The conclusions of the Grenfell inquiry point in more than one direction. The path to justice lies through the courts, with police considering charges for crimes including corporate manslaughter. Warnings that trials could be years off, despite findings of dishonesty, have led to questions about public inquiries’ status as the gold standard of official investigations. Finding out the truth is important. But justice delayed is justice denied, and survivors are frustrated. The disaster and its aftermath have taken over their lives.
Public as well as private bodies were strongly criticised by the inquiry. Misconduct in public office is one of the charges being considered. But the overarching failure to regulate the construction industry, which led to combustible plastic panels being attached to high‑rise buildings, is not something for which anyone can be convicted. Deregulation, specifically lax laws about materials and fire safety, caused the deaths of 72 people. David Cameron and Eric Pickles were particularly culpable in pushing this policy. But while this can be viewed as criminal in a moral sense, it is not in a legal one.
Sir Keir Starmer’s government knows that a dogma of deregulation and austerity has damaged Britain. By attacking “red tape” at the same time as cutting public investment, the Conservatives degraded services and enabled profiteers. Thanks to the Grenfell inquiry, shockingly unethical practice in the construction industry has been laid bare. Builders are underregulated, thanks in part to their lobbying efforts stretching back years. But they are not alone. On Thursday, Steve Reed, the environment secretary, introduced a bill to toughen up rules for the failing and deeply unpopular water industry.
Some of the loopholes in building regulations have been closed. Combustible cladding can no longer be used on structures higher than 18 metres. But ministers have not yet said whether they will accept the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations for a new construction industry regulator, and a college of fire and rescue to promote good practice. There is sense in both proposals. But you only have to look at the water companies, and Ofwat, to see that a regulator does not guarantee a well-functioning industry, which reasonably balances the interests of shareholders and the public.
This week’s events throw a troubling light on Labour’s decision to support the last government in imposing a “growth duty” on Ofwat: the prioritisation of economic over social goals is central to the Grenfell disaster. Nor is Ofwat a lone example. The media regulator, Ofcom, has failed over years to act on safeguarding failures by tech companies. The children’s social care market is plagued by excess profits and poor outcomes despite criticism from oversight bodies including the Competition and Markets Authority.
But since Sir Keir Starmer’s government is resistant to nationalising the water supply, or insourcing children’s homes, or empowering local government to build homes (rather than business), strong regulation and enforcement are the only means left to it. Laws can be shaped to ensure that human needs are provided for, and treated with the respect that they merit – rather than exploited or viewed as secondary to profits. The social goods associated with markets – above all the economic growth to which Sir Keir and Rachel Reeves have pinned the nation’s hopes – must be balanced with values of care, respect for life and a sense of responsibility in those with power over others.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
