I do think that if implemented correctly the following will be interesting

-   Bringing responsibility for all aspects of fire safety under one government department

-   Mandatory fire safety strategies for higher-risk buildings

-   Establishing a college of fire and rescue

The more we learn about the tragedies of fire the more we can do to prevent it happening again. 

Could this lead to the PVC/PVC T&E becoming outlawed in dwellings and replaced with LS0H? Will FRA (fire risk assessment) be made to work in conjuction with a Fire Safety Audit.  In simple terms a fire risk assessment will tell you what the risks are and what control measures you need. A fire safety audit would be a check that the control measures identified in the fire risk assessment are being implemented

In terms of fire load and smoke generation, you need to get rid of PVC trunking, PVC extension and appliance leads and probably PVC window frames  and doors and plumbing pipe as well.   The volume of smoke from bits of T and E, especially those under plaster, are pretty small beer in comparison.

Mike.

Not to say I would not welcome some or all of that, over a period of years, but it would a slow change.
As far as cables go I'm sure there is still some rubber covered in service ;-)

If these schemes are to be replaced, does the proposal entail conducting annual assessments for the entire workforce, rather than evaluating a single company representative each year?

"Interesting" isn't necessarily good.  Grenfell happened at a time when the government was committed to a "bonfire of red tape", so the minister in charge did not want any new building regulations introduced.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/key-figures-criticised-grenfell-tower-100003616.html

John Peckham said:

I was interested in him saying that person were incompetent, dishonest and greedy.

Hopefully, there are exceptions!

John Peckham said:

It would have been nice for contempt persons schemes that do not register competent persons only "Enterprises" to be abolished and replaced with a real competent person scheme.

I couldn't agree more. Imagine a hospital which has a "QS" instead of a medical director, which meant that the clinicians did not have to be medically competent, let alone, qualified.

Hello John:

I have been waiting years for this report to be issued.

I plan to download the full report to see it it answers all my questions- for example why there was no water in the risers or why it took so long to turn off the gas supply to the building.

Now it has been issued, how long before the police start arresting people?

Peter Brooks

Palm Bay Florida 

Now it has been issued, how long before the police start arresting people?

For ever I should think, or at most it will be some poor sap who attached some panels who was a long way from the original flawed decision making,

To decide someone's individual action is criminal, rather than just stupid, and stands any chance of being convicted as such before a Jury is actually quite a high bar to satisfy when there are so many folk - if you like, the blame is spread thinly.

Mike.

mapj1 said:

To decide someone's individual action is criminal, rather than just stupid, and stands any chance of being convicted as such before a Jury is actually quite a high bar to satisfy when there are so many folk - if you like, the blame is spread thinly.

Quite so! The Swiss cheese model applies. There must have been many similar buildings, and some which still exist.

I think that it is the scale of the tragedy which was exceptional. Had there been, say 24 families of 3 who had been killed over a period, would anybody have noticed?

As I understand it the Attorney General has given an undertaking to persons giving oral evidence, not written, to the Grenfell Inquiry that that evidence cannot be used in a prosecution. It does not give the persons immunity from prosecution but the oral evidence cannot be used to prosecute them.

That makes the task of the Met. Police much harder to bring the offenders to justice.

I look forward to those suspects getting the early morning wake up call from London's finest knocking on their door.

JP 

mapj1 said:

To decide someone's individual action is criminal, rather than just stupid, and stands any chance of being convicted as such before a Jury is actually quite a high bar to satisfy when there are so many folk - if you like, the blame is spread thinly.

Whilst I agree, potentially, with the potential for  'spread thinly' I would point out that, if prosecutions could be brought under CDM Regulations, there is no differentiator between 'stupid' or 'criminal'. If this were a workplace, that would be very easy because a designer has to ensure the safety of persons in a workplace, full stop.

However, with it being dwellings, things might be more complicated ... the question is, why is (or was) legislation different in this regard ? Are private individuals in their own home less valued than people in a workplace?

At this point, sadly I'm no legal professional ... but I'm sure there's an explanation.