By Eric King-
The Government has announced plans to examine the actions of Kensington and Chelsea Council as part of the Grenfell Tower fire inquiry.
The inquiry plans to assess the adequacy of regulations, the tower’s recent refurbishment, and the response of authorities in the aftermath.
Broader questions on social housing will not be included, which campaigners say are central to the situation.
The prime minister has laid out the terms of reference for the public inquiry, which is to include the cause and spread of the fire
Under the cause of the fire includes the design, construction and refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. The government also plans to include the scope and adequacy of the relevant regulations relating to high-rise buildings. The investigation is also to look at the compliance or otherwise of relevant legislation and guidance in the case of Grenfell Tower. This suggests that any evidence of none compliance in the area of legislation and guidance will fall under a liability category for which manslaughter or other charges may be brought.
The actions of the local authority and other bodies before the tragedy is also to be examined by the inquiry.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick ,who is heading the inquiry had previously indicated a much more limited scope for the inquiry. The recent modification to the approach the Government plan to take will be more satisfactory to survivors and the public in general, than the one Moore-Bick initially intended to follow. The recently announced approach actually makes more sense and will hold more individuals and organisations to account. The question is how Sir Martin Moore -Bick will head an inquiry under guidelines he doesn’t personally believe himself.
When asked whether he has confidence in the inquiry, Moore-Bick said: “I support it…(but) confidence is a very strong word. I have more confidence in the criminal investigation than in a public inquiry”.
Words like this from a judge heading an inquiry must be a concern to all who are desperately seeking justice. A judge who has no faith in the process an inquiry has been instructed to take should not really be leading such an inquiry. Chances are high that such a judge will lean more in favour of the defendants than the victims or their surviving family members.
Joe Delaney from the Grenfell Action Group has expressed concerns about how Sir Martin Moore-Bick will handle an inquiry of this kind.
Speaking on Radio 4’s PM, Mr Delaney said: “If it is interpreted as narrowly as it seems Sir Martin Moore-Bick instinctively seems to interpret things then we may have a serious problem.” It remains to be seen how the inquiry will finally be conducted, but common sense already suggests that Sir Martin Bick-Moore is not the right person to head this inquiry. Objections to his role as head of the inquiry has already been voiced several times, but those voices of objection will get louder in the coming months. It is simply irrational to expect a judge who holds completely different principles to the guidelines being recommended by the Government, to hold an inquiry of this nature.