Credit;PA
The Grenfell Tower disaster was caused by “individual private companies which were allowed to put profit before people”, a Fire Brigades Union lawyer has said.
Giving oral evidence given to the inquiry, Martin Seaward said “the building failure was so total and the systemic failings so widespread across the country that it would be wrong to scapegoat the Fire and Rescue Service for the failures of Central Government and a corporate culture that made people’s homes unsafe”.
He added that “the performance of the fire and rescue service” at Grenfell must be assessed “in the wider political and economic context, apportioning blame where it is due, particularly, in relation to those who created and enabled this truly horrifying disaster”.
Seaward accused manufacturing companies of “manipulating” the “flawed” testing and certification regime.
He said the lack of care shown by the private companies was “facilitated and enabled by policies made since 1979 by Central Government in the service of a social and economic system driven by the pursuit of profit above all else, including people”.
The union’s latest written submission to the inquiry, released today, also raised important questions about what the government knew about combustible cladding as far back as 1991 and why this information was not conveyed to the London Fire Brigade.
After the fire at Knowsley Heights, Merseyside in 1991, a handwritten government note from the Department of the Environment, which at the time had responsibility for building regulation, to the Building Research Establishment, asked them to “play down” the issue of the cladding fire at Knowsley.
Cladding’s contribution to the fire was then “suppressed”, according to the union.
In its evidence the union says that the note shows that “the government and the Building Research Establishment” were “significantly invested in the success of cladding schemes”, and in oral statements the union’s lawyer to the inquiry, Martin Seaward, added in relation to the note that “the risk of rapid fire spread associated with combustible cladding systems was deliberately downplayed by government and this significantly contributed to the widespread misunderstanding of this risk”.
Seaward said “We accept there are important lessons to be learnt by the London Fire Brigade and the fire and rescue service more generally from Grenfell Tower”.
He said that, amongst other things, “Operational crews in London had not been informed that building failure was not rare, that compartmentation could not be relied upon and some cladding materials were combustible, nor of the heightened risk of total building failure these combined risks presented in cladded High Rise Residential Buildings, nor of the resulting need to consider revoking stay put and evacuating such a building, and had not been trained when or how to do so”.
He also said that equipment issues caused problems, including communications equipment and aerial appliance.
However, he added that responsibility here went wider than simply the fire brigade itself: “Central Government, the Chief Fire Officers Association, National Fire Chiefs Council, Chief Fire and Rescue Advisor and the London Fire Brigade failed to equip and prepare the operational crews, incident commanders and control room staff for a major disaster such as Grenfell Tower”.
Additionally, he added “Any changes or improvements to the fire and rescue service… need to be properly resourced. Central government cannot deregulate, privatise and cut away whilst at the same time increasing the duties of the fire and rescue service”.
Related: ‘Significant’ Met information leaves Johnson premiership hanging by a thread
