Deregulation drive meant safety concerns ‘ignored’ before Grenfell – inquiry

A government drive for deregulation meant concerns about the safety of life were “ignored, delayed or disregarded” in the years before the Grenfell Tower fire, the inquiry into the disaster has found.

In its final report, published on Wednesday, the seven-year inquiry said civil servants had felt unable to raise concerns about fire safety due to a focus on deregulation, and accused ministers and senior officials of a “serious failure of leadership” in allowing such a culture to develop.

But the inquiry – led by retired judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick – went further, saying the government had “failed to discharge” its responsibilities to ensure public safety for more than 25 years after a major fire in 1991 at Knowsley Heights, Merseyside.

After coming to power in 2010, the then-coalition government and its Conservative successor, elected in 2015, pursued a deregulation drive, including a “one in, two out” policy for new regulation that the inquiry said put civil servants under pressure to reduce red tape.

‘Ardent supporter’

That pressure was particularly strong at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), the ministry responsible for building regulations, which at the time was headed by Lord Eric Pickles – described by the inquiry as an “ardent supporter” of the policy.

Sir Martin’s report suggested this culture meant there was little appetite for reviewing or amending building regulations on cladding, even after the inquest into the deaths of six people at Lakanal House in Camberwell, south London, in July 2009 called for change.

The inquiry found: “In the years that followed the Lakanal House fire the government’s deregulatory agenda, enthusiastically supported by some junior ministers and the secretary of state, dominated the department’s thinking to such an extent that even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded.”

While Lord Pickles told the inquiry it would have been “ludicrous” for civil servants to believe building safety regulations were covered by the policy, and other ministers denied the “one in, two out” policy had had an impact on building regulations, the final report rejected this.

The report said: “It is disappointing that when officials became aware of matters which posed serious risks to life, effective steps were not taken to draw those risks to the attention of ministers.

“The failure to foster a culture in which concerns could be raised and frank advice given represents a serious failure of leadership on the part of ministers and senior officials.”

Lord Pickles said he welcomed “the recommendation of the Grenfell Inquiry”, especially “the call for greater transparency and co-ordination in government”.

He added: “I thank the inquiry team for their diligence in a detailed examination of the Grenfell fire and hope the lessons learnt ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

“My thoughts and prayers are with the survivors and their families.”

Regulator

Opposition to regulation also appeared to have been behind then-local government minister Sir Brandon Lewis’s reluctance to set up a national fire safety regulator in 2013.

The inquiry found he was “not attracted to the idea of introducing additional regulation” but “more interested in making existing schemes more efficient and devolving power away from central government”.

It added that “the basis of his optimism was not clear” and said his views were “of the most general kind and not directed to the particular merits of introducing a national fire safety regulator”.

Taking a longer view, Sir Martin identified a series of missed opportunities stretching back to the 1990s.

In 1999, a parliamentary select committee warned it should not take a serious fire in which lives were lost for the government to act on fire safety in high-rise buildings.

The inquiry also found the government “failed to pay due regard” to a large-scale fire safety test in 2001 and failed to treat the coroner’s recommendations following the Lakanal House blaze with “any sense of urgency”.

It criticised the decision to shut down the Building Research Establishment’s inquiry into Lakanal House barely a month after the fire as “premature and hard to understand”, but consistent with DCLG’s “lack of interest in learning lessons from the incident”.

Concerns raised by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety were dismissed, with DCLG’s attitude to fire safety matters described by the report as “complacent and at times defensive”.

‘Free rein’

It found ministers “relied entirely on officials, who appeared to have been given almost free rein to decide on timing and policy, were dismissive of both the coroner and the MPs on the group and displayed a marked lack of appetite to embark on a review of (the guidance) within a reasonable time”.

Significant criticisms were also made of civil servant Brian Martin, who was DCLG’s principal construction professional and had the most detailed knowledge of the fire safety sections of the building regulations.

The inquiry found he was “allowed too much freedom of action without adequate oversight” despite being “relatively junior”, and showed “little appetite” for revisiting fire safety guidance after Lakanal House.

It also accused Mr Martin of making “misleading statements” to the Lakanal House inquests and preparing a “disingenuous” submission for then-housing minister Don Foster in 2013 which “set out to give the minister to understand that the coroner’s concerns were in fact groundless”.