Grenfell needs clarity, not toxic speculation

In most terrible disasters, high loss of life is often the consequence of a succession of failures and mistakes. So it has proved with the Grenfell Tower fire a year ago which claimed 72 lives. The public inquiry began hearing evidence yesterday in an effort to uncover why the blaze spread so rapidly and why so many people were trapped inside. In the days after the tragedy a Leftist narrative tried to give the impression that poor people living in a tower block in one of Europe’s richest neighbourhoods were effectively sentenced to death by incompetent bureaucrats, spending cuts, rapacious rentiers and cowboy builders. The heroes were the residents and the emergency services, especially the fire brigade.

This was a politically motivated oversimplification and official reports submitted to the inquiry tell a more complex story. There was, indeed, apparent incompetence. More than 100 fire doors replaced in 2011 did not comply with regulations and a fire-fighting lift did not work. Yet the building was not a neglected ghetto but one where refurbishment had included new outer cladding to improve insulation and the look of the building together with new panels and windows installed on every floor. A new smoke ventilation system had been installed for every lobby to the single staircase.

In the event of a fire, the advice from the fire service to residents was to stay put and wait for the blaze to be extinguished. However, for this strategy to work every other element of the safety measures had to function correctly. As it turned out, because the fire was not compartmentalised as a consequence of other failings, this guidance was fatally flawed. In particular, the outer walls were supposed to be fire resistant, yet the flames spread rapidly up the cladding to envelop the entire building. Dr Barbara Lane, a fire safety engineer, concluded that the “stay put” strategy had substantially failed by 1.26am, just half an hour after the fire service was called. Yet the decision to change the advice to “make efforts to leave the building” was not recorded until almost 3am.

The causes of this calamity are gradually becoming clearer, and it is a story likely to belie the rush to judgment made by so many. The question as to whether the many shortcomings had been known and never rectified is still to be answered, but what is most important is to establish the truth in a forensic and calm way, free of the toxic politics that dominated the aftermath of the tragedy.