Thread by @PeteApps

Report from today at the @grenfellinquiry:

The government has said it is "deeply sorry" for failures in its oversight of local authority inspectors before Grenfell - but has stopped short of accepting flaws in its own guidance or regulations

insidehousing.co.uk/news/governmen…

The core of (the department formerly known as) DCLG's argument is that it honestly believed regulations were being properly enforced at a local level and that product manufacturers and builders were "doing the right thing". It is apologising for this mistaken assumption.

It is fair to say that this makes the apology a bit of buck pass and ignores the substance of what survivors have accused the department of: presiding over deficient guidance, prioritising deregulation over safety and covering up the risk from cladding from the 1990s onwards

Remember: English standards were so low that Arconic (the cladding manufacturer who sold the panels) viewed us as "a market" for its cheapest, most combustible panels. This is about more than poor investment and dodgy industry practice (although both are relevant as well)

Also this morning: the NHBC (our largest building inspector and warranty provider for new homes) addressed its role in producing guidance which legitimised the use of untested cladding systems (desktop studies). It says this was done with the effective consent of government:

It has also accused insulation manufacturer Kingspan of "abusing its position and standing in the industry". NHBC is under scrutiny for accepting Kingspan's K15 for use on high rise buildings, despite raising questions about its fire performance

We get the first witnesses for this module tomorrow, starting with Local Authority Building Control - the membership body which provided 'misleading' certificates for both insulation products used on Grenfell Tower

Oh - and one other thing from the govt opening (which didn't get into my story). Their QC trumpeted how they are "fully supportive" of the inquiry and have provided "tens of thousands of documents" and "witness statements from junior officials to former cabinet ministers"..

... this however is less of a boast and more a statement of their basic obligations under the Inquiries Act. A better way of looking at it might be to compare what these documents show with the public statements made by ministers/officials in the four years since Grenfell (ends)