London Fire -2

I may be wrong but I thought I heard a senior fire officer say on TV that inspection of buildings for fire safety under building regs had been taken away from the Fire Service and given to another authority. Some of those now carrying out these inspections had minimal training and experience.

So that must be somewhere recorded - not by the senior fire officer, but as an official record of a divergence from the regs.

Why then did the fire service have to check the tower blocks ?

They do so as a matter of course to familiarise themselves with the area/building and details are recorded in the event of a fire.

I thought that the local fire authority is responsible to ensure fire reg compliance?

Still looking for changes to building regs, I found this at "Steps the government are taking to streamline the planning system, protect the environment, support economic growth and assist locally-led decision-making."

"Planning applications: streamlining the process"

As part of our commitment to streamline the planning application process, we have laid in Parliament a newly consolidated Development Management Procedure Order, to come into force on 15 April. The new order consolidates the 15 amendments made to the 2010 Order in order to simplify and improve the planning process for all users of the system. It will also bring into force a number of important new measures including; changes to improve the process of statutory consultation and the introduction of a new ‘deemed discharge’ of conditions to ensure that planning conditions are cleared on time so that homes and other development granted planning permission can start on site without delay."

Nothing published on changes to fire safety.

Local Government authority - Fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats "LGA has worked alongside local authorities, private sector landlords and management agents, housing and environmental health professionals and fire and rescue services to produce this guidance." 2012

Guidance, not regulation.

So anything else is speculation or hearsay?

No not speculation rose that is jumping the gun. The government was set to loosen fire regulation this parliament, but naturally did a complete u-turn after Grenfell.

Elegran

Today's PMQ's raised a point that I have been looking at and I think may be of interest in your quest to establish facts, if I have read your posts correctly ?

I found this site of interest with regard to a legislation brought in by the government in 2005/2006.

www.merseyfire.gov.uk/aspx/pages/protection/FSO-FAQ.aspx

Extracts:-

FAQ's Fire Safety Order 2005

Q. What is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005?

A. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the orderpassed through Parliament in 2005 and became law the following year. The order reduced burdens on business that were caused by the existence of multiple, overlapping general fire safety regimes and consequently overlap of the responsibilities of enforcing authorities. The order consolidated and rationalised much of the existing fire safety legislation (that was scattered across a large number of statutes and secondary legislation) into one order. In doing so it reduced the number of enforcing authorities dealing with general fire safety matters. The order maintains and enhances the protection afforded to users of premises (and others who might be affected by a fire on the premises).
----

Q. What is a fire certificate?

A. The Fire Precautions Act 1971 required certain premises to have a Fire Certificate issued by the Local Fire Authority. However, this legislation was repealed on 10 October 2006 with the start of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRFSO) and fire certificates are now no longer issued. However if you have a copy on site, this may prove a valuable aid when carrying out your fire risk assessment.

Q. I have a fire certificate. Do I need to take other action?

A. Yes. When the Fire Safety Order came into force, fire certificate legislation was repealed and fire certificates are no longer issued or valid. You will need to prepare a fire risk assessment and emergency plan. The information contained in your fire certificate may assist you in assessing the existing control measures at step three in preparing your fire risk assessment.

I admit I have no knowledge if the above is still the case but it was a point raised in PMQ's today in answer to a back bench question if my memory serves me well.

I hope ALL aspects of legislation will be revisited but I remain so disheartened that the name of the game , even at PMQ'S today , remain to be political point scoring even when no party can claim to be in the clear. SHAMEFUL POLITICS!

Thank you POGS, facts st last.

I agree , SHAMEFUL POLITICS

I've posted this before, but it really is worth reading to find out about the current regulations:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266

I know some people don't like links, but this is too long to summarise.

I think you'll find that hundreds of regulations were relaxed from 2010. I don't know how many related to fire safety.

My ex-hubby is a building surveyor, who worked at the time for one of the London boroughs, although not specifically on fire safety. He was made redundant, because councils no longer had to do so much work. Developers and landlords (including schools and hospitals, etc) became responsible for their own safety and private regulatory bodies were set up. Of course, some were more vigilant than others. I guess it's a bit like getting a dodgy MOT certificate.

Yes, on PMQ's today it was reported that the regs changed under Blairs Government.Hight time now that all political parties worked together instead of mud slinging on this important issue.

Yes, they did change under Blair's government and were accelerated after 2010, when the Conservatives came to power. I expect people remember that tabloids were full of sill stories about "red tape" and silly 'elf and safety regulations. UKIP even had burning red tape as one of its manifesto pledges. The ideology went across all public services. Requirements were changed to recommendations and responsibility was at local level, so the government could never be held responsible. Incidentally, the government is no longer responsible for the NHS if something goes drastically wrong, but that's another story.

This isn't a party political issue, but it is political. It's such a shame that it takes a tragedy to bring about change, such as the thalidomide scandal or not checking Ian Huntley's CV properly when he was employed in a school. Politicans must hold governments to account, because that's the only way change will happen. Grenfell Tower wasn't an act of nature; it was foreseeable and preventable.

It certainly was.Hopefully all high towers will now be safer as a result of this.

I agree, sadly it was.
And I hope, too, that they will all work together to bring about positive change not just in high towers but all public buildings that may contain such hazards.

I too agree, and this calling May a murder will stop, murder is intent to take a life, I do not accept any government or any politician had such an intent. I was at the Aberfan disaster, there had been complaints by the village for years, as bitter as I felt towards the NCB they did not intend for 114 children to die , . Same with Hillsborough, there was no intent , can we not accept this applies also to .kensington council

I think if you look back, you'll find I've never called May a murderer.

However, I disagree with you about Aberfan and it became a lesson to all in corporate reponsibility. I agree that the NCB didn't intend 114 children to die, but it could have prevented a tragedy. Liverpool University (amongst others) did a great deal of research into the trails of responsibility and we had a speaker come into school when I was in the sixth form to talk about the laws surrounding corporate manslaughter and how they had changed. There has been even more research since then. Years later, I discovered that my ex-hubby's uncle, who was an NCB engineer, had contributed to the report. The consensus was that various individuals within the NCB were responsible and that there had been a whitewash. They would probably be prosecuted these days.

Daphne, I didn't say you had called May a murderer

Do not tell me about so called experts who looked into the Aberfan disaster, I was there, I was at the inquest, st the meetings, st the rnwuirenquiry. I said the NCB did not intend to murder, they did cause the deaths - note the difference?

Yes, I will tell you! I know you were there, but it doesn't make you an expert in accountability.

No need to patronise me!

I was 11 at the time and, like the rest of the country, was horrified. At the time, I thought it was an accident. However, I was incensed when I discovered that it had been entirely preventable. I remember the talk well, as it was one of the turning points in my life regarding my views on corporate responsibility (note I didn't write "blame" - get it?).

I've just done a search of GN and note that you were one of the people who had no problem with Sharon Shoesmith's sacking after the Baby P tragedy. I'm struggling to understand the difference between that and all the people who could have prevented the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

Senior public service officials are paid well, because they have a great deal of responsibility. The buck stops with them. I don't have a problem with the amount they are paid provided they do their job well and responsibly and understand that their job is on the line if they don't carry out their role properly.

PS. I think my ex-hubby's uncle was an expert. He had started off as a miner and lived in a mining village. He eventually became one of the most senior engineers employed by the NCB. He was extremely critical of the NCB and was retired as a result of what he reported.

I don't think anyone called May a murderer did they. I wonder just how far the some of the opponents of Corbyn will go to make a point - libel, obviously but what more? We have seen that on here but even the gutter press is very careful to get this right. What he said is that they were “murdered by political decisions”. Although I think he should be more careful because those who seem manically opposed to Corbyn will use any twisted version of this as we saw at Question Time today, I have some sympathy with that opinion.

Notice he did not mention any party or any person in particular.

Exactly, GG!

It is a hard line to draw. I had a former headteacher colleague who took over as HT of a school one September. In the first week a group of children went on a school trip, organised and arranged by the HT just retired. Sadly a child died. My colleague, as the current HT was named as the person responsible.

In the current situation, if advice was ignored or active choices made not to follow the advice for reasons of cost then those who made that choice are culpable. If cost cutting is a direct result of government directives then the government also shoulders some responsibility for the disaster.

One can argue that the political ideals that promote cutting back public spending on core services such as public housing, public health, welfare services, state education, emergency services etc etc have also contributed to this dire situation.