The second and final inquiry report into the Grenfell Tower fire includes 58 recommendations for the construction industry, professionals and the government to prevent a similar disaster from happening again. The UK government said in September it would respond to the proposals within six months. 

Retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick, who led the seven-year long public inquiry, outlines a clear framework for improving building safety and oversight of the government and construction industry.  

In the report Moore-Bick describes the regulatory landscape at the time of the fire as ‘too complex and fragmented’. He says that the government should introduce a single independent body to regulate the construction industry which reports directly to the Secretary of State.  

Roberta Downey, head of Vinson & Elkins’ International Construction Group, welcomes the recommendations but says that the UK government will need to carefully balance improving standards with the high cost of building safer homes. ‘I welcome of course the increasing qualifications required of people who are dealing with delivering high risk building developments and better regulation of supervision […] but I’m also realistic: if the regulation is too tight or too bureaucratic then there is a risk of disincentivising much and urgently needed affordable housing,’ says Downey, who is also Co-Chair of the IBA Innovations Subcommittee. ‘For example, fewer people actually wanting to apply for the licences to build these projects, the cost of them increases etc so projects don’t get built’. 

The UK government has pledged to build 1.5 million affordable houses in the next five years. In a speech responding to the final inquiry report the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, issued an apology on behalf of the British state and said the homes his government has promised will be ‘safe, secure and built to the highest standards’.  

In the final report Moore-Bick also proposes better training and equipment for fire services and that the government further consider personal emergency evacuation plans for vulnerable people. Another recommendation is that the government be required to maintain a publicly accessible record of its progress in implementing recommendations, and detailed reasons for rejecting any, from inquiries, committees or coroners. 

Emma Hynes, a barrister specialising in construction matters who was counsel to the inquiry, says forcing the government to record its progress on implementing the recommendations would help significantly with holding elected officials accountable. ‘It is owed to them [the Grenfell community] that at least these recommendations are considered and if they are rejected, they are rejected in a transparent way; not rejected because large companies have a big voice in government,’ she says. 

Following the publication of the report the UK government agreed to a separate request from Grenfell United, an advocacy group made up of families of victims and survivors of the fire, to ban the manufacturing companies accused of selling the deadly materials found on Grenfell Tower from government contracts. 

Hynes worries, however, that there is a lack of strategic thinking by the UK government about building safety in general and what might be the next big danger. ‘The history of regulation is the history of disaster, and it may take a disaster or a near disaster for us to work out what the next one is,’ she says. 

Michael Mansfield, a human rights barrister who acts for individuals and families affected by the fire, says that beyond the recommendations of the report there is still so much more for UK governments to do to prioritise public safety. He says a recent fire at a block of flats in Dagenham in August – a building that was still in the process of having its dangerous cladding removed – shows that the government still isn’t taking the human rights of residents seriously enough. ‘That principle still hasn’t hit the deck,’ he says. 

Following the Grenfell fire the government announced a building safety programme including grants for the removal of dangerous cladding systems on high-rise residential buildings. According to government statistics published in July, 4,630 residential buildings 11 metres and taller in England still have unsafe cladding. 

Mansfield also believes that the seven-year long inquiry has delayed prosecution efforts against suspected culpable parties. The Metropolitan Police said in September it would need a further 12 to 18 months to examine the report ‘line by line’ before it can file evidence with the Crown Prosecution Service, and trials are not expected until 2027. ‘You can order an inquiry to soft peddle, so it doesn’t prejudice the prosecution,’ Mansfield KC says. ‘Police should have done the prosecution first and the inquiry should have been soft peddled’. 

Imran Khan KC, who represents individuals and families affected by the fire, says that what his clients want the most is somebody being held to account in a courtroom for the disaster. He says he doesn’t think the government is going to implement the recommendations. ‘I know that because there is a history of it and I’ve been here before,’ he says. Khan KC acted for the family of Stephen Lawrence in the public inquiry into his murder. ‘With the final report you assume it is going to change society forever because you’ve spent a fortune and time and effort on it, but it doesn’t,’ he says.  

Khan KC believes the main benefit of public inquiries is that they change people’s perspectives on an issue. ‘Everyone knows Grenfell is shorthand for my building is unsafe; it empowers civil society and that I think is going to be a longer legacy than the recommendations’.  

Kinuyo/AdobeStock.com