NEWS


the building and using the various facilities’ – so the more people ‘in attendance’, the ‘greater the risk to all those present’. Temporary changes allow for breaks ‘at a safe distance’, and numbers ‘must be restricted to those whose physical attendance is essential for hearings’. As government guidance is


updated, the inquiry ‘will of course review its arrangements’, but it is ‘duty-bound to ensure’ social distancing is ‘facilitated in all areas of the building at all time’, because ‘unnecessary risks cannot be taken’. While the restrictions are ‘regrettable’, it ‘would be remiss of the inquiry with its responsibility for the health and safety of those present to do anything less’. Hearings will continue to be


streamed online, and a provisional schedule was to be made available at the end of each week, while legal representatives for core participants can suggest questions for witnesses to the inquiry counsel ‘or raise points as necessary via email during the live hearings’. As a result, the panel ‘will ensure that adequate breaks are taken’ to enable the counsel to ‘collate and consider’ any questions ‘and decide whether they should be put to the witness’.


Arrangements criticised


The Guardian reported on the ‘anger’ felt by the bereaved, survivors and other residents ‘who will be prohibited from attending’, as only the panel, Sir Martin, witnesses, lawyers and cross examining counsel will be present. Karim Mussilhy, vice chair of campaign group Grenfell United, commented: ‘For us, a part of the justice process is being able to be in the room when people who are responsible for what happened to our loved ones face questions. ‘It’s hard to understand why


people are allowed back into pubs, but we’re not allowed back into the inquiry. They told us we would be at the heart of this inquiry and now they are saying we’re not allowed in.’ There was further anger at the news that the inquiry would pause


again ‘for the whole of August’, and is ‘still only sitting for four days a week’, meaning that it is ‘unlikely to report back until the end of next year at the earliest’, so there are not likely to be any criminal charges until 2022. Rydon’s testimony was ‘keenly awaited’ by residents, who were ‘angered by what they saw as disdainful treatment’ during the works between 2014 and 2016.


NFCC calls for cladding answers


In turn, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) shared its view that the inquiry ‘get to the truth about why such dangerous cladding came to be installed on the building – and ensure those responsible are held to account’. It noted its ‘shock’ earlier this year after evidence was given that suggested ‘companies knew the components of the cladding system would fail in the event of a fire’. It stated that the evidence


‘undoubtedly showed a clear lack of concern for fire safety and a blatant disregard for people’, and ‘made it clear manufacturers and distributors were fully aware of the flammability of the cladding’, with this ‘disregard for safety’ having ‘undoubtedly contributed to the loss of life’. The NFCC also welcomed the


decision ‘not to grant any person or corporate entity involved in the refurbishment’ immunity from future criminal prosecutions, adding that witnesses in the first phase ‘did not make such a request and gave unfettered, open and honest disclosure’. Chair Roy Wilsher stated: ‘It is


imperative we find out why a non- compliant, extremely dangerous cladding system was on Grenfell Tower, along with hundreds of other buildings across the country. The bereaved, survivors and families deserve answers and I truly hope they get the answers they need from phase two. The evidence presented was so shocking I am not sure how anyone – including London Fire Brigade – could have


possibly known the building was wrapped in such a cladding system that so clearly breached building regulations. ‘Firefighters faced an impossible situation when faced with the enormity of the fire, with no prior knowledge of the materials used in the refurbishment. The extraordinary work of firefighters on the night must be commended. As highlighted by expert witnesses in phase one it was not reasonable the brigade should be expected to fully mitigate a fire arising from the installation of these materials, particularly where the brigade had never been informed that a combustible system had been installed in the first place. ‘The Grenfell Tower fire was


a tragedy waiting to happen; it is indefensible that we still have such cladding systems on buildings across the country. The independent expert advisory panel highlighted that this cladding system is a level of risk beyond anything else we have seen and has noted that there was nothing else firefighters could do that wasn’t already procedure. ‘Fire and rescue services are doing their utmost to minimise the risk; however, twenty years of building safety failure is not the responsibility of fire and rescue. Phase two should reemphasise the importance of the reform of building safety and how it needs to happen at pace.’ The council emphasised that


it has ‘repeatedly stated’ that it is ‘wholly unacceptable’ that people are still living in combustibly clad buildings. Protection and business safety


committee chair Mark Hardingham added: ‘It is only through better legislation, regulation and clear lines of responsibility we can ensure we do not see another tragedy of this scale unfold. The Grenfell Tower fire highlighted beyond doubt that the building safety regime was broken, yet three years later, tens of thousands of people are still living in buildings clad in the same or similar materials as that on Grenfell Tower.’


www.frmjournal.com JULY/AUGUST 2020 13


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