FEARS OVER ‘COVER-UP’ EMERGE
Labour MP fears paper trail of evidence is being destroyed
FEARS of a “cover-up” over the Grenfell Tower fire emerged yesterday as a row erupted about whether the cladding on the building was illegal in the UK.
David Lammy demanded the immediate seizure of all documents relevant to the blaze.
The Labour MP said there was growing suspicion of a cover-up and contractors were already deleting evidence of their work on the tower from their websites.
His call came as Chancellor Philip Hammond said the cladding on the tower was illegal in the UK.
And Labour’s Keir Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions, said prosecutors were looking at manslaughter charges over the 58 deaths.
Lammy, whose friend Khadija Saye died in the fire, said the police have powers to seize papers and records.
But he said Section 35 of the Public Inquiry Act makes the destruction of any documents an offence does not apply until the chair of the inquiry has been appointed and the terms of reference set.
Lammy said: “The Prime Minister has failed to provide the required leadership in recent days and there is real and justifiable anger within the community.
“But this is not about the Prime Minister’s character, this is about the injustices that caused the Grenfell fire and the action we need to see now to secure justice for those who are suffering.
“Within the community, trust in the authorities is falling through the floor and a suspicion of a cover-up is rising.”
He added: “The Prime Minister needs to act immediately to ensure all evidence is protected so everyone culpable for what happened at Grenfell Tower is held to account and feels the full force of the law.
“The victims and families of Grenfell Tower need justice and justice can only be done if we preserve all these records – we need to make sure emails, minutes of meetings, correspondence with contractors, specifications, safety assessments and reports aren’t destroyed.
“When the truth comes out about this tragedy, we may find there is blood on the hands of a number of organisations.”
Lammy hit out at Kensington & Chelsea Borough Council for giving council taxpayers a £100 rebate last year and sitting on millions in the bank.
He said the rebate was “guilt money” and could have paid for sprinklers in high rises.
Starmer said prosecutors were already advising the police on bringing charges.
Asked on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show if they would be looking into manslaughter charges, he replied: “Yes, when we were looking at this when I was DPP in relation to other fires, we were looking at manslaughter charges.”
Hammond told the same show the building’s cladding was illegal in the UK.
He said: “My understanding is the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here.
“So there are two separate questions. Do they permit the right kind of materials and ban the wrong kind of materials? And were they correctly complied with?
“That will be a subject that the inquiry will look at. It will also be a subject that the criminal investigation will be looking at.”
London Minister Greg Hands said he understood the cladding was “not in accordance with UK Building Regulations”.
Contractors are reported to have saved £5000 by using cheaper aluminium cladding, Reynobond PE, which does not have a fire-resistant core.
The Department for Local Government and Communities could not confirm what material was used on Grenfell.
He said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polythene core should not be used for cladding on a building taller than 18 metres.”
But one of the manufacturers of Reynobond PE said it was not banned,
John Cowley, managing director of CEP Architectural Facades, who fabricated the rainscreen panels and windows for Grenfell Tower’s cladding sub-contractor Harley Facades, said: “Reynobond PE is not banned in the UK.
“Current building regulations allow its use in low-rise and high-rise structures.
“The key question now is whether the overall design of the building’s complete exterior was properly tested and subsequently signed off by the relevant authorities including the fire officer, building compliance officer and architect before commencement of the project.”
Hammond questioned whether sprinklers would have saved lives in the fire.
He said: “My understanding – and I’m not an expert – is that the best expert advice is that retrofitting sprinklers may not always be the best technical way of ensuring fire safety in a building.”
He added: “If it is, it should be done but let’s get the technical advice fully evaluated by public inquiry and then let’s decide how to go forward.”
He said if something needs to be done to make buildings safe, “it will be done.”
Experts say it would have cost about £200,000 to install sprinklers at Grenfell.
Fire Protection Association chief Jon O’Neill said a sprinkler system “would have created an environment where it would have been easier to rescue people and increase survivability”.
In Scotland, all buildings taller than 18metres must have automatic fire suppression systems.
Families need justice and it can only be done if we preserve all records DAVID LAMMY