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
Aberdeen is in exclusive talks to sell Finimize, the investment insights platform it bought just four years ago, as its new chief executive unwinds another chunk of his predecessor’s legacy.
Sky News understands the FTSE-250 asset management group has narrowed its search for a buyer for Finimize to a single party.
The exclusive talks with the buyer – whose identity was unclear on Sunday – have been ongoing for at least a month, according to insiders.
City sources said Brave Bison, the London-listed marketing group that operates a number of community-based businesses, was among the parties that had previously held talks with Aberdeen about a deal.
Finimize charges an annual subscription fee for investment tips, and had more than one million subscribers to its newsletter at the time of Aberdeen’s £87m purchase of the business.
The sale of Finimize would represent another step in chief executive Jason Windsor’s reshaping of the company, which now has a market capitalisation of £3.6bn.
Mr Windsor, who replaced Steven Bird last year, also ditched the company’s much-ridiculed Abrdn branding, with the group having been formed in 2017 from the merger of Aberdeen Asset Management and Standard Life.
Investors were left underwhelmed by the merger, which originally valued the enlarged company at about £11bn.
On Friday, Aberdeen shares closed at 194.7p, up 30% during the last year.
Naguib Kheraj, the City veteran, has been shortlisted to become the next chairman of HSBC Holdings, Europe’s biggest bank.
Sky News can reveal that Mr Kheraj, a former Barclays finance chief, is among a small number of contenders currently being considered to replace Sir Mark Tucker.
HSBC, which has a market capitalisation of £165.4bn, has been conducting a search for Sir Mark’s successor since the start of the year.
In June, Sky News revealed that the former McKinsey boss Kevin Sneader was among the candidates being considered to lead the bank, although it was unclear this weekend whether he remained in the process.
Mr Kheraj would, in many respects, be seen as a solid choice for the job.
He is familiar with HSBC’s core markets in Asia, having spent several years on the board of Standard Chartered, the FTSE-100 bank, latterly as deputy chairman.
He also possesses extensive experience as a chairman, having led the privately held pensions insurer Rothesay Life, while he now chairs Petershill Partners, the London-listed private equity investment group backed by Goldman Sachs.
Mr Kheraj’s other interests have included acting as an adviser to the Aga Khan Development Board and The Wellcome Trust, as well as the Financial Services Authority.
He spent 12 years at Barclays, holding board roles for much of that time, before he went on to become chief executive of JP Morgan Cazenove, the London-based investment bank.
HSBC’s shares have soared over the last year, rising by close to 50%, despite the headwinds posed by President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs regime.
In June, the bank said that Sir Mark would be replaced on an interim basis by Brendan Nelson, one of its existing board members, while it continued the search for a permanent successor.
Ann Godbehere, HSBC’s senior independent director, said at the time: “The nomination and corporate governance committee continues to make progress on the succession process for the next HSBC group chair.
“Our focus is on securing the best candidate to lead the board and wider group over the next phase of our growth and development.”
Sky News revealed late last year that MWM, the headhunter founded by Anna Mann, a prominent figure in the executive search sector, was advising HSBC on the process.
Since then, at least one other firm has been drafted in to work on the mandate.
Sir Mark, who has chaired HSBC since 2017, steps down at the end of next month to become non-executive chair of AIA, the Asian insurer he used to run.
He will continue to advise HSBC’s board during the hunt for his long-term successor.
As a financial behemoth with deep ties to both China and the US, HSBC is deeply exposed to escalating trade and diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
When he was appointed, Mr Tucker became the first outsider to take the post in the bank’s 152-year history – which has a big presence on the high street thanks to its acquisition of the Midland Bank in 1992.
He oversaw a rapid change of leadership, appointing bank veteran John Flint to replace Stuart Gulliver as chief executive.
The transition did not work out, however, with Mr Tucker deciding to sack Mr Flint after just 18 months.
He was replaced on an interim basis by Noel Quinn in the summer of 2018, with that change becoming permanent in April 2020.
Mr Quinn spent a further four years in the post before deciding to step down, and in July 2024 he was succeeded by Georges Elhedery, a long-serving executive in HSBC’s markets unit, and more recently the bank’s chief financial officer.
The new chief’s first big move in the top job was to unveil a sweeping reorganisation of HSBC that sees it reshaped into eastern markets and western markets businesses.
He also decided to merge its commercial and investment banking operations into a single division.
The restructuring, which Mr Elhedery said would “result in a simpler, more dynamic, and agile organisation” has drawn a mixed reaction from analysts, although it has not interrupted a strong run for the stock.
During Sir Mark’s tenure, HSBC has also continued to exit non-core markets, selling operations in countries such as Canada and France as it has sharpened its focus on its Asian businesses.
On Friday, HSBC’s London-listed shares closed at 946.7p.
Shares in UK banks have fallen sharply on the back of a report which urges the chancellor to place their profits in her sights at the coming budget.
As Rachel Reeves stares down a growing deficit – estimated at between £20bn-£40bn heading into the autumn – the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said there was an opportunity for a windfall by closing a loophole.
It recommended a new levy on the interest UK lenders receive from the Bank of England, amounting to £22bn a year, on reserves held as a result of the Bank’s historic quantitative easing, or bond-buying, programme.
It was first introduced at the height of the financial crisis, in 2009.
The left-leaning think-tank said the money received by banks amounted to a subsidy and suggested £8bn could be taken from them annually to pay for public services.
It argued that the loss-making scheme – a consequence of rising interest rates since 2021 – had left taxpayers footing the bill unfairly as the Treasury has to cover any loss.
More on Rachel Reeves
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:28
Why taxes might go up
The Bank recently estimated the total hit would amount to £115bn over the course of its lifetime.
The publication of the report coincided with a story in the Financial Times which spoke of growing fears within the banking sector that it was firmly in the chancellor’s sights.
Her first budget, in late October last year, put businesses on the hook for the bulk of its tax-raising measures.
Ms Reeves is under pressure to find more money from somewhere as she has ruled out breaking her own fiscal rules to help secure the cash she needs through heightened borrowing.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
Other measures understood to be under consideration include a wealth tax, new property tax and a shake-up that could lead to a replacement for council tax.
Analysts at Exane told clients in a note: “In the last couple of years, the chancellor has been protective of the banks and has avoided raising taxes.
“However, public finances may require additional cash and pressures for a bank tax from within the Labour party seem to be rising,” it concluded.
The investor flight saw shares in Lloyds and NatWest plunge by more than 5%. Those for Barclays were more than 4% lower at one stage.
A spokesperson for the Treasury said the best way to strengthen public finances was to speed up economic growth.
“Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms,” they added.