This is the third and final part of a three-part series.
In Part 1 I took a look at the Grenfell Fire Inquiry report and set out what, in my view, are the main organisations and issues which the Inquiry found were responsible for the fire.
In Part 2 I looked mainly at the doctrines of laissez-faire and neoliberalism, which I suggested were responsible for the attitudes in society which enabled these organisations to behave in the way that they did.
So in Part 3, it remains for me to make a few suggestions about what can be done.
Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour Party
I was impressed with Sir Kier’s statement to the House of Commons on 4th September. I believe that he is sincere in his desire to take action so fires like this can never happen again.
It is perhaps fortunate that we have a Labour government, which is less infected by the neoliberal views which advocates the destruction of ‘red tape’ and the privatisation of our regulatory services.
His government is also largely untainted by past actions. Although the Blair / Brown Labour governments supported ‘light touch regulation’ and failed to take action after the Knowsley Heights fire in 1991, Sir Kier was not even in Parliament at that time. So, he cannot be held responsible or complicit.
Whether he is actually able to do much, we shall have to wait and see. He is only one man. The changes that will be necessary to take us back to a society where regulation is respected and enforced, will be huge.
However, I think he will have the public behind him. It is not the working classes and Labour Party voters who support the ideas of neoliberalism (discussed in my last post).
Most of the ‘working people’ the Labour Party is dedicated to serve, want proper regulation and companies which act responsibly.
First steps
Things have indeed already started. Sir Keir has announced that none of the companies cited in the report will be able to have government contracts in future, and this should have a hugely negative impact on them.
Any other businesses which have been shown to be dishonest or have compromised safety should also be blocked from public contracts. Maybe the government could set up a list to remind local authorities and inform other responsible businesses who might otherwise want to trade with them.
The Guardian also suggests that “It is questionable whether a company such as Arconic, which refused to cooperate fully with the inquiry, should be allowed to operate in the UK at all.” This could also extend to other companies which have been proved to have acted against the public interest.
The Grenfell residents are demanding prosecutions of those responsible and we are told that these will be brought once the Police and the CPS can get their heads around the report. Hopefully a little sooner than the 2027 dates suggested.
Implementing the Report Recommendations
All too often we have seen inquiries publish reports, for those reports to then sit gathering dust on departmental shelves.
Hopefully, this report will be different, and hopefully, this government will implement all of the report’s recommendations.
I particularly like the recommendation at paragraph 113.40:
We recommend that it be made a legal requirement for the government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by select committees, coroners and public inquiries together with a description of the steps taken in response. If the government decides not to accept a recommendation, it should record its reasons for doing so. Scrutiny of its actions should be a matter for Parliament, to which it should be required to report annually.
Extending the report’s recommendations
The report’s recommendations for organisations and central bodies to provide training and support are limited to those which relate to the issue of fire safety.
However, there are countless other areas of public concern where similar bodies to provide guidance, support, training, and (if necessary) enforcement of regulations would be helpful.
Dare I say it, the private rented sector would benefit from such an organisation.
The sad truth, as the Grenfell fire shows, is that you cannot trust industry, any industry, to regulate itself. The new organisations could (if they are set up) form a template for other areas of work and practice.
It would also be a good idea if the regulatory organisations we already have were reviewed and, if appropriate, revised and amalgamated. All too often, we have a plethora of different enforcement agencies, which makes life confusing for consumers.
The main problem with all this is that regulation requires funding. Regulators need staff who have to be trained and paid. And money is something this government does not have.
I wonder though, whether improved regulation and enforcement might actually bring its own reward.
Call me naive, but surely, if we want investment in this country from responsible companies, they would prefer to invest in a country where the ‘bad guys’ who bring disrepute on responsible traders are suitably punished and excluded.
And will not encouraging responsible companies to invest bring increased prosperity and good jobs? Meaning more tax money available for financing regulation …
Amending company law
In my last post, I drew attention to the fact that most companies only exist to make money for themselves.
It might be helpful if company law could be amended to give greater responsibilities for other issues such as their workforce, consumers’ rights and the environment. With more encouragement and incentives for the new B Corp movement.
Perhaps also greater opportunities for prosecutors and claimants to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ and make directors responsible for safety and other similar issues.
Bringing expertise in-house
In the post I wrote in June 2017, I discussed the dismantling over the years of in-house expertise, both in local and national government, which existed to support services and protect the public.
Following the pandemic, we are less likely to think, as I discussed in that post, that ‘experts’ are unnecessary. Or that someone who has attended an afternoon short course is able to provide the same level of service as a qualified professional.
However most of the in-house experts left, either for retirement or redundancy, years ago. I very much hope that this new government, with its plans for devolving services to the regions, will also support bringing back in-house the services and staff, which have recently been provided by outside consultants.
After all when consultants swan off to their next project, having been paid substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money, their experience is lost to the government office concerned and so to the public. Whereas the experience gained by in house staff remains for the benefit of the local community.
Finally, the various regulatory companies and boards (all regulatory bodies, not just those dealing with fire safety) should either be
- Provided by government,
- Provided by local government or
- Be an independent body funded by government.
As I discuss in Part 1, it is clear that the regulatory bodies listed there were unable to perform their functions properly due to a conflict of interest between their public responsibilities and their commercial clients.
Changing attitudes
In the last post, I discussed at some length the problems brought about by the permeating of society of laissez-faire/neoliberal ideas.
If we take the start of this process as being with Mrs Thatcher’s government, then this is some 40 years of policy. To overturn this and bring back a more responsible and caring society is going to take some doing.
However, you can do a lot with legislation.
Who would have thought 50 years ago that attitudes would have changed towards such issues as smoking indoors, car seatbelts and the acceptance of homosexuality to the extent of allowing same-sex marriage?
But on all of these issues views and attitudes have changed dramatically.
So, I am hopeful that if this government really wants to change our society for the better, it can start the process.
It will be interesting to look back on this series of posts in 10 years’ time and see how many changes have come about.
The post Considering the Grenfell Fire Inquiry Report – Part 3: Tackling the problems appeared first on The Landlord Law Blog.