Seven years after 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower disaster, the public inquiry has said that “systemic dishonesty” contributed to the horrific fire.
Its report laid bare years of missed opportunities to prevent the catastrophe and how those responsible for fire safety were at risk of being compromised by commercial interests.
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry report said a “very significant reason” why the building came to be clad in combustible materials was “systemic dishonesty” on the part of those who made and sold panels and insulation products.
“They engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market,” the report said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:49
‘We want changes and justice’
The report singled out Arconic Architectural Products, which it said “deliberately concealed from the market” the true extent of the danger of using its Reynobond 55 PE rainscreen panels which were installed on the external wall of the tower.
It also pointed the finger at Celotex, which manufactured the combustible RS5000 foam insulation. It said the company “embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers and the wider market”.
Image: Exhibits from the investigation into the fire. Pic: PA
Regulation at the time was ‘seriously defective’
The system of regulating the construction and refurbishment of high-rise residential buildings that was in place at the time of the disaster was “seriously defective in a number of respects”, the report said.
It added the government failed to actively monitor that system and ensure that dangers of which it became aware were communicated to industry.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The report also dug into the “inappropriate relationship” between approved inspectors and those they were inspecting.
“Approved inspectors had a commercial interest in acquiring and retaining customers that conflicted with the performance of their role as guardians of the public interest,” it said.
It pointed to the Building Research Establishment, which held a trusted position within the construction industry, saying that its systems were “not robust enough to ensure complete independence”.
“As a result, it sacrificed rigorous application of principle to its commercial interests,” the report said.
This underlying conflict of interest, the inquiry said, will continue to exist and continue to threaten the integrity of the system, meaning that change is needed.
Image: Grenfell Tower lit up for the seventh anniversary of the tragedy
Governments knew of risks for years
Successive governments had 26 years following a serious fire at an 11-storey tower block in Merseyside in 1991 to identify the risks posed by combustible cladding panels and insulation and take action, the inquiry found.
“Indeed, by 2016 the department was well aware of those risks, but failed to act on what it knew,” it said.
The report said the government failed to heed a warning by the Environment and Transport Select Committee in 1999 that it should not take a deadly fire for steps to be taken to minimise the risks posed by some external cladding systems.
Image: Candles with the names of the victims were lit during a memorial service. Pic: PA
‘Uncaring and bullying’
There was also criticism of the Tenant Management Organisation (TMO), which was responsible for running services at Grenfell Tower.
Relations between the TMO and residents “were increasingly characterised by distrust, dislike, personal antagonism and anger” and “some, perhaps many, occupants of the tower regarded the TMO as an uncaring and bullying overlord that belittled and marginalised them”.
It said there was a “toxic atmosphere fuelled by mistrust of both sides” but there was a “serious failure” by the TMO in allowing the relationship to deteriorate to such an extent.
The TMO and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea were jointly responsible for managing fire safety at Grenfell Tower – but the years between 2009 and 2017 were marked by a “persistent indifference to fire safety”, the report said.
Call for better regulation
One of the foremost recommendations in the report was for a single independent body to regulate the industry and drive “much-needed change”, and that this body should report to a single government secretary of state.
Its functions would include things like regulating construction products, testing and certification, licensing of contractors to work on higher-risk buildings, carrying out research and accrediting fire risk assessors.
The inquiry also recommended that the secretary of state to whom this body would report should have a chief construction adviser with sufficient budget and staff to advise on all matters.
It also called for the profession of fire engineer, which does not currently need a formal qualification to practise, be formally recognised and the title and function protected by statute.
Watch special programme on Grenfell disaster on Sky News at 8pm tonight
A company linked to Tory peer Baroness Michelle Mone breached a government contract of nearly £122m to supply surgical gowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court has ruled.
The £121.9m sum, the price of the gowns, must now be repaid by the company, PPE Medpro.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) brought the case, saying it provided 25 million “faulty”, non-sterile gowns.
On Wednesday, the High Court said the gowns did not comply with the requirement of having a validated process to demonstrate sterility, and it was not possible for the DHSC to have sold them and recoup the loss.
The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone’s husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded the government contract after she recommended it to ministers.
As well as wanting to recover the costs of the deal, the government wanted to recoup the costs of transporting and storing the items, which it said amounted to an additional £8.6m, though the High Court denied the latter request, saying the loss was not proved at trial.
PPE Medpro’s counterclaim that the DHSC should have advised it on how to comply with the contract also failed.
Denied wrongdoing
Both Baroness Mone and Mr Barrowman denied wrongdoing, and neither gave evidence at the trial in June.
She had initially denied involvement in the company or the process through which it was handed the government contract.
However, it was later revealed that Baroness Mone was the “source of referral” for the firm getting a place on the so-called “VIP lane” for offers of personal protective equipment for the NHS.
In response to the ruling, Baroness Mone said it was “shocking but all too predictable”.
Mr Barrowman said it was “a travesty of justice” and the judge gave the DHSC “an establishment win despite the mountain of evidence in court against such a judgment”.
“Her judgment bears little resemblance to what actually took place during the month-long trial, where PPE Medpro convincingly demonstrated that its gowns were sterile,” he said.
“This judgment is a whitewash of the facts and shows that justice was being seen to be done, where the outcome was always certain for the DHSC and the government. This case was simply too big for the government to lose.”
Ahead of the ruling on Tuesday, PPE Medpro said it intended to appoint an administrator.
The news has been welcomed by Chancellor Rachel Reeves and COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK.
“We want our money back. We are getting our money back. And it will go where it belongs – in our schools, NHS and communities,” Ms Reeves said.
“Profiting and corruption during the pandemic cost lives,” the families group said. “Those responsible must be held to account.”
All GP surgeries in England are required to offer online appointment bookings from today.
Practices must keep their websites and app services available from at least 8am to 6.30pm, Monday through Friday, for non-urgent appointments, medication queries and admin requests.
Many surgeries are already offering online bookings and consultations, but services are typically less effective in working-class areas.
The Department of Health and Social Care says there is a lack of consistency, as some surgeries that offer online services are choosing to switch the function off during busier periods.
The British Medical Association (BMA) has argued safeguards have not been put in place, nor have extra staff been brought in to manage what it anticipates will be a “barrage of online requests.”
The BMA has said GPs are considering a range of actions after voting to enter a dispute with the government over the plan.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has urged the BMA to embrace the plan, saying the union’s resistance is “a real disservice to so many GPs” who have already introduced the service.
Image: Health Secretary Wes Streeting says booking a GP appointment should be as easy as booking a takeaway. Pic: PA
‘As easy as booking a takeaway’
The minister said the government will help practices that need assistance to implement the plan, “but we’ve got to modernise”.
Mr Streeting told the Labour Party conference: “Many GPs already offer this service because they’ve changed with the times.
“Why shouldn’t be booking a GP appointment be as easy as booking a delivery, a taxi, or a takeaway? And our policy comes alongside a billion pounds of extra funding for general practice and 2,000 extra GPs.
“Yet the BMA threatens to oppose it in 2025. Well, I’ll give you this warning; if we give in to the forces of conservatism, they will turn the NHS into a museum of 20th century healthcare.”
Sir Keir Starmer has revealed plans to establish a nationwide “online hospital” by 2027, enabling patients to receive treatment and care from home.
The government said the initiative could provide up to 8.5 million additional NHS appointments within its first three years.
Available via the NHS app, it will allow patients to schedule in-person procedures at local hospitals, surgical hubs or diagnostic centres, reducing delays.
Sir Keir Starmer has said he does not believe Nigel Farage or Reform voters are racist – and also refused to label Donald Trump’s claim that London wants “Sharia law” as such.
Asked if it was racist, considering Sir Sadiq is a Muslim, Sir Keir said: “I have been really clear that the idea that in London we’re introducing Sharia law is rubbish.”
Sir Keir also insisted he does not think Mr Farage or Reform supporters are racist, after targeting the party in his Labour conference speech and claiming its leader “hates Britain”.
Asked if he thinks Mr Farage is a racist, he said: “No, nor do I think Reform voters are racist.
“They’re concerned about things like our borders, they’re frustrated about the pace of change.
“So I’m not for a moment suggesting that they are racist.”
He said he was “talking about a particular policy”, which would see Reform axe the right of migrants to apply for indefinite leave to remain, ban anyone who is not a UK citizen from claiming benefits, and force those applying for UK citizenship to renounce other citizenship.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:19
How did the PM perform at conference?
Reform ‘taking country down road of toxic division’
Sir Keir also refused to say whether he thinks Mr Farage is dangerous, saying: “I think the fight at the next election is going to define us as a country for years to come.
“I think it’s a dangerous moment for the country.”
He said he would not “get into labelling the man”.
“I’m talking about the ideas and what he stands for and what I stand for,” he added.
“I think that taking our country down the road of toxic division where you don’t want to fix problems because if they’re fixed, you lose your reason to exist, I think that is dangerous for our country.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:57
Starmer’s ‘anti-Reform party’ gamble
Farage: Starmer unfit to be PM
Mr Farage reacted to Sir Keir’s speech by accusing him of being “unfit to be the prime minister of our country”.
“I used to think the prime minister was a decent man, somebody that I could talk to and chat to,” he said.
“We might disagree on our worldview, but I thought he was a profoundly decent human being. I am completely shocked at his behaviour.
“I hope when he wakes up tomorrow morning he feels ashamed of what he has done. This is a desperate last throw of the dice for the prime minister who’s in deep trouble, a prime minister who can’t even command the support of half of his own party.
“But I’m sorry to say, I now believe he is unfit to be the prime minister of our country.”