logo
Grenfell firms facing possible bans over ‘mercenary behaviour' named

Grenfell firms facing possible bans over ‘mercenary behaviour' named

Independent26-02-2025

Seven firms criticised in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry final report could face being banned from public contracts, as the Government pledged to bring change in the wake of the fatal fire.
Cladding and insulation organisations are among those which will be investigated under new powers for 'failings' in relation to the west London tower's refurbishment, Parliament was told.
The announcement came as the Government formally responded to a series of recommendations which were set out last September in the inquiry's final report.
Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick had concluded that the devastating fire, which claimed 72 lives, was the result of 'decades of failure' by government and the construction industry to act on the dangers of flammable materials on high-rise buildings.
He said there had been 'systematic dishonesty' by firms who made and sold the cladding and insulation, and called out 'deliberate and sustained' manipulation of fire-safety testing, misrepresentation of test data and misleading of the market.
Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, criticised some firms' 'disgraceful mercenary behaviour (which) put profit before people and exploited the regulatory regime to evade accountability with fatal consequences'.
She added: 'And to my disgust and their shame, some have shown little remorse and have refused to even help fix the building safety crisis that they did so much to create.'
Ms Rayner, who is also Housing Secretary, said she expected 'swift, decisive action and will ensure progress is reported'.
No timeline was given for when investigations under the Procurement Act might begin or be completed.
In Sir Martin's report, cladding firm Arconic and insulation firms Kingspan and Celotex faced particularly heavy criticism.
Arconic was found to have 'deliberately concealed from the market the true extent of the danger' of using its cladding product, particularly on high-rise buildings.
Kingspan had, from 2005 and even after the inquiry began, 'knowingly created a false market in insulation' for use on buildings over 18 metres, the report said.
Celotex then, in an attempt to break into this market created by Kingspan, 'embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers and the wider market', Sir Martin concluded.
The Government said Kingspan and Arconic will be investigated as well as former Celotex owners Saint-Gobain.
Also facing investigation are fire inspectors Exova, design and build contractor Rydon, architect Studio E and subcontractor Harley Facades.
In a written statement published on Wednesday, Cabinet Office parliamentary secretary Georgia Gould said: 'The new Act allows us to investigate suppliers and, if certain grounds are met, to add their names to a published and centrally managed debarment list, which must be taken into account by contracting authorities in awarding new contracts and undertaking new procurements.
'We want to act swiftly and decisively and are committed, where appropriate, to pursuing meaningful action in respect of failings related to the Grenfell tragedy.'
The Government said all 58 of the inquiry's recommendations were being accepted.
Nine of the 37 recommendations directed at Government are being accepted 'in principle', with some requiring 'further consideration' through consultations, it said.
A group representing some of the bereaved welcomed the commitments but said it will be paying 'close attention' to how they progress.
One of those being accepted in principle is a key recommendation for a single regulator for the construction industry, which the report said had become 'too complex and fragmented'.
The Government said that while it is committed to establishing a single regulator, it does not believe it would be 'appropriate' for that organisation to undertake testing and certification of construction products, or issue certificates of compliance.
This would 'create a new conflict of interest within the regulator', the Government said, and it will instead work to strengthen oversight of existing bodies through reforms to the construction products regime.
It has launched a consultation, running until May, on regulatory reform in the sector to 'improve public safety, rebuild public trust and ensure the Grenfell Tower tragedy cannot be repeated'.
The timeline for wider change is set out in phases, with a suggestion some reforms are unlikely to be delivered before 2028 – 11 years on from the fire.
In its update, the Government said it is 'committed to delivering meaningful change as quickly as possible' but that 'given the scale of further change needed, including legislative, we intend to deliver these further reforms using a three-phased approach over the course of this Parliament'.
Other recommendations for the appointment of a chief construction adviser as well as those to professionalise fire engineers and assessors through mandatory accreditation, have also been accepted.
Ms Rayner said the Government was committed to 'tough action' to 'drive change and reform the system to ensure no community will ever have to face a tragedy like Grenfell ever again'.
She added: 'That means greater accountability, stronger regulation, and putting residents at the heart of decision-making.'
Grenfell Next of Kin, a group representing some of the bereaved, said it will be 'paying close attention to these words and intentions' from Government, as it repeated criticism of the 'grave mistakes, failures, corruption' it said had led to the deaths.
The group said: 'We can never forget our beloved kin and we can never forgive the negligence and corruption that led to their deaths.
'The injustice is so great and the measures being put in place now with new laws and reforms are welcomed, but should have been basic requirements for a developed country such as ours.
'Nevertheless let's move forward in the right direction.'
Ms Rayner repeated an apology issued last year by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer who had said sorry 'on behalf of the British state to each and every one' of the people affected by the disaster.
Earlier this month the Government announced the tower, the remains of which have stood since the fire almost eight years ago, will be 'carefully' demolished in a process likely to take two years.
Police and prosecutors have previously said investigators would need until the end of 2025 to complete their inquiry into the fire, with final decisions on potential criminal charges by the end of 2026.
Ms Rayner said 'justice must be done' and that the Metropolitan Police has the Government's 'full support' in its investigation.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

It's time to stop the scaremongering over heat pumps
It's time to stop the scaremongering over heat pumps

The Herald Scotland

timean hour ago

  • The Herald Scotland

It's time to stop the scaremongering over heat pumps

If you take away the cost of a gas boiler, which would not be required, this makes the cost difference about £10,000 maximum. Is he suggesting that the housebuilders should leave out the insulation and double glazing as well? The difference in heating costs between a standard house built around 1970 and current standards is significant and I doubt if anyone would want to live in a basic 1970s house or pay the heating bill. The housebuilding standards in the UK for insulation have been extremely poor compared to the standards in Scandinavian countries for at least the last 60 years and we are paying the price now in high retrofit costs to bring them up to a similar standard. Most of the hype about additional measures required to install a heat pump result from this failure in building standards, and any changes to the heat emitters of new-build houses should result in a reduction in costs as less heat output is required. For interest, you only need to replace the heat lost from a building and a heat pump can do this just as effectively as a gas boiler although it may be necessary to increase the radiator size as the flow temperature is lower. This does not apply to new-build and therefore it will not result in additional cost. There was no incentive for builders to build houses with decent insulation and this could have reduced the potential profit per build and it was only when the Government eventually started introducing proper building standards that this situation slowly improved. The before-tax profits of one major housebuilder last year were £359.1 million for 10,664 completions which amounts to £33,674 profit per house (11.1%). Some of these properties will include most of the standards for net zero and should be heat pump-compatible if they are still fitted with gas boilers. I am not suggesting that housebuilders should not make a profit as that is how capitalism works, but perhaps it might put Ross Lambie's claims in perspective. There are lots of reasons why we should be moving from gas to electricity, reducing global warming and saving the planet is only one of them, but misinformation is making a sensible transition more difficult. Iain McIntyre, Sauchie. Read more letters Pride has had its day I found the first half of the letter (June 4) from Rebecca Don Kennedy, CEO of the Equality Network, regarding the removal of Pride flags from lampposts on Arran quite enlightening. I read it thinking that we may well have an outbreak of common sense. Until. The CEO went on to accuse Mark Smith of hypothetical and imaginary views, indeed, accusing him of victim blaming. There then followed a completely non-evidential, truly hypothetical and imaginary reasoning of what someone must be thinking if they dislike a flag. The removal of a flag is straightforward vandalism (if damaged) or theft, and nothing else. Until the perpetrator is found nobody knows what their thought process was. They may just have been having a laugh. Under no circumstances is that then a hate crime. For me, and many like me, I'm afraid that Pride has had its day, and it seems to me that it, and the "inclusive" groups of people behind it, are more about continually causing and promoting division in society. Why can't we all just let people be? Gregor McKenzie, East Kilbride. A Pride march in Glasgow (Image: PA) Frustration over hospital parking Today (June 4) I failed to make a significant appointment at Glasgow Royal Infirmary (GRI), booked at a specialist unit in October 2024. I spent two hours attempting to find a parking space, and failed. I recall that there was some problem in making the GRI car park free, which was eventually resolved. As a regular patient, I enjoyed a brief period when outpatients had an allocated parking area: that privilege did not last. A missed appointment costs the NHS around £233 and I have now to wait until at least September for a new appointment. I do not believe that the GRI car park is solely occupied by staff and patients. Glasgow is restricted and punitive in parking, and I suspect that this car park has a high occupancy of selfish non-entitled healthy parasites. Stewart MacPherson, Kilsyth. Dictionary corner The faulty English usage Steve Barnet despairs of (Letters, May 29) doesn't exasperate me as much as the profusion of malapropisms that have become common. Educated writers can no longer use the following, for fear of being misunderstood: apprise, which will be confused with appraise; beg the question will be supposed to mean pose the question; deprecate (an obscure theological term) seems to be supposed to be a posh modern variant of depreciate; enormity is used as a synonym of magnitude; fulsome is used instead of full (it is cognate with foul); ilk is presumed to mean sort; iconic is used as though it means special rather than totally standard; the verb loathe is used where the adjective loth would be correct; the adjective staunch is used where the verb stanch would be correct. This stems from the modern practice of guessing at meanings instead of consulting a dictionary. Some hold that words should mean what people think they mean rather than what a lexicographer declare them to mean, but this leads to degeneration into baby-talk shorn of all subtlety. Robin Dow, Rothesay. Cruise control It annoys me that CalMac ferries, the latest Glens Sannox and Rosa in particular, are referred to by several of your correspondents as "cruise liners". They are actually "crew's liners", a very important distinction and the root of a large number of the problems imposed on CMAL and CalMac by each other. Peter Wright, West Kilbride.

The UK Government has to deliver £4bn of rail investment in Wales
The UK Government has to deliver £4bn of rail investment in Wales

Wales Online

timean hour ago

  • Wales Online

The UK Government has to deliver £4bn of rail investment in Wales

The UK Government has to deliver £4bn of rail investment in Wales | Mark Barry Transport expert Professor Mark Barry of Cardiff University makes the case for UK rail enhancement investment in Wales to help address years of under investment out to 2040 The UK Government needs to get serious on rail investment in Wales says Prof Barry. (Image: John Myers ) Chancellor Rachel Reeves will next week present the UK Government's next three year spending commitments in the comprehensive spending review (CSR). That should, if London is listening, see some major pledges for rail enhancement investment in Wales. ‌ Instead of focusing on the case for rail devolution, the failings of the Barnett formula and decades of relative underspend on Wales's rail network by various UK governments, I want to focus on looking ahead and arguing for £4bn rail investment to 2040. ‌ As I set out in a letter to Secretary of State for Transport Heidi Alexander last December, this is based on rail enhancement commitments likely in England of approximately £80bn over the same period. These commitments include to complete HS2, TransPennine upgrade, East West Rail, and some new schemes in England - some of which have been announced ahead of the CSR including more trams in Manchester, Leeds-Bradford tram, Liverpool, Bristol and the West of England. Some £4bn for Wales would be a commensurate and a fair Barnett allocation and can be directed at schemes in Wales already subject to significant business case and scheme development. Article continues below To be clear, Wales needs this investment not just because its fair or right, but because of the benefits, especially economic, that can be realised. These include mode shift and reduced carbon emissions, economic agglomeration and development benefits, more transit oriented development , reduced road traffic accidents, improved air quality, more financially efficient public transport operations, reduced road congestion (freeing up road space for those that need to use them) and less wear and tear of our roads. Bus reform in Wales and how it could play out READ MORE: As I set out in my book How to build a Metro, in Wales via Transport for Wales, Welsh Government, the regions and local authorities, we have already developed a range of rail enhancement schemes to at least outline business case, commensurate with that scale of investment and which will deliver these wider benefits to 2040. ‌ In summary they are: South Wales Main Line (SWML) upgrade £1bn) We need to see the five Burns stations (pretty much along the lines of the proposals in the 2013 Metro Impact Study and later presented in the Western Gateway 2050 Rail Vision). ‌ This would see new stations at Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor and the complementary relief lines upgrade. We also need: More electrification heading west to Swansea and Carmarthen. New services including Bristol Temple Meads to Cardiff, with some continuing west from Cardiff to Swansea and Carmarthen. I would also explore whether we could route one via the Vale of Glamorgan Line and Cardiff Airport. The new open access Lumo (part of FirstGroup) fast Carmarthen-Cardiff-London service which will skip Swansea High Street and Neath (but stopping at Gowerton) enabling Carmarthen to function as a Parkway for West Wales. I would also like to see the GWR services into South Wales mapped into the Transport for Wales franchise or GBR Cymru arrangements post the establishment of Great British Railways. ‌ Swansea Bay and West Wales £500m There is very good initial phase of a Metro in Swansea/Neath/Llanelli which has been subject to significant scheme and business case development. The first key phases of this urban area rail Metro include two new key routes and services with: Bury Port to Swansea High Street with a new station at Cockett. Pontardulais-Llandarcy-Neath-Swansea service using the Swansea District Line (SDL) and a new chord connection to the South Wales Mainline at Britton Ferry to allow direct services to Swansea High Street from the SDL. This can support new local Metro stations at Morriston, Llandarcy, Pontlliw. Felindre, etc. ‌ We also need enhanced local rail services west of Swansea all the way to Milford Haven aligned to a range of tactical infrastructure enhancement – these complement some of the South Wales Mainline service measures set out above This work needs to be combined with a focus on more and greater transit-oriented development at primary stations like Llandarcy, Neath, Llanelli and in/around Swansea High Street stations. North Wales £1bn ‌ Transport Secretary Ken Skates set out a big vision for North Wales at a transport conference in Wrexham last month. This vision needs to see some early measures and focused delivery with an initial £1bn programme that includes: Upgrade of borderlands and integration with Merseyrail and use of their new 777s electric stock; early measures to deliver capacity for freight at Padeswood. North Wales Main Line (NWML) line speed and capacity upgrades to allow more services – both local all stopper with increased frequency, and long-distance express. A rolling electrification programme. New stations and key station upgrade for example, Shotton (as an interchange), Deeside Industrial Estate and especially Chester to allow more capacity through the station. Longer term the application of tram-train in both north east and north west Wales. ‌ Cardiff Capital Region Metro £500m Now there are good cases to be made for at least a further £2bn of rail and metro investment in the Cardiff Capital Region. This includes the full Cardiff Crossrail, Aberdare-Hirwaun, Cross Valley, Caerphilly-Newport and an extension in Merthyr. However, the initial and pragmatic focus has to be: Deliver a Metro in Cardiff (which is not really delivered as part of the current South Wales Metro programme. This means Cardiff Crossrail phase two. At its core this needs to see the City and Coryton lines operate with at least 4 trains per hour (tph) instead of the 2tph planed, this needs work at Cardiff West junction, and a Coryton loop. Station Link at Central to connect Crossrail Phase 1a (to the Bay) to the west, electrification to Penarth and tram-trains on Penarth – Coryton via the Bay. Then further Metro stations, including Roath Park, Ely Mill, Gabalfa, Treforest Industrial Estate, Pontypridd North and a new platform at Cogan on a Penarth branch served by tram-trains. Some further double tracking to the Core Valley Lines to improve capacity and reliability. New Ebbw Valley line services planned (to get 4tph south of Llanhilleth) routing to the Marches line and Abergavenny with a new stop at Caerleon and perhaps Sebastopol (this a better investment than the short extension to Abertillery). Maesteg line measure to deliver at least 2tph. Then perhaps, the Coryton-Radyr link (in whatever form is appropriate) as this connection helps build our connected public transport grid. It will also make the new Velindre hospital more accessible from the north of Cardiff. ‌ Marches Line £500m This line supports what is perhaps Transport for Wales' most profitable service. It needs to be upgraded so we can offer a reliable sub three hour Cardiff-Manchester journey time. This will require: Some passing sections upgraded track and signalling and some electrification. In some places new local services in NE and SE Wales so that local stations (eg Pontypool, Caerleon (new), Ruabon, Chirk, etc can be taken off long distance services and served instead by new local Metro services. Further measures may be required at Crewe. ‌ Finally To conclude giving the tens of billions committed in England (which I welcome outside London) we need to see a forward commitment of at least £4bn to 2040 in Wales, anything less is just not acceptable, and would be politically toxic. And for my perspective we still need full rail devolution to Wales. In addition to this core rail investment, we need to integrate these interventions with our new post bus reform redesigned bus networks (which will also need more investment. Article continues below The Welsh Government and the regional joint corporate committees also need to find the further infrastructure investment needed to deliver more bus priority and bus lanes, especially in our urban areas. This will improve both the attractiveness of bus services and the financial efficiency of bus operations.

Water firms would be foolish to increase salaries to get around bonus ban
Water firms would be foolish to increase salaries to get around bonus ban

South Wales Guardian

timean hour ago

  • South Wales Guardian

Water firms would be foolish to increase salaries to get around bonus ban

Six firms have been banned from paying bonuses to senior bosses under new rules that came into force on Friday. Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water, Wessex Water, United Utilities and Southern Water have been told that they cannot issue bonuses for the financial year 2024/25, which concluded in April. Mr Reed said that customers need to have 'confidence' in what water firms are doing, but also said it would not be 'right' for the Government or regulator to be 'capping' salaries in private sector businesses. Asked if he was going to make sure that firms cannot raise base salaries to compensate for any bonus ban, Mr Reed told Times Radio: 'I think they would be extremely foolish to do anything of the sort that you're describing, because (…) these companies need to rebuild their broken relationship with their customers. 'Their customers need to have confidence in what they're doing, their customers are furious at the fact that they're seeing local waterways being polluted, but bosses taking multimillion-pound bonuses.' He later told the BBC that it would not be 'right' for the Government or regulator to be setting salaries. He told Radio 4's Today programme: ''I don't think it's right that government or regulators should be capping the salaries in private sector businesses. Promise made. Promise delivered. — Steve Reed MP (@SteveReedMP) June 6, 2025 'But those businesses need to have an eye on how their customers are feeling about what they are doing, and there are steps that you can take that are appropriate within regulation.' The firms have all been banned under new rules which prevent bonuses from being paid if a water company does not meet environmental or consumer standards, does not meet financial resilience requirements, or is convicted of a criminal offence. The six companies are not under an indefinite ban, and those firms may be able to offer rewards for the 2025/26 year, provided they stick within the Ofwat rules, under the Water (Special Measures) Act which comes into force on Friday. If a company pays a bonus while it is under a ban, the water regulator Ofwat has the power to get the money back. Under the new rules, Yorkshire Water, United Utilities, Thames Water, and Southern Water will all be unable to pay bonuses to the chief executive or chief financial officer, for the 24/25 financial year. Anglian Water will be banned from paying its chief executive a bonus, but the chief financial officer will not be banned. Wessex Water will be banned from paying its chief financial officer any extra, but the chief executive will be exempt. The exemptions are because people were not in post when the incident that broke Ofwat's rules happened.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store