In March, the inquiry gave an update on plans to continue work and potentially resume hearings remotely, after inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick suspended hearings due to the COVID-19 outbreak. A later update noted that while hearings are suspended ‘the work of the Inquiry continues’, and ‘potential options’ for hearings to continue were outlined, with core participants and witnesses written to in order to establish their views on three options.
These included suspending hearings until social restrictions ‘have been lifted completely’; conducting them remotely via video conferencing; or resuming with limited attendance ‘when social restrictions are partially lifted’. Responses were requested to be sent in by 27 April. In late May, the inquiry had received responses that ‘indicated a substantial consensus in favour of limited attendance hearings’.
It said it had ‘come to the clear conclusion’ that the chosen option ‘presents the best way in which the Inquiry can pursue its important work with the necessary urgency’. Consequently, it was developing a ‘detailed plan for implementing this’, which would enable hearings to resume ‘safely and in accordance with government guidance’.
However, the inquiry was keen to note that it ‘cannot yet make any firm prediction about when it will be possible to implement limited attendance hearings as this is dependent on when and how government restrictions are lifted and public health considerations generally’. The earliest it believed it will ‘be possible to resume hearings’ is July, as ‘it is likely to take up to a month to reorganise the Inquiry’s premises in an appropriate way and to reschedule the witnesses for Module 1’.
It has now reported that it is ‘working towards’ resuming hearings on Monday 6 July at the Bishop’s Bridge Road venue, and is ‘proceeding on the basis that the current restrictions will remain in place’ as regards the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing. Hearings ‘will only resume if it is safe to do so’ and if proceedings remain ‘consistent with the available guidance’ as well as the government’s ‘easing of restrictions’.
For the inquiry, the ‘primary concern is the health, safety and wellbeing of all those who would need to attend’, and it has been working alongside contractors ‘to put arrangements in place so that a limited number of attendees’ can use the premises ‘safely and in line with government guidelines’. A ‘thorough’ risk assessment process will be undertaken by the Government Property Agency ‘to ensure compliance with all health and safety requirements’ as well.
In order for the arrangements to be ‘effective’, the inquiry ‘will need to begin by restricting attendance’ to its panel members, counsel and witnesses as well as their legal representative ‘and any person providing immediate support’, alongside inquiry staff and contractors ‘critical to the operation of the hearings’. A member of the Press Association will also attend ‘to enable first-hand reporting and assist in making the process as transparent as possible’.
Hearings will ‘continue to be streamed online’ and remote wellbeing support services ‘will continue to be available’ for the bereaved, survivors and residents. Attendance numbers will be kept ‘under constant review’, with the inquiry ‘particularly keen’ for the bereaved, survivors and residents ‘to return when possible, but their safety must be our overriding concern and it is too early to suggest when or how that might be possible’.
The second phase began earlier this year with a focus on decisions ‘taken in the months and years before the fire’, its immediate aftermath and the government’s role. It was at first expected to last 18 months, with 200,000 documents – including emails, phone transcripts and commercial agreements – to be released.
‘Key revelations’ included that ‘almost none’ of the clients, consultants or contractors during the refurbishment were ‘accepting much blame’, and ‘ignored pleas from the inquiry not to engage in a “merry-go-round of buck-passing”’. That first week also heard refurbishers ‘knew cladding would fail’; witnesses threatened to ‘withhold evidence’; and a consultant was not sent a key report.
However hearings were delayed due to the witnesses asking for assurances that ‘anything they say will not be used in criminal prosecutions against them’. This move was granted, and the inquiry resumed. The inquiry also acknowledged that Sir Martin had written to Attorney General Suella Braverman to ‘request and extension’ in late April, and she extended the ruling earlier this month.
After the agreement had been made, testimony from Studio E staff admitted it ‘lacked experience in cladding tower blocks’, and that it was selected ‘despite never having carried out similar work’, without any ‘competitive procurement process, interview or design competition’.
Later, emails between senior fire engineers and consultants at Exova Warrington Fire saw admissions that plans to refurbish the tower were making ‘a crap condition worse’, and ‘no sprinklers [were] wanted’. Studio E’s lead designer Neil Crawford then alleged that Celotex ‘calculatedly sought to deceive’ and ‘deliberately misled’ over its product’s safety ‘as if selling horsemeat as beef’.
Most recently before it was suspended, the inquiry heard that contractors appeared more concerned about ‘cost and delay’ than fire safety, and on ‘appearance and cost’, while the last testimony given came from Exova consultant Cate Cooney, who had carried out a fire strategy report in 2012 on Grenfell in its original ‘state’ but ‘without visiting the site itself’, and which included a ‘number of assumptions’.