好色先生TV

The government 鈥渉obbled鈥� a group of fire safety experts appointed to spot flaws in building regulations because of a culture of deregulation, the Grenfell Inquiry has heard.

Ministers gave the 好色先生TV Research Establishment (BRE) 鈥榠nvestigation of real fires project鈥� a 鈥渃ontractual requirement鈥� not to make any policy recommendations.

David Crowder, former head of fire investigation at the BRE, told Wednesday鈥檚 hearing that the group鈥檚 reports were limited to pointing out 鈥渋mplications鈥� raised by building fires.

The group, which was formed in 1988, would prepare a 鈥渇ew hundred鈥� summaries of fires each year. But in October 2012, the coalition government amended the contract to focus on 鈥渕onitoring and feedback鈥�.

Inquiry to the counsel Kate Grange QC asked Crowder: 鈥淒id anyone think: how am I going to monitor the effectiveness of the regulations and guidance without being able to point out any parts found to be ineffective?鈥�

Crowder said that although recommendations 鈥渨eren鈥檛 allowed鈥�, the group did use its summaries to try and tease out issues with the building regulations that had been uncovered, a practice he described as 鈥渘ot ideal鈥�.

Grange asked: 鈥淎nd you felt, in practice, hobbled in that way, did you?鈥�

Crowder said: 鈥淵es, though not specifically in relation to this contract. It goes back to the wider piece about the state of government research in relation to fire safety. It was part of鈥� the atmosphere, if you like, around where fire safety under building regulations was going at that time.鈥�

The inquiry has already heard from a lawyer representing the bereaved and survivors of the Grenfell fire that the coalition government had wanted to cut red tape on housebuilders so that more homes could be built.

Stephanie Barwise QC said in December that an 鈥渦nbridled passion for deregulation鈥� had resulted in the government allowing itself to become the 鈥渏unior partner鈥� to the construction industry.

However, Crowder admitted that the investigations group had routinely used its reports to endorse existing regulations even before the 2012 amendment of the contract.

The inquiry heard that between 2001 and 2015 the group had effectively copy and pasted the same conclusions into its final reports 鈥渞eaffirming the overall effectiveness of the building regulations鈥�.

Grange asked: 鈥淟ong before there was this change in October 2012 which prevented the BRE from making any policy recommendations, for year after year after year, the report was producing the same conclusion with the same wording; yes?鈥�

Crowder said: 鈥淵es.鈥� He added that while the conclusions suggested that a 鈥渢otal rewrite鈥� of building regulations was not needed, they were accompanied by 鈥渟pecific findings in relation to certain subject areas鈥�.

Asked by Grange if the conclusions could have been 鈥渁 lot clearer鈥�, Crowder replied: 鈥漎eah, I understand the point.鈥�

The hearing was also told that the project came under pressure by the coalition government to cut its budget by 20%.

Grange asked: 鈥淭his project was flawed in a number of respects, wasn鈥檛 it? Do you accept that?鈥� Crowder replied: 鈥淵es.鈥�

The inquiry continues.