Grenfell Tower: Should the UK government take more responsibility?

14 June 2022 marked five years since the horrendous Grenfell Tower fire, an atrocity which shocked the whole of the United Kingdom and ultimately claimed 72 lives within the North Kensington highrise flats. This atrocity was quickly captured by the media, provoking almost immediate responses from politicians and civilians alike, demanding justice for survivors as well as those who lost their lives. While on a surface level, the response seemed a sincere, frank, and heartfelt apology, suggesting remorse from the UK government that it was even physically possible to begin with, the harsh truth became clear in the following five years. I discuss Grenfell with others on my university course evoking a universal feeling of sadness, alongside clear feelings of contempt and anger for the lack of change that has occurred since.

The fire began due to a refrigerator electrical failure on the building’s fourth floor, which rapidly spread up the building’s exterior. The spread was intensified by the ‘chimney effect’, allowed by the cavity between the combustible cladding and the wall of the building, pulling hot air up the building. Not all cladding is combustible; in fact, many buildings with cladding similar in appearance to that on Grenfell are completely incombustible; the reason for Grenfell not having this cladding is simple: cost. Incombustible cladding costs roughly £2 a panel more than that of the combustible cladding, and while it was first used on Grenfell in the 70s, close to when it was initially built, it had recently been refurbished through the period of 2012 to 2016. Had it not, or had it been replaced with a (slightly) more expensive alternative, the tragedy could have possibly been avoided. Or perhaps, a sprinkler system could have been fitted, similar to what most modern buildings have today. It seems the estimated two-hundred thousand pound cost of such a system was too great for Kensington and Chelsea Council’s usable £274 million in reserves during the year of the fire.

In the days following the fire, Britain’s then prime minister Theresa May visited the site, appalled, yet uninterested in meeting any of the survivors of the fire – a response she has subsequently branded ‘not good enough’. On 21 June 2017, the government announced the securing of its first tranche of permanent new homes for survivors of Grenfell – in 2020, seven households were still waiting for permanent accommodation.

For some of the previous residents no considerations of disabilities or special requirements were made when providing replacement accommodation, leaving some without wheelchair accessible bathrooms. In September the same year, May launched a formal inquiry, promising there would be ‘no stone left unturned’, the purpose being to thoroughly investigate the tragedy, ultimately determining who was responsible for the 72 lives lost. Despite the promise of ‘no stone being left unturned’, it was accepted early on that the investigation would not include an examination of social housing policy, or the role played by both local and central government. Five years on, no one has been held accountable, and the inquiry is still ongoing. May consistently missed her deadlines to house those affected by the fire in Grenfell, however congratulated herself for such failures during her resignation speech. In 2018, the UK government announced full funding for removal and replacement of unsafe cladding at a cost of £400 million – and yet, there are over 300 high rises in Manchester and London alone with such cladding; some publicly owned, others private.

The changes (or lack thereof) since the fire in Grenfell Tower over 5 years ago have been less than adequate. As the inquiry continues throughout the rest of 2022 and likely concludes in 2023, it is incredibly important to recognise that a huge reason as to why the Grenfell Tower fire was so catastrophic is due to systemic, top-down, regulatory and funding failures that span much further than the building’s combustible cladding. Austerity measures by the UK government from 2010 to 2019 saw cuts to the welfare state, local government funds, social services, and spending for emergency services, with the plan to reduce national debt as a percentage of GDP.

Subsequent cuts of over £30 billion over this period delivered bleak results; the primary goal of reducing national debt as a percentage of GDP saw a rise from 56.6% in 2009 to 90% in 2013. Consequently, this led to increased national unemployment, stagnating wages, and a cost-of-living crisis. The lack of regulation toward social housing coming from the government meant that the Grenfell flats, and their occupants, were essentially neglected: there was no push for retrofitting in the case of a fire, and no drive to local councils to ensure safety was prioritised over money.