Dear Prime Minister
The devastating fire that tore through Grenfell Tower on 14th June 2017 has shocked the nation. Survivors, local residents and the whole country rightly want answers on what caused the fire, and what must be done to prevent a repeat. That is why I welcome your decision to hold a Public Inquiry into the fire, as this offers the best opportunity to get to the truth.
General Conduct of the Inquiry
I am writing to you in advance of any decision on the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry in order to contribute my views on how I believe the Inquiry should be conducted if it is to best serve justice, and maintain the confidence of the community.
As you will be aware, there is considerable mistrust and anger amongst the community, particularly directed towards those in positions of authority. A concerted effort is therefore required by Government and then the Chair of the Inquiry to explain to the community the Public Inquiry process, in particular the timescales involved and the likely milestones.
There is an added onus on the government to do all in its power to avoid any perception of undue influence. I welcome what you said at the Taskforce meeting that you would not meet the Chair in order to avoid questions over the integrity and independence of the Inquiry. I would ask for that same to apply to Government ministers too.
It is important that the Inquiry is chaired by a senior judge - a Lady Justice or Lord Justice of Appeal. This is not only to indicate the gravity of the inquiry, and place it on a similar footing in terms of its seriousness to other similar inquiries, but also to ensure considerable judicial experience and confidence in relation to the legal rulings that are likely to arise and thereby reduce the risk of proceedings being delayed by numerous interim appeals.
A view has taken hold in some quarters in the local community that a Public Inquiry is sub-optimal to an inquest, fuelling suspicion that this is being used to suppress the facts emerging. Part of the communication effort must therefore also involve explaining the merits of a Public Inquiry, how it will get to the truth and how it does not preclude an inquest at a later date if one is still necessary after the inquiry. In particular, families of loved ones must be reassured that the inquiry won't impede the formal recognition process of those who lost their lives. However, in order to avoid duplications of hearings, evidence and resources, it is vital that the inquiry deals fully with many of the issues that would arise at an inquest. The inquiry must be a thorough and detailed process which standards of representation, investigation, disclosure, evidence and questioning that are no less than would be provided at the most rigorous of inquests.
***Relations with the local community can be further strengthened is by ensuring families, survivors and civil society groups have a role in drawing up the Terms of Reference for the Public Inquiry and are consulted on where Inquiry hearings are held. Any attempt to exclude them from the process risks further fuelling mistrust.
It is crucial that families, survivors and local civil society groups are designated as core participants so that they can play a full and active role in the process.***
**In addition, the Government must confirm that families, survivors and local civil society groups will have their legal fees covered, including for the period of consultation on the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry.*** It is likely that other parties in the Public Inquiry such as the local authority and construction firms will secure the very best legal representation and there must be no inequality of arms. Whatever the Chair considers appropriate, the government should fund.
The Inquiry must be given full powers of summoning witnesses and evidence if we are to get to the truth. There must be no hiding place for wrongdoing.
It is also important that immediate steps are taken to preserve evidence if there is a risk of it being destroyed by those holding it. The relevant authorities, whether pursuant to an inquiry or to a criminal investigation should be considering whether those powers of seizure need to be exercised now as a matter of urgency. I strongly suggest that immediate legal advice is obtained as to how material should be preserved and the process of that material being reviewed for the purposes of disclosure to core participants so that there are not a lengthy delays relating to disclosure to core participants, as have occurred in other recent inquiries.
I would also urge you to require that there will be an interim report published this summer. Not only is this crucial for community confidence, but it will allow for the swift implementation of any urgent steps that need taking as regards fire safety in similar buildings across the country.
Structure of the Inquiry
I believe that the inquiry could be structured in two stages. The following points are examples of what should be included at each stage, but I stress that this list will need to be considered carefully in light of any submissions made by the core participants and those representing them.
Stage 1 of the inquiry should focus on:
• The immediate cause of the fire
• How the fire spread and why it spread so quickly
• Whether the design of the building helped the spread of the fire and/or hindered the escape of residents
• Whether the refurbishment contributed, because of the way it was installed and the materials used, and if these were compliant or non-compliant with fire and building regulations
• Whether appropriate action and response was taken in the light of warnings raised by tenants and other community organisations. If not, why not and who was responsible.
• Whether fire advice to residents was appropriate
• Investigating the role of the local authority, the Tenant Management Organisation (TMO), and any other parties in relevant decisions around the refurbishment and management of the tower
• The timeliness and response of the London Fire Brigade and other emergency services, including the resources deployed and the availability of suitable specialised equipment.
• How the post incident response operated, including information and support to families, survivors and local community.
The second stage of the Inquiry should focus on the lessons going forward and recommendations on how to avoid a repeat of the tragedy. This includes:
• Establishing whether the lessons were learnt from inquest into the Lakanal House fire in Southwark
• Investigating the fire risk from domestic white goods
• Whether the level of protection from building design and fire prevention regulations (including sprinklers, alarms, advice and escape routes) is adequate
• Whether the fire safety check regime is to a high enough standard and being adequately enforced
• An audit of the effectiveness of wider resilience arrangements (local, regional and national) and the activation points between them
Getting the Terms of Reference right for the Public Inquiry is absolutely crucial if this is to have the confidence of the local community, families and survivors. I hope you will agree to work closely with the community to ensure this happens.