By Ben Kerrigan-
The Home Office has been named as a defendant in the civil damages case relating to the Grenfel Tower disaster.
The Home Office’s involvement in the Grenfel Tower case stems from its alleged responsibility for the immigration status of the tower’s residents and also providing adequate accommodation for disabled people.
Many of the residents of Grenfell Tower were immigrants or refugees, and some were in the process of seeking asylum.
Following the fire, concerns were raised about the Home Office’s response to the disaster, particularly in relation to the immigration status of those affected. There were reports of people being denied access to support and assistance because they did not have the necessary documentation to prove their right to be in the UK.
The decision to name the Home Office as a defendant in the Grenfell Tower civil damages case reflects concerns that the department’s policies and practices contributed to the suffering of those affected by the tragedy.
Some have alleged that the Home Office’s approach to immigration enforcement created a climate of fear and mistrust that deterred some residents from seeking help and support.
Curbing immigration levels has been one of those objectives The Home Office has been vocally committed to in line with the general wishes of the British people. It has not been very successful in achieving this yet. While many immigrants bring added value to the Uk, many brits believe there needs to be ceiling put on rising immigration numbers in Britain.
Other critics say the Home Office had a duty to ensure that many of those resident at the Grenfel Tower who were refugees or on short term visas, were adequately kept safe.
In March, 2022, a civil servant told the Grenfel Inquiry that the Home Office probably forgot to seek people’s views on how residents with physical impairments could evacuate tower blocks in an emergency, six years before the devastating fire.
Brian Martin, who is still a senior official in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities*, also told the Grenfell Tower Inquiry this week that the government view in 2011 was that it would be “too expensive” and “disproportionate” to have a policy that would enable disabled residents to evacuate from tower blocks.
Three years ago, the Grenfel Tower Inquiry called for all owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings to be legally required to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all residents who may find it difficult to “self-evacuate”.
But home secretary Priti Patel rejected the recommendation on the grounds of “practicality”, “proportionality” and “safety”, even though prime minister Boris Johnson had promised to implement all the recommendations from the first phase of the inquiry.
The rejection came even though those who responded to a consultation on the PEEPs proposal overwhelmingly supported their introduction.
The Home Office has instead been consulting on its own “alternative package” of measures, which it calls Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing, which does not go as far as PEEPs and which will only apply to the minority of buildings that have been assessed as being “at higher risk”.
Two campaigners, Georgie Hulme and Sarah Rennie- co-founders of the disabled-led leaseholder action group Claddag- are still waiting on judicial review challenging the home secretary’s decision in not safeguarding the interest of disabled residents in the building.
The Equality And Human Rights Commission in March ruled that local authorities and public services breached their Human Rights obligations to protect life and provide adequate accommodation to those who need it.
The failure of banning the cladding at the time, or strengthening rules for its use in the UK, breached residents’ right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a fault the Equality and Human Rights Commission says “lies with the authorities”.
More than 300 high-rise buildings in the UK continue to be wrapped in the now banned combustible cladding, suggesting the failure to protect lives and violation of Article 2 continues.
The safety of wheelchair users, elderly and disabled people were further overlooked when vulnerable residents were housed on the top floors of the high-rise building
In addition to its role in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire, the Home Office has also been criticized for its broader policies and practices relating to immigration and asylum. Many critics argue that the department’s approach is punitive and discriminatory, and that it places undue emphasis on immigration enforcement at the expense of human rights and social justice.
The inclusion of the Home Office as a defendant in the Grenfell Tower civil damages case highlights the need for greater accountability and transparency in government policies and practices.
The precise facts of their inclusion is unknown , but the connection looks northing pretty. If it emerges that there were any failures or shortcomings of the part of the Home Office’s response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and that it will provide some measure of justice for the victims and their families.
Critics of the Home Office believe the department was expected to take a more proactive approach to ensuring the safety of the tower’s residents. This could have involved conducting regular inspections and assessments of the building, and ensuring that any necessary safety measures were in place and up to date.
The government department will be required to provide evidence and testimony as part of the legal proceedings.
The inclusion of the Home Office as a defendant in the Grenfell Tower civil damages case is significant, as it highlights the need for greater accountability and transparency in government decision-making.
It is hoped that the case will provide some measure of justice for the victims and their families, and that it will lead to meaningful change in the way that government departments approach issues of public safety and social justice.
The inclusion of the Home Office as a defendant in the Grenfell Tower civil damages case reflects concerns about the department’s policies and practices which may have affected the victims in this case.