Causes of Grenfell fire were entwined with policy decisions driven by saving money | Grenfell Tower fire

False economy does not begin to describe the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s approach to the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.

It was not just how the council shaved a few hundred thousands pounds from the cladding budget by switching from zinc, that was expected to be fire-retardant, to plastic-filled combustible panels.

It also decided to spread a £620,000 bill for fitting door closers on all its council flats over five years instead of 12 months.

After the fire in June 2017 killed 72 people, investigators found more than half of the doors still did not have working closers to stop the spread of fire and smoke.

Alongside that, there was the appointment of the cheapest contractor and the council cuts that meant the building inspector had to juggle 130 jobs at a time.

It goes without saying that the greatest cost of Grenfell was human. Six years on, the community’s trauma remains raw.

But the £1.2bn spent and budgeted for in the aftermath of the disaster also matters because the causes of the Grenfell disaster were entwined with public policy decisions driven by saving money.

When the inquiry delivers its final report next year it will probably draw conclusions about how David Cameron’s government cut safety “red tape” to try to boost business after the financial crisis.

It will consider how austerity left council building inspectors overwhelmed with work and without a hope of doing their jobs properly.

It will look at how councils such as RBKC often chose the lowest price contractors only to then slice deeper still with exercises in “value engineering” – an Orwellian expression concealing the true meaning of cost-cutting.

But what good is it for politicians to make cuts if the consequences are not only lives lost and families torn apart, but massive bills too? The figures compiled by the Guardian show the cost-cutters failed catastrophically on their own terms.

Understandably there is considerable sensitivity about money in the Grenfell community. The process of rehousing those who survived the fire and bereaved people, as well as paying compensation, has created tensions, survivors say.

Opinions vary over the value of the public inquiry and its small army of lawyers. Some lack faith it will deliver justice. Many recognise that it has uncovered shocking truths.

Few people doubt the need for unlimited financial support for stabilising a community betrayed, as the inquiry has shown, by the acts and omissions of state and business. And yet, any help the community gets pales in comparison with their loss and trauma.

So, it is not easy to talk about. As Deborah Coles, a veteran campaigner on state-related deaths,says, the human cost of tragedies like Grenfell is always paramount. But the fact remains that “death is expensive” in such cases.

The £60m Grenfell Tower criminal investigation employs 180 police officers. The council has spent close to half a billion pounds. Central government has earmarked more than a quarter of a billion pounds for its responsibility for the site. The total cost of the refurbishment was about £10m.

Last month a campaign was launched to create an independent public body responsible for following up recommendations made by official investigations into state-related deaths.

No More Deaths is backed by Grenfell United, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice and James Jones, who chaired the Hillsborough panel. Its backers hope a powerful independent body could prevent what lawyers call “contentious deaths”.

The call for this national oversight mechanism is timely. Already, one significant recommendation from the Grenfell inquiry has been rejected – the demand that all disabled people living in high rises have a personal evacuation plan.

Last month a high court judge, considering the decision, concluded it was “a political judgment”. At Grenfell, 15 of the 37 disabled residents died. The Home Office’s reasons for not following the recommendation included a familiar refrain: “unreasonable and disproportionate costs”.