The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[peterms]

47 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That should be enough to get him shote.

[Risso]

16 hours ago, peterms said:

Exactly.

Regulatory capture.  Like accountants writing the tax code.

The thing Risso quotes calls them "independent volunteers".  He's an industry representative, and in his particular case,  his firm makes things which the regulations probably should regulate more tightly, and which his firm has a direct financial interest in not regulating more tightly.

He's probably a lovely bloke, kind to animals, does the shoping for his elderly neighbour.  Not the point, at all.

I would have thought that a body like that needs experts from all walks of life, both public and private.  It's clearly not all private Gordon Gecko types on there.

[peterms]

13 minutes ago, Risso said:

I would have thought that a body like that needs experts from all walks of life, both public and private.  It's clearly not all private Gordon Gecko types on there.

It needs access to specialist technical information.

That is very different from having the construction industry so heavily represented on the body which is meant to set standards for the construction industry.  They have a direct financial interest in having weaker regulation and more flexible standards.  I posted a link previously which commented on how industry bodies have been undermining the regulatory standards.

What is so hard to understand about the idea of conflict of interest, and that we don't want industries regulating themselves?

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, Risso said:

I would have thought that a body like that needs experts from all walks of life, both public and private.  It's clearly not all private Gordon Gecko types on there.

That's spot on. It's important to have expertise and interested parties with a contribution to make involved. The difficulty is where there is a conflict of interests, or a perceived one.

I don't necessarily agree that "his firm has a direct financial interest in not regulating more tightly" - his firm will make plenty money whatever the particular standards applied happen to be.

In this instance, the bloke does appear to have been singled out sort of by implication, without any evidence, or suggestion of wrong doing at all. It's the way the media works. There's no right of reply type thing in the article, no context, no background and it makes things appear sinister, when that's unlikely to be the case in reality.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

It needs access to specialist technical information.

That is very different from having the construction industry so heavily represented on the body which is meant to set standards for the construction industry.  They have a direct financial interest in having weaker regulation and more flexible standards.  I posted a link previously which commented on how industry bodies have been undermining the regulatory standards.

What is so hard to understand about the idea of conflict of interest, and that we don't want industries regulating themselves?

Access to specialist information has to come from specialists. It is good practice to involve the people, er, involved in building and cladding and so on, when forming regulations and consulting on them. It doesn't mean that everything they say has to be adopted or uncritically accepted. 

[peterms]

Just now, blandy said:

Access to specialist information has to come from specialists. It is good practice to involve the people, er, involved in building and cladding and so on, when forming regulations and consulting on them. It doesn't mean that everything they say has to be adopted or uncritically accepted. 

And it doesn't mean that they have to comprise the regulatory board!  Get their advice, don't put them in charge!

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, peterms said:

And it doesn't mean that they have to comprise the regulatory board!  Get their advice, don't put them in charge!

But that's what does happen - "the Secretary of State will consult the BRAC on proposals to make or change building regulations." The person in charge of the BRAC is according to himself "I am a Chartered Surveyor with over 35 years experience in Construction Management, building control and business leadership."

They don't set the regulations, and nor should they.

[peterms]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

But that's what does happen - "the Secretary of State will consult the BRAC on proposals to make or change building regulations." The person in charge of the BRAC is according to himself "I am a Chartered Surveyor with over 35 years experience in Construction Management, building control and business leadership."

They don't set the regulations, and nor should they.

They advise the Secretary of State, who is obviously in no position to challenge their advice.  Do you really think that if BRAC recommends something, the SoS is going to have a basis for rejecting it?

The person leading BRAC is as you say a surveyor.  He's the CE of a very large engineering consultancy.  He's the kind of person you can imagine being asked for input on technical issues.  Putting the private sector in such a position of dominance in this body goes far beyond getting advice form specialists, it's the same kind of thing as the self-regulation we see in for example the press, and the food industry.  They have a direct interest in having less, and less onerous, regulation.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

They advise the Secretary of State, who is obviously in no position to challenge their advice.  Do you really think that if BRAC recommends something, the SoS is going to have a basis for rejecting it?

The person leading BRAC is as you say a surveyor.  He's the CE of a very large engineering consultancy.  He's the kind of person you can imagine being asked for input on technical issues.  Putting the private sector in such a position of dominance in this body goes far beyond getting advice form specialists, it's the same kind of thing as the self-regulation we see in for example the press, and the food industry.  They have a direct interest in having less, and less onerous, regulation.

Firstly, the Sec. of State is in a position to challenge their advice. He or she may not have the detailed knowledge of Fire Safety that Gary Ferrand – Assistant Chief Fire Officer, East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, who is on this committee has, nor will he be as familiar with British Building Standards as Antony Burd – Head of Sector (Construction), British Standards Institution is. And the same goes for other areas of building and construction etc. I rather suspect it's a bit more nuanced than the BRAC telling him what to do and him or her saying "Well, I don't know anything, who am I to challenge what you say". The Sec. of state has every lever and access level of the state to call upon "maybe I need to talk to the heads of councils, or maybe I need to consult the leaders of Fire brigades, or utilities or look at things in the US or Germany or....use my civil servants... - surely that's what we'd expect, no less?

Going back to your point where  you said "They have a direct financial interest in having weaker regulation and more flexible standards" - that's true, to an extent for some, but not all of the members of the BRAC. Not for the chairman, the BSI man, the fireman, the Access disability person, the inspection person...

We have no idea whether the various members, who are both volunteers and are appointed by the Gov't get the gig because of their genuine ability and desire to contribute, or because it's a prestige thing, or because they're all on the lookout to cut corners and save businesses money. I don't think, as @Risso highlighted, that the recent appointment of the bloke from the article is automatically sinister or a conflict of interests, nor do I think it unlikely that where a member might have a genuine conflict of interest that they wouldn't be bound to recuse themselves from a particular study or activity or make the situation clear. It may be that on certain matters they look at only some of the members actually take part, rather than all of them. There's a whole lot we don't know and the press seems to have picked on a superficial aspect and ignored the more difficult thing - which would be to find out how they work, who does what and then report on that....but media will often take the easy route.

 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

The Sec. of state has every lever and access level of the state to call upon "maybe I need to talk to the heads of councils, or maybe I need to consult the leaders of Fire brigades, or utilities or look at things in the US or Germany or....use my civil servants... - surely that's what we'd expect, no less?

Part of the downsizing of the state has been cutting back on exactly the resources that the civil service should be making available.  We should have a panel comprised of people with no vested interest (civil servants, fire, councils etc).  Outside experts can be consulted; they should not comprise the panel advising ministers.

On a practical level, the proposals will come to Javed as part of a large pile of things in his red box, and will just get signed off.  It's too late at that stage to start interrogating the advice - that should all have happened earlier, before it gets that far.  And the points that were made in the piece I linked were

"Fire safety experts have reportedly complained that the committee is “heavily weighted towards the building industry” and has proved “difficult to engage with”. 

There is concern that regulations have failed to keep pace with changes in construction techniques and the development of new types of materials, including the kind of external cladding used in the £8.6 million Grenfell refit."

By the way, with all these industry experts on the panel, I'm totally at a loss to understand how the advice can have failed to keep pace with changing techniques and new materials; isn't that the entire point of having these people there?

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Going back to your point where  you said "They have a direct financial interest in having weaker regulation and more flexible standards" - that's true, to an extent for some, but not all of the members of the BRAC. Not for the chairman, the BSI man, the fireman, the Access disability person, the inspection person...

And the very simple point is that people with a financial interest should not be advising on things which affect that interest.

 

3 hours ago, blandy said:

nor do I think it unlikely that where a member might have a genuine conflict of interest that they wouldn't be bound to recuse themselves from a particular study or activity or make the situation clear

The conflict of interest is not that the cladding guy would have advised that his cladding should be permitted.  It's a general conflict of interest, that people in the industry have a general interest in less regulation, more flexibility...and our interest, the public interest, is not this.  So listen to them by all means - don't let them run the show.

[blandy]

@peterms - yes, I agree with most of that, and with certainly with much of the the principles you detail -  though I don't have a problem with some involvement of members or representatives of an industry being part of a panel that draws up advice relating to that industry - done properly it leads to better and more informed advice. I also don't agree that Javid "just signs stuff off" - or at least he shouldn't. If that were the case you could just get an admin bod to do it. Further to that, where the law is changed, then it may also go to parliament for debate/scrutiny and/or to select committees - it has to be a bit more rigorous than just waiving through unadulterated self interest from only industry.

[peterms]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

it has to be a bit more rigorous than just waiving through unadulterated self interest from only industry.

Yes, it's not the case that it's only pure self-interest.  But there is a general trend away from regulation (for example hamface's diktat that three regulations must be scrapped for every new one introduced), away from having a well-resourced civil service and local councils, and towards dependence on the private sector.  That is of course in the interest of the private sector, whether they directly benefit from a specific regulatory change or not.  Which is of course why they lobby for this. 

In terms of being a trend, the example of building control has been aired earlier in the thread.  Tax law is another.  Check Joanna Blythman on the food standards body in Scotland.  It's a general picture.  Bad!  Sad!  And ultimately dangerous, sometimes.  But even when not dangerous, not in our, the public, interest.

[TRO]

Its very difficult to even comprehend what those poor people went through in their final time.....Mind blowing.

Much has been written so far and I guess the Inquiry will be far reaching.

I understand and appreciate all the comments being made so far.....but on a personal note.I am interested to know what exactly happened in the source flat.

I am hoping the inquiry will reveal exactly the events leading up to that and what triggered the initial thermal incident.

[Chindie]

It was caused by a faulty fridge freezer.

The inquiry won't be far reaching.

[chrisp65]

It appears the inquiry will be 'forensic' on material specifications and flammability and response times and who died where and when having said what on a recorded 999 call.

It appears the years of micro and macro politics that lead to people living in a turd rolled in flammable glitter will not form part of the inquiry.

[peterms]

New council leader is making the news for being a stranger to high-rise flats.

Kensington and Chelsea leader has never been inside its high-rise flats

Quote

...Campbell represents the affluent Sloane Square area and served on the council’s cabinet at the time of the fire. While she accepted collective responsibility, she insisted she was the right person to lead the authority, touting her experience of running its family and children’s services, which included working with many residents of North Kensington, the Grenfell Tower area that incorporates Grenfell Tower.

But she admitted that the work had never led her to visit flats in any of the area’s high-rise buildings. She said she understood why people might feel that she could not understand their lives, but said her work contradicted that.

“I totally reject the fact that, just because I live in the south of the borough, I have no understanding of what’s going on in the north of the borough. And I also totally reject the whole notion that, because we have people in the borough who are wealthy and people who are not wealthy, the wealthy don’t care.”

Later, speaking to Sky News, she said she had visited high-rise blocks while out canvassing, but had never been inside any of the flats. “Whether I have been on the 21st floor of a particular tower block, I don’t think it particularly relevant,” she said...

She seems to be rather missing the point.  It's not because of the physical location of her house or that she represents the poshest ward that people think she doesn't understand their lives, or because she hasn't set foot inside one of the flats in a tower block, it's because she leads a totally separate existence. 

It's pretty odd for a serving councillor, doing casework and apparently involved in family and children's services, not to be going into people's homes from time to time.  She's apparently been on the council for 16 years, covering education and then children and families.  That should have brought her into closer contact with people outside the ward she represents, even if she's not part of their social circle.  She was on the board of the TMO as well.  And she was previously in the Council's cabinet; so she will hardly be seen as a new broom.

And I doubt her previous role as policy adviser to the truly loathsome Oliver Letwin gave her much insight into the real world. In fact, the vile creature Letwin is chair of the so-called red tape initiative, which lobbies for weaker regulation in building standards:

Quote

A government-backed initiative to cut ‘red tape’ after Brexit was looking to reduce the ‘burden’ of EU building regulations just weeks before the disaster at Grenfell Tower, according to leaked documents obtained by Energydesk.

Rules including EU directives covering energy efficiency and fire safety standards were being discussed with industry and other stakeholders on June 14 — the very day of the tragedy, which claimed at least 79 lives.

A policy briefing produced by lobbying firm Hanbury Strategy for the Red Tape Initiative, a cross-party project chaired by Conservative MP Sir Oliver Letwin and until recently involved Michael Gove, lists five EU building regulations that could be amended or repealed after Brexit.

The list includes the EU’s Construction Products Regulation, which sets standards for construction materials traded across the EU such as cladding; it also puts fire safety at the heart of its ‘basic requirements for construction works’.

The Energy Efficiency Directive, the latest version of which the UK is lobbying to weaken at an EU level, and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive also feature in the document as potentially ‘burdensome’ laws.

So, member of the cabinet, former board member of the TMO, and former adviser to the man who wants a bonfire of regulations.  This does not inspire confidence.

I see the council's info page has a few pieces of information about her, setting out what committees she's on, what ward she represented in 2006 - but the tab for allowances and expenses shows an empty page.  And the page on outside bodies lists 8 bodies she's been on, but not the TMO.  A little lacking in the openness and transparency department, perhaps.  I can see why local campaigners are underwhelmed with her.

Here's what she says about herself on the Council's website:

Quote

...Elizabeth is first and foremost a local Councillor,  attending residents' meetings whenever possible and keeping a watchful eye on local issues ... She is a strong believer in preserving and enhancing our built environment ...

Oh, ok then.  If you say so.

[TRO]

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

It was caused by a faulty fridge freezer.

The inquiry won't be far reaching.

• Yes I know that much, but I was rather looking for a bit more depth than that...i.e was there any occupier liability?/is there an inherent fault with that type of freezer,was it reported by the manufacturer? was the Freezer located wrong in the flat, was it boxed in and not ventilated....those sort of questions.
• Well thats disappointing.

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by TRO

[peterms]

On my post earlier about the background of the new leader of K&C, Chris Dillow has written about the same thing, but broadened the point and included some references.  Worth a read.

Quote

The confession by Elizabeth Campbell, the new leader of Kensington Council, that she has never been in a high-rise flat has led to allegations that she is out of touch, and is seen as confirmation that rich and poor are “two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones.”

There is, though, another inference. It starts from the fact that Ms Campbell was for years both in charge of the council’s children’s services and on the board of Kensington and Chelsea’s TMO. You’d imagine that either role would require her to know a little of the reality of life in a council flat.

That Ms Campbell escaped such reality is not an idiosyncratic failing. Instead, she embodies a feature of today’s management described by Robert Protherough and John Pick in 2002:

    The achievement of modern managerial goals generally involves a high degree of mental abstraction, but little direct contact with the organization’s workers, with the production of its goods or services, or with its customers and users. As the admirable Professor Mintzberg says…most modern managers are “capable of manipulating symbols and abstractions but ill-equipped to deal with real decisions involving people.” (Managing Britannia, p32)

The danger of this was pointed out 42 years ago by Kenneth Boulding – that bosses will become out-of-touch:

    All organizational structures tend to produce false images in the decision-maker, and that the larger and more authoritarian the organization, the better the chance that its top decision-makers will be operating in purely imaginary worlds.

This is no mere theoretical possibility. It’s exactly what Chilcot says happened with the Iraq war: ministers didn’t know the ground truth. And we’ve seeing the same thing with Brexit; Brexiteers wibble about mental abstractions such as sovereignty but are ignorant of nitty-gritty ground truth of how exactly to negotiate the countless minutiae of Brexit.

This leads me to sympathize with John Gapper’s lament that politicians lack practical knowledge of science and industry. What’s most missing though, is the scientific method, the essence of which is the collision between theory and fact. If you make no effort to discover ground truth (or in Ms Campbell’s case, 15th floor truth) you’ll never test your beliefs against the facts and you’ll never learn.

And this is just what happened. Blair’s war in Iraq wasn’t so much a moral failure as an intellectual one; he failed to learn not just the messy truth about Iraq but also the vast evidence on cognitive biases. Likewise, Brexiteers failed to learn from Blair that it’s not a good idea to embark upon a risky foreign policy without a detailed plan or strong evidence.

Herein lies what so appalling about Ms Campbell. In being wilfully out of touch, she is actually typical of so many policy-makers. Today’s dangerous ideologues are not Marxists but managerialists of all parties who are constitutionally unable to learn.

 

[TRO]

21 minutes ago, peterms said:

On my post earlier about the background of the new leader of K&C, Chris Dillow has written about the same thing, but broadened the point and included some references.  Worth a read.

 

Subjects such as what you describe are very complex and every individual will have their own view which always makes a general decision a target for the dissenters of that decision.

I find it perplexing that you describe Sovereignty with such disdain.....We have slept walked in to this absolute con of a agreement that has mislead so many people in to believing what was initially peddled as just a trade agreement and has turned out to be an attempt to control everything that is important to us in our society and to further pay a huge sum for the privilege.....the sooner we are out the better.

[peterms]

Well, first, it's not my description, I simply quote the piece (with approval).

Second, where he says "Brexiteers wibble about mental abstractions such as sovereignty but are ignorant of nitty-gritty ground truth of how exactly to negotiate the countless minutiae of Brexit.", I think that is unquestionably true of the main people charged with leading Brexit negotiations on our behalf.  They are shockingly, shamefully ignorant about what is involved, as has been amply shown.

Third, I don't have disdain for sovereignty.  Quite the opposite.  My concern is that the people running Brexit have no concern for the sovereignty of this country and its inhabitants, they will be more than happy to sign away vast powers to corporations, and enter into damaging trade deals with fhe US, and continue to shelter Saudi from being exposed as sponsors of terrorism; and so on.

Fourth, I agree that the former trade agreement has stealthily encroached far beyond what was inyended.  But bear in mind that the UK has pushed hard for many of the expansions that now offend us.  We are not blameless, and this is not a sleight of hamd by some other countries.

But all of that is a side issue, which belongs in another thread.  The substantive point Dillow makes is that too many people  making policy on our behalf are managerialists who are in thrall to slogans and shallow thinking, and out of touch with the real concerns of real people; and that Grenfell illustrates this, as does the choice of new leader.  I agree with that, and think it's an insight worth sharing.