Deregulation drive slowed review of fire safety guidance by years, Grenfell inquiry told

A review of fire safety guidance for buildings in the years leading up to the Grenfell fire was slowed down by the government’s drive for deregulation, the inquiry into the 2017 blaze has heard.

Officials at the housing department decided to broaden the review into a wider overhaul of building regulations because the government had told them that new regulations could only be added if existing ones were removed.

The review had initially been prompted by the investigation into the 2009 Lakanal House fire in Camberwell, London, which killed six.

调查得出的结论是，火灾是由可燃的覆板引起的，验尸官弗朗西斯·柯克汉姆(Frances Kirkham)建议修改批准文件B中的一段，即建筑法规中涉及消防安全的部分。

The inquiry has already heard that officials had decided to expand this initial request into a review of the entire 300-page approved document B, delaying the process by several years.

Yesterday the inquiry was told how this was again expanded in 2015 into a wider package of work on reviewing building regulations.

Fire safety official Richard Harral said in his witness statement that the decision was taken because changes to fire safety guidance risked becoming “stranded” by the need to remove more regulations than were being added.

The coalition government launched a “red tape challenge” in 2011 which set a “one in, one out” policy on new regulations. This was extended to “one in, two out” in 2013 and “one in, three out” in 2016.

哈拉尔表示，他和他的同事鲍勃·莱德姆(Bob Ledsome)和布莱恩·马丁(Brian Martin)已经决定，扩大审查范围将“更有可能实现必要的放松监管平衡”。

这意味着，在Lakanal House大火发生近8年后，建筑法规仍然没有改变，在格伦费尔大厦被指责为导致火焰迅速蔓延的可燃覆板安装的整个期间，建筑法规都没有改变。

Ledsome was questioned yesterday on the decision, which he admitted was his ultimate responsibility.

Counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett QC asked if he accepted that expanding the review of approved document B would slow the process down by “some years”.

莱德索姆说:“这是有风险的。我承认这是一个风险。”

He added: “I think hindsight suggests that, that the risk of wrapping it into a broader piece of work, particularly trying to get through those first stages, is indeed a bit of a slowest ship in the convoy, that if there is a problem somewhere else, it can hold up the whole process, and I accept that that was a risk to the approach that we adopted.”

Ledsome also admitted that the approach could have “challenged” the department’s commitment made to Kirkham to amend a section of approved document B in response to the Lakanal House fire.

The inquiry also heard yesterday that a senior official had called the department’s response to the Lakanal fire “appalling” in the days after the fire at Grenfell Tower, which killed 72 people.

Simon Ridley, director general of decentralisation and growth, had compiled a briefing note for the department’s permanent secretary Melanie Dawes on communications with the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on fire safety and rescue.

The APPG, which was chaired by the late Conservative MP David Amess, had repeatedly told the government to make an urgent response to the Lakanal fire. The inquiry saw an email from Martin to Harral in 2016 which said that the group “seem to be getting increasingly irritated at the delay in getting on with work on approved document B”.

雷德利的报告称，司法部与APPG的通信“令人震惊:延迟、不完整，看起来混乱不堪”。

它补充说，看起来官员们“几乎什么都没做”，而且“拖延的紧迫性和原因令人震惊”。

Millett asked Ledsome if he agreed that the department “pursued a strategy of deflection and delay, always kicking the can down the road and taking advantage of the serial changes of minister?”

Ledsome said he did not accept that.

米莱特问道:“你是否接受APPG提出的关切完全没有得到解决?”

Ledsome replied: “I have accepted that, with hindsight, we could have offered the minister the opportunity to make a fuller response to specific comments made in the APPG letters.”

The inquiry continues.