We’ve been here before about the safety and security of glass, writes James Allen, a glass safety and security risk consultant, of AITCo Consulting.
A busy airport. It’s just a normal morning with crowds of people milling about. Then, catastrophe. In the blink of an eye, suicide bombers strike. People are dead. People are hurt. Parts of the new departure hall give way and panic ensues. Many flee the carnage talking of flying glass and the damage to life and limb. Heathrow in the 1990s? No, it isn’t. It’s March 22, 2016. At Brussels Airport, in the city which styles itself as ‘The Heart of Europe’.
How could such an outrage occur at an airport serving Europe’s political hub? And so soon after shocking street attacks in both Paris and Brussels? And why was flying glass ever an issue here? Enough control exists to ensure safe glass in a public place, so was neglect in the face of a known terror threat a major factor at this airport?
And in the United Kingdom
Despite constant official warning over the last three years of ever-rising level of threat, there seems to be a collective view in Britain that terror is now down to running knifemen, lone gunmen, the deliberate ramming of people by vehicles or computer crime. Blast and its potential for massacring hundreds of innocent people at one go has taken a back seat in the memory. But, in a split second, the memories can come flooding back. How good is your window film fitted over 25 years ago? It probably came with just a five-year warranty. Poor fitting, lack of cleaning and exposure to UVL will have long since sapped it of its basic potential to protect life and limb. And are the risk assessments of your glass on file?
Those are things required by the Health & Safety Executive to be carried out “regularly” – whatever that might mean – and by “competent persons” – whoever they might be. All, of course, recorded in detail, ready for inspection, either before or after an event takes place. If you place employees into tall glass-clad boxes and the glass fails, it would be difficult to argue in law that you, as the owner of the glass, had no responsibility whatever towards those cut down by flying shards. US courts are clear on the point wherever there is a known and current threat. It would be unwise to assume that British courts would not agree.
A perfect catastrophe
Now the United Kingdom reels from terror attack in Manchester and London. Britain is placed upon the highest level of terror alert for years and notice served to expect a plague of casual murder. British has been stunned by a further tragic event. At Grenfell Tower in west London. A blazing housing block has become a metaphor for woeful flaws in our society. Failing has been endemic: design and build; contract approval; material testing, supply and fitting; maintenance and management; tenant welfare; fire equipment and training; all compounded by an inept response from central government and a local authority with an odd social agenda.
The list seems endless. Yet Britain does not lack for mandatory regulation. In fact, we are up to our knees in it. The trouble? Supervision has vanished like the morning mist – a major casualty of budgetary cuts. When it’s gone, it’s gone and disaster looms. Keeping British people safe, even in their own homes, has now become a game of chance. Amazing acts of self-help within the local communities and the selfless courage of emergency services which refuse to back away are the real plus points to emerge from either Grenfell or the Manchester tragedy.
So what now?
How does a burning housing complex relate to the nation’s security? Apart from giving lessons in civil response to atrocity and to enhance a sense of caring towards each other? Where flat glass and glazing is concerned, the word “security” should never distance itself from the word “safety”. In many cases, security might be a stand alone factor, but where wholesale injury is involved, the key issue is “safety” and the law will judge on that basis. It would be folly to think that a known real threat to glass could ever remain unchecked in spite of the legal need to comply with mandatory safe glass policy. Fallout from Grenfell Tower will be looking at a cladding system. Glass is also fitted now as a cladding medium and cannot escape censure now or in future. It has already proven itself unfit to resist terror, when many tons of broken glass piled up in city streets during IRA bombing. The issue is well known, but what has been the response since those events? Just replace the glass – like for like. Or let window film pass its sell-by date. Today we face attack from those who will not issue a cosy warning in advance. And the future death toll could be massive. As the threat is real and broadcast widely, an owner of glass must surely be held responsible under laws of negligence for making safe that glass under his/her direct control. Indeed, those in Britain working for any US-owned concern have the right to sue their employers in US courts, where neglect is proven in the face of a known risk. In fact, US courts will hear a claim from any quarter. There are those who clearly believe that safe containment is not possible and that we just have to put up with the consequences of flying shards. That opinion could not be further from the truth. Modern wide use of glass for cladding might well be punted for cosmetic and/or cost consideration. It still needs to be safe and user friendly. A range of blast mitigating systems are available, but professional help is needed to sort the wheat from the chaff. Who knows, for instance, that a successful window film project requires a protocol covering at least 15 factors? Owners of glass have a duty of care requiring those people under threat in any building to be trained to react properly in any emergency. Such training needs regular updating.
It will cover the safety and security of those visiting and walking past the premises, as a current court decision has confirmed.
Post-Grenfell Tower
Much effort will be spent in setting blame. It is hoped that the process will not drag on, that clear lines of enquiry will be set and a fudge avoided. Building Regulations should be combed through, in the hope that Health & Safety Executive (HSE) will become proactive and use its power to prevent injury. At present, the HSE stands aloof from glass safety and security, only reacting to a reported issue.
Risk assessment
This is a function needed when known threats become clear. The assessing of risk in Britain is too casual and is in the main, mostly a skimming process. In future, those deemed by HSE as responsible in law would be best served by looking at this process in detail to ensure a programme of non-stop observing and change. The need to assess risk needs professional support and advice. A record of assessment at any premises must be kept in detail. Regular formal assessments should be carried out by people trained and competent to do it. Cutting corners in future should be made subject to HSE sanction.
Sentencing
Sentencing in proven cases of negligence has become vastly more draconian. All cases brought before the courts since February 2016 have been subject to far closer scrutiny. The affect has been immense, with huge fines and severe prison terms handed down. The law now takes level of risk into account. An injury avoided by pure chance is no longer a form of defence for a party held responsible. An incident will also be judged by the number of people it puts at risk.
Making a direct link between court sentencing guidelines and the vital factor of a known risk will spell danger for those who fail either to observe the basic need for a proper risk assessment or to put any advice flowing from it into effect.
Change
As things stand, any change just for the sake of change might well prove a waste of time and effort. To tinker with control is pointless in the absence of a strict means of supervision and enforcement. Even just applying the force of law to current regulation would be a step in the right direction.
Future
Britain is held in high regard for our moral standing. Yet Germany prides itself upon strict enforcement of regulation and finds the British attitude as just too blasé – “it will never happen; but if it ever did, it could never happen again”. Even that pious hope has been blown away. Firstly, we have a fatal blaze at Lakanal House in south-east London in 2009 – the authorities got around to an inquest a mere eight (8) years later. The verdict in early 2017 had hardly emerged before the massive loss of life at Grenfell Tower less than eight miles away. A clear understanding of regulation is required, irrespective of whether we talk about “safety” or “security” – two sides of the same coin. People are funny. They would prefer action prior to an event, rather than sit through interminable investigation, the blame culture and delaying tactics after the event. Mandatory requirement must be enforced in Britain by the full force of law before tragedy strikes again. It would be logical for an effective fast track method to be enacted to force proper compliance.
