The Grenfell Tower fire public inquiry comes to an end as who is to blame will now be decided.
Image source, Getty ImagesThe public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire has drawn to a close with a strongly worded attack by a senior barrister on companies and organisations involved in the tragedy.
Richard Millett KC, lead counsel for the inquiry, said the risks that led to the 2017 fire in west London were “well known” by many of them and “ought to have been known” by all of them.
He described “incompetence”, “cynical” and “possibly dishonest practices” in the building industry, “weak” building controls, failure of London Fire Brigade to learn lessons from previous fires, and a failure of government.
He told the hearing that, based on the evidence, the panel should conclude that all 72 deaths as a result of the disaster in north Kensington were “avoidable”.
Mr Millet KC condemned the “failure to pay due respect to the idea of the home as a physical aspect of human privacy, agency, safety and dignity”.
‘Nobody to blame?’
Addressing inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick, he said firms involved in the fire had often denied responsibility.
“If everything that has been said [at the inquiry] was correct, then nobody was to blame for the Grenfell Tower fire. Can that really be right?
“Is the answer that you want to give to the survivors, to the grieving families, and to the wider public to be that the Grenfell Tower fire was just a terrible accident? Just one of those unfortunate incidents that happened occasionally?”
Or is it to be, he said, that “there are so many to blame, that no one individual or organisation shoulders very much blame”.
That, he said, is what the firms accused of some responsibility for the fire wanted him to conclude.
“Are they really as sorry as they say?” Mr Millet KC asked.
Image source, Reuters
Since the first day of the first phase of the inquiry, Mr Millett KC has criticised the building industry companies for blaming each other in “indulging in a merry-go-round of blame”.
Referring to the companies’ closing statements this week he said “the merry-go-round turns still. The notes of its melody, clearly audible.”
He went on to say: “A tragedy of these dimensions ought to have provoked a strong sense of public responsibility.”
Instead, he said, many “core participants appear simply to have used the inquiry as an opportunity to position themselves”, so as “to minimise their own exposure to legal liability”.
“A public inquiry is not the place for cleverness. But for candour.”
Image source, Grenfell Tower Inquiry
He used the majority of his closing speech to set out the ways in which he believed the many organisations and companies, which were involved in the refurbishment of the tower in the years before the fire, had blamed each other.
Having heard the last of the closing statements, the inquiry panel will now decide which of them were most responsible for failures that led to the blaze.
Among them are:
- Arconic Architectural Products: The inquiry has heard the cladding manufacturer marketed the cladding, knowing it would be used on tall buildings, despite having test evidence that it might be unsafe for this purpose. Arconic, however, argues that it is the job of architects and construction firms to ensure the materials they use are suitable
- Rydon: The panel heard the building and design contractor for the tower’s refurbishment in 2015 knew, or should have known, the cladding was flammable. Rydon says it was never warned about the risk of the cladding by its manufacturer and relied on other experts
- The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) and its tenant management organisation: The local council and the body managing its social housing has been accused during the inquiry of trying to cut costs by using a cheaper, non-fire retardant type of cladding. The council has admitted its building inspectors signed-off on the decision
- Harley Facades: The contractor that bought and fitted the flammable cladding chosen by Rydon and the council has defended itself at the inquiry, saying it did not know the cladding had previously failed fire safety tests. However, Arconic argued the cladding came with a certificate that said it was combustible and that the cladding panels had been misused as they were not suitable for the tower
- Celotex and Kingspan: During the inquiry the two insulation companies have been accused of ignoring safety risks when selling products for residential tower blocks. They insist their products could be used safely with the right designs
- Exova: The inquiry has heard that fire safety consultants had advised the refurbishment would have no adverse effect on safety in a report during the early planning stages for the Grenfell redevelopment. However, in his closing statement on Thursday, Sean Brannigan KC, representing the firm, said his client had “literally nothing to do” with the decision to use cladding containing a flammable plastic layer, which was taken later in the project
On the inquiry’s closing day, the government repeated its previous apology for its failure to realise that the regulatory system for building safety was “broken and might lead to a catastrophe such as this”.
Jason Beer KC, representing the Department for Housing, Communities and Levelling Up, said: “The department is truly sorry and apologises unreservedly.”
Image source, PA Media
It is likely the inquiry will not publish its final report until well into 2023, and that decisions by police and prosecutors about whether criminal charges will be brought will not be made until 2024.
Bereaved relatives and survivors of the fire, along with residents of the estate where Grenfell Tower stands, have said they will not be satisfied until those responsible are sent to prison.
Additional reporting by Aurelia Foster
Follow BBC London on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hellobbclondon@bbc.co.uk