The government was “well aware” of the deadly risks posed by combustible cladding and insulation a year before the Grenfell Tower fire, but “failed to act on what it knew”, a landmark report has found.
The report also said “systemic dishonesty” from cladding and insulation companies and a “toxic” relationship between the tower’s residents and the Tenant Management Organisation (TMO), which was responsible for running services, were contributing factors.
More than seven years on from the fire that claimed 72 lives, Grenfell Inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick has published his final findings into how the building in west London came to be in such a deadly state.
Image: Pic: PA
Sir Martin also concluded:
• Government officials were “complacent, defensive and dismissive” on fire safety, while cutting red tape was prioritised
• There was an “inappropriate relationship” between approved inspectors and those they were inspecting
• Grenfell residents who raised safety concerns were dismissed as “militant troublemakers”
Image: Flames engulfed the 24-storey tower block in Latimer Road, west London, on 14 June 2017
The report details what it calls a “path to disaster” and “decades of failure”.
It asked: “How was it possible in 21st century London for a reinforced concrete building, itself structurally impervious to fire, to be turned into a death trap?”
“There is no simple answer to that question.”
Sir Martin’s report runs to nearly 1,700 pages, and encompasses years of work and the testimony of hundreds of witnesses.
It contains 58 recommendations to ensure a similar disaster never happens again.
Image: Hundreds of firefighters tackled the blaze. Pic: PA
Image: Crews tackled the fire in shifts – resting at the scene. Pic: AP
Complacency in government
The first phase of the inquiry’s report found in 2019 that combustible cladding was the primary cause of the rapid spread of the fire.
The inquiry has now concluded that the tragedy was the culmination of those in charge failing for decades to properly consider the risks of combustible materials on high-rise buildings, while ignoring the mounting evidence before them.
Image: The building was covered in combustible products. Pic: Reuters
Successive governments missed opportunities to prevent the tragedy.
The deadly risks of combustible cladding panels and insulation had been identified as early as 1991, when a fire engulfed the Knowsley Heights tower block in Huyton, Merseyside.
The block had recently been covered in “rainscreen” cladding.
Six people were killed at Lakanal House in Camberwell, south London, in 2009 after a fire spread to combustible cladding.
“By 2016 the department [for communities and local government] was well aware of those risks, but failed to act on what it knew,” the report states.
It adds that by the time Grenfell Tower was being renovated in the 2010s, a “seriously defective” system was in place to regulate the construction and refurbishment of high-rise buildings.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:49
‘We want changes and justice’
Unsafe products kept on market and dangers ‘deliberately concealed’
The report condemns cladding and insulation firms involved in this work, saying they engaged in “deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market”.
It said that “systemic dishonesty” from the companies resulted in hazardous materials being applied to the block.
Arconic, the company that made cladding for Grenfell Tower, “deliberately concealed” the danger of the panels used on the tower, while Celotex, which supplied most of the insulation, similarly “embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead customers”.
Kingspan knew its insulation product failed fire safety tests “disastrously” but continued to sell it to high-rise buildings, the report found.
The firms got away with this because the various bodies designed to oversee and certify their products repeatedly failed to monitor and supervise them.
Grenfell residents dismissed as ‘troublemakers’
There was also harsh criticism of the Tenant Management Organisation (TMO), which was responsible for running services at Grenfell Tower.
Residents who raised concerns about safety were dismissed as “militant troublemakers”, while there was “a toxic atmosphere” with the TMO “fuelled by mistrust of both sides”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Relations “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”.
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:30
‘I realised the burning building was my own home’
Next steps
The Counsel for the inquiry has accused parties involved in the disaster of a “merry-go-round of buck-passing” – largely blaming each other for the disaster.
The inquiry can’t make findings of civil and criminal liability.
Now its work is complete, the police investigation into the disaster will continue.
The UK Tonight With Sarah-Jane Mee will have a special programme on the Grenfell Tower report at 8pm on Sky News
You know bad economic news is looming when a Chancellor of the Exchequer tries to get their retaliation in first.
Treasury guidance on Tuesday afternoon that Rachel Reeves has prioritised easing the cost of living had to be seen in the light of inflation figures, published this morning, and widely expected to rise above 4% for the first time since the aftermath of the energy crisis.
In that context the fact consumer price inflation in September remained level at 3.8% counts as qualified good news for the Treasury, if not consumers.
The figure remains almost double the Bank of England target of 2%, the rate when Labour took office, but economists at the Bank and beyond do expect this month to mark the peak of this inflationary cycle.
That’s largely because the impact of higher energy prices last year will drop out of calculations next month.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:27
Inflation sticks at 3.8%
The small surprise to the upside has also improved the chances of an interest rate cut before the end of the year, with markets almost fully pricing expectations of a reduction to 3.75% by December, though rate-setters may hold off at their next meeting early next month.
September’s figure also sets the uplift in benefits from next April so this figure may improve the internal Treasury forecast, but at more than double the rate a year ago it will still add billions to the bill due in the new year.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:13
Minister ‘not happy with inflation’
For consumers there was good news and bad, and no comfort at all from the knowledge that they face the highest price increases in Europe.
Fuel prices rose but there was welcome relief from the rate of food inflation, which fell to 4.5% from 5.1% in August, still well above the headline rate and an unavoidable cost increase for every household.
The chancellor will convene a meeting of cabinet ministers on Thursday to discuss ways to ease the cost of living and has signalled that cutting energy bills is a priority.
The easiest lever for her to pull is to cut the VAT rate on gas and electricity from 5% to zero, which would reduce average bills by around £80 but cost £2.5bn.
More fundamental reform of energy prices, which remain the second-highest in Europe for domestic bill payers and the highest for industrial users, may be required to bring down inflation fast and stimulate growth.
Schools need to be “brave enough” to talk about knives, Sky News has been told, as the killer of Sheffield teenager Harvey Willgoose is sentenced today.
His killer, who was also 15 and cannot be identified for legal reasons, had brought a 13cm hunting knife into school.
Image: Harvey Willgoose. Pic: Sophie Willgoose
Following Harvey’s murder, his parents Caroline and Mark Willgoose told Sky News they wanted to see knife arches in “all secondary schools and colleges”.
“It’s 100% a conversation, I think, that we need to be empowered and brave enough to have,” says Katie Crook, associate vice principal of Penistone Grammar School.
The school, which teaches 2,000 pupils, is just a few miles away from where Harvey was killed.
After being contacted by the Willgoose family, it has decided to install a knife arch.
More on Education
Related Topics:
The arch – essentially a walk-through metal detector – has been described as a “reassuring tool” and “real success” by school leaders.
“We’re really lucky here that we don’t have a knife crime problem – but we are on the forefront with safeguarding initiatives,” says Mrs Crook.
“I didn’t really think we needed one at first,” says Izzy, 14. “But then I guess at Harvey’s school they wouldn’t think that either and then it did actually happen.”
Joe, 15, says he did find the knife arch “intimidating” at first.
“But after using it a couple of times,” he says, “it’s just like walking through a doorway”.
“And it’s that extra layer of, like, you feel secure in school.”
After Harvey’s death, then home secretary Yvette Cooper said that she would support schools in the use of knife arches.
But there remains no official government policy or national guidance on their use.
Some headteachers who spoke with Sky News feel knife arches aren’t the answer – saying the issue required a societal approach.
Others said knife arches themselves were a significant expense to schools.
But Mrs Crook says they are “well worth the funding” if they prevent “a student making a catastrophic decision”.
“I’m a parent and, of course, my focus every day is keeping our students safe, just as I want my son to be kept safe in his setting and his school.”
Mrs Crook says she thinks schools would “welcome” a discussion at “national level” about the use of knife arches and other knife-related deterrents in schools.
“It’s sad, though that this is what it’s come to, that we’re having lockdown drills in the UK, in our school settings.
“But I suppose some might argue that has been needed for a long time.”
If you eat beef, and ever stop to wonder where and how it’s produced, Jonathan Chapman’s farm in the Chiltern Hills west of London is what you might imagine.
A small native herd, eating only the pasture beneath their hooves in a meadow fringed by beech trees, their leaves turning to match the copper coats of the Ruby Red Devons, selected for slaughter only after fattening naturally during a contented if short existence.
But this bucolic scene belies the turmoil in the beef market, where herds are shrinking, costs are rising, and even the promise of the highest prices in years, driven by the steepest price increase of any foodstuff, is not enough to tempt many farmers to invest.
For centuries, a symbolic staple of the British lunch table, beef now tells us a story about spiralling inflation and structural decline in agriculture.
Mr Chapman has been raising beef for just over a decade. A former champion eventing rider with a livery yard near Chalfont St Giles, the main challenge when he shifted his attention from horses to cows was that prices were too low.
“Ten years ago, the deadweight carcass price for beef was £3.60 a kilo. We might clear £60 a head of cattle,” he says. “The only way we could make the sums add up was to process and sell the meat ourselves.”
Processing a carcass doubles the revenue, from around £2,000 at today’s prices to £4,000. That insight saw his farm sprout a butchery and farm shop under the Native Beef brand. Today, they process two animals a week and sell or store every cut on site, from fillet to dripping.
More on Farming
Related Topics:
Today, farmgate prices are nearly double what they were in 2015 at £6.50 a kilo, down slightly from the April peak of almost £7, but still up around 25% in a year.
For consumers that has made paying more than £5 for a pack of mince the norm. For farmers, rising prices reflect rising costs, long-term trends, and structural changes to the subsidy regime since Brexit.
“Supply and demand is the short answer,” says Mr Chapman.
“Cow numbers have been falling roughly 3% a year for the last decade, probably in this country. Since Brexit, there is virtually no direct support for food in this country. Well over 50% of the beef supply would have come from the dairy herd, but that’s been reducing because farmers just couldn’t make money.”
Political, environmental and economic forces
Beef farmers also face the same costs of trading as every other business. The rise in employers’ national insurance and the minimum wage have increased labour costs, and energy prices remain above the long-term average.
Then there is the weather, the inescapable variable in agriculture that this year delivered a historically dry summer, leaving pastures dormant, reducing hay and silage yields and forcing up feed costs.
Native Beef is not immune to these forces. Mr Chapman has reduced his suckler herd from 110 to 90, culling older cows to reduce costs this winter. If repeated nationally, the full impact of that reduction will only be fully clear in three years’ time, when fewer calves will reach maturity for sale, potentially keeping prices high.
That lag demonstrates one of the challenges in bringing prices down.
Basic economics says high prices ought to provide an opportunity and prompt increased supply, but there is no quick fix. Calves take nine months to gestate and another 20 to 24 months to reach maturity, and without certainty about price, there is greater risk.
There is another long-term issue weighing on farmers of all kinds: inheritance tax. The ending of the exemption for agriculture, announced in the last budget and due to be imposed from next April, has undermined confidence.
Neil Shand of the National Beef Association cites farmers who are spending what available capital they have on expensive life insurance to protect their estates, rather than expanding their herds.
“The farmgate price is such that we should be in an environment that we should be in a great place to expand, there is a market there that wants the product,” he says. “But the inheritance tax challenge has made everyone terrified to invest in something that will be more heavily taxed in the future.”
While some of the issues are domestic, the UK is not alone.
Beef prices are rising in the US and Europe too, but that is small consolation to the consumer, and none at all to the cow.