James Wharton tells inquiry he thought regulations had been 鈥渇it for purpose and working well鈥�
A former minister responsible for building regulations has denied that the housing department prioritised deregulation over life safety in the years leading up to the Grenfell Tower fire.
James Wharton told Thursday鈥檚 hearing of the inquiry into the 2017 blaze which claimed 72 lives that his 鈥渦nderstanding was that the system was fit for purpose and the building regulations were working well鈥�.
In 2013, the department launched a review of the regulations in response to an inquest into the 2009 Lakanal House fire in south London.
Six people, including three children, died in the Camberwell block when flames rapidly spread across the building鈥檚 combustible and non-compliant cladding.
But the review, which was initially focused on approved document B, the part of the regulations dealing with fire safety, was delayed after officials expanded it to include all of the building regulations.
The inquiry has previously heard this was partly because of a requirement imposed by ministers to remove more regulations than were added, meaning that the entire set of regulations needed to be included in the review to avoid removing too much from just one part.
By 2017, almost no progress had been made on the review despite nearly eight years having passed since the fire which had prompted it.
A presentation to Wharton in 2015 outlining the 鈥渒ey drivers鈥� of the review put 鈥渄eregulation and simplification鈥� at the top of the list.
This was followed by 鈥渟upporting government priorities [such as] energy efficiency鈥�, ensuring the guidance reflected the latest technologies, responding to new issues such as climate change and implementation of European legislation.
Fire safety was not mentioned until page eight, under the heading 鈥渆nsuring bad things don鈥檛 happen鈥�. A picture of Lakanal House under this heading was the only mention of the blaze in the presentation.
Counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett QC asked: 鈥淎re you able to explain now why it is that your officials did not put anything about Lakanal House, the causes of the fire , the fact that six people had died, the fact that there had been an inquest鈥� in this pack?鈥�
鈥淣o, I鈥檓 not,鈥� Wharton replied. Asked if he considered that surprising, he said: 鈥淵es鈥�. Asked if he could explain it, he replied: 鈥淣o鈥�.
The hearing was shown an email sent by official Andrew Newton to the department鈥檚 special advisors in March 2016 describing a set of research documents on the review which required ministerial sign-off as 鈥渧ery much non-urgent and far from being a priority鈥�.
Wharton said he did not recall ever seeing this email and could not explain why Newton had described the research documents in that way.
The former minister was also questioned about a 2015 meeting he attended with the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Fire Safety and Rescue, which was at the time chaired by the late David Amess MP, who was killed last October.
The APPG had been calling for tighter restrictions on the use of combustible building materials for several years, with Amess having written to the department many times warning of the risks to life safety posed by the regulations.
The hearing was shown minutes from the meeting which said that Amess had 鈥渇lagged that [the APPG] had not been able to persuade previous ministers that a review of Approved Document B was urgent鈥�.
The minutes recorded that Wharton 鈥渨elcomed comments from the all-party group and the federation. However, he was clear that the principal objective for any work would be simplification and the reduction of red tape.鈥�
鈥淗ave you any reason, sitting there now, to think that that was a mis-recording of what you said?鈥� Millett asked.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 think this note captures in total what was said,鈥� Wharton replied. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 dispute it鈥檚 quite possible that I said simplification and reduction of red tape would be part of the aim of what we鈥檙e going to do. I don鈥檛 recall having said it was the principal objective of work.鈥�
The highly combustible ACM cladding fitted to Grenfell Tower during the building鈥檚 ill-fated refurbishment was given final building control sign-off in 2014, five years after the Lakanal House fire.
The review was still incomplete by the time of the fire, and ACM was not explicitly banned by the government until December 2018.
Wharton said in his witness statement to the inquiry: 鈥淓verything happens slowly in the civil service and the likelihood is that nothing I could have done would have speeded the review up.鈥�
The inquiry continues.
