X Close

The chain of cover-ups that led to Grenfell

Attendees at an anniversary remembrance service this year for the Grenfell Tower fire. Credit: Getty

September 6, 2024 - 6:00pm

Published this week, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report cites a number of targets for condemnation following the 2017 fire which killed 72 residents. One of the most crucial is the state’s willingness to conceal information and protect its own reputation in the immediate aftermath of a major incident.

The report traces a long and unpleasant history of this with regard to cladding fires, and it is clear reading it that the lack of honesty came at a fatal cost to those who lived in Grenfell Tower. What is worse is that it continued even after the fire destroyed much of the building.

It is worth looking back to 1991, when a tower block in Knowsley, Merseyside went up in flames, but the official investigation said nothing about the fact that its cladding was made of highly combustible plastic. The building was clad as part of a Government pilot scheme, and a handwritten note from the time — which I first unearthed back in 2021 — reveals that the relevant department’s press office had made “a request […] to play down the issue of the fire” so that the briefing was “purely factual”.

The Inquiry report found it “difficult to understand” why this fire was played down, but it does not take much imagination to offer a suggestion: the authorities were aware it would be extremely embarrassing. This response set the tone for what would follow with every major cladding fire to come — including Grenfell.

Eight years before Grenfell, a fire at Lakanal House in South London killed six people, including three children. But Government officials shut down the official investigation in less than a month — before key questions had been answered. Lawyers for the bereaved and survivors were scathing about this in their submissions, calling it a “grotesque abdication of responsibility” which “raises the spectre of a deliberate cover-up”.

When it became clear thanks to the police that the panels on the wall of the building were violently combustible, this information was not made public, despite the fire brigade recommending a warning be given to other housing providers. Officials wrote internally that they needed to be “very careful” to avoid “setting the hares running”.

Wednesday’s report was scathing of these failures, saying they showed “a complacent and short-sighted attitude towards learning wider lessons from the fire”, but once more said the failure to investigate further was “difficult to understand”. These fires — as well as one in Irvine, Scotland in 1999 — before Grenfell all spread over combustible plastic and were to some extent “played down” by Government officials.

And then there is the aftermath of the Grenfell fire itself, when the Government insisted that its official guidance effectively banned the use of combustible cladding systems unless there had been a large-scale test. The implication of this was that the material used on Grenfell and elsewhere was only there because of incompetence and non-compliance.

This declaration had a profound impact. It directly resulted in the advice note which told building owners they had to remove anything combustible from the walls of the buildings they owned. This in turn crashed the market for high-rise flat sales as mortgage providers insisted on compliance, the ripple effects of which are still playing out today. The trouble was — as we now know — this letter wasn’t right. The words the Government claimed banned these materials had been, to quote Wednesday’s report, “rushed through by the back door without proper consideration”. Their meaning was never made clear.

The official responsible for making this declaration was asked during oral evidence whether it amounted to a “planned, deliberate and underhanded attempt by you and those around you to rewrite history” in light of the Grenfell fire. Though he denied this, he did accept that it was a “false representation” of the true position, making the excuse that he was “probably really tired at that point”.

These cases produce something for which the story desperately calls: candour, especially from those in public roles, in the immediate aftermath of a major event with public safety consequences. We deserve to be told the truth by those who represent us, even if it will embarrass them and give them bigger problems to clean up.

As the new Labour government wrestles with the changes it needs to make to prevent a repeat of this disaster, this is one it should add to the list. The party has previously pledged to introduce a new duty of candour law, as part of a “Hillsborough Law”. Sadly, Grenfell too can now be added to the list of disasters which prove why this legislation is so necessary.


Peter Apps is the Deputy Editor of Inside Housing. In 2023, he won the Orwell Prize for his book Show Me the Bodies: How We Let Grenfell Happen

PeteApps

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

18 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
j watson
j watson
1 month ago

Anyone out there shouting for deregulation in this area? Begs some questions doesn’t it for that sort of mantra.
And whilst the Public Inquiry has taken too long, partly due to the pandemic, without it much of this would have remained hidden. Justice has still to follow.

Andrew Daws
Andrew Daws
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

I can’t find anyone discussing the combustibility of the panels. Surely we ought to be able to produce inert cladding materials for not much more than the cheap materials used nowadays?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Daws

If I recall, articles written about Grenfell fire quoted email chains between K&C Council and various companies involved in cladding work.
Panels chosen had to meet cost requirements.
Therefore better but more expensive options were rejected.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

The report ignored the chimney effect where temperatures rise from 600C to 1200 C in 5 seconds.
There was no one in the chain of events who were Chartered Engineers who understood the nature of combustion.
Most of the problems in Britain over the last 60 years are because people in positions of authority lack the academic knowledge, technical skills and leadership. The investigation are often undertaken by people without the experience and are very long winded.
Regulation will not prevent inadequate people making the wrong decision. Look at the inquiry after the Titanic disaster
BritishWreck Commissioner’s inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic – Wikipedia
Inquiry started on 3rd July and report issued 30th July.
The five assessors consisted of Rear Admiral the Honourable Somerset Gough-Calthorpe; Captain A. W. Clarke of Trinity House; Commander Fitzroy Lyon of the Royal Naval Reserve; Professor John Harvard Biles, an expert on naval architecture at the University of Glasgow; and Edward Chaston, an Admiralty senior engineer assessor.
The level of competence of this in authority has been declining for decades and Grenfell , like Piper Alpha, AIDs contaminated blood, Hillsborough, Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster shows what happens when people in authority lack the competence.
Increasing regulation without ensuring those in authority have the competence is just papering over the cracks. The execution of Admiral Byng for failure greatly improved the courage and competence of RN officers.
The Execution of Admiral Byng | History Today

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Post Office Horizon cluster f**k to add to this sorry list of incompetence, dishonesty, moral black holes, buck passing, indifference etc etc.
A shortage of individuals ready, willing and able to ask embarrassing questions.
A shortage of people curious enough to do the necessary research and pull on the appropriate strings.
A shortage of people willing to do their jobs properly.

Pamela Booker
Pamela Booker
1 month ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Official inquiries are beanfests for lawyers . There should be just 1 lawyer on the panel of PIs with the rest being experts in the pertinent fields of inquiry.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

If you took your lefty spectacles off and read article again, two fires author listed happened on Labour watch.
So it is not Conservative problem.
It is failure of the state, whoever is in power.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

But of course there WERE a lot of regulations! You can have good regulation, but also pointless resource intensive box ticking. I worked in the public sector and I saw this side of it too.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

Regulations do not make up for a lack of ability.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 month ago

The report ignored the chimney effect where temperatures rise from 600 C to 1200 C in 5 seconds.
There was no one in the chain of events who were Chartered Engineers who understood the nature of combustion.
Most of the problems in Britain over the last 60 years are because people in positions of authority lack the academic knowledge, technical skills and leadership. The investigations after disasters are often undertaken by people without the experience and are very long winded.
Regulation will not prevent inadequate people making the wrong decision. Look at the inquiry after the Titanic disaster
div > p:nth-of-type(5) > a”>British Wreck Commissioner’s inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic – Wikipedia
Inquiry started on 3rd July and report issued 30th July.
The five assessors consisted of Rear Admiral the Honourable  div > p:nth-of-type(8) > a”>Somerset Gough-Calthorpe; Captain A. W. Clarke of  div > p:nth-of-type(8) > a:nth-of-type(2)”>Trinity House; Commander Fitzroy Lyon of the  div > p:nth-of-type(8) > a:nth-of-type(3)”>Royal Naval Reserve; Professor John Harvard Biles, an expert on naval architecture at the  div > p:nth-of-type(8) > a:nth-of-type(4)”>University of Glasgow; and Edward Chaston, an  div > p:nth-of-type(8) > a:nth-of-type(5)”>Admiralty senior engineer assessor.
The reality is that pre WW1 far more in authority were competent. The level of competence of this in authority has been declining for decades and Grenfell , like Piper Alpha, AIDs contaminated blood, Hillsborough, Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster shows what happens when people in authority lack the competence.
More regulation is just papering over the cracks.

Ash Sangamneheri
Ash Sangamneheri
1 month ago

How about the same speed of justice and level of prison sentences to the recent ones given to rioters.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 month ago

The report ignored the chimney effect where temperatures rise from 600C to 1200 C in 5 seconds.
There was no one in the chain of events who were Chartered Engineers who understood the nature of combustion.
Most of the problems in Britain over the last 60 years are because people in positions of authority lack the academic knowledge, technical skills and leadership. The investigation are often undertaken by people without the experience and are very long winded.
Regulation will not prevent inadequate people making the wrong decision. Look at the inquiry after the Titanic disaster
div > p:nth-of-type(5) > a”>British Wreck Commissioner’s inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic – Wikipedia
Inquiry started on 3rd July and report issued 30th July.
The five assessors consisted of Rear Admiral the Honourable  div > p:nth-of-type(7) > a”>Somerset Gough-Calthorpe; Captain A. W. Clarke of  div > p:nth-of-type(7) > a:nth-of-type(2)”>Trinity House; Commander Fitzroy Lyon of the  div > p:nth-of-type(7) > a:nth-of-type(3)”>Royal Naval Reserve; Professor John Harvard Biles, an expert on naval architecture at the  div > p:nth-of-type(7) > a:nth-of-type(4)”>University of Glasgow; and Edward Chaston, an  div > p:nth-of-type(7) > a:nth-of-type(5)”>Admiralty senior engineer assessor.
The level of competence of this in authority has been declining for decades and Grenfell , like Piper Alpha, AIDs contaminated blood, Hillsborough, Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster shows what happens when people in authority lack the competence. 

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 month ago

I did not read articles about Grenfell fire report yet, so maybe this issue was included, but what about responsibility of fire brigade senior officers?
Yes, wrong cladding and installation procedures were core reason for spread of fire.
But what about decision to keep residents in instead of a evacuating the building?
That was the main reason for the death total.
I live 5 minutes from Grenfell. I was on site at about 6am.
It was obvious, and discussed with others watching, that fire was spreading fast and it was not containable with equipment available.
Fire engines had standard ladders, so water hoses could not reach higher levels of the building.
It was shown later that there are special fire tenders for tackling fires in high rise blocks available on the market (from Germany).
But they were not purchased because of cost.
The women in charge of London Fire brigade retired soon after and never had to face consequences of her actions.
Or rather inactions.
Let’s hope all the possible guilty parties are investigated and charged if appropriate.

Sun 500
Sun 500
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew F

DEI hire without much experience in the field. She followed the book.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew F

They have now been too reports: one concerning the events of the night, which covered the fire brigade’s policies and reaction – and this one on the wider issues

Sun 500
Sun 500
1 month ago

An illegal immigrant set his kitchen on fire and did a runner without calling anyone as he didn’t speak English. Yes, the building wasn’t up to scratch but that’s not what caused the fire.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 month ago

As a comment made below suggests, it might be that any cladding whatsoever was going to decrease the fire resilience of those building which relied on its concrete structure for containing fires – and not having chimneys attached to it!

Amelia Melkinthorpe
Amelia Melkinthorpe
1 month ago

How about going after the one who set the fire in the first place? That man caused these people to die.