A bruising first few months in power have undoubtedly been compounded by Labour’s decision not to opt for a Blair-style courting of a hostile press. But many problems have been of ministers’ own making. Their response to the Grenfell Inquiry phase two report is one area where the instincts of opposition are beginning to clash with the complex demands of government.
In November, the Cabinet Office wrote to 49 organisations named in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase two report (see news page 4) warning of potential future sanctions. A junior minister reiterated prime minister Keir Starmer’s September message that the letters were a first step to banning the companies involved from public sector contracts.
Given the deceit and incompetence revealed by the inquiry, such a punishment might feel appropriate. It is vital that justice is seen to be done – not just for the sake of the survivors and relatives of Grenfell victims, but for wider society. But let us not forget that this is still a police matter. Criminal charges may eventually be brought.
The purpose of sending the letters is far from clear, however. It certainly fills a vacuum left by the snail’s pace of the complex investigation. But legal grounds for blacklisting Grenfell firms don’t currently exist. Under the current EU-derived rules, strict conditions must be met before a ban is imposed. The Procurement Act, due to replace that regime in February, will extend the grounds for debarment. But these new rules come with time limitations for action that some experts believe could further frustrate the government.
Even if the government can find a legal route to banning firms, ministers face tricky considerations. What if a public work ban risks job losses among the firms’ employees, reduces market competition and brings on product cost inflation? How far would the government risk hobbling its already-challenging housing growth target in order to deliver punishment to the Grenfell firms?
Other questions hang in the air. How long would a ban last? Would it apply to the Grenfell firms’ parent companies and all of those firms’ subsidiaries? What about other non-Grenfell firms that were selling and installing dangerous materials on high-rise buildings but avoided causing a tragedy by sheer luck? Has the Cabinet Office written a warning letter to colleagues in the communities department, which was found to be as culpable as any party involved in Grenfell?
Answering such questions, and delivering justice in a proportionate manner, is the definition of the difficult business of governing.
