Grenfell survivors consider boycotting inquiry over conflict of interest

A boycott of Monday’s long-awaited restart to the Grenfell Tower public inquiry is among actions being considered by survivors and the bereaved to protest against Boris Johnson’s appointment of a key figure who has links to the manufacturer of the cladding panels that led to the spread of the fire.

With less than three days until the resumption of hearings into the blaze that killed 72 people, there are rising tensions in the community about the role of the engineer Benita Mehra. Lawyers for more than 60 members of the Grenfell community who are core participants in the inquiry have urged her to quit.

The Guardian revealed last week that Mehra, an engineer appointed by the prime minister as an expert panellist, previously ran an organisation that received a £71,000 grant from the Arconic Foundation, the manufacturer’s philanthropic arm.

The second phase of the inquiry is due to examine “the decisions which led to the installation of a highly combustible cladding system on a high-rise residential building and the wider background against which they were taken.”

The first phase of the inquiry has already established that Arconic’s panels were “the principal reason why the flames spread so rapidly up the building” causing the inferno. Lawyers for Arconic are due to give their opening statement on Tuesday.

Mehra’s appointment sparked accusations of a conflict of interest and many in the Grenfell community said it was intolerable she should preside alongside the inquiry chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick.

In a letter sent on Friday from Howe & Co, a legal firm representing 65 of the core participants, Mehra was told “they do not consider you to be an independent, impartial panel decision-maker. They believe there is a clear appearance of bias on your part.”

It quoted one inquiry participant saying: “I strongly disagree with her sitting on the panel and I personally, and many survivors and bereaved families, believe the inquiry should not start while she is appointed.”

Another said: “The appointment of Ms Mehra to the panel is not right. She has a clear conflict of interest. If Ms Mehra remains, the inquiry would no longer be legitimate. I would have no confidence in the inquiry or its process. If she does not stand down or is not removed I will consider boycotting the inquiry.”

A third said: “Why her, when there are so many people who do not have conflicts of interest? Why not someone else? I fear for the impartiality of the inquiry if she is not changed. We want someone neutral, who is going to be fair.”

Other survivors have written directly to Johnson demanding she is dropped and some challenged him directly over the issue at a meeting in Downing Street last Thursday. No 10’s position hasn’t changed however, with a Cabinet Office spokesperson saying there were “robust processes … [to ensure] any potential conflicts of interest are properly considered and managed”.

The appointment of Mehra is embarrassing for Johnson, who pledged to survivors shortly after he became PM: “The truth will out and justice will be done.”

When he appointed her on 23 December, the prime minister told Moore-Bick due diligence “has not identified any concerns” and that Mehra “is not aware of any conflict of interest”.

The inquiry also insisted her former role as president of the Women’s Engineering Society charity that received the Arconic Foundation grant “does not affect her impartiality as a panel member”.

The shadow housing secretary, John Healey, and the Hillsborough families support group were among those who have also demanded the appointment be reversed, after the potential conflict of interest was exposed by research carried out by members of Grenfell United, the bereaved and survivors’ group.

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, told Johnson on Thursday it was “another major blow for the survivors, the bereaved and the wider community, and epitomises the careless approach this government continues to take in the aftermath of this tragedy”.

The Arconic Foundation is a separate philanthropic entity to the US conglomerate, but it shares several directors and its purpose is to support the company’s mission by making grants in countries where it trades. The Inquiries Act prohibits selecting anyone with a close association with an interested party, unless their links could not reasonably be regarded as affecting the impartiality of the inquiry panel.