London fire chief calls for ‘myth busting’ on building safety and company profit

London’s fire chief has called for myths to be busted around the economic effects of strict regulations on building safety as he made an emotional promise to Grenfell bereaved and survivors to learn from the disaster.

London Fire Brigade (LFB) Commissioner Andy Roe said the United States, as one of the most competitive commercial environments in the world, has managed to maintain a profitable construction industry while keeping to strict safety requirements, and asked “why can’t we do it here?”.

Speaking in front of the London Assembly Fire Committee on Tuesday, the head of the capital’s fire service posed the question to the construction industry and the Government.

He said: “It (the US) is a huge functioning democracy built on a capitalist model, and yet they have probably some of the strictest building regulations for high-rises in the world.

“It is so prescriptive in terms of their construction methodology, the levels of mitigation they place into their buildings, whether it be sprinklers or alarms or evacuation lifts or staircases, the method of construction.

“So my question to the sector, and I guess to Government, because we’re at the other end of it, is, if the largest functioning democracy in the world with a really competitive working capitalist economy, where clearly huge developers are in play, can construct buildings to profit in that environment against those regulations – I think we do have to state the obvious – which is why can’t we do it here?”

He said he was not trying to make a political point and acknowledged the positive economic impact when big companies are successful, but questioned why other countries appear better able to ensure buildings are safe.

He added: “I do think we need to bust some of these myths because there are other examples around the world with well-functioning models of economy and commerce that seem to be able to do this in a safer way.”

Mr Roe insisted many lessons had been learned by LFB since the Grenfell fire in 2017 and changes made, pointing to the response of crews to recent fires including in Dagenham.

But he repeated the statement made in the wake of the final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry last week that the brigade is not complacent.

Asked what assurances he could give bereaved and survivors, as well as people living in buildings yet to have unsafe cladding removed, he said: “I don’t expect to convince you with my words. I have to demonstrate it in our actions as a service.

“So I think I would ask to be judged on what you see in our response, in our interactions with you.”

He referred to the “most terrible education that Grenfell provided”, and noted that many of those in senior positions in the service, including himself, were there on the night.

His voice appeared to break with emotion when speaking about his commitment to learning and change, he added: “It is borne out of the most terrible personal experience, to be frank, and the loss of life we witnessed that night.

“I think I will probably leave it there because it’s something we all hold very, very personally because we bore witness to it.

“We are not a distant department. We are not seated in an office somewhere. We were on the ground.”

Committee chairwoman Hina Bokhari said: “The emotion is there, and we appreciate that.”

Asked when LFB is likely to publish its action plan following recommendations laid out in the phase two inquiry report, he said the service will discuss them with their community forum, and indicated the timeline is likely to be “weeks, not months”.

The final report said there had been a “chronic lack of effective leadership” at LFB, combined with “undue emphasis on process and a culture of complacency”.

But while LFB failings were highlighted, the overall conclusion was that victims, bereaved and survivors were “badly failed” through incompetence, dishonesty and greed in various organisations.

Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said each of the 72 deaths was avoidable and had been preceded by “decades of failure” by the government and the building industry to act on the dangers of flammable materials on high-rise buildings.