ASFP Statement In Response To The Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry Final Report
We recognise the excellent work that Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his colleagues undertook for the Phase One report, and welcome the Final Report, and its comprehensive, concise and hard-hitting findings.
We have heard all the of the evidence and conclusions as we have followed the Public Inquiry over the last six years. Any one of the numerous points of failure in the system of regulators, manufacturers, designers, contractors, approval bodies etc. would be a huge issue and worthy of an investigation on its own. To read them all laid down together in the report’s Overview is a sobering reminder of the incompetence, dishonesty, denial and latterly fear of responsibility, that is common in certain sectors of the construction industry. The Report is a difficult read, but one from which we must learn.
The ASFP particularly welcomes the following recommendations of the Report:
- We approve of the acknowledgement that Approved Document B was deficient in its guidance in relation to combustible materials on external walls and the continued use of small-scale Reaction to Fire tests which, as Martin Moore-Bick accurately points out, is unsuited to evaluate external fire conditions.
- We wholeheartedly welcome the recommendation that responsibility for fire safety of buildings should be brought together under one regulator. It has long been a frustration of many in the fire sector that fire safety falls under multiple government departments. The report highlights that at the time of the fire, three departments were involved: Department for Communities and Local Government (now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government), responsible for Building Regulations and, traditionally, statutory guidance; the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (now the Department for Business and Trade), responsible at the time for regulating products; and the Home Office, responsible for the fire and rescue services, and in particular the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Since 2017, the Government has moved responsibilities around and added two new bodies into that list. The Building Safety Act established a new Building Safety Regulator (BSR), currently residing with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), with responsibility for higher risk buildings; and the Office of Products Safety and Standards, which now has responsibility for enforcing construction products regulations. In ASFP’s view, all of these organisations should be brought under the auspices of one over-arching regulator with responsibility for building safety. - We welcome the recommendation for a National Regulator for Construction Products.
- We also agree with the recommendation that a system of mandatory accreditation of Fire Risk Assessors be introduced. This is long overdue. The lack of any control over who can undertake fire risk assessments and of the skills, knowledge and experience required has been a contributing factor to the severity and impact of numerous fires over the years.
- We are very pleased to see that Sir Martin recommends that it be made a statutory requirement that an application for building control approval for the construction or refurbishment of a higher-risk building under the Building Safety Act be supported by a statement from the Principal Designer that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that, on completion, the building as designed will be as safe as is required by the Building Regulations.
- We similarly welcome the recommendation for a licensing scheme for contractors working on Higher Risk Buildings and that it be a legal requirement that any application for building control approval for a higher-risk building be supported by a personal undertaking from a director or senior manager of the Principal Contractor to take all reasonable care to ensure that, on completion and handover, the building is as safe as is required by the Building Regulations. If enacted, both of these recommendations will help prevent the culture of ‘buck-passing’ that Sir Martin outlines in the report as endemic in the industry.
For our part, the ASFP will continue its mission of promoting best practice in passive fire protection through the provisions of correctly designed, manufactured, procured and installed passive fire protection, to limit fire spread and make buildings inherently safer. We will continue to develop competency pathways for all those involved in passive fire protection. We will also continue to develop and maintain our range of technical publications, many of which support statutory guidance, such as Approved Document B, BS 9999/BS 9991 etc.
We will also continue to work with other bodies in Government and in the fire and construction sectors in the coming years to ensure that a fire of this type can never happen again. The publication of the Final Report of the Grenfell Tower Fire Public Inquiry reminds us there is much more to do.
ASFP Managing Director Mike Ward.
This statement is the ASFP’s initial response to the Report and we will comment in more detail once the findings and recommendations have been reviewed at greater length.
For further information on the ASFP and for passive fire protection advice, visit www.asfp.org.uk.
