Grenfell Tower fire: Government ministers ‘congratulated themselves’ for cutting fire regulations

[Yossarian]

Conservative ministers were proud of slashing fire regulations, just months ahead of the Grenfell Tower block blaze.

In February this year, ministers posted on a government website details of their ‘anti-red tape’ agenda on new-build properties.

In a separate report fire safety inspections, the Conservatives said, had been reduced for some companies from six hours to just 45 minutes.

The move, titled Cutting Red Tape, was part of the Tory plans to abolish a ‘health and safety’ culture that they claimed was hurting money-making businesses.

Residents in Grenfell Tower block have complained that their homes were not properly fire-safe including lack of sprinklers and alarms.

Former Prime Minister David Cameron promised to abolish the ‘albatross’ of ‘over regulation’.

He said in 2012 that a Conservative government would: ‘Kill off the health and safety culture for good’.

The death toll from the fire in Kensington is expected to rise to almost 100.

More than 2,400 pieces of regulation have been scrapped since Cut Red Tape began.

Sajid Javid, the business secretary, launched the Cutting Red Tape initiative in 2015 following the Conservative election victory.

On the official government website it said that it ‘aims to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy.

‘It intends to shine a light on out of date legislation and confusing implementation of it, such as unhelpful government guidance or needlessly complex inspection regimes, to ensure they make sense.

‘Businesses with good records have had fire safety inspections reduced from six hours to 45 minutes, allowing managers to quickly get back to their day job.’

The group describe their purpose as working ‘with business, for business’.

The reference to the 2013 slashing of fire regulation for new-builds had previously been ‘welcomed‘ by the Chief Fire Officers Association.

However, a cabinet committee was still in operation before the General Election, called the Economy And Industry Strategy (Reducing Regulation).

The chairman, Greg Clark, has not been to the Grenfell Tower block site.

Leader of the House of Commons Andrea Leadsom was on the committee ....

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/gover...mselves-for-cutting-fire-regulations-6713967/

Anybody still believe that the Government and Tory Ministers should be absolved of all blame?

Tory Motto "working ‘with business, for business’.", and scr3w the public!

 

[Robert]

But as I keep pointing out, the fire regs have not been weakened.

It makes sense that a business with good records kept (fire risk assessment, training, maintenance) will not require exhaustive inspections the second, third, fourth time. I have been audited by fire safety authorities several times. You build up a relationship with them. They know when you are doing the right thing. If they don't like what they see, they serve you with a notice which you have 28 days to correct else you go to court.

 

[Yossarian]

But as I keep pointing out, the fire regs have not been weakened.

It makes sense that a business with good records kept (fire risk assessment, training, maintenance) will not require exhaustive inspections the second, third, fourth time. I have been audited by fire safety authorities several times. You build up a relationship with them. They know when you are doing the right thing. If they don't like what they see, they serve you with a notice which you have 28 days to correct else you go to court.

That's all well and good. But try telling that to the victims and the loved ones of those who died in the blaze. Sure, there may be scapegoats who may have cut corners which contributed to the scale of the disaster. BUT, ultimately, proper procedures and regulations should be designed with safeguards, and balances and checks, to cater for human error, misjudgement, illegal practices and/or downright incompetence.

Fact of the matter is that upwards of a 100, maybe much more, people have died. Whether the fire regs have been weakened or not is neither here nor there, the reality is that they, and the checks and balances that go with it, were not good enough. Thus, ultimately, those in charge (ie Government Ministers) have to take the responsibility. The buck stops at their door.

 

[Robert]

That's all well and good. But try telling that to the victims and the loved ones of those who died in the blaze. Sure, there may be scapegoats who may have cut corners which contributed to the scale of the disaster. BUT, ultimately, proper procedures and regulations should be designed with safeguards, and balances and checks, to cater for human error, misjudgement, illegal practices and/or downright incompetence.
.

They are. Health and safety management systems have been around for decades, look at OHSAS 18001 - reputable major organisations both private and public seek compliance with this and submit to regular systems audit with the intent of continuous improvement in safety standards.

What you have here, in my opinion, is a breakdown in the checks and balances.

 

[Yossarian]

They are. Health and safety management systems have been around for decades, look at OHSAS 18001 - reputable major organisations both private and public seek compliance with this and submit to regular systems audit with the intent of continuous improvement in safety standards.

What you have here, in my opinion, is a breakdown in the checks and balances.

In which case the checks and balances were inadequate and incomplete. Meaning the management systems and associated procedure failed because they too were not good enough. And resulted in 100+, and maybe many more, deaths. And the buck stops with the Government and Government Ministers because they set the laws and framework around which the legislation, the safety standards, the management systems and associated procedure are based.

Robert, you seem to be keen to defend the current Health and Safety Management Systems and regime, which includes as part and parcel the inbuilt checks and balances, whilst you're completely overlooking the fact that, for whatever reason, they failed to prevent this tragedy, and hence they were not good enough.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=7898]Gabbar Singh[/MENTION] is a big fan of Sajid Javid, will you support this tool even now?

 

[shaz619]

It's clear that Tory cuts have contributed to this disaster, our health and safety procedures may be robust but they were weakened significantly which resulted in flawed risk assessments, there is also potential corruption with regards to compliance but that is expected when the rules are bent and you're given certain leeway's all in the name of the mighty pound....I mean the not so mighty pound.

 

[Robert]

In which case the checks and balances were inadequate and incomplete. Meaning the management systems and associated procedure failed because they too were not good enough. And resulted in 100+, and maybe many more, deaths. And the buck stops with the Government and Government Ministers because they set the laws and framework around which the legislation, the safety standards, the management systems and associated procedure are based.

Robert, you seem to be keen to defend the current Health and Safety Management Systems and regime, which includes as part and parcel the inbuilt checks and balances, whilst you're completely overlooking the fact that, for whatever reason, they failed to prevent this tragedy, and hence they were not good enough.

They work fine in the vast majority of cases. Fewer and fewer people die from fire every year so the regulatory systems control fire risk. That does not mean there will ever be a fire, because no system is 100% effective. But HS professionals try to keep building in improvements.

Let me explain.

Under existing fire regs since 2005, a risk assessment on a building must be done to determine ignition sources, fire load, means of fire spread, oxygen sources, detection, alarms, fire-fighting equipment, number of exits, emergency lighting and so on, referring to Approved Document B (the one referring to residential buildings). Based on that, the risk assessor either states that the building is fire safe or creates a list of improvements.

If a fire breaks out then the HSE is informed and will come to investigate. They may or may not recommend prosecution depending on circumstance. There is your check and balance - one person's head is on the block, personally responsible.

In this case, someone has not done their job of risk management and will go to jail for a long time.

There will also be a Corporate Manslaughter charge to face, perhaps by the council and perhaps the landlord. So talk of 'austerity' causing this disaster is nonsense because the law will find some individual at fault, and some individual's employer, not an abstract noun. The systems didn't fail. Some person failed.

 

[Yossarian]

They work fine in the vast majority of cases. Fewer and fewer people die from fire every year so the regulatory systems control fire risk. That does not mean there will ever be a fire, because no system is 100% effective. But HS professionals try to keep building in improvements.

Let me explain.

Under existing fire regs since 2005, a risk assessment on a building must be done to determine ignition sources, fire load, means of fire spread, oxygen sources, detection, alarms, fire-fighting equipment, number of exits, emergency lighting and so on, referring to Approved Document B (the one referring to residential buildings). Based on that, the risk assessor either states that the building is fire safe or creates a list of improvements.

If a fire breaks out then the HSE is informed and will come to investigate. They may or may not recommend prosecution depending on circumstance. There is your check and balance - one person's head is on the block, personally responsible.

In this case, someone has not done their job of risk management and will go to jail for a long time.

There will also be a Corporate Manslaughter charge to face, perhaps by the council and perhaps the landlord. So talk of 'austerity' causing this disaster is nonsense because the law will find some individual at fault, and some individual's employer, not an abstract noun. The systems didn't fail. Some person failed.

I completely disagree.

I have some experience in Disaster Recovery Planning. Both in terms of planning for IT Systems failures (for whatever reason, ranging from human error to the Computer Suite being destroyed as a result of the whole building burning down due to external factors), as well as planning for continuity of business because other parts of the business have experienced a disaster (such as the warehouse and distribution centre burning down).

It was a regular battle with the finance department when it came to annual budgets. Their general arguments were:

"Why do we need to spend such vast amounts of money on this when we've never had a disaster situation before?",

"Over the last X years, the company has spent £nn millions on all this even though we've never needed to use it. We could have spent all this money more usefully on Marketing, Sales, new products ..... which would have brought in more business! And now you want even more and are asking for an increase in the budget?"

The argument you are presenting is no different to that of the finance departments/ BeanCounters. Prosecutions, sure yes. But they're not of much use to those who have died.

 

[s28]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Fire safety: repeated calls for retrofitting sprinklers to high-rises were ignored <a href="https://t.co/QCrtUa37Pm">https://t.co/QCrtUa37Pm</a></p>— The Guardian (@guardian) <a href="https://twitter.com/guardian/status/876427060083916803">18 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Robert]

I completely disagree.

I have some experience in Disaster Recovery Planning. Both in terms of planning for IT Systems failures (for whatever reason, ranging from human error to the Computer Suite being destroyed as a result of the whole building burning down due to external factors), as well as planning for continuity of business because other parts of the business have experienced a disaster (such as the warehouse and distribution centre burning down).

It was a regular battle with the finance department when it came to annual budgets. Their general arguments were:

"Why do we need to spend such vast amounts of money on this when we've never had a disaster situation before?",

I am on the side of the HS professionals, not the bean counters!

My usual argument is "If you think that this technology is expernsive, wait until you have to face a criminal court judgement and multiple civil suits." You have to hit them with the opportunity cost argument.

The Chancelor says the cladding insulation did not meet EU standards. If not, who planned the installation and who signed off in it?

One other thing I will say is that the council's disaster contingency planning is a shambles.

 

[Markhor]

The Brexiteers wanted a "bonfire of regulations" upon leaving the EU.

Well this appalling disaster shows lack of regulations or lack of enforcement of regulations, has real consequences on peoples' lives.

 

[Yossarian]

I am on the side of the HS professionals, not the bean counters!

My usual argument is "If you think that this technology is expernsive, wait until you have to face a criminal court judgement and multiple civil suits." You have to hit them with the opportunity cost argument.

And they'll turn around and say "But, we're complying with the legal requirements as laid down by law". And it would appear that the cladding in question complied with UK regulations.

The Chancelor says the cladding insulation did not meet EU standards. If not, who planned the installation and who signed off in it?

The Chancellor told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show: "My understanding is the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here.
[...]
However John Cowley, managing director of CEP Architectural Facades, which fabricated the rainscreen panels and windows for Grenfell Tower's cladding sub-contractor Harley Facades Ltd, refuted Mr Hammond's claims.

He said: "Reynobond PE is not banned in the UK. Current building regulations allow its use in both low-rise and high-rise structures."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...hancellor-philip-hammond-claims-a3567541.html

Interesting! Someone's telling porkies and trying to shift blame.

One other thing I will say is that the council's disaster contingency planning is a shambles.

Believe it or not, even some of the largest UK corporations Disaster Recovery Plans are not worth the paper they're written on. For a start, no one ever tests them. British Airways anyone?

In one of my previous roles, when working for a multi-national with subsidiaries, warehouses and production facilities all over Europe, I would turn up unannounced at a site and tell the local management to assume that the building was burning down, and they should invoke their Disaster Recovery Plan. Their jobs depended upon a successful test.

 

[Robert]

The Brexiteers wanted a "bonfire of regulations" upon leaving the EU.

Well this appalling disaster shows lack of regulations or lack of enforcement of regulations, has real consequences on peoples' lives.

Most HS regs come from the EU.

I repeat that the construction and design regs, fire regs and Approved Document B are not lacking. Where you may have a point is enforcement. While there are many hundreds of Environment Agency Inspectors, there are a mere 140 HSE Inspectors, cut from 200 in the austerity measures during the Coalition. It's not enough for a country with this many people.

However, penalties are now much tougher - the judge decides based not on the actual harm done, but the worst harm that could have been done.