The extent of the physical and emotional suffering caused by 2017’s Grenfell Tower fire could not be more painfully clear than it has been at the hearings held this week as part of the settlement of a damages claim. The civil case brought by 900 of those who were bereaved, or who survived the fire, concluded in April last year with a £150m payment by the companies and public authorities responsible for the disastrous refurbishment of the building and the failures on the night of the fire. At Church House in London, as part of a package mediated by Lord Neuberger, a former president of the supreme court, survivors had the chance to address 24 executives face to face.
A combination of live and videoed speeches conveyed the full range of difficult emotions, from the deepest sorrow to rage and a longing for revenge. The details of the settlement – which companies paid what, how much individuals are to receive – are private, as in other civil litigation. But the grief, disillusion and illness that are Grenfell’s living legacy were eloquently described. Overhanging it all was the enormous frustration of the tower’s residents, and their families, that six and a half years after the tragedy, no one has been charged for their role in causing 72 deaths.
It is perhaps too soon to tell whether speakers obtained any relief from the occasion; the impact of such traumatic encounters is not necessarily immediate. It is also impossible to know whether the demands on business leaders to change the culture of their organisations, to care more about people and less about profit, as Sandra Ruiz and others told them that they should, will lead to change. But the empty table where executives of Arconic should have been seated, had they attended, was a symbol of everything that is wrong with the current situation. The survivors of the disaster did not deserve for their testimony to be disrespected in this way.
After this week, once again, they must wait. The public inquiry into the disaster, an entirely separate process from the civil litigation, is due to produce its final report in the summer. After that the police will make recommendations to the Crown Prosecution Service about who should be charged and with what. That means a criminal case could feasibly get under way in 2025 – eight years after the fire. In the end, for many of the survivors, this is what accountability boils down to. Will anyone be found guilty and sent to jail for having caused the horror of 14 June 2017 or not?
The report is also expected to include recommendations with regard to construction industry regulation, oversight of public housing and emergency planning. All these issues are important, and Grenfell campaigners have made commendable efforts on behalf of other tenants, particularly those in flats with flammable cladding. In recent weeks they have drawn parallels with the long struggle of post office workers wrongly accused of theft – and stressed the importance of keeping the public interested, since this leads to pressure on politicians.
The public inquiry has done a good job of probing the disaster’s causes. But fact-finding only takes you so far, while talk of “restorative” encounters is arguably out of place when victims are still waiting for their day in the criminal courts. The message of this week has been that there is no substitute for justice.
