The full phase 2 report of the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick has been published today. For AUDE members’ convenience we have hosted the Executive Summary of the inquiry online. Members can follow this link to the full report.

At the heart of our considerations of the report we have to place those who lost their lives on the night of 14 June 2017, and we have to remember the families broken and the immense anguish caused to survivors, not least during the gathering of detailed evidence in the years since the tragedy unfolded.

The report is devastating. It is unsparing of blame, and 250 ‘core participants’ in the inquiry were given notice that they would be criticised by its findings. The Prime Minister has apologised ‘on behalf of the British state’ for multiple failures at virtually every level, including central and local government. Clear warning signs after a similar fire in 1991 were not followed up on, and statutory guidance was not amended as it could have been despite a wealth of related evidence from 2012 onwards. The Department for Communities and Local Government (as it then was) is described as having such a focus on deregulation that ‘even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded’. The testing and marketing of key materials by suppliers is described in the report as having been conducted with ‘systematic dishonesty’, with ‘deliberate manipulation of testing processes’ and that ‘calculated attempts to mislead purchasers’ around combustibility were made. The local authority (the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) building control did not properly scrutinise the design or choice of materials and failed to satisfy itself that on completion of the work the building would comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations. During the inquiry contractors indulged in a significant buck-passing as they blamed each other. ‘Someone else’ in their view was always responsible. Three contractors are singled out for their ‘unacceptably casual approach’, and misunderstanding of the relationship between Building Regulations and statutory guidance, among many other failings. The architects had no experience of high rises but had been chosen as an existing supplier and in part in order to avoid a thorough tender process. Relationships between the Tenant Management Organisation and those living at Grenfell had broken down completely, meaning reasonable conversations about building and fire safety were held in an antagonistic environment in which little could be achieved.

With the Metropolitan Police making clear today that investigations are ongoing and that criminal prosecutions are possible, we will leave AUDE members with the best next option being to read the Executive Summary of the report in order to get their own sense of how this might progress.

We would like to imagine that no AUDE member university could ever find itself in such a situation and managing such a tragedy. Perhaps the local authority, the London Fire Brigade, the central government department and others would have imagined the same before Grenfell. But with all humility we guess that everyone in the AUDE community today could imagine such a chain of events. Our response must be to focus on what AUDE might do to help our members consider the report’s findings. Recommendations have been made which will affect estates teams’ work. These include a new construction industry regulator; the development of a new body of fire engineers; mandatory fire safety strategies for higher risk buildings; and a new College of Fire and Rescue. In his comments on launching the report Sir Martin Moore-Bick made clear that we need to go further than the current Building Safety Act – the provisions of which only became law in April 2024. He spoke about the need for a change of cultures and behaviours from those in the sector; the need to solve ‘widespread technical incompetence’, and for the development of enhanced professional skills within the industry. He also hoped that the report might act as a reminder to clients never to sacrifice safety in favour of speed of delivery and cost.

As AUDE Chair Syd Cottle reminded our members in one of his first messages on taking up the post, at a time of extremely tight finances and in the face of enormous demands on our time and our budget, our responsibility to ensure the safety of our buildings is and will always be our first priority.

We are actively listening in the coming weeks to your ideas on how AUDE might respond to this situation. Are you missing information? Are you unclear about any aspect of your personal and corporate responsibility? If there is anything we can do as an organisation to support your work as you consider these issues then let me know.