Grenfell fire inquiry shows heads must roll - but only time will tell if Labour will act

It has been more than seven years since the catastrophic Grenfell Tower fire caused the deaths of 72 people in west London. And during that time, we have seen various organisations shamefully play hot potato with responsibility – ducking and diving accusations of wrongdoing while passing the buck to anyone within spitting distance. Finally, after two Governments, five Prime ministers, a pandemic, a global recession, and a whopping £170million inquiry into the tragedy, the report is out. And as suspected, its revelations are shocking.

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

It doesn’t get more damning than that. And heads must roll.

However, these findings do beg several questions. Firstly, why did reaching such an obvious conclusion take seven years and hundreds of millions of pounds from taxpayers? From the very beginning, many of Sir Martin’s findings were crystal clear.

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

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

So, unsurprisingly, the recommendations of the Prevention of Future Death Report were ignored by officials, local politicians and building firms – all stalling for time until the next incident became too large to ignore, which set the stage for the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

And in many ways, it is the story of disasters in Britain.

Something tragic happens, lives are lost, the government of the day talks a good game and commits millions of pounds to an inquiry. Then after years of debate and expensive lawyer fees, a damning report is published, with very little actually changing. And since the Inquiries Act of 2005, nothing is required to change.

Is it any surprise then that not even 10 percent of all major public inquiries have been examined by Parliament since 1990? You have to wonder why we even bother. 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 must always try to learn from our mistakes and do better. But what is the point if the Government is not required to take any action? Why spend all of this time (and money) if ministers can simply shelve suggestions that are too much hassle?

Contrary to learning from the past and not repeating mistakes, it’s clear public inquiries are no longer about driving change. They just generate shocking headlines to showcase the incompetence of previous governments. But that is no longer good enough.

Sir Martin has said the recommendations of public inquiries must carry more weight.

Given Labour’s plans to turbocharge house building across the country, this latest report is now more important than ever. Will the current government be bold enough to strike the right balance between industry safety and not over-burdening builders?

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

Many politicians have argued that residential buildings over 30 metres in height need to be designed with two staircases. The Chief Fire Officers Association says the two-staircase rule should apply to 18-metre-high buildings. 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 what about the less discussed issue of architecture and public beautification? Much like the King, I don’t want to see our towns and cities festooned with ugly, soulless (and, as we have discovered, unsafe) utilitarian shoe boxes that only serve to prop up house-building figures. Will there be efforts to make our cities feel like integrated communities instead of having unflattering buildings spring up like weeds?

These are the kinds of decisions Angela Rayner must make – but will she be bold enough to make the right ones and strike a balance?

You would think Labour’s penchant for quangos and devolving power to unelected institutions would make it more likely they would act on inquiry recommendations. Indeed, but only time will tell. Ultimately, we disgrace the memory of victims by commissioning these expensive, toothless public inquiries that result in no change. It's time we start treating them with the seriousness they deserve.