:47 um by way of a a discussion just just just bringing me up to dead in the same way in which i would meet with the um
02:50:58 with the um director generals i meet with ken and letter with peter i mean there were some times um
02:51:06 um in my period of secretary of state that i would see ken or peter every day of the week including sundays for uh for long and protracted
02:51:18 long and protracted periods so this was somebody i was very familiar with so having a conversation with uh with keno with peter was not something
02:51:29 was not something that was special that you remember because
02:51:32 because there were constant companion at specific times when i was some secretary of state of the five years
02:51:44 what was it about the role you had and the role sir ken had that meant you would see him
02:51:50 at some times every day of the week including sundays well i'll give it a number of examples um the first one would have been the tottenham riots of which they fire uh
02:52:02 tottenham riots of which they fire uh sir the iran russia played a very important part and we and we as the director were involved second would be the very sad death of
02:52:13 second would be the very sad death of drummer rigby was was murdered and at that point that was just myself the fire officer and another
02:52:27 minister from my department um ruling cobra until the home secretary arrived
02:52:33 arrived uh
02:52:34 uh secondly
02:52:36 secondly thirdly a big pardon uh thirdly they were of course being the um
02:52:42 um the floods and i think i mentioned that one of my colleagues who had responsibility had to have an eye operation long recovery
02:52:52 recovery and during that period of the floods we worked together continuously and when the prime minister couldn't
02:53:03 and when the prime minister couldn't chair cobra i checked corporate that was a daily thing and weekends it was quite critical and after the floods for a a period of
02:53:15 for a a period of extended period of uh six months um i checked cobra in terms of the kind of the wind up of the of the floods and making sure things were in position andy was a vital part
02:53:28 was a vital part um of that process and uh you know that i think was peter and the floods um but we got to know each other extremely well
02:53:37 well what were the circumstances in which he took you through the issues arising out of
02:53:43 out of this report which is a report about the latino house fire i cannot be 100 certain but i would have thought it might have been in one of our regular catch-ups how often did you have
02:53:54 regular catch-ups how often did you have a regular catch-up well
02:53:56 well no less than once um no less than once a month but it could it could have been more and did he bring to your attention the point or points
02:54:09 the point or points he makes here in the paragraph on your screen under emerging issues i have um
02:54:15 i have um [Music]
02:54:17 [Music] no recollection of him doing so could i just read the emergency issue again just in case um
02:54:24 no yeah and then i think i would suspect that was the kind of discussion you might have with the foreign minister were you aware that in december 2010
02:54:35 were you aware that in december 2010 say some months after your appointment as secretary of state the london assembly's planning and housing committee had produced a report called fire safety in london fire risks in london's tall and timber-framed
02:54:46 london's tall and timber-framed buildings
02:54:48 buildings no
02:54:50 no but that would not be unusual i would only see something like that if um
02:54:56 um the private office brought it to my attention i felt i should read it but it could be that the uh the fire office or other um bigger
02:55:07 uh the fire office or other um bigger part of the fire minister might have read it were you aware of in general that the department was
02:55:15 was the subject of a recommendation that it should draw national guidance to ensure mandatory minimum standards of competence for training and accrediting fire risk assessors
02:55:27 assessors that was not report yes it was well i think i just said that um i wasn't aware of it and i would only been aware of it if he report to my attention so you weren't aware of the
02:55:38 attention so you weren't aware of the issue either no that not at my level forgive me but let me know i'm running a very large department with enormous responsibilities of which
02:55:50 enormous responsibilities of which uh this is a an important but small part and it's going to turn to a different topic and mr kevin i get to embark on this in the few minutes before one o'clock just to make three minutes of headway if i can
02:56:03 headway if i can yes uh
02:56:04 yes uh um let's go please to clg three zeros one nine four seven one
02:56:11 this is your statement at page seven okay
02:56:14 okay and at page seven paragraph 24 you say under the heading efficiencies and public service reform in the first sector on 14th december 2012 ministers asked former chief fire and rescue
02:56:25 asked former chief fire and rescue service advisor ken knight to conduct an independent review of efficiency in the provision of fire and rescue in england sir ken provided his report facing the future in may 2013 in which he advised
02:56:36 future in may 2013 in which he advised that substantial efficiency and productivity improvements could be made in the fire service and you go on to identify the key findings did you read that report
02:56:47 findings did you read that report yes you did yes certainly executive i i'm pretty sure i had a session with ken just before he brought it out and let's go then to uh
02:57:00 and let's go then to uh hom 3046036
02:57:10 uh this is a submission uh from
02:57:13 uh from uh tani nesbi nisbet jones in the national fire policy to brandon lewis private secretary dated the 8th of july 2013 okay and you can see other names there on the
02:57:24 and you can see other names there on the right and the title is fire government response to the night review okay and if we go please to the top of page one we can see the copy list and it includes secretaries of all ministers ps
02:57:36 includes secretaries of all ministers ps straight permanent secretary all advisors okay do you remember reading this document it's not direct to me
02:57:44 no but do you might this have come to you no no right no this is this is something that would definitely not have come to mind right well then we can take it shortly i'll i'll ask you questions by reference to the points in it okay uh
02:57:56 by reference to the points in it okay uh page four annex a this is excerpts from dawn east meade's submission of the 7th of june sr statement blue lights work and
02:58:07 sr statement blue lights work and government response to the night review and
02:58:11 and at the bottom of the page under the title work streams if we scroll to the bottom of page four are you content that these themes are the themes as a response should cover and then if we go over um
02:58:22 um the page please could i just read you before you go over please i just wanted yes
02:58:27 yes go back to page four please thank you just a second
02:58:34 yeah so outside the blue lights work detail above we'd expect to focus on the following
02:58:40 following and then if we turn to page five yes okay look at the last bullet point on page five to two thirds of the way down your screen the scope for creating a national regulator for establishing and overseeing local approaches to
02:58:51 overseeing local approaches to supporting compliance and enforcement of the fire safety order this could provide a consistent framework for the delivery of fire protection services including the provision of advice and development of appropriate technical standards
02:59:03 of appropriate technical standards addressing many of the concerns businesses have raised but did you know that that was an issue the subject of this report well until we have brandon's response to this uh
02:59:16 well let me just can you just answer my question i'm sorry i don't i wasn't being
02:59:23 being if brandon agreed to this
02:59:26 then that would i wouldn't have had any objection to it right but this is not something i'm not saying this to avoid answering a question this is just not something that
02:59:37 question this is just not something that would have come to me you know our secretary has said i wasn't the fire minister i understand but my question was was simply whether you
02:59:49 you understood that this was a point which was the subject of examination it was not something that was discussed with me nor would it i would have expected to be discussing it with me
03:00:00 discussing it with me right two more questions brandon lewis had been described as not keen on the idea of a national regulator did you know that
03:00:11 did you know that i watched the uh the session i watched a session so did you know it at the time no
03:00:18 no right
03:00:20 now we also know that louise upton was commissioned to make a start on developing a range of options were you aware of that at the time no but i saw the session so
03:00:34 right mr james is that a convenient moment
03:00:37 moment yes i think it certainly is yes um
03:00:41 yes um well little pickles slightly later than usual we're going to break now so we can all have some lunch we'll come back please at two o'clock two o'clock that's good and uh as i said before please don't talk to anyone about
03:00:53 before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it i have to utter that i'll caution every time but
03:00:58 time but absolutely but i'm sure you want to understand absolutely good thank you would you like to give the usher then please thank you
03:01:13 thank you two o'clock peace
03:01:23 you