A QC representing families who lost relatives and friends in the Grenfell disaster in London in 2017 has alleged that cladding risks identified after a fatal fire in a tower block fire in Scotland 18 years previously were covered up.
Stephanie Barwise said that a more rigorous investigation and government response to the fire in Irvine, Ayrshire, on June 11, 1999, could have led to safer rules on building insulation. The fire at Garnock Court spread through combustible glass-fibre reinforced panels (GRP) similar to those on Grenfell Tower. An elderly man died and five people, including a 15-month-old child, were injured.
While the Ayrshire incident led to new regulations in Scotland, which meant that builders had to ensure that any external cladding inhibited the spread of fire, critics say that changes did not go far enough in the UK as a whole.
The Garnock Court fire was highlighted last week in evidence to the inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy. Concern was expressed that the lessons learnt in its aftermath could have made a difference to high-rise safety.
Barwise told the inquiry that the tendency of the UK government was to regard fires as “something to be covered up or trivialised”, such that the public might be reassured and so that the underlying regulations would not be criticised and the industry would still be allowed the latitude it wanted. She said: “Had this happened only once or twice, it might be regarded as happenchance but the consistent pattern of inadequate investigation . . . goes beyond mere accident and strongly implies government collusion.”
Advertisement
Her intervention prompted the Grenfell United campaign group, which represents bereaved families and survivors, to brand the government’s conduct as “horrifying”. A spokeswoman said: “Recent revelations from the inquiry of the failings at the heart of government are shocking. They knowingly allowed deadly materials to cover buildings up and down the country.
“Given all this evidence, it is horrifying that ministers have not been held accountable for their actions and, worse, are still displaying the same level of disregard they always have.”
The fire at Garnock Court, which is due to be demolished along with four nearby blocks next year, was attended by more than 50 firefighters. It ripped through nine floors in ten minutes. The cladding was blamed for the speed and extent of the fire.
MPs on a select committee inquiry urged ministers to replace the dated Class 0 standard, which allowed products with a highly flammable core to be used on tall buildings. They favoured tougher measures that allowed flammable cladding only if a three-storey rig of the exact structure passed a fire test.
Nick Raynsford, then the UK housing minister in the Labour government, endorsed the new standard but did not outlaw Class 0. He said that he told MPs the Class 0 guidance was “advisory not mandatory” and he had pledged to review strengthening it.
Advertisement
Class 0 would later be used to clear unsafe cladding for Grenfell and high-rise flats across the country.
Sir Brian Donohoe, the former Labour MP for Central Ayrshire, said that the select committee inquiry led to tighter rules in Scotland. He criticised ministers for failing to introduce adequate protections in England.
Raynsford said that his response to the report illustrated the degree to which the government worked seriously and collaboratively with the select committee to enhance fire safety.
Barwise also criticised the Building Research Establishment (BRE), a government agency, for its report into the Garnock Court fire. She said it had failed to mention whether the panels used in the building met the Class 0 standard.
The report was “entirely neutered”, she said. “It is not clear whether BRE felt constrained by central or local government to suppress the fact that the cladding was non-compliant with regulations.
Advertisement
“Perhaps it felt constrained by both, given central government paid for the Ayrshire report.”
A spokesman for BRE said that the agency was unable to comment on reports commissioned by clients due to confidentiality.
