Tom Thurlow shares some pre-Report thoughts based on his experience of acting in the Inquiry over the last almost seven years
On 4 September 2024, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is due to release its long-awaited Phase 2 (for which read, ‘final’) report.
Notwithstanding that it is the culmination of over many years of diligent work, the Report is almost certainly not going to meet expectations. Why? Because fundamentally it can never be what many will want it, (and perhaps in many cases, need it), to be.
No doubt when the Report is released there will be an awful lot said about it, and at Weightmans we intend to constructively add to that discourse. We intend to do so in a useful way, which we suspect will mean saying less to start with to allow a (perhaps short, but no less important), period of reflection while we digest what is set to be a hefty tome.
Before then, our Tom Thurlow shares some pre-Report thoughts based on his experience of acting in the Inquiry over the last almost seven years which we hope you find helpful.
Remembering the context
The Report marks the end of a process which has sought to answer the question of how it is that, in 2017, in the middle of one of the most developed cities in the world, on the border of one of the richest boroughs in that city, 72 people lost their lives in a fire which decimated their homes.
No matter how diligent the Inquiry team was, no matter how much evidence it heard, in no way can the Report change this.
As someone who has walked from top to bottom through the damage wrought, the author remains unable to properly comprehend that it happened or what it must have been like for those who died and for their relatives and friends who survived.
It is particularly important to remember the genesis, as the Inquiry has expanded in reach well beyond the fire at Grenfell. Much comment will undoubtedly be made in this regard, not least because it is in that area where there is the most fertile ground for change.
No doubt the Inquiry team in its Report will seek, (as they have throughout the process), to remind us of the originating context, but it is right that, when discussing the Report – particularly for those of us who do so in a professional (and thus necessarily detached) way - actively remind ourselves of this.
Reviewing the Report
The Report will be long and take time to digest. That careful refection will, however, without doubt become outstripped by immediate comment and reporting, some of which will be helpful and some not.
At Weightmans, we will be reminding ourselves of the following points in the immediate period of digesting the Report:
- S.2(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005, (under which the Inquiry was constituted), specifically prohibits the Inquiry ruling on liability. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the Chairman, has to to-date been a model follower of the rules, and although sub-section 2 says that inquiries should not be inhibited by the likelihood of liability being inferred from established facts or recommendations, the Report is very unlikely to be as definitive as many would hope. We expect there will plenty of criticism of various parties in the Report, but what that then translates to may be a much more difficult question to answer.
- The Inquiry quickly uncovered very significant issues with the operation and regulation of the build environment in this country. This expanded far beyond Grenfell. Reporting as it does some seven years after the event, and in the context of significant knowledge gain and industry change, navigating between what was understood, what should have been understood, what is now understood etc. will be no easy challenge. It is, however, a task with which we need to engage critically, carefully and considerately.
- Public inquiries are – as the name suggests – conducted in public and alongside developing and contemporaneous comment. Through our involvement in the Inquiry, we have seen first-hand how this can operate to impact the direction of narrative. Few will have the luxury to review the Report in detail and so will be reliant on summaries and reporting. It is incumbent on those of us who wish to comment to ensure that such comment is helpful – ‘soundbites’ and ‘cherry picking’ are easy but not always helpful.
The Inquiry has painstakingly reviewed the evidence and will have equally painstakingly considered the wording chosen for its Report. Particularly for those of us for whom this is not personal, we would perhaps be wise to follow their lead when commenting on the Report.
Recommendations and the need for change
One of the most closely viewed parts of the Report will undoubtedly be the recommendations the Inquiry makes, and rightly so.
Little traction was achieved on the Phase 1 Report recommendations, and how this new government deals with the new recommendations will no doubt be levelled at them as a challenge.
The government’s legislative agenda is, however, full already and secondary legislation required for the Building Safety Act 2022 is already falling behind. Quite how much this broader legislative piece needs to be revisited is of course a live question, and we suspect there will be yet a significant further period of ‘limbo’ as these questions are wrestled with.
We have commented elsewhere about the challenges presented by the Hackitt Report, the BSA 2022 and the Inquiry not coalescing and will comment further once the Report is released.
It is, however, a factor which we recommend our client remain live to, and we do not expect our work helping clients to navigate this period of uncertainty to slow. Indeed, our team of experts stand ready to assist clients and will be monitoring matters closely.
Reconsidering the role of Inquiries
Beyond Grenfell, and beyond building safety generally, the Report will no doubt bring back into focus wider questions about the role of Statutory Inquiries more widely.
Statutory Inquiries are a particular creature and are currently – in the author’s view rightly – under scrutiny. They have in recent years vastly expanded in scope and cost and it is right that accountable questions are raised as to their purpose and utility.
When the Report is released, we anticipate there will be plenty said – much negatively – about the Inquiry itself. There will be a time for this, but we are not clear that it is the first of matters which needs to be addressed.
Whilst we will, therefore, be reserving judgement on this factor for the time being, we note that:
- The true assessment of the Inquiry can only likely be made depending on how much its recommendations for change get to the route cause of issues (and are then acted upon), and this will take time to assess; and
- In the author’s view, whilst the prevailing view of this time is often that ‘ends justify means’ (or not as the case may be), there may yet be an argument that the process itself serves a purpose, out with the ultimate conclusion.
Reflections beyond the Inquiry
There are matters which are beyond the scope of the Inquiry which many will have wished were included, such as the role of privilege.
This is no easy matter to grapple with and one which was not explicitly included, (and the Inquiry declined to seek inclusion), in its terms of reference. It has come up of course again in the Covid-19 Inquiry and is undoubtedly a factor which weighs heavy over the fire and indeed the process.
It is something which the author, through his involvement in the Inquiry, has felt particularly challenged by throughout the process.
That is then perhaps a useful note to finish on for now, as for any of us involved in the Inquiry, building safety or the built environment generally, the Report should provide, amongst other things, a moment of personal reflection. We encourage all to take the opportunity.
Concluding comments
We at Weightmans are hopeful that the Report will mark a significant milestone in a wider building safety journey, but are very mindful, that it remains only one step along the way. Quite how big a step, or in what direction, remains to be seen.
We have been involved with building safety issues throughout the life of the Inquiry, in many ways and through different lenses and so can provide a holistic view of the Inquiry’s observations and recommended changes to the construction industry, the insurance industry and beyond.
We will say more in due course, but should we be able to assist – either now or once the Report is released – please do get in touch.
Tom is an established member of Weightmans' professional negligence and insurance disputes team based in Newcastle. Although based in Newcastle, Tom acts for clients across the country.
For more information, please contact our professional risk and construction solicitors.
