James Wharton could not explain to inquiry why a presentation on the review appeared to prioritise cutting red tape over life safety
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.
詹姆斯·沃顿在周四的2017年火灾调查听证会上表示，他的“理解是，该系统适用于目的，建筑法规运行良好”。2017年的火灾导致72人丧生。
In 2013, the department launched a review of the regulations in response to an inquest into the 2009 Lakanal House fire in south London.
包括三名儿童在内的六人在坎伯韦尔街区死亡，当时大火迅速蔓延到建筑易燃且不合规的覆层。
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 “key drivers” of the review put “deregulation and simplification” at the top of the list.
This was followed by “supporting government priorities [such as] energy efficiency”, ensuring the guidance reflected the latest technologies, responding to new issues such as climate change and implementation of European legislation.
直到第八页，在“确保不发生坏事”的标题下，消防安全才被提及。在这个标题下的Lakanal House的一张照片是展示中唯一提到大火的地方。
Counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett QC asked: “Are 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… in this pack?”
“No, I’m not,” Wharton replied. Asked if he considered that surprising, he said: “Yes”. Asked if he could explain it, he replied: “No”.
The hearing was shown an email sent by official Andrew Newton to the department’s special advisors in March 2016 describing a set of research documents on the review which required ministerial sign-off as “very much non-urgent and far from being a priority”.
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 “flagged that [the APPG] had not been able to persuade previous ministers that a review of Approved Document B was urgent”.
会议记录显示，沃顿商学院“欢迎来自全党派团体和联合会的评论。然而，他很清楚，任何工作的主要目标都是简化和减少繁文缛节。”
“Have you any reason, sitting there now, to think that that was a mis-recording of what you said?” Millett asked.
“I don’t think this note captures in total what was said,” Wharton replied. “I don’t dispute it’s quite possible that I said simplification and reduction of red tape would be part of the aim of what we’re going to do. I don’t recall having said it was the principal objective of work.”
The highly combustible ACM cladding fitted to Grenfell Tower during the building’s ill-fated refurbishment was given final building control sign-off in 2014, five years after the Lakanal House fire.
到格伦费尔火灾发生时，该审查仍未完成，直到2018年12月，ACM才被政府明确禁止。
Wharton said in his witness statement to the inquiry: “Everything happens slowly in the civil service and the likelihood is that nothing I could have done would have speeded the review up.”
The inquiry continues.
