Why was a public inquiry set up?
The morning after the fire, Theresa May announced an inquiry because families were “owed an explanation”. She picked the retired high court judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick and they agreed he would investigate the fire’s cause and spread, how the building came to be so combustible, the fitness of building regulations and the response of the fire brigade as well as that of central and local government. However, Moore-Bick did not want it consider “questions of a social, economic and political nature” and May agreed.
Doesn’t that miss a huge part of the story?
Many core participants in the inquiry believe so. Survivors say that before the fire they endured “institutional indifference” from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), which owns Grenfell Tower, and claim this was rooted in a class divide in the UK’s richest borough. Firefighters, meanwhile, said the London fire brigade’s unpreparedness resulted from decades of deregulation and decentralisation of fire safety as well as austerity. The LFB budget was cut by £100m over the decade to 2017. May and Moore-Bick argued a wider remit would make the inquiry too slow. In the end. the first phase of the inquiry took 26 months and the second phase may not conclude until 2022 - five years on.
Why is the inquiry split into two parts?
Moore-Bick originally said he wanted to determine what happened on 14 June 2017 “as quickly as possible” in order to suggest changes that would safeguard other high rise residents. He wrongly reckoned he could do this by April 2018; on that timetable, he is now 18 months late. Changes to fire safety have already been introduced regardless of his recommendations. Some also believe it is wrong to criticise the response to the fire before understanding why the building was so combustible. That will form the basis of the second phase, starting in early 2020.
Who is unhappy about that decision?
The firefighters claim they are being scapegoated by coming first. The Fire Brigades Union has described the situation as unjust and rank-and-file firefighters across the UK are furious. Those at Trowbridge fire station in Wiltshire tweeted on Tuesday: “It’s hard to comprehend how individual fire officers (who risked their lives for others at Grenfell) are the focus of criticism, however those responsible for years of deregulation and budget cuts fail to fall under the same scrutiny.” Survivors are also frustrated the sequencing means there might be no rulings on the behaviour of the corporate entities they believe bear most responsibility until 2022.
What will the second phase determine?
Thousands of documents about the £10m refurbishment of the tower using combustible materials have already been disclosed to the inquiry. It must find out how RBKC made decisions and examine the roles of contractors Rydon and Harley Facades, the architects Studio E, and the makers of the cladding materials including multinationals Arconic, Celotex and Kingspan. It will be high stakes, drawn out and lawyers from all sides will be in abundance, not least because detectives from Scotland Yard are watching closely. They are investigating possible manslaughter and corporate manslaughter and are delaying sending evidence to prosecutors until the second phase is complete. The inquiry will also return to the firefighting operation and “question those who are responsible at the highest level”.
How is Moore-Bick approaching the inquiry?
His exhaustive approach to evidence gathering is time-consuming. The copious paper trail about the refurbishment will find him in his comfort zone as a former commercial court judge. But his unwillingness to consider the broader issues is angering many. While kind and sympathetic, he is also seen as patrician and out-of-touch. Survivors and bereaved have often been frustrated at the inquiry’s distant approach and a lack of communication. They had to fight for months to get the inquiry moved out of London’s legal district and closer to their homes.
