The Guardian view on the Grenfell inquiry: a slow march to culpability
In less than two weeks’ time, the final phase of evidence at the Grenfell inquiry will end. These hearings are about how each of the fire’s 72 victims died, with the last story to be told that of Mehdi El Wahabi, who was just eight at the time. His cousin, Sara Chebiouni, who lived several floors down, thought that Mehdi might have become a comedian had he survived.
Haunting stories already read out have included that of 12-year-old Jessica Urbano Ramirez. When she picked up the phone to the emergency control room officer who stayed on a call with her as she succumbed to smoke inhalation, her first word was “Mum?” By concluding with these and other agonising details, the inquiry will end where it started, by placing the victims of the tragedy at the centre, where they belong.
What follows will be an excruciating wait. Closing statements will come in the autumn and the inquiry chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, is expected to publish his report next year. The police and Crown Prosecution Service have made it clear that criminal charges will not be laid until then, on the grounds that it is too risky to embark on a prosecution without knowing in advance what Sir
Martin thinks. The question of who will finally be held accountable for the inferno of 14 June 2017 hangs in the air.
This does not mean that nothing can happen before then. The inquiry has heard a vast quantity of evidence, and police and prosecutors should have a clear plan. The attitude to building safety revealed in evidence given by employees of multiple organisations was appallingly lax. Evidence showed that executives at Arconic, the French multinational that made the panels regarded by Sir Martin as the main reason for the fire’s spread, knew that they were “dangerous on facades” but sold them anyway. Jonathan Roper, who worked for Celotex, which made the foam insulation used in the refurbishment, described how the company cheated in a fire safety test. Decisions taken by the tenant management organisation and council indicate that cost took priority over safety.
Gross negligence manslaughter convictions could result in prison sentences; corporate manslaughter ones in unlimited fines. But there is work here for politicians as well as the criminal justice system. Contenders for the
Conservative leadership should be required to state whether they will act on the inquiry’s recommendations with regard to regulating the building industry, and reversing the damaging assault on health and safety led by David Cameron. Eric Pickles’ exceptional rudeness when he appeared as a witness was a disgrace. The former secretary of state for communities and local government appeared not even to know the number of Grenfell’s victims.
So far the signs are not good. In May, ministers rejected one of the key recommendations from the inquiry’s first stage, which was that disabled tenants of high-rise buildings should have personal evacuation plans. The government said this would be disproportionate, casting doubt on its promise to “accept all of the findings of the report in full”.
There is no doubt about the extraordinary quantity of information that the inquiry has placed in the public domain. The question is where all this will lead; whether those people and organisations who bear greatest responsibility will pay any price, beyond the private remorse that several have described, and whether ministers will take steps to ensure such a tragedy is never repeated.