Grenfell fire inquiry shows heads must roll – Labour must act boldly | UK | News

It’s been over seven years since the catastrophic Grenfell Tower fire killed 72 people in west London. And in that time, we’ve seen various organisations shamelessly play the hot potato with responsibility – dodging and ducking allegations of wrongdoing while passing the buck to everyone else in sight. Finally, after two governments, five prime ministers, a pandemic, a global recession and a massive £170m inquiry into the tragedy, the report is out. And as expected, the revelations are shocking.

The inquiry’s chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, blamed everything from the “systematic dishonesty” of construction companies producing the flammable cladding to government ministers, civil servants and regulators putting “commercial interests” above building safety. To make matters worse, it was confirmed that the legitimate concerns of Grenfell residents were repeatedly ignored – even after years of whistleblowing.

It doesn’t get more condemning than that. And heads need to roll.

These findings do raise a number of questions, however. Firstly, why did it take seven years and hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to reach such an obvious conclusion? From the outset, many of Sir Martin’s findings were crystal clear.

Indeed, the tragedy bore all the hallmarks of a similar fire eight years earlier: the 2009 Lakanal House fire in Camberwell. Like Grenfell, that fire claimed multiple lives. It too was caused by a faulty electrical appliance and made worse by flammable cladding. And like Grenfell, a public inquiry was held.

What happened next? You guessed it: nothing. Not least because there was no legal obligation to do so.

It is therefore not surprising that the recommendations of the Prevention of Future Death Report were ignored by civil servants, local politicians and construction companies, all trying to buy time until the next incident became too big to ignore, which set the stage for the tragedy at Grenfell Tower.

And in many ways it is a story about the disasters in Britain.

Tragedy happens, lives are lost, the government of the day plays a nice game and spends millions of pounds on an inquiry. Then, after years of debate and expensive legal fees, a damning report is published, which changes very little. And since the Inquiries Act of 2005, nothing has had to change.

Is it any surprise then that less than 10 percent of all major public inquiries since 1990 have been investigated by parliament? It makes you wonder why we bother at all. The only people who seem to benefit are the official experts and lawyers who get to line their pockets and wag their fingers.

I have always supported public inquiries. After all, we should always try to learn from our mistakes and do better. But what is the point if the government does not have to take action? Why spend all that time (and money) when ministers can simply shelve suggestions that cause too much hassle?

In contrast to learning from the past and not repeating mistakes, it is clear that public inquiries are no longer intended to bring about change. They only generate shocking headlines to expose the incompetence of previous governments. But that is no longer good enough.

Sir Martin has said that recommendations from public inquiries should be given greater weight.

With Labour’s plans to boost housebuilding across the country, this latest report is more important than ever. Will the current government be brave enough to strike the right balance between industry safety and not overburdening builders?

Take, for example, the issue of stairwells in high-rise buildings.

Many politicians have argued that residential buildings over 30 metres tall should be designed with two flights of stairs. The Chief Fire Officers Association says the two-flight rule should apply to buildings 18 metres tall. However, the Royal Institute for British Architects Expert Advisory Group on Fire Safety noted in 2018 that it should be 11 metres. So who is right? Or how about the less discussed topic of architecture and public beautification? Like the King, I do not want to see our towns and cities adorned with ugly, soulless (and, as we have discovered, unsafe) utilitarian shoeboxes that serve only to bolster housebuilding figures. Will efforts be made to make our towns and cities feel like integrated communities, rather than unflattering buildings sprouting up like weeds?

These are the kinds of decisions Angela Rayner has to make. But will she be brave enough to make the right decisions and find a balance?

You would think that Labour’s penchant for quangos and devolving power to unelected institutions would make it more likely that they would act on the inquiry’s recommendations. They do, but only time will tell. Ultimately, we discredit the memory of victims by having these expensive, toothless, and change-free public inquiries. It’s time we started treating them with the seriousness they deserve.