This article from a housing websiteSo … the Grenfell Inquiry has finally reported, seven long years after the terrible fire that took 72 lives, and traumatised many more. The Inquiry findings are well known now, with any number of briefings, summaries and articles. There seems no doubt that the process was thorough and detailed. Its conclusions have been accepted by most as being largely, or even entirely right. We know now that each one of the 72 deaths was avoidable. And that among the various parties carrying some share of the blame, there are those who knowingly and cynically nailed the equivalent of firelighters as the cladding of a residential building. The Grenfell Inquiry joins a long list of similar exercises. More than fifteen are currently under way: the Post Office Horizon scandal; Covid-19; others connected with health; and those focusing on various events in Northern Ireland and Afghanistan. Before them came many more: infected blood, Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough Stadium, BSE, and dozens more. Broadly speaking they work, and get to the uncomfortable truths. But then what? The first problem is the length of time an inquiry takes. In the case of Grenfell, it’s been suggested that prosecutions may take another couple of years, and the subsequent court cases may drag on for as long again, with appeals and court delays. So those who suffered dreadful losses in the fire may end up waiting a decade or more before any guilty parties face justice. Even once an inquiry has reported, with recommendations, that’s no guarantee of action. A recent inquiry into serious abuse at an immigration removal centre made 33 recommendations. To date, our government has agreed to just one of those, with the others in the long grass for now. Likewise, the coroner’s 2013 report into the 2009 fire at Lakanal House, set out a series of recommendations, which were largely ignored. If action had been taken then, Grenfell may have been avoided. The Grenfell Inquiry’s two phases made some 105 recommendations. In fairness, a good number of those have actually been implemented, and important new legislation on building safety is already in operation. But overall, the record of inquiry recommendations being ignored by UK governments after the initial warm words is not a reassuring one. So how could we do things better in this country, the next time some disaster or malpractice is under the microscope? And sadly, there will be a next time. Well, unfashionably, let’s look over the Channel for some ideas. In French criminal law, an investigating judge (‘juge d'instruction’) can be appointed to gather evidence on the possible commission of offenses, and to decide whether to refer the persons charged directly to a trial court. An appeal process exists, but the overall approach is described as inquisitorial. In the 19th century, the famous writer Balzac wrote: “No human authority … can intrude on the power of the investigating judge. No one can stop him, nobody gives him orders. He is sovereign, obeying only his conscience and the law." I know that approach doesn’t sound very British … and it could be toned down somewhat for our local purposes. But if Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s role had been cast in similar terms, the (alleged) criminals would already be in the dock by now. One possible streamlining here would be the power to refer individuals for trial during the course of an inquiry, if the evidence appeared conclusive. The other change I’d like to see is for ways of holding governments to account for the implementation of inquiry recommendations. Maybe there could be a legal requirement for the relevant government departments to publish formal responses to all public inquiry reports, with an action plan, and a duty to report at set intervals to Parliament on implementation progress?One thing is certain. We as a nation haven’t yet got this right. There is much that we do well, and Sir Martin is to be thanked for his patient and forensic approach. But let’s learn from recent events, and be ready to deal with our next national tragedy, whatever that may be, in a more expedient and accountable way.
Davey Harris ● 16d