The public inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy has resumed but it quickly became evident that none of the many designers, contractors and consultants were willing to shoulder responsibility for mistakes that allowed a fire to engulf the building more than 30 months ago. This is despite emails showing people knew the planned cladding system would fail in the event of a fire.
In opening statements the inquiry’s chief lawyer criticised many of the core participants for “taking part in a merry go round of buck passing.” Richard Millett QC, said each one claimed what happened was “someone else’s fault”.
A notable exception was the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, who owned the tower block but were also responsible for building control oversight of the tower’s refurbishment. They admitted their building control service should never have signed off the work as compliant with building regulations.
The council funded the refurbishment work to the tower. It was savings in the project’s budget that lead to changes in the cladding panels being made from inflammable materials and replaced with combustible panels, which had a flammable polyethylene core. Survivors of the fire were critical of the council, saying their apology did not go far enough.
Further shocks awaited the families (and the inquiry chairman) when some of the witnesses who were involved in the refurbishment project threatened to withhold evidence unless they received assurances that their testimony would not be used to mount criminal prosecutions against them. They said they would only speak openly if the Attorney General gave an undertaking that nothing they said would be used against them.
Finger pointing
The second phase of the inquiry has been organised into eight modules and these are expected to last at least 18 months. The first week after its resumption was dominated by opening statements from legal representatives of the various firms involved in the tower’s refurbishment, completed a year before the fire broke out in June 2017 killing 72 people.
Several of the firms’ legal representatives pointed the finger squarely at Arconic, makers of the highly flammable Reynobond cladding panels. They said the company’s brochure “gave no indication Reynobond was not suitable for high-rise residential blocks” and boasted of “complete versatility in external applications”.
They refuted Arconic’s claim that it should have been obvious to anybody involved in construction that its product was not of limited combustibility. They also said safety concerns were raised in internal Arconic emails in 2011 and 2016, when an Arconic employee Claude Wehrle said the Grenfell cladding was “dangerous on (the) facades” and should be replaced.
However, Arconic differentiated between their different cladding products. One of the panel types was identified as being ‘fire retardant’ by use of the initials ACM FR rather than ACM PE. It was the latter product that was used on Grenfell. They also claimed it was the responsibility of designers, builders and installers to check that the products used were suitable for their intended purpose.
Divisions
The legal representative for Celotex mounted a vigorous defence of the company and its reputation, directly challenging claims put forward by Studio E, Rydon and Harley Facades. Celotex said it was known in advance of the fire that their insulation materials (RS5000) should not have been used in the way they were at Grenfell.
Emails disclosed by Celotex to the inquiry appeared to show that staff at various firms involved in the refurbishment project, were aware two years before the tragedy that the cladding and insulation systems used at Grenfell would fail in the event of an external fire.
A clear rift has developed between the manufacturers of the cladding and insulation products used at Grenfell and the various designers, contractors and installers.
The former claim their products were not marketed as being inflammable and it was the responsibility of the latter firms to check on whether the combined cladding and insulation systems were safe and appropriate to use together on the basis of tests. The firms reject this, saying they relied on the manufacturers to make and supply safe products.
Earlier the inquiry’s image of impartiality took an enormous dent when one of the independent experts (engineer Benita Mehra) appointed to assist the inquiry chairman, had to resign just days before it restarted due to concerns over a conflict of interest involving Arconic, who made the ACM panels used for the tower’s cladding.
By Patrick Mooney, Editor