When is a product banned?

Tim Clark, acting news editor, Construction News (Monday 19 June):

When is a product banned and when is it not banned?  Responding to a question on The Andrew Marr Show yesterday, chancellor Philip Hammond said it was “his understanding” that the cladding used on the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower was “banned” in the UK.  Hammond’s assertion was clarified by a Treasury official who said the chancellor was commenting on buildings “above a certain height”. Mr Hammond’s comments have been rejected by the boss of CEP Architectural Facades, which fabricated the rainscreen panels and windows for Harley Facades, the subcontractor appointed to install the cladding on the tower block. CEP Architectural Facades’ MD John Cowley said that the product in question, Reynobond PE, is actually not banned in the UK. So which is it, and why is the chancellor becoming involved in a story which is a long way from his brief at the Treasury? Industry expert and chief executive of Cast Consulting Mark Farmer told CN that he was “astonished” by Mr Hammond’s remarks. Mr Farmer said: “How can a senior member of government misrepresent the position like this at such a sensitive time? The inquiry will shine a public spotlight on the construction industry as perhaps never before. “It is bound to identify many of the systemic failings that we suffer from in the industry but there are some simple regulatory facts that should be identified quickly – ie whether the cladding was indeed banned in the UK or not under Building Regulations when used as part of a refurbishment.” As far as Construction News understands the chancellor may be correct – if the terms of his comments are applied to the narrow view of how the particular materials were used on Grenfell Tower itself. The chancellor’s views can be backed up by technical requirements for tall buildings which are found in the depths of Part B of the building regulations code. To explain we need to take a short history lesson. In the aftermath of the great fire of London in 1666, the capital drew up some of the most stringent fire regulations anywhere in the world. However, after being in force for around three centuries, the London Building Regulations were superseded in the mid-1980s when national building regulations came into force. According to former chief fire officer Ronnie King, the cladding used at Grenfell “may” not have been allowed if the previous London building regs were still in force today. Mr King, who now acts as group secretariat for the Parliament’s all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group said that, the current rules – which were probed in depth during the coroner’s report into the Lakanal incident in 2009 – were however “ambiguous”. Par 12.7 of part B2 of the building regs says that “in a building with a story 18m or more above ground level any insulation product, filler material (not including gaskets, sealants and similar) etc. used in the external wall construction construction should be of limited combustibility”. Mr King says that, if the core of a building has a combustible material contained within it, then the cladding of the building has to be non-flammable for buildings above 18 m. Mr King says: “The proviso that Hammond went to, is that one table in the Approved Documents relating to dwellings said that when the core is combustible – the cladding would not have been compliant if the building was above 18 m. “It would seem that those officials who confirmed that were right. “However it is complicated as the coroner from Lakanal said was that the building regs themselves were too confusing, the lawyers can’t interpret them. “After Lakanal, we had all these QCs at the inquest and they were all confused over what was applicable and what wasn’t.”  A key issue here however is to establish whether the core of the tower at Grenfell did have a combustible material, and whether this meant that using the type of cladding would be banned. However these issues are usually established through forensic investigation, either by an inquiry or through a London Fire Brigade report into the causes of the fire. Having these facts established from a senior minister on national TV on a Sunday morning within days of the national tragedy has understandably raised eyebrows.

Roots of Theresa May's Flawed Character

by Brian Bamford

THERESA May has been recently attacked for being 'weak and wobbly' despite her claim to be a 'safe and stable' pair of hands.  The most recent signs of her weakness being this weekend's departure of her closest advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill.after criticisms from senor MPs.

Another sign of her enfeebled state according to today's Financial Times is 'her weakness, [by her leaving] her most senior ministers in their jobs rather than risk making new enemies, amid speculation she might face a leadership challenge later this year.'

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, in whom she was clearly unhappy with over the forced reversal of his 'white van tax' after the budget, Boris Johnson, the current foreign secretary, Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, are all still in place.

This flaw in her character can be traced back to when she was Home Secretary in July 2014, when following publication of the now disgraced Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk's book 'Smile for the Camera' in April 2014.  On Monday the 28th, April 2014, the then leader of Rochdale Council, Colin Lambert extended its enquiry into child sex abuse.  Following this Theresa May was stampeded into setting up what was to become an overarching enquiry for which she appointed Baroness Butler-Sloss as its first chair in July 2014, more were to follow, and by December 2014 it was reported that Theresa May was reconsidering arrangements for the enquiry.

Most of us who trouble ourselves about this matter have by now lost count of the seemingly endless chops and changes with what became of this overarching enquiry into child sex abuse. 
.
The first two chairs appointed to the original panel enquiry were Baroness Butler-Sloss (appointed 8 July 2014, stepped down 14 July 2014) and Fiona Woolf (appointed 5 September 2014, stepped down 31 October 2014).   The reasons for their withdrawal in each case were objections related to their perceived closeness to individuals and establishments which would be investigated.  There were also objections to the shape of the enquiry itself, concerning testimony, the scope of enquiry, and lack of ability to compel witnesses to testify.  In December 2014 it was reported that Theresa May was reconsidering arrangements for the enquiry.

As long ago as  Monday 7 July 2014, The Independent reported:
'An expert panel will also have the power to scrutinise the behaviour of political parties, the security services and private companies amid allegations that paedophile networks operated with impunity in the 1970s and 1980s.'

At the time The Independent reported:
'A "Hillsborough-style" investigation into historic child sex abuse claims will take place.
Home Secretary Theresa May said the wide-ranging review would look into how authorities dealt with allegations paedophiles abused children.  She said the independent inquiry, which is likely to take years, could become a full public inquiry if needed.'

The same newspaper bravely reported:
'The panel will report on its interim findings ahead of the general election next May in a move to reassure critics that its findings are not being kicked into the long grass.'

This whole inquiry, which was devised by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary, now looks like the House that Jack Built,   All of this was triggered by a book 'Smile for the Camera' which some now regard as less decent than ordinary bullshit, written by a man who is now generally recognised as the squalid former Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk,