When bureaucracy fails
Ministers relied on their bureaucrats. They cannot be legislators and regulators of every detail. That is what the bureaucrats are for. Sadly, in a bureaucracy nobody cares. The Guardian below seems to think that ministers should do the job of bureaucrats too
‘Atask that only the government can undertake.” A short, seemingly unremarkable sentence, tucked away on the 225th page of the second volume of Martin Moore-Bick’s 1,700-page Grenfell Tower inquiry report. But it encapsulates in a nutshell the broken political philosophy the preceding pages so graphically outline: a state that stepped back and allowed a ruthless, dishonest industry to regulate itself.
At its heart, Grenfell is a story about human suffering. It is about the 72 victims – 18 of them children – needlessly lost in a tower block fire that could so easily have been avoided. It is about their lost futures, the family members left behind and all the grief and pain and suffering the years of delay in delivering justice and change have piled on to them. But Wednesday’s report is also a story about politics, economics and power. It is about the sort of society we have built for ourselves in 21st-century Britain.
The report opens by tracking the actions of the British government, from the aftermath of a cladding fire at a building in Knowsley, Merseyside, in 1991 through to the days immediately preceding the Grenfell fire. Here we witness a state operation fail again and again and again to amend its official guidance to restrict the use of highly dangerous combustible cladding products.
And this happened despite multiple fires, increasingly urgent warnings of a looming catastrophe and even tests – paid for with public money – that confirmed there was a major, life-safety risk from commonly used cladding materials.
But at every stage, government advisers and officials – those who should have been acting in the interests of the citizens they represented – hummed and hawed and did nothing. For years, the bereaved and survivors have thrown a two-word accusation at those they see as responsible: they knew. This report confirms that.
It sets out how at points, officials appeared to cover up the extent of the problem. A report in 1999 was edited to remove references to flaws in official guidance. A devastating test failure on the cladding later used on Grenfell in 2001 was “shelved” and “forgotten”. The official investigation into the 2009 Lakanal House fire, in Camberwell, south London, which killed six people, was halted after less than a month with many key questions left unanswered.
Why? That’s a key question for survivors and campaigners. The report seems to brand the officials responsible as worn out and incompetent rather than actively corrupt. They are described as “complacent and shortsighted”, their actions as “surprising” or “difficult to understand”. But the sense of a creaking operation left to rot in a dusty corner of a neglected government department comes through.
By the mid-2010s, the building control division within the government department now called the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, had seen its team cut from 14 staff to six and given no budget to hire additional support. They were “demoralised and demotivated”, management by more senior officials was “sporadic” or “nonexistent” and the department had neither the “ability nor capacity to issue practical guidance to industry because its systems … had become obsolete”.
But culpability goes higher. Look to government; look to ministers who no longer saw regulating industry as a priority. Ministers, in fact, who were intensely pushing the opposite agenda: they wanted economic growth and they wanted the state to get out of the way of industry’s capacity to deliver it. Regulation was red tape and needed to be removed, not imposed.
Eric Pickles, secretary of state during the key period in the early 2010s, angrily insisted when questioned back in 2022 that building regulations relating to fire safety were exempt from this push – and that he would never have allowed a deregulatory agenda to compromise life safety.
But the report says that evidence was “flatly contradicted by that of his officials and the contemporaneous documents”, which made it abundantly clear that the government believed the construction sector should be left out of the bothersome reach of meddling bureaucrats and should be allowed to forge its own, innovative path.
Trapped in this climate, officials did not recommend tougher regulations, even when they knew them to be necessary, because they realised it was not what ministers wanted to hear. This abdication of responsibility by the state is ghoulishly encapsulated by the government paying scientists at a private laboratory to monitor the risk from real world fires, but barring them from making policy recommendations that would have resulted in tougher regulation, a state of affairs the inquiry said “epitomised what had gone wrong”.
In what should probably be read as a repudiation of one of the central economic tenets of David Cameron’s government, the report concluded that it “was not in the public interest to allow policy on deregulation to impede the ability of officials to promote changes … that would improve public safety”, calling this “a serious failure of leadership”.
That was government. It should have protected the public. It didn’t. Instead, it offered the industry regulatory freedom. After recounting these failures in central government, the report examined what corporations did with that freedom. Here the report’s language hardens further. It is clear, grieving families will learn, that “systematic dishonesty” by the manufacturers of these products was a “very significant reason” why the products ended up on Grenfell Tower.
Arconic, which made the violently combustible polyethylene-cored cladding panels, was found to have “deliberately concealed from the market the true extent” of the danger of using its panels on high rises, and instead “sought to exploit what it perceived to be a weak regulatory regime in the UK” to make sales.
Then there are the insulation manufacturers. While the report may not have found the products made by these two firms contributed significantly to the spread of the blaze, their behaviour has still been savagely criticised.
Celotex, which made most of the combustible insulation that sat behind the cladding panels, “embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers and the wider market”, while Kingspan, the market leader which provided a small amount of material for Grenfell, was said to have indulged in “deeply entrenched and persistent dishonesty … in pursuit of commercial gain”.
This was the market at its ugliest; given full rein. These companies were all supported by private (or privatised) companies that had effectively taken on the regulatory roles the state no longer wanted: certifying products as safe, testing materials against the official criteria and even writing the guidance documents that set the rules on what could and couldn’t be used.
These firms came in for severe criticism in the report. The British Board of Agrément (BBA), an organisation that provides certificates apparently confirming the performance of construction products, was said to have displayed “incompetence” and an “ingrained willingness to accommodate customers instead of insisting on high standards”.
The Building Research Establishment (BRE), our former national research facility, which was privatised in 1997, was “marred by unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices [and] a lack of effective oversight” and had “sacrificed rigorous application of principle to its commercial interests”.
These bodies and others failed to do the job of regulating the industry – one the government had abdicated from. The scandal of Grenfell encompasses the betrayal by those who committed bad acts and those who did nothing to stop them.
So we come back to the conclusion quoted at the start of this piece: the housing and construction sector is huge, it is powerful. Regulating the industry is a task only the government can undertake.
But our government stopped doing this. This story is complex, but also simple. Failure of governance allowed our buildings to be covered in combustible building products and disaster became all but inevitable. On 14 June 2017, this disaster manifested and 72 people at Grenfell Tower paid with their lives.
There are many other things grieving families will read in this report that confirm the allegations they have made since the day of the fire: of the “toxic” and “bullying” culture at the social housing provider in west London; the “cavalier attitude” to safety of the construction firms involved in the refurbishment; the catastrophic failure of the state to provide a humanitarian response in the aftermath or the abdication of responsibility by the London fire brigade to prepare for a foreseeable disaster in the years before the fire.
But I believe the dark heart of this catastrophe lies in this simple, depressing narrative: the state stepped back, corporate greed stepped in and innocent people died.
Now this story of inquiry must turn to justice. Moore-Bick’s report sets out in forensic detail the failures of the corporations and individuals who allowed this disaster to happen. The evidence is all there, in thousands of footnotes and publicly available documents it cites.
The state may have stepped back from regulation, but it still provides a criminal justice system. That must now do its job. Grenfell was an utterly avoidable disaster. Those who brought it to pass must be held to full account.
**********************************************
Too many people have pets instead of babies: Pope
I agree
The Pope has reignited his long-running quarrel with childless pet owners after he praised couples with five children and criticised those who prefer cats and dogs.
Addressing politicians in Indonesia on Wednesday at the start of his four-nation tour of southeast Asia, Francis said: “In your country people have three, four or five children, that’s an example for every country, while some prefer to only have a cat or a little dog.” He added: “This can’t go well.”
When Indonesia’s President Widodo laughed at the quip, Francis turned to him and said: “It’s true, isn’t it?”
Throughout his papacy, Francis has called for bigger families to counter plunging birth rates in the West, and pet owners have often come in for criticism.
In 2023, Francis recalled how a woman had asked him to bless her dog, calling it “my baby”. He said at the time: “I lost my patience and scolded her, saying many children are hungry and you bring me a dog.”
Francis has bemoaned the fertility rate in the European Union of about 1.5 births per woman, far lower than the 2.1 rate needed to sustain the population.
This year he called Europe “old, tired and resigned”, claiming: “Homes are filled with objects and emptied of children, becoming very sad places. There is no shortage of little dogs, cats – these are not lacking. There is a lack of children.”
Francis has found common ground on turning around Italy’s demographic decline with Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, who shared a stage with him at a conference on boosting birth rates.
In the US JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, has been strongly criticised for referring to Democratic politicians as “a bunch of childless cat ladies.”
During a meeting with 200 Jesuit priests in Jakarta on Wednesday, Francis said their youth was “the thing that strikes me most”.
During his 12-day visit to Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Singapore, Francis, 87, will also focus on tolerance between faiths and the fight against interreligious violence.
“In order to foster a peaceful and fruitful harmony that ensures peace … the Church desires to strengthen interreligious dialogue,” he said in his speech at the presidential palace.
Indonesia’s eight million Catholics, who make up 3 per cent of the majority Muslim population, have been targeted in attacks, including a suicide bombing in 2021 outside a cathedral on the island of Sulawesi in which 20 people were injured.
Extremists were using “deception and violence” to divide faiths, Francis said.
Francis will celebrate Mass at a football stadium in Jakarta on Thursday and Indonesia’s religious affairs ministry has asked television channels not to air Muslim prayer videos as a sign of respect.
The Jakarta visit marks the start of a gruelling trip for Francis, who is using a wheelchair. He appeared in good spirits on Wednesday, joking at the end of his audience with the Jesuit priests: “The police have come to take me away.”
*******************************************************
UK: Leftist war on the pensioners and the poor
Ruthlessly tax-hungry
Two months in, and Labour has picked its soft target… Those on low incomes and the elderly.
Recently, the Keir Starmer government doubled down on its commitment to scrap the Winter Fuel Allowance despite protests from its own MPs. Those dissenting MPs understood the devastating impact the decision would have on hundreds of thousands of elderly people, many of whom earn just £11k.
Of course, Labour didn’t scrap MPs expensing their heating bills from their second home to the taxpayer despite MPs earning at the very least £90k per year.
In addition to this, Labour are considering scrapping the £2 bus cap brought in by former Tory transport Minister Richard Holden which meant that a single bus fare could cost no more than £2. It was a good initiative that made travel much cheaper, especially for those in more rural communities. Its introduction had a profound impact on helping those on low incomes and scrapping the cap will have a disproportionate effect on those who often use public transport because they cannot afford a car.
Despite this penny pinching, Labour have dished out billions of pounds worth of including a 14 per cent pay-rise to train drivers who already earn twice the average national UK salary.
Labour have also refused to rule out scrapping the singles council tax discount that gives people who live alone a 25 per cent discount on their council tax. Those targeted by this are mainly pensioners whose partners have died or young people. These groups typically do not have high incomes and therefore massively benefited from this discount. So many are already struggling to make ends meet and this will be the nail in the coffin.
Additionally, Labour have promised more tax rises on the horizon and the introduction of a pay-per-mile scheme for cars.
All of these decisions rob the pockets of those already struggling whilst feeding the pockets of already well-off public sector workers.
None of these things were suggested in Labour election campaign because if Labour had admitted that they would go to war with Britain’s least well-off, they would have been rejected at the ballot box.
They have won on a pack of lies and have betrayed Britain’s working class. In other words, when in power, Labour have become everything they claimed to be against.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/starmers-war-on-the-pensioners-and-the-poor/
*************************************************More "colonialism" lies in Australia
The article about Aborigines below is grossly misleading. In my usual pesky way have gone back to the original source and read the Act concerned. It is here:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/hist_act/tapa1886265.pdf
The Act was a genuinely charitable act designed to protect and support Aborigines in various ways and says NOTHING about taking part-Aboriginal children away from their parents.It is in fact thoroughly modern in that it defines who is an Aborigine by their associations. Regardless of your ancestry, you are an Aborigine if you associate with Aborigines. A person who is of mixed ancestry can still be an Aborigine for legal purposes. That is pretty much still the law to this day
Amazng! Our ancestors have been greatly and unfairly vilified by biased reporting
The great-grandson of Australia's second Prime Minister has apologised to Aboriginal Australians for the harm inflicted by his ancestor.
Peter Sharp, a descendant of Alfred Deakin, believes the role his great-grandfather played in enabling the devastating Stolen Generations has been downplayed.
The revelation was heard at Victoria's Yoorrook Justice Commission which is investigating claims of ill treatment of Aboriginal people since colonisation.
Mr Sharp said he had grown up believing his famous ancestor was a 'wonderful man', 'a storyteller' and a 'playful' person but had discovered the truth in 2017.
'To all those viewing, who themselves have been and still are being impacted by the introduction of laws and policies in which a member of my family played such a significant role, I say that I am personally and profoundly sorry,' he said.
'It came as a shock to learn that the attempted elimination [of First Nations peoples] continued after frontier violence diminished and I say 'diminished' because it really probably hasn't ended.
'It was a greater shock when I stumbled on the evidence that indicated that a member of my own family had enabled the attempted elimination to be put into law.'
Mr Deakin was a young minister in the Victorian government that passed the Aborigines Protection Act 1886.
Commonly known as the Half-Caste Act, it sought to remove children of mixed Aboriginal and European heritage from indigenous communities to be raised by the state.
The Victorian law was matched in various forms by the English colonies that then existed across Australia prior to federation in 1901.
The practice of removing children from Aboriginal communities has been termed the Stolen Generation, and many studies have testified to the impact upon Aboriginal families then and into the future.
Mr Sharp believes Mr Deakin, then Victoria's chief secretary, had intentionally destroyed the state's Aboriginal population in order to create a 'White Australia'.
'I believe that now after nearly 140 years, the evidence shows that Deakin played a key role in ensuring that the critical element of the 1886 Act was to categorically deny any Aboriginal people of mixed heritage the right to be recognised as Aboriginal and, furthermore, to forcibly deny them contact with those deemed Aboriginal, thereby destroying their culture, kinship and language,' he said.
'I believe that the evidence shows that he intended it never to be known and disguised his hand in every way he could. Suddenly I realised he actually meant this. This was deliberate.'
The Yoorrook Justice Commission is due to deliver a report to the state government by June 2025 that will make recommendations for reforms.
**************************************************
My main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment