Seven years after the loss of 72 lives in the Grenfell Tower fire, the survivors and bereaved are disillusioned and angry. There was a sense of renewed expectation, as well as painful awareness of how much time has passed, as campaigners prepared for Friday’s memorial walk. With next month’s election, and the expected defeat of the Conservatives, they have sharpened their demands. When the public inquiry’s final report is published on 4 September, it will be a new government that responds.
The failure to implement recommendations from the inquiry’s first phase, including evacuation plans for disabled residents in high-rise flats, has caused deep dismay among disability and housing groups as well as Grenfell families. The announcement by police that prosecutions of those responsible will not take place before 2027, at the earliest, was described as “unbearable”. Inquiry participants whose lives were destroyed by the fire and its aftermath poured not only their pain into it but also their hopes for change. The findings are still eagerly awaited. Yet there is a growing sense that the length of time they are having to wait for justice and accountability is a further violation.
Labour has pledged to introduce a legal duty of candour on public authorities – a measure proposed by Sir Robert Francis in his 2013 report on failings at Mid Staffordshire hospitals, and taken up by Hillsborough campaigners. It has also committed to legal aid for victims of state-related deaths. But these measures on their own will not satisfy campaigners. This week’s call by Grenfell groups, issued jointly with participants in other inquiries, is for a new national body to oversee the implementation of inquiry recommendations, as proposed last year by the legal charity Inquest.
Public inquiries fulfil a vital function in enabling failures by state bodies to be thoroughly and independently examined. Terms of reference differ according to circumstances. But their purpose generally combines an investigative and truth-telling role with a goal of ensuring accountability, and preventing similar things from happening again.
For this mechanism to work, however, governments and other authorities need to cooperate. And this week’s call from survivors shows that they are losing confidence in the ability of inquiries to bring about change. They are not alone. In concluding the infected blood inquiry report which he spent six years working on, Sir Brian Langstaff declared his intention to persist in the role of chair until his recommendations, including a “meaningful apology” and compensation scheme, are delivered.
Campaigners are right to push the point. Public inquiries produce excellent documents and recommendations grounded in facts. But these are not always taken up. And while ministers could become more reluctant to commission inquiries, if they were to lose their discretion to decide which actions to take, the current position is not sustainable either. People who have suffered enormous losses, including the deaths of loved ones, must not be encouraged to put their faith in a process if it cannot deliver accountability and change.
There is no reason to think that criminal charges will not, eventually, be laid against the individuals and organisations that police believe are responsible for Grenfell. Recent comments strongly suggest that they will, as they should be. But as the wait for justice continues, campaigners are doing a public service in sharing their concerns regarding the future of the judge-led inquiries in which so much trust is placed.
