NEWS
impossible position because they cannot know the nature of the evidence which will emerge and it is not possible to know how these undertakings, if given, may affect subsequent prosecutions.’ A ruling on the application
was then issued by the inquiry panel which stated it would ‘seek the undertaking’ from the attorney general, and that ‘in light’ of this decision, hearings would ‘not resume before’ 24 February. The Guardian added that the decision meant the government would ‘decide whether evidence given by professionals and company executives could also be used to mount criminal prosecutions against them’. The attorney general was asked
to promise witnesses ‘that what they say under cross-examination will not be used to try to send them to jail’, while Sir Martin noted that he understood the survivors and bereaved may be ‘indignant’ at the move, but said that the ‘right not to self-incriminate was enshrined in English law’. The news outlet pointed out that with hearings having been scheduled to last until summer 2021, the extra delays ‘would threaten to push back the inquiry’s final conclusions’ until 2022, and costs – paid for by the taxpayer – would ‘also increase’. It added that RBKC was ‘almost alone among corporate participants in saying it wanted its present and former employees to give evidence openly without claiming privilege’. Sir Martin stated: ‘Contrary to
reports in the press, it does not grant anyone immunity from prosecution. It does not apply to any statements or documents already in the possession of the inquiry and it does not prevent the prosecuting authorities from making use of answers given by one witness in furtherance of proceedings against another.’ Later, the inquiry wrote to core
participants with an update on the application. With the recent government reshuffle seeing Geoffrey Cox replaced by Suella Braverman, the inquiry pointed out
that it had ‘received an indication’ that she would ‘aim to make a decision regarding’ this quickly. As a consequence, it ‘hope[d]
therefore to be able to resume’ the hearings on 2 March, and would ‘provide a full updated Phase 2 timetable once it has been finalised’.
Meeting attendance queried It was also revealed that inquiry experts Professors Luke Bisby and Jose Torero attended meetings of the Modern Building Alliance (MBA), which discussed the UK’s combustible materials ban. The two professors were among
11 ‘external representatives’ at a meeting of the MBA, an ‘alliance of trade associations and companies that represent the plastics industry in the construction sector’. That meeting saw discussions of the UK’s combustible materials ban for high rises described as a ‘key commercial risk’ to the plastics industry within construction. They had previously advised
the inquiry ‘against extending the combustibles ban’ before attending the meeting last November in Brussels, said to be the group’s first meeting for its advisory group on facade fire safety, set up to ‘build a roadmap towards safe and sustainable facades’. This was in light of what it described as the ‘real and significant’ problem of combustible facades. Minutes of the meeting
recorded that some participants felt the ban was a ‘key commercial
10 APRIL 2020
www.frmjournal.com
risk’ that would ‘harm the commercial interests of its members’, though human safety and property protection were identified as ‘top priorities’. Both professors attended the meeting after being invited to write short reports for Sir Martin on potential policy recommendations, which were released in October with the first phase report. Professor Torero – of University
College London – urged against banning materials based on specific fire classifications, adding that ‘introducing further bans/ restrictions on the basis of classifications that are a product of inadequate testing will not resolve the issue of “adequate level of vertical flame spread”’. In turn, Professor Bisby, of the
University of Edinburgh, wrote that ‘it is my opinion that this approach (ie the ban) undermines the “outcomes based” approach to fire safety that is supported by the Hackitt Review […], while “a ban” may be politically appealing under the circumstances, I am concerned that, by promoting a regulatory approach wherein designers are discouraged from being competent and taking responsibility for their designs, the manner of its implementation could lead to unintended and negative consequences across the construction sector’. In the recommendations
made by Sir Martin, neither of the professors’ suggestions were eventually included
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
