With the final Grenfell Inquiry report published in September 2024, CT Partner, James Tickell, delves into the problems with inquiries and suggests what could be done in the future to get to the root causes of disasters faster.
So … the Grenfell Inquiry has finally reported, seven long years after the terrible fire that took 72 lives, and traumatised many more. The Inquiry findings are well known now, with any number of briefings, summaries and articles. There seems no doubt that the process was thorough and detailed. Its conclusions have been accepted by most as being largely, or even entirely right. We know now that each one of the 72 deaths was avoidable. And that among the various parties carrying some share of the blame, there are those who knowingly and cynically nailed the equivalent of firelighters as the cladding of a residential building.
The Grenfell Inquiry joins a long list of similar exercises. More than fifteen are currently under way: the Post Office Horizon scandal; COVID-19; others connected with health; and those focusing on various events in Northern Ireland and Afghanistan. Before them came dozens more: infected blood, Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough Stadium, BSE, to name but a few. Broadly speaking they work, and get to the uncomfortable truths.
The problem with inquiriesÂ
But then what? The first problem is the length of time an inquiry takes. In the case of Grenfell, it’s been suggested that prosecutions may take another couple of years, and the subsequent court cases may drag on for as long again, with appeals and court delays. So those who suffered dreadful losses in the fire may end up waiting a decade or more before any guilty parties face justice. Â
Even once an inquiry has reported, with recommendations, that’s no guarantee of action. A recent inquiry into serious abuse at an immigration removal centre made 33 recommendations. To date, our government has agreed to just one of those, with the others in the long grass for now. Likewise, the coroner’s 2013 report into the 2009 fire at Lakanal House, set out a series of recommendations, which were largely ignored. If action had been taken then, Grenfell may have been avoided. Â
The Grenfell Inquiry’s two phases made some 105 recommendations. In fairness, a good number of those have actually been implemented, and important new legislation on building safety is already in operation. But overall, the record of inquiry recommendations being ignored by UK governments after the initial warm words is not a reassuring one. Â
The next disaster: what can be done?Â
So how could we do things better in this country, the next time some disaster or malpractice is under the microscope? And sadly, there will surely be a next time. Well, unfashionably, let’s look over the Channel for some ideas. In French criminal law, an investigating judge (‘juge d’instruction’) can be appointed to gather evidence on the possible commission of offenses, and to decide whether to refer the persons charged directly to a trial court. Â
An appeal process exists, but the overall approach is sometimes described as ‘inquisitorial’. In the 19th century, the famous writer Balzac wrote:
“No human authority … can intrude on the power of the investigating judge. No one can stop him, nobody gives him orders. He is sovereign, obeying only his conscience and the law.”
Referring individuals to trialÂ
I know that approach doesn’t sound very British … and it could be toned down somewhat for our local purposes; though a bit of inquisition may not always go amiss. But if Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s role had been cast in similar terms, the (alleged) perpetrators would already be in the dock by now. One possible streamlining here would be the power to refer individuals for trial during the course of an inquiry, if the evidence appeared conclusive. Â
Government accountabilityÂ
The other change we should seek is for ways of holding governments to account for the implementation of inquiry recommendations. Maybe there could be a legal requirement for the relevant government departments to publish formal responses to all public inquiry reports, with an action plan, and a duty to report at set intervals to Parliament on implementation progress?Â
One thing is certain. We as a nation haven’t yet got this right. There is much that we do well, and Sir Martin is to be thanked for his patient and forensic approach. But let’s learn from recent events, and be ready to deal with our next national tragedy, whatever that may be, in a more expedient and accountable way. Those who died in Grenfell Tower deserve no less. Â
Further reading
- Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report Summary
- GRENFELL TOWER INQUIRY: PHASE 1 REPORT OVERVIEW (Crown Copyright)
- GRENFELL TOWER INQUIRY: PHASE 2 REPORT OVERVIEW (Crown Copyright)
- Grenfell Tower Inquiry report recommendations: The transformative, the good, the mixed and the missing (Peter Apps)Â
- The aftermath of Grenfell: A comprehensive overview of UK’s building safety reforms (shponline)Â
Grenfell: two ‘must reads’:
- Catastrophe and Systemic Change, Learning from the Grenfell Tower Fire and Other Disasters, Gill Kernick, London Publishing Partnership, 2021
- Show Me the Bodies, Pete Apps, Oneworld Publications, November 2022. Winner of the Orwell Prize for political writing 2023
To discuss any issues raised in this article, please contact James Tickell: james.tickell@campbelltickell.comÂ
