Grenfell contracts row as firms still win public deals after inquiry

Published: 29 December 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

More than eight years after the Grenfell Tower fire devastated families and shocked the nation, fresh analysis has reignited anger among survivors and bereaved relatives. Despite damning findings from the public inquiry, several companies criticised for their role in the disaster are still receiving multimillion-pound public contracts across the United Kingdom. Campaigners say the continued flow of public money represents a profound moral failure and risks undermining trust in public procurement systems.

The new analysis, produced by Labour MP Joe Powell using the government’s own contracts database, identified at least 87 public sector contracts linked to companies criticised in the phase two Grenfell inquiry report, published in September 2024. While some contracts may have expired since being recorded, many remain active, collectively worth hundreds of millions of pounds. The findings have intensified calls for urgent reform and decisive political action.

For Grenfell survivors, the issue is deeply personal. Seventy-two people lost their lives, and more than seventy were injured, when fire tore through the west London tower block on 14 June 2017. The blaze, fuelled by combustible cladding and insulation, was later described as the UK’s worst residential fire since the Second World War. The inquiry concluded that the tragedy was entirely preventable, resulting from systemic failures, poor regulation, and serious misconduct by multiple organisations.

Joe Powell said it was extraordinary that companies named in the inquiry were still benefiting from public funds. He argued that justice for Grenfell had been delayed for far too long and that continued public spending with implicated firms sent the wrong message. According to Powell, public bodies should immediately audit all existing contracts, including subcontractors and supply chains, and publish their findings transparently. He added that the Procurement Act 2023 already provides mechanisms to exclude suppliers for professional misconduct and should now be used decisively.

At the time the inquiry report was released, Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged to bar companies involved in the Grenfell disaster from future public contracts. However, the government later stepped back from a blanket exclusion policy. Ministers cited advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, warning that sweeping sanctions could prejudice ongoing criminal investigations. While acknowledging the legal complexity, survivors’ groups argue that this caution has resulted in paralysis rather than accountability.

Grenfell United, the main survivors’ organisation, said it would be a deep injustice for companies censured in the inquiry to continue receiving public money. In a statement, the group stressed that while criminal investigations may limit formal sanctions, nothing prevents the government from taking a clear moral stance. They emphasised that the Procurement Act allows authorities to consider integrity and risk, making inaction indefensible.

Among the companies highlighted is Rydon Maintenance, the main contractor responsible for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. The inquiry report was highly critical of Rydon, concluding that it gave inadequate consideration to fire safety and failed to ensure that subcontractors and consultants understood their responsibilities. The report also found that Rydon’s project team lacked experience and relied heavily on others to identify serious errors.

Despite these findings, Rydon appears multiple times in the public contracts database. Confirmed contracts include a £6.6 million facilities management deal with Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust and a £4.3 million contract with Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust. In total, the database lists fourteen contracts associated with Rydon, some with unspecified end dates, collectively valued at more than £5.5 billion. Rydon did not respond to requests for comment, and the NHS trusts involved also declined to comment.

Powell has written directly to several public bodies, including NHS trusts and Scottish Water, urging them to review contracts linked to companies named in the inquiry. In correspondence with Penny Dash, chair of NHS North West London, he stressed that while the criminal justice process continues, no company criticised by the inquiry should be benefiting from public funds.

Another company under scrutiny is Celotex, formerly owned by Saint-Gobain. The inquiry found that Celotex had marketed its RS5000 insulation as suitable for high-rise buildings despite knowing it was combustible. This insulation was used on approximately ninety-five percent of Grenfell Tower. Although Celotex maintained that the product was intended for use only with non-combustible cladding, the inquiry heard evidence that raised serious ethical concerns.

During testimony, a former Celotex employee stated they were pressured to mislead customers for commercial gain, describing the company’s behaviour as completely unethical. Although Celotex has not traded since December 2015, its former parent company, Saint-Gobain, continues to hold major public sector contracts. Procurement data shows that Saint-Gobain has a £17.6 million contract with Scottish Water running until 2029. Scottish Water declined to comment on the matter.

A spokesperson for Saint-Gobain Construction Products UK said its current businesses had no connection to the Grenfell refurbishment or to Celotex Limited. They emphasised that Saint-Gobain comprises a wide range of UK-based manufacturers, including Saint-Gobain PAM, which produces ductile iron pipes for infrastructure projects. The spokesperson added that these businesses were not referenced during the inquiry and that their integrity had not been questioned.

The controversy has highlighted broader concerns about how public bodies interpret and apply procurement rules. The Procurement Act 2023 grants local authorities, NHS organisations, and other public bodies the power to exclude suppliers for poor past performance. This includes breaches of health and safety law, labour regulations, environmental standards, or professional misconduct. However, critics argue these powers are being applied too cautiously, leaving dangerous gaps in accountability.

Powell said reliance on voluntary caution by contracting authorities was insufficient. He argued that proactive use of exclusion powers was essential to protect public safety and ensure public money was spent responsibly. Survivors’ groups echo this view, warning that failure to act risks repeating the mistakes that led to Grenfell.

The Cabinet Office is understood to believe it lacks a clear legal basis to issue central guidance on excluding specific suppliers. A government spokesperson said the government would never forget the seventy-two lives lost at Grenfell. They confirmed that organisations named in the inquiry report had been contacted and that investigations into seven companies were launched. These investigations were paused to avoid prejudicing criminal proceedings but could be restarted or expanded in the future.

For many affected families, such assurances offer little comfort. Each new contract awarded to an implicated company is seen as another reminder that accountability remains elusive. Survivors argue that justice is not only about criminal convictions but also about ethical responsibility and meaningful consequences.

As the Grenfell community continues to campaign for lasting change, the debate over public contracts has become a powerful symbol of unresolved injustice. The question now facing ministers, public bodies, and procurement officials is whether they will use the powers already available to them. For those who lost loved ones, ensuring that Grenfell is never repeated requires more than words. It demands action that places human life above commercial convenience.