UK government launches investigation into companies linked to Grenfell disaster

by Featured NewsSafety

Government to investigate companies linked to Grenfell tragedy

The UK government has launched an investigation into seven companies connected to the Grenfell Tower fire, following findings that manufacturers misrepresented fire safety information, The Times has reported.

Angela Rayner, deputy prime minister, stated that executives who breach regulations could face prison sentences and unlimited fines. The investigation, led by the Cabinet Office, will determine whether the companies engaged in professional misconduct under the Procurement Act 2023.

According to The Times, the Grenfell fire in 2017 killed 72 people after flames spread rapidly due to combustible cladding. A public inquiry concluded that manufacturers manipulated safety tests and misled the market. The government has pledged to implement all 58 recommendations from the inquiry.

Companies under scrutiny for Grenfell Tower refurbishment

The investigation will examine companies involved in the 2016 refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, The Times has reported. These include Rydon, the main contractor, Studio E, the architect, Harley Facades, the cladding subcontractor, and Exova, the fire engineer.

Additionally, the manufacturers of Grenfell’s cladding system—Arconic, Kingspan, and Celotex’s former owner Saint-Gobain—face potential exclusion from public contracts, according to The Times. The inquiry found that these firms misrepresented the fire safety of their products, which were later used on thousands of other buildings.

Police are conducting a separate investigation into 58 individuals and 19 organisations for potential criminal offences, including manslaughter and fraud, The Times has reported.

New regulator to oversee construction product safety

The government has announced plans to create a single construction regulator to address what the inquiry described as “seriously defective” industry oversight, The Times has reported.

The regulator will not directly test or certify products but will supervise private assessors who carry out these functions. The Grenfell inquiry previously criticised the role of private companies in certifying products, finding that this practice allowed manufacturers to secure approvals based on false safety claims, The Times stated.

Grenfell United, a group representing bereaved families and survivors, stated that the creation of a single regulator “could be a significant step forward if it is well-resourced and tough on industry failure.” However, The Times reported that the group expressed concerns that leaving testing in private hands could allow previous misconduct to continue.

Debate over retrospective accountability and enforcement

The proposed reforms include legal measures allowing for prison sentences and unlimited fines for companies and executives responsible for safety breaches, The Times has reported. However, officials have not confirmed whether these penalties will apply retrospectively to those involved in Grenfell Tower’s refurbishment.

According to The Times, the public inquiry found that safety violations in the construction sector dated back more than a decade before the fire. While some companies have contributed to remediation efforts, many buildings remain unsafe, with cladding removal costs largely falling on taxpayers.

Rayner criticised companies that misrepresented product safety: “Their disgraceful mercenary behaviour put profit before people and exploited the regulatory regime to evade accountability, with fatal consequences.”

UK government launches investigation into companies linked to Grenfell disaster: Summary

The UK government has announced an investigation into seven companies linked to the Grenfell Tower fire, following findings that manufacturers misrepresented fire safety information, The Times has reported. The Cabinet Office will determine whether these companies engaged in professional misconduct under the Procurement Act 2023.

The companies under scrutiny include firms involved in Grenfell Tower’s refurbishment in 2016, such as Rydon, Studio E, Harley Facades, and Exova. The investigation will also examine Arconic, Kingspan, and Celotex’s former owner Saint-Gobain, which manufactured the cladding system, The Times reported.

A new construction regulator will be established to oversee industry safety but will not conduct product testing. The government has proposed prison sentences and unlimited fines for executives and companies that violate safety regulations. However, it remains unclear whether these penalties will be applied retrospectively, The Times has stated. Grenfell United has welcomed some of the reforms but expressed concerns about leaving product certification in private hands. The group also highlighted that nine recommendations from the inquiry remain unconfirmed, The Times reported.

Industry responds to annual State of Fire report

by Breaking News

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and Fire Brigades Union (FBU) have responded to the annual State of Fire and Rescue assessment of fire and rescue services in England across 2022.

This report draws on findings from inspections of fire and rescue services (FRSs) in England, to provide an overall view of the state of the fire and rescue sector.

‘A lot to be proud of’

In the report, HMICFRS Chief Inspector Andy Cooke said: “I am continually struck by the dedication of firefighters and other staff, and I know the public feel the same – they are enormous assets to our communities.” 

Responding to the report, NFCC (National Fire Chiefs Council) Chair Mark Hardingham commented: “There is a lot to be proud of in this year’s annual report. To see the dedication of professional staff highlighted is no surprise, with 84 per cent of the public valuing the work carried out by fire and rescue services.  

“I am also pleased to see the role of NFCC, and our national work highlighted. Our programmes provide all fire and rescue services with the tools to build on the excellent work taking place, while making improvements in areas we know need to be better.” 

Firefighters and fire and rescue services were also praised for dealing with the significant increase in the number and scale of wildfires last year, linked to the increasing impact of climate change on the sector.  

However, Mr Cooke renewed the call for urgent reform of the fire and rescue service and for the government to act on recommendations set out in this and previous reports.  

Prevention work is an area that has been highlighted as requiring improvement to continue to drive down deaths and injuries from fires and other incidents, targeted especially at the most vulnerable people in communities.  

Concerns about the culture and inclusion in some fire and rescue services stands out as an area which requires improvement, referencing unacceptable levels of bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

HMICFRS will be producing a spotlight report on values and culture later this year, drawing from inspections already undertaken across every fire service in England. 

Mr Hardingham added: “We know there is a lot to do in areas such as culture, diversity, and wider reform. As set out in the report, this is more than just having a representative workforce, it is about creating the right inclusive environment to ensure all staff feel valued, safe, and able to realise their full potential at work.

“Whilst there is much that every fire service can do, and some are, to maximise the potential benefits for staff and the public it needs all those working across the fire sector to continue to work together to address areas where there are clear issues.  

“NFCC has a wide range of well-developed national work underway with a focus on people and culture. We believe this will make a difference and deliver improvements across all fire services. However, the journey of culture change is rarely a ‘quick fix’ and requires sustained investment, and I welcome the forthcoming HMI spotlight report focusing on values and culture. 

‘Disappointed’

Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, said the FBU was disappointed with the new State of Fire and Rescue annual report, which continues its ill-judged commitment to the White Paper.

Wrack said: “The FBU hoped that the Inspectorate, under new leadership would abandon the misguided White Paper that seeks to give chief fire officers a free hand to instruct the workforce, ignoring their contracts of employment and conditions of service. These ‘reforms’ are aimed at undermining the FBU, despite the vast majority of firefighters choosing to belong to the union.

“HMICFRS has chosen not to listen to rank and file firefighters. The FBU would again urge Mr. Cooke to map his own course to achieve what we all want: a properly funded fire service that includes decent resources and fair pay for firefighters, and that reflects the extraordinary job they do.

“The Inspectorate claims to sympathise with firefighters during this cost of living crisis yet unfortunately provides nothing more than warm words. Firefighters want their contribution to society recognised with a fair pay rise, not continued political attack that seeks to abolish their collective bargaining structures.

“Mr. Cooke does recognise that services are falling short of response standards they themselves have set and describes a postcode lottery that the FBU has warned about for years. Despite the correct diagnosis, he doesn’t prescribe the correct course of treatment – national standards. Neither does the report address more than a decade of central funding cuts, 11,500 firefighter posts lost and years of pay cuts.”

First Responders Fair RETIRE Act passed unanimously by the Senate

by

The US Senate has passed the First Responder Fair RETIRE Act, a piece of bipartisan legislation that ensure federal firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other federal first responders qualify for full retirement benefits if they are injured on the job and return to the federal workforce.

The House passed the legislation unanimously in July, 2022. The legislation was introduced in the House by Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-VA), the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Government Operations, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Congressman Jim Langevin (D-RI). Companion legislation in the Senate was introduced by Senator Jon Tester (D-MT).

The bill now heads to President Biden’s desk for signature.

Due to the the hazardous nature the job required of Federal first responders, Congress created an accelerated retirement system for these positions and established a mandatory retirement age of 57.

Referred to as “6c” for the section of the law in which this retirement system was established, federal first responders are entitled to an annuity after serving for 20 years and reaching age 50. They pay a greater percentage of their salary into their retirement system, and their annuity amount is calculated at a higher rate than other federal employees who make their payments over the course of 30 years.

The Act addresses inequities facing federal first responders who may become injured on the job and are then unable to continue their service before full retirement. It allows federal first responders to stay in the 6c retirement system if they are placed in another civil service position outside of the 6c system after returning to work from a duty related injury. The bill also allows these employees to receive a refund of their accelerated contributions should they be separated from service before they are entitled to an annuity.

Congressman Gerry Connolly commented: “Our federal firefighters, Capitol Police officers, Secret Service agents, Customs and Border Protections Officers, and other federal law enforcement officials put their lives on the line every day for our fellow Americans.

“We have a responsibility to uphold our promise to those that are injured on the job and ensure their first responders’ benefits are fully protected. They shouldn’t be penalized, especially when they are still committed to public service.”

“I thank Senator Tester for his unwavering support in getting the  First Responder Fair Retire Act across the finish line.

“Our bipartisan legislation will ensure federal firefighters, law enforcement officials, Border Patrol officers, and other federal first responders qualify for full retirement benefits if they are injured on the job.”

The First Responder Fair RETIRE Act is supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the International Association of Firefighters, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Treasury Employees Union, and the Senior Executives Association.

Edward A. Kelly, General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, commented: “Fire fighters deserve a dignified retirement. It is why the International Association of Fire Fighters has supported the First Responders Fair RETIRE Act. Our job is dangerous, and the risk of injury is high. Providing federal fire fighters with access to their full retirement benefits if they’re injured on duty is right and fair. The IAFF is grateful to Senator Jon Tester and Representative Gerald Connolly for advocating on behalf of our nation’s fire fighters, who work tirelessly to keep all of us safe.”

National Federation of Federal Employees National President Randy Erwin said: “For decades, when a federal firefighter, law enforcement officer, other any first responder got injured on the job, they could have their hard-earned pension unfairly stolen from them.

“Thanks to this legislation, their pension is now safe. I thank Chairman Connolly for his unrelenting leadership over many congresses to get this done. In the end, this bill passed the House 417-0 and then passed ‘under unanimous’ consent in the Senate. On behalf of our nation’s federal first responders, we thank Chairman Connolly for his support to protect those injured in the line of duty.”

Lord Greenhalgh resigns as Building Safety and Fire Minister

by Featured NewsPeople

Lord Stephen Greenhalgh has resigned as Building Safety and Fire Minister amid the flurry of Government resignations last week. Greenhalgh published his letter of resignation to soon to be former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It read:

“As Building Safety Minister I have worked hard to ensure that a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again. The Building Safety Act is the landmark legislation that delivers on that mission. This act has brought about the biggest changes to building safety legislation in our history. The act not only addresses the total building safety regulatory system failure head on but also protects leaseholders who are the victims in the building safety crisis.

“As Fire Minister I set out the most comprehensive plans for reform in decades in the government’s Fire and Rescue Service Reform White Paper with the Home Secretary on 18 Ma.y

“It has been a privilege to serve you alongside you in both City Hall and in your government. I am saddened at the turn of events that has resulted in your decision to stand down as Prime Minister. Now that the die has been cast, I have decided that this is the right time for me to resign. Of course, I will continue to serve the Government from the back benches.”

UK parliament could burn down ‘any day’ says former minister

by Breaking NewsSafety

Andrea Leadsome, former minister and current Member of Parliament for South Northamptonshire, has urged her fellow MPs to ‘get on’ with the renovation of the Parliament building to prevent at fire similar to that seen by the Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris in 2019.

In 2019, MPs voted to set up a sponsor body with responsibility for the restoration of the building. A review produced by the body put the basic costs of essential repairs between £7 billion and £13 billion and estimated they would take between 19 and 28 years to complete – or 12 to 20 years if the building was fully vacated.

Some politicians have expressed concern about moving out amid plans to relocate to Richmond House in central London were vetoed, despite the body claiming that costs would increase by 40% if politicians stayed put.

Speaking to Radio 4’s Week in Westminster programme, Leadsom said a fire of the scale seen by Notre-Dame could happen in Parliament, adding that a fire in 2017 was only averted because of the presence of the 24/7 fire patrol.

“That is so ‘there but for the grace of God’,” she said. “It could burn down today, tomorrow, any day and we’ve got to make that decision and get on with it.”

Industry responds to commencement of Fire Safety Act

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementIndustry Sectors

The UK government’s Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, which have both now come into force, have been met with mixed response from the British fire and safety industry.

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) welcomed he publication of the government’s White Paper on Fire Reform which focusses on driving forward reform, strengthening governance and improving talent and professionalism.  

According to NFCC, the white paper and subsequent consultation provides a further opportunity to continuously improve what fire and rescue services already do and to reach into new roles and responsibilities to respond to local risk and support partner services. The reforms can build on the fantastic work already carried out every day.  

NFCC Chair Mark Hardingham commented: “I am pleased to see today’s long anticipated publication of the white paper together with the announcements on fire and building safety.  

“The public have great confidence and trust in firefighters and their fire and rescue services. We all carry a collective responsibility to build on that reputation in how we shape the fire and rescue service for the future – with the needs and expectations of the public at the forefront of our thinking. 

“NFCC has a significant role to play in advising and delivering on reform and improvements. However, no one organisation alone holds the key – we want to work with the various fire service bodies to inform and implement further improvements.” 

The Council said it would now respond to the consultations after exploring the recommendations in detail with fire and rescue services.  

A perfect storm

The Fire Industry Association has said the new legislation will create a ‘perfect storm’ for fire risk assessors, as they will now face additional challenges when it comes to satisfying new legal requirements designed to meet fire safety competency standards.

The association raised the issue thattThe legislation requires that a building’s external walls be considered as part of any fire risk assessment, which has been much debated by the industry. The Building Safety Act goes further still, it said, placing a clear duty on ‘Accountable Persons’ and ‘Responsible Persons’ to confirm the competency of any fire risk assessor whom they appoint to assist them in undertaking a building fire risk assessment.

It also noted the lack of detailed definition around the term ‘competent’, which then puts these ‘duty holders’ under considerable pressure to make the correct choices.

Dennis Davis, executive officer at the Fire Sector Federation, said: “Those accountable for building and fire safety, including fire risk assessors operating without clearly demonstrable competency, need to make sure they’re ready now.

“They must fully understand the implications of demonstrating compliance with their obligations under the new legislation. Using existing third party assurance schemes that demonstrate fire risk assessors are competent is a practical way forward for clients. Joining such schemes or engaging with those organisations developing standards will allow qualified professionals to show they’re competent. It’s a way forward for contractors.”

He added: “We need to face up to these challenges if we are to avoid a ‘perfect storm’ in the fire risk assessor sector which could undermine fire safety in our buildings.”

‘An attack on workers’ rights’

The Fire Brigade Union called highlighted the white paper’s review on pay and move to operational independence of Chief Fire Officers. Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary called it ‘an attack on workers’ rights by undermining collective bargaining and a proposal to remove frontline firefighters’ voices.

He said: “The narrative set out in the white paper on the fire service’s response to the pandemic is one firefighters will not recognise. Firefighters, through their union, negotiated a contract which kept them safe and allowed important work to protect the public to take place. Before this agreement, Covid positive firefighters were deployed to doorsteps – not something certain chief fire officers can be proud of.

“We’re proud of how the tripartite agreement was achieved through our long-standing arrangements, and attempts to belittle it are false and insulting.

“The vast bulk of this white paper does not relate directly to Grenfell recommendations. It is unclear why the government is trying to paint this picture. Instead of listening to frontline firefighters, the government appears to have listened only to the anti-union voice of the politically motivated, including outgoing fire inspector Tom Winsor, and fire bosses. We look forward to working with the government to address these proposals and making sure that frontline firefighters are heard.

“The union has never opposed clarifying the role of a firefighter and in some instances, expanding that role, and we have tried to have these discussions with ministers for over a decade. It is ministers who have failed to answer these questions. It is imperative that any changes are properly negotiated and discussed with frontline firefighters – it is their say that should matter most. 

“The proposals on governance suggests that we could see more Police Fire and Crime Commissioners. Throwing fire in with police means fire and rescue services do not receive enough scrutiny. Furthermore police and fire are very different functions and there is a vital need to maintain the neutrality of fire and rescue services in the public perception. If this breaks down it will make the work of fire and rescue services in communities far more difficult.”

New survey says landlords ‘need at least two years to comply’ with building safety bill

by Passive

A survey of landlords found that one in three expected to need ‘at least two years to comply’ with the changes outlined in the building safety bill.

In July, the government published the draft bill, which included mention of the new role of the accountable person, who will ‘have to listen and respond’ to concerns and ensure resident are heard, called the accountable person. There will also be resident and leaseholder access to ‘vital’ safety information about buildings, and new complaints handling requirements for ‘effective action’.

The BSR will ‘oversee all this and make sure that accountable persons are carrying out their duties properly’, and ‘ensure that high rise buildings and the people who live in them are being kept safe’, with ‘new powers to raise and enforce higher standards of safety and performance across all buildings’. Resident panels will be appointed to have a voice in developing the regulator’s work.

The government will also be ‘speeding up’ its work with finance and insurance sectors to protect leaseholders from fire safety costs ‘without relying on tax payers’ money’, while a new building safety charge will make it ‘easy for leaseholders to see and know what they are being charged for’. To ensure these costs are affordable, the government has ‘deliberately included powers to limit’ costs that can be re-charged to leaseholders.

‘For the first time’ new build buyers will be able to complain to a new homes ombudsman, and developers will have to be a member of the scheme, with the ombudsman having the power to require they ‘pay compensation’. For construction, the bill will ‘fully establish’ the BSR to ‘enforce new rules and take strong actions against those who break them’, ensuring they are ‘accountable for any mistakes’.

The BSR’s three functions including overseeing safety and standards of all buildings; ‘directly’ assuring safety of higher risk buildings; and improving the competence of those ‘responsible for managing and overseeing’ works. A ‘more stringent’ set of rules for high rises will apply when buildings are ‘designed, constructed and then later occupied’, with each stage making it ‘clear who is responsible for managing the potential risks and what is required to move to the next stage’.

This ties into the “golden thread” of ‘vital information about the building’, and buildings need to be registered with the BSR as well as apply for a building assurance certificate. The accountable person will then need to ‘conduct and maintain’ a safety case risk assessment and appoint a building safety manager ‘to oversee it day to day’, with building inspectors ‘responsible for signing buildings off as safe for people to live in’ also having to follow the rules and register with the regulator.

Additionally, the government will have the power to ‘better regulate’ construction materials and products, and ‘ensure they are safe to use’. Ministers will appoint the UK’s first chief inspector of buildings, who will lead the new regulator ‘to make sure effective action is taken where concerns are raised’.

It was later reported that a survey of 1,000 leaseholders across the UK found that 70% were ‘reluctant and worried’ over the plans for increased responsibility for flat block safety, before leaseholders in Leeds stated the plans had caused them ‘enormous alarm’. In August, more details were provided, including planned new penalties of up to two years in jail for breaching the bill, while other information on fire related elements was provided.

Inside Housing has now reported on a survey of social and private landlords of 1,048 high rise buildings undertaken by software platform TrackMyRisks on behalf of the Building Safety Register. The survey found that a third of landlords believe they ‘will need more than two years to get up to speed’ with the bill’s requirements, with 33% expecting it would take ‘more than 25 months to demonstrate compliance with all parts’ of the bill.

Issues with compliance identified by the respondents included the bill’s ‘complexity’ and ‘absence of clarity’, alongside ‘competing organisational priorities’ and the volume of high rises that some wold ‘need to submit to the new regulator’. Compliance costs were also identified as a problem, with 45% stating that the bill would have a ‘significant negative impact on their organisations’ finances’, and another 33% saying it would have a ‘moderately negative impact’.

Over half, or 56%, of respondents had fewer than 20 high rises in their portfolio, with 33% having 20 to 150 high rises and 11% having over 150; 78% said that their organisations had not yet written any ‘building safety cases’, while 22% said they had written ‘between one and five’, with these cases part of the new building safety regime proposed – no respondents ‘could provide an estimate for the average cost of producing each building safety case.

Matt Hodges-Long, co founder of TrackMyRisks, commented: ‘Much of the media attention relating to [the] building safety bill impacts is understandably written from a resident’s perspective. We felt it was important to understand the scale of impact on the supply side of the equation so we surveyed senior housing execs representing more than 1,000 higher risk buildings.

‘The overwhelming narrative through all of our one-to-one interviews was the absence of guidance, the scale of the implementation challenge and how long it would take to achieve the required level of cultural change.’

PRP lands government fire safety work for care homes

by PassiveProjects

PRP has been appointed by the government to carry out research on fire safety regulations in care homes and specialist housing.

Under the contract with the Ministry of Housing (MHCLG), PRP will also review current provisions in Approved Document B (ADB) and propose alternative design options to inform future policy decisions.

The practice will review current design approaches, including evacuation strategies, at specialised housing and care homes, identify gaps in existing fire safety guidance and assess risks, costs and benefits of alternative design options.

The team will also conduct an international review of regulatory and design approaches to inform potential alternative design approaches.

The appointment comes after embattled housing secretary Robert Jenrick’s publication earlier this year of advice for building owners in an attempt to ensure all multi-occupancy residential buildings are safe.

PRP partner and Building Design regs columnist Andrew Mellor said: “A lot of progress has been made in fire-safety regulations since the Grenfell Tower fire, but a lot more still needs to be done, especially when it comes to care homes and specialist housing. We look forward to working with the wider industry in delivering this key piece of research that will ensure the safety of older people and their families across the UK.”

As part of the research, which is expected to be completed at the end of 2021, PRP’s development consultancy and later-living teams will work with the wider industry, academia, government bodies, the fire service and interest groups to gather data and expertise on fire safety.

PRP partner Jenny Buterchi said: “This is a unique opportunity for us to combine our development consultancy’s in-depth experience on fire safety with our later-living team’s unrivalled experience in the design of specialist housing and care-homes and through our regular work with the APPG on older people’s housing.”

PRP is already technical advisor to MHCLG on building safety analytical work.