Grenfell: a site of contempt
A decision to save £293,000 led to the loss of 72 lives and some former residents of Grenfell Tower are still struggling to get the help they need.
Much is still to be revealed about the circumstances leading up to the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14th June 2017. But one thing we already know — and a fact to which anyone remotely connected to Grenfell Tower can surely never be reconciled — is that the loss of 72 lives followed a conscious decision by the richest council in England to save £293,000. This is surely the apogee in the contempt displayed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council and the Tenants Management Organisation Grenfell residents which had endured… for years and which must generate an enduring sense of worthlessness that the residents in and around the area will do well to shake off. But what is perhaps more surprising — and disgusting — is that this contempt has persisted in the aftermath of the fire, further generating what Majid Yar has labelled harms of misrecognition — in essence, disrespect.
As the Chair of Grenfell United noted, “For the survivors and affected families it seems like one broken promise after another”.
Failures which led to a disaster
One aspect of this contempt was the complete lack of effective immediate response or leadership in the aftermath of the disaster — what Theresa May was to refer to, one week after the fire, as the failure of the state , local and national, to help people when they needed it most. This is the context of the observation that absence of clear strategies breeds lack of trust in authority , loss of confidence and a fear of the future that, sadly, is often well founded.
These failures on the part of authority persisted and continue to this day — as documented, for example, in the Initial and then the Second Report of the Independent Grenfell Recovery Taskforce, which have documented the continuing failings of RKCBC and the severe trust deficit between it and the local community. Then, more recently, the charity Muslim Aid has documented the void left by local and central Government, one filled particularly in the first few weeks by the community itself and a vast array of local organisations.
The contempt displayed towards the residents before the fire has been maintained and reproduced after the fire.
The continuing contempt on the part of central and local Government has also been repeatedly evidenced in the series of lies, half-truths and broken promises made to the affected households in the aftermath of the fire.
One area of mistrust was the palpable failure to meet the commitment made by the Prime Minister in the immediate aftermath of the fire — namely that “every person made homeless would receive an offer of accommodation within three weeks”. In fact, this was subsequently clarified as meaning temporary accommodation. In November 2017, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) Council promised that every survivor would have the opportunity to move into a new home before Christmas , while weeks later the Minister for Housing and Planning estimated it would take RBKC up to 12 months to rehome families.
Moreover, the promise of being offered like-for-like tenancies was repeatedly broken . As the Chair of Grenfell United noted, “For the survivors and affected families it seems like one broken promise after another”. Shortly By the end of May 2018, almost one year after the fire, it was stated only a third of the 210 families who had lived in the tower were in new, permanent accommodation, with another 72 neither in permanent nor temporary, but emergency, accommodation .
A further area of mistrust was the shifting and uncertain nature of the ‘amnesty ’ offered to undocumented residents — originally stated at one year, then extended for 3 further months, followed by a policy announcement that survivors would be able to apply for further periods of limited leave to remain , building up to five years. They could then apply for permanent residency. A less well-documented condition of the offer set a deadline of 31 January to apply for the amnesty.
For the survivors and affected families it seems like one broken promise after another
A further focus of contempt is to be found in the struggles between survivors and residents on the one hand and central government on the other around the Inquiry. First, contrary to assurances from Government, local residents were not consulted before the appointment of Judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick to lead the Public Inquiry, in the light of which Justice4Grenfell concluded that this further compounds the survivors and residents sense of distrust in the official response to this disaster — and had they been consulted would likely have objected to the appointment.
Fighting to be heard
Following this was the protracted process in which the limited initial Terms of Reference of the Inquiry were challenged and then largely confirmed, itself followed by the Inquiry’s formal December 2017 opening, at which the lack of direct or indirect representation of residents was the key point of contention . Only on the virtual eve of its opening did Teresa May confirm that there would be a Phase 2 of the Inquiry what which two panel members would be appointed. Of this partial, last-minute concession, Deborah Coles of INQUEST stated, at every stage, bereaved and traumatised families have had to fight to be at the centre of the inquiry .
In short, the contempt displayed towards the residents before the fire has been maintained and reproduced after the fire. It was popularly recognised as a cause of the fire per se. As one resident stated outside the tower as it continued to burn, “We’re dying in there because we don’t count ”. The struggle of survivors of the fire, the bereaved, and the residents of the Lancaster West estate to be heard — to count — continues.
Professor Steve Tombs is a lecturer at The Open University. This article was previously published on OpenLearn in October 2018. Subscribe to our newsletter for more free courses, articles, games and videos.