We welcome the letter from the academics published in your paper on September 17. As a family who lost a loved one in this tragedy we have now waited nearly three-and-a-half years to get answers as to why our sister died.

Despite the legal proceedings that saw ICL Plastics and ICL Tech Limited fined £200,000 each, we are little further forward in our search for the reasons as to why nine people left their homes on the morning of May 11 never to return. We welcome the independent report from the authors of the letter and the contents reflect much of the discussion that we had with the survivors in the weeks and months following our loss.

There may be those who chose to be critical of this report, but at least we have a document that highlights issues that we would expect to be considered at any public inquiry. We do not believe even an FAI with the broadest remit could ensure these issues are properly considered, along with the yet unpublished evidence.

The court proceedings raised more questions than answers and clearly there is a substantial amount of evidence still to be made public. As the academics rightly state, that evidence may well have implications for public agencies stretching across the Holyrood and Westminster governments. Therefore, any inquiry has to be in a position to consider both devolved and reserved functions and make strong recommendations if necessary to ensure that other families do not suffer the pain and heartache that ourselves and the other families have had to endure.

Additionally, anything other than a public inquiry will result in the ludicrous situation where families may have to consider abandoning their quest for answers owing to being unable to afford legal representation.

Is this right?

Ian and Pauline McKenzie, c/o STUC Glasgow, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow.