 Yn yw'r ffordd o'r cyffredin iawn mae'n gwaith hon yn yw'r ffordd o'r mentheu a'r ffordd o'r gwaith yma? Felly mae'n cael ei ffwyaf i ddweud yma ymlaen i'r ffordd o'r ysgrifennu, mae'n gwybod o'r ffordd o'r gwybod yma yn y gweithio i ddiogelio, mae'n cael ei ddim yn ogymell. Ond o'r ffordd o fod yn ymlaen i'r ffordd o'r cysylltiadol o'r nôl, o'r ffordd o'r 1st 99 i'r peir, the building had already been turned effectively into a death trap. That all the fire safety provisions within the building had been compromised. So the fire they faced was unprecedented in the UK, I'll come on to foreseeability in a moment. And we don't think you can really assess that without looking at how it was put into that state. The decisions, what's the regulatory regime, what's the inspection regime, who agreed the contracts, all of those issues that actually created the situation that fire spread in such a way. That said, in terms of the recommendations we are broadly supportive of the recommendations. Our criticism would be that they are, some of them are directed to the London Fire Brigade, we think they should be national, that these buildings are all over the country, so it shouldn't just apply to the London Fire Brigade. Where we have some concern is around the narrative around decision-making on the night, particularly on the issues you've touched on. ond, gyda'n siwr sydd yn rhan, mewn i'r gwblfawr iawn, yn syniau'r plannu ond a'r lle ond. Felly mae'n gwybodaeth os ym hunain o gyda'r plannu am y bydd hynny, ac os ym hunain o'n gweithio'r ysgrifennu, a'r rhai o gwell o gilydd i ddechrau rhai o'n deti tickets the selection of people to change longstanding policies that have been trained for that are national policies on quite junior levels in London and the I'm struggled to see how it could have happened and I think the the stay put advice that had been given by the Fybrigade. Did cause more depth, so so regardless of who's fault it was that that stay put advice was given, that was a mistake. I take understand the point, but I think the the conclusions that the report reach aren't actually based on evidence that he sets out so there were various expert witnesses who gave evidence to ymdweud o'r ysgolwyddiad, yn ymweld Professor Barbarol Ayn, ac mae'r ysgolwyddiad i gyda'r ymdweud i'r bwysig, yw'r ysgolwyddiad i'r 146, a'r ysgolwyddiad i'r 146. Mae'r cyfnod ymlaen i'r ymdweud i'r ymdweud i'r ysgolwyddiad. Ymdweud i'r ysgolwyddiad i'r 146 a'r 150. O'r ysgolwyddiad a'i gwn i'r ddechrau, phobrol yw ysgolwyddiad i'r 14-20 mwyn, ac mae gen i eich berthynas erioedd o resynol am some botadau. Mae ydw i'r expert yshoddon ar gyfer iawn i ddau hyd yn iesaf, mae gen i ei ddweud o fonti, a yna bod yn fwy o gen i unrhyw pwysig ar y sydd cymaint ar gyfer yrhywun dros ychydig. Mae'n hynny. A'r llwyddo sydd wedi bod yr hyn sydd eisiau yn עin i'r rhywbeth. Mae yna rhaid diwrnod i'r sydd ar gyfer yrhywun dros yr ymgyrch. Mae gynnig rywbeth sydd wedi gyd yn iesaf yr yrhywun dros ymgyrch. Mae eu ddau'r fflaes yno yn rhoi'r lleiaf. Mae'n fwyllt ped gripiau yn yúsiau yn rhaid i ffyrwyr ar gyfer, mae'n dda i dylunio. Mae'n ddau'r ffeirio cheisio gyda'u ffagoriol yn cael ei ffobor o'r llan o'r newydd a'r gair eu llan o'r llad. Rydym ni'n wneud yw'r cyffredin. Bydd y gallu fflaes ei wneud yw'r cyffredin. Ond yna'r bwysig rydyn ni wedi cael bod rŵan gweithio sgwrdd, ac yna fflau'r hynny, Ieithio'r bwysig. Rydyn ni wedi cael y bydd yn ei symud i'i gweledd yn fwy o'r ystafell sy'n gwahoddiol. A tôl iawn i'r byw hynny, rydyn ni wedi gweledd o'n cael ei gweld o'r byw, Cyfudddiad, o'u llrichio, o'u llochio, o'u'i gweld o'i ddryl a'u cyffredigau? Yn cael ei ddweud i ystyried, a yn 28 ymwneud yn y chweithio, mae nid oeddi, mae gennym'r gweithio rhai yn rhan o'n rhan o'r cyffredinol, ac mae gennym'r gweithio'r cyffredinol i gyd-dynnu'r cyffredinol. Rhaid i'n gweithio i'r cyffredinol i'r cwestiynau gofyn yn y moment. Rwyf wedi gynnig i'n gwneud hynny, rwyf wedi gweithio'r gweithio, rwyf wedi yma'r cyffredinol i chi, Gwyddo ddyn ni'n gweld i'r dda chi, Danie Cotton, ddyn ni'n ddwy'r llyfr yn y Cymysgol, gallwn ddyn nhw'n cael ei ddim yn gweithio'r gweithio'r ddwy'r ffordd yw'r ddweud yw'r gweithio arweinydd, ond oedd yr ymdill. Dyna'r ddweud ar gyfer y byddai, ddyn ni'n gweithio'r cyfrif yw'r ysgriff, yn ymdill, am yw'r ymdill, ymdill yn i gweithio'r ddwy'r ddwy'r gweithio ar bobl yn ddweud. Oes bod y cyfnod wedi'u gweld cyfnodol ar gyfer y gafodol Llywodraeth, yn gweithio gael y cyfnodol amser. Byddwn ni oedd yn cyfnodd o ganfodol ymlaen, lle i'r ffair yn Brytyn a ffair yn y rhan. A'r ffair yn y ffrifysgol dros hynny'n neud o'r gwaith newydd, ond mae'n gweithio'r gair o'r ddau, gallwch yn gallu hwnnw, gallwch yn gallu'r glwmp, gallwch yn gallu'r gilyniad ddau, yng Nghymru yn ymwneud y Daug Llywodraeth i'n bwysig o'i llwythau. Nid yw'r ymdeg ar y Lleidio Lleidio Lleidio Llywodraeth yn Llywodraeth a'r unrhyw o'r cyflwyllfa yn ni dweud, a'r cyfrannol ymdegau cyflwyllfa yn ni dweud, ym ddwy'n ddweud ymdegau Llywodraeth, ond a'r ymdegau Llywodraeth yn ni dweud i'r ddweud a'r cyflwyllfa. Felly mae'n cyfrannol yma yn y mynd i ddarparu o'r ymdegau, ond yn gweithio прordiwn i gyfrifio'r cyfaintfoedd yn gyfweld sig y bydd ychydig yn gweithio'r ffordd twfnog am y cerddwydau yn hyn oes yw hynny, ac yn cyfeirio'r gofynodau gofynodau ar yw pethau, ac yn cyfeirio'r gofynodau sydd o'n cyfrifio ar y gwaith ar gweithio'r gweithio'r gyrthwyntion, ac yn cyffredinol i fi gwybod drew gwybod yr athgelf a'r gwybod, felly mae'r rhaid yn fawr i'r gynhyrch, yn fawr yn rhoi astudio. Mae'r rhaglenu ar y diolch yn Y Ffair Bwrg Fawr? Rwy'n credu rwy'n credu bod yn rhaid yn ddechrau'r ffordd o'r rhancofile o'r llai gyfnodd oedd yn gweithio rhancofile ar y ddechrau. Mae'r cyfrifiadau oedd yn ddod am hyn yn y pethau. Mae'n ddod o'r rhanncofile, oedd rhancofile'r ffordd oedd yn rhancofile. ac yn ymgyrch i'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd, a'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd. Rwy'n cael y rhanig o'r Lundin fibre Gade, yw'r rhagleniadau ar y llyfr yn ymgrifennu gyda'r cyfnodd o'r rhanig o'r organiol? Yn ymgyrch gyda'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd o'r Lundin fibre Gade, ceisio ymgyrch yn 96-97% o'r ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, y ffordd yn ymblodd. Felly byddai'r cyfnod rhaid i'r cyfrifolau Cyfrifolau, ond y pethau'r cyfrifolau yn cyfrifolau ar y cwrs, ac yn ymblodd, gan y cyfrifolau, yn ymblodd. Gael, rwy'n gweithio, rydyn ni'n cael eu cychwyn o'r cyfrifolau yn y Unedig Unedig Unedig Unedig yw ymddiadol Cymru, yn y Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, yn ymddiadol Cymru, yn y Ymddiadol Cymru, Boris Johnson's mayoralty embarked on the biggest ever cuts programme in any fire service in the history of the UK. We oppose that. We've opposed the deregulation of the fire service, which we think lies behind a lot of what happened at Grenfell Tower. So we have a dialogue with chief officers and commissioners. We often have disagreements. There are areas on this issue where we probably share some views and there are areas where we think actually there's a fundamental breakdown in the system that needs to be addressed. In terms of this review, I know you've said that you think they've done it in the wrong order so that they've looked at the fire brigade first and what happened on the particular night instead of the systemic reasons that led to that fire and the people who were implicated in putting flammable cladding on a sky rise building, on a high rise building. Do you think that ordering there is, is there some logic to it even though you critique it or do you think this is a stitch up and that it's almost a bit of a conspiracy to try and scapegoat the fire brigade as opposed to people who might have more structural power in society? You can make a case why it's in that in a way. I suppose it's an easier bit of the inquiry because we're going to then move on to legislation contracts and so on. That's a far more complicated area possibly. My fear is considering the length of time it's taken to get to the phase one report, how long will it take to get to the phase two so people assume, present that we're going to see major changes after phase two, well that could be five or six years after the fire and the idea that we have to wait five or six years for fundamental change to the fire safety policy regime in the UK is pretty alarming. It's a big broad question but what is your principle as general secretary of the fire brigade union, as someone who was a fireman, as someone who's got... Firefighter we say. Firefighter sorry, who's got advanced knowledge of these systems. What's your analysis of how Grenfell was able to happen and how it can be stopped from happening or how a similar tragedy can be stopped from happening in the future? I think it is a story of deregulation. People ask if it's about cuts. Cuts are a part of it but it's far more about deregulation and the scrapping of standards. So we had a fire service in the UK that was linked in to systems about building control, you know how you build buildings, the regulations around that, the inspection of buildings and then the fire services role in that. And from 2000, well actually the process started under 1980 under Margaret Thatcher of saying that our regulations are too strict, we need to free up regulations to enable businesses to invest and develop and develop as to develop. For example as far as I understand it used to be the fire brigade that would sign off a building to say that it was fire safe and now the developers allowed to do that with their own contracted self-regulation system effectively. And so people think the fire service can stop things happening. The fire service has very limited powers to stop things happening. Looking at it from just from our point of view of the fire rescue service, we used to have bodies which set national standards so that would be how you respond. Let's just take the issue of how you respond to a fire in a block of flats. Today you, and this is post 2004, today you will go to a block of flats in London fire and you will get a response of X number of fire engines. If you go across the board into Essex you will get a completely different standard. You go to the west and it is a complete postcode lottery in that respect. So no national standards, no national standards in terms of appointment, recruitment, different policies of how you fight fires even creeping in. The bodies that we used to have, we used to have a take at the issue of lucky horizon scanning as I was called it. We did have a body, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council which existed from 1947 until 2004 and that looked at all these issues of standards. How do you train, how do you train the question of moving from Staport to Evacuation? They would have assessed how do you do that and then how do we transfer that into the real world of training firefighters on the ground to do it. That doesn't exist. So every fire service is doing this in their own way. A complete fragmentation of the fire and rescue service used to be described as a national service delivered locally. Now you've got a localised fragmented service and that's part of the picture. Then you look at the fire safety regime, a shift towards self-regulation, self-assessment, systems where, and I'm not saying this is directly right to Grenfell, but systems where people who are fire risk assessors can set up in business with no qualifications at all. That's the world that we're living in. Has anything changed since then? What's been learned, what's, have buildings, I'm of the understanding that there's still a lot of high rise buildings with this flammable cladding on the outside of it and that action has been kind of disgracefully slow, I suppose. Is that an analysis you- Yeah, I think it's painfully slow. So there are, the government is looking at things like the building regulations and the regime around that and the flammable cladding. There is a programme to remove flammable cladding or sorry ACM cladding. There's different types of flammable cladding. Again, painfully slow. We've got from the fire service what is called an interim policy of how do you deal with these very high risk buildings now knowing that Grenfell has happened, but it's an interim policy that's now been placed for two and a half years. That's not really an interim policy. So in our view, in terms of the fire and rescue service, nothing substantial happening on any great scale. I mean, your members must be, I mean, because no one wants to be in it and especially in an emergency service where they feel like they're going into an environment which is unsafe and where they're unprepared. I mean, your members must be, you know, getting really frustrated with the situation. I think there's different smooths. I think London members are angry, but some just had enough of Grenfell, you know, they feel that some film people most painful night of their lives and probably don't want to talk about it. Outside of London a huge interest in some of these themes about what's, what are the different standards. If Grenfell had happened outside of London, the disaster would have been far, far worse because the London Fire Fire Brigade is one of the best resourced fire brigades in the country and was able to get large numbers of people there very quickly. If that had happened anywhere else, they simply would not have had the personnel to deal with it on the same scale. So our members imagine what would have happened if this had happened here. Again, a frustration, I think there's a big concern, cynicism about politicians generally among a lot of our members and not convinced that actually anything serious is going to change. Aaron, you want to come in? Yeah, you said it was more of a national service previously. When did that sort of transition take place? The big change was in, there was a dispute between ourselves and our employers 2002-2003 under the new Labour government. I suppose my take on it would be that was used as an opportunity to make fundamental changes to fire and rescue policy and legislation. So I mentioned the act that created, in reality, the modern fire and rescue fire brigade, as it was called, fire service, was the 1947 act set up under the post-war Labour government. In a way part of the post-war consensus and so on, that was in place from 1947 until 2004, a 2004 whole series of new legislation in the different parts of the UK, the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. But all those bodies were so we had an inspectorate that was scrapped at the same time, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council scrapped at the same time, National Appointment and Promotion Regulations scrapped at the same time, National Standards of Fire cover scrapped at the same time. All these national standards went at a stroke in either 2003-2004 and a shift to a very localised system. So now that each fire service sets its own standards and then measures the effectiveness of their own standards. What was the argument for that? I mean, that seems just utterly crazy. The argument, and I think again this lies behind some of the debates around Grenfell, is there has been in the UK and in many of the advanced economies downward trend in fires. So you know, if you think the way we heat our homes, smoking, not using chip pans, all those things have had an impact. Also the work of the fire service in preventative activities has had an impact. So there has been a downward trend in the past three or four years that has plateaued and actually we've seen some increase. But then from central government, there was an endless mantra of because the number of fires has declined, fire itself is therefore a declining risk and therefore you should reduce the number of firefighters and fire stations. My answer to that on a very simple basis is if you used to have 100 fires in a community and you now only have 80, that's great, but it doesn't to us mean that the people who have the 80 fires should have a lower standard of service. But that is the logic, is a very supply and demand led argument that has driven these changes. And I have to say, again, where we part company with chief officers, they have gone along with this for 16, 18 years. They've helped to dismantle the structures that, in our view, maintain standards. And who are the sort of chief engineers of that policy? Obviously that's during the sort of later Blair years. Are there any politicians? I mean, not to sort of lambast them, but just to sort of put some meat on the bone in terms of where this was coming from politically. Well, this emerged from fire ministers at the time Nick Rainsford being one in 2002, who started some of this debate. They then commissioned a so-called independent review of the fire rescue service under George Bain. It was a professor of industrial relations and much of what happened to the fire service emerged from that review of the fire service. The fire rescue services act was based on Bain's review of the service and they criticized the fire service of being slow to change. I think big criticism of the union, very highly unionized. They think that we have slowed down change and so on. So a big part of that agenda was against the Fire Brigades Union.