Monday sees the start of Phase 2 of the Grenfell Inquiry.
There is a new venue, two additional panel members and the same terms of
reference as phase 1. So will Phase 2
deliver justice and long term change for the better? We think not!
At the start of Phase 1 in December 2017, Deborah Coles, the
director of Inquest, said:
“Grenfell is a shocking injustice and the need
for the inquiry to get to the truth is of value to us all. It can only do this
if the individual voices of the bereaved and survivors are not lost and
silenced. Recognising the bereaved as victims, placing them at the heart of the
inquiry, is essential to help humanise the legal process.
“To assuage the
profound anger and mistrust requires meaningful engagement of those affected,
along with prompt, full and proper disclosure and a panel representative of the
community. This can help instil confidence and encourage participation.”
Has the Inquiry listened and acted on this crucial piece of
advice? No
The new venue is nearer to north Kensington, enabling a
shorter distance to travel and avoiding travel on the underground, bereaved
families and Survivors asked for this. However they also raised issues about
conditions inside the building, including the lack of natural daylight, poor
ventilation, and a claustrophobic room for the hearings. The same complaints have been raised about
the new venue.
After eleven months of lobbying, Theresa May agreed to appoint
two additional ‘diverse’ panel members to sit alongside the Chair. There
appeared to be some confusion on what a diverse panel entailed. What was needed were panel members that
understood diverse communities like North Kensington. To understand the full reasons behind what
happened at Grenfell Tower, it is important that the inquiry appreciated the
social and cultural aspects of the community where it happened. However, this was interpreted by the cabinet office
as putting ‘black and brown’ faces on the panel. This
lack of understanding led to the appointment by PM Boris Johnson, of Benita Mehra,
an engineer, who previously ran an organisation which received a £71,000 grant
from the Arconic Foundation, the manufacturer’s philanthropic arm. Yes, Arconic
who manufacture the highly combustible cladding panel system, that the first
phase of the inquiry has already established were “the principal reason why the
flames spread so rapidly up the building” causing the inferno. Did Cabinet
Office officials not carry out due diligence in checking any concerns regarding
Ms Mehra’s suitability for the panel? It
also appears that they did not fully brief the Prime minister either. How does this severe lack of care and scrutiny,
keep the bereaved and survivors at the heart of the inquiry? Within any other
public sphere, this would be tantamount to non-verbal bullying. . Ms Mehra has now resigned on the eve of the
inquiry.
There has been no review or refresh of the Inquiry’s terms
of reference for Phase 2. The full terms
of reference for the public inquiry, accepted in full by the then prime
minister, Theresa May, are:
- The cause and spread of the fire;
- The design, construction and refurbishment of
Grenfell Tower;
- The scope and adequacy of the relevant
regulations relating to high-rise buildings;
- Whether the relevant legislation and guidance
were complied with in the case of Grenfell Tower; The actions of the local
authority and other bodies before the tragedy;
- The response of the London Fire Brigade to the
fire and the response of central and local government in the aftermath.
Broader questions on
social housing, working class communities, social inequality or institutional
discrimination were not included. Calls
for the inquiry to broaden its terms of reference and include these issues fell
on deaf ears. This implicitly reveals
their lack of interest, to know if these matters played any part in the events
surrounding the fire at Grenfell. Moreover,
there is no obligation for the Inquiry panel to make recommendations on vital changes
for our communities in the future.
If you do not keep ‘people’ at the heart of it, then you
lose touch with what the inquiry’s paramount role is. This is the litmus test
of any Pubic Inquiry. Inquiries are the responsibility of the
government; that they did not listen and
act once is unfortunate, to not listen and act twice is careless, thereafter we
can only conclude that their consistent inertia is deliberate and belligerent. Seventy-two
men, women and children perished at Grenfell and our community has continued to
make demands; we want the truth, we want accountability, we want answers, we
want changes in our society to ensure that nothing like this ever happens
again. The consistent Institutional indifference shown by the local authority (RBKC)
and the tenant management organisation to the former residents during the refurbishment
of the Tower; appears to be also permeating through the Inquiry’s attitudes.
When will they listen to the voices of those most affected? In the words of
Deborah Coles, ‘without this (their
voices) the inquiry will be flawed and will fail those seeking the truth and
justice they deserve.’ We agree.