Last week it was confirmed that the inquiry would begin hearing oral evidence ‘on a limited attendance basis’ after having been suspended in March due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That month, it discussed plans to resume hearings remotely, while a later update noted ‘potential options’ were given to core participants and witnesses to seek their views.

These included suspending hearings until social restrictions ‘have been lifted’; conducting them remotely via video conferencing; or resuming with limited attendance ‘when social restrictions are partially lifted’. In late May, responses ‘indicated a substantial consensus in favour of limited attendance hearings’, which ‘present[ed] the best way in which the Inquiry can pursue its important work with the necessary urgency’.

More recently, it was ‘working towards’ resuming and ‘proceeding on the basis that the current restrictions will remain in place’. The ‘primary concern is the health, safety and wellbeing of all those who would need to attend’, and it had ‘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 was undertaken by the Government Property Agency ‘to ensure compliance with all health and safety requirements’ as well. In order for arrangements to be ‘effective’, it would ‘need to begin by restricting attendance’ to panel members, counsel and witnesses as well as their legal representatives ‘and any person providing immediate support’, alongside inquiry staff and contractors ‘critical to the operation of the hearings’

Hearings would ‘continue to be streamed online’ and remote wellbeing support services would ‘continue to be available’. 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 most recent update saw it confirm ‘preparations in order to protect everyone involved’, and ‘ensure that their safety is in no way compromised by the wider desire to continue’ by maintaining social distancing and ‘managing touch points’. It was clear that ‘the consensus’ was that it ‘should begin taking evidence in limited attendance hearings’, and being ‘concerned with building safety, they also know the particular importance of taking health and safety guidance extremely seriously’.

As guidance remains that a two metre distance is ‘preferable’, and as a number attending ‘are either vulnerable themselves or live with those who are vulnerable’ - with the ‘nature of proceedings mean[ing] attendees will be within the building together for a protracted period’ the inquiry ‘must, therefore, be especially careful’, with witnesses’ attendance in person, ‘important to everyone, […] in large part dependent on their trust’ in the precautions taken.

The venue has been ‘significantly reconfigured’, and while ‘relatively straightforward to maintain social distancing in the hearing room’, this is ‘more challenging’ at break times – so the more people ‘in attendance’, the ‘greater the risk to all those present’. Temporary changes allow for breaks ‘at a safe distance’, and numbers ‘must be restricted to those whose physical attendance is essential for hearings’.

As government guidance is updated, the inquiry ‘will of course review its arrangements’, but is ‘duty-bound to ensure’ social distancing is ‘facilitated in all areas of the building at all time’, because ‘unnecessary risks cannot be taken’. While the restrictions are ‘regrettable’, it ‘would be remiss of the Inquiry with its responsibility for the health and safety of those present to do anything less’.

The Guardian reported however on the ‘anger’ felt by the bereaved, survivors and other residents ‘who will be prohibited from attending’. Karim Mussilhy, vice chair of campaign group Grenfell United, commented: ‘For us, a part of the justice process is being able to be in the room when people who are responsible for what happened to our loved ones face questions.It’s hard to understand why people are allowed back into pubs, but we’re not allowed back into the inquiry. They told us we would be at the heart of this inquiry and now they are saying we’re not allowed in.’

The news outlet noted that the inquiry will begin by cross examining Exova executives, before staff from main contractor Rydon are interrogated, with this marking ‘the first time’ that the company’s executives ‘have been questioned in public about their role’. Mr Mussilhy added: ‘This next phase of the inquiry process is vital.We’ll hear from the council, our landlord and all the companies that had a hand in turning Grenfell into a death trap. And we’ll start to unpick the corruption, negligence and indifference that led to the death of 72 of our loved ones. Ultimately we’ll start to see where the blame lies.’

There was further anger that the inquiry will pause again ‘for the whole of August’, and is ‘only sitting for four days a week’, meaning it is ‘unlikely to report back until the end of next year at the earliest’, so criminal charges are not likely until 2022. The Guardian pointed out that Rydon’s testimony ‘is keenly awaited’ by residents, who were ‘angered by what they saw as disdainful treatment’ during the works between 2014 and 2016.

Key executives ‘failed to respond during planning to concerns that the cladding might be dangerous’, while emails between Rydon, Exova and architects Studio E on the fire safety of the cladding included ‘warnings it might fail’. Lawyers for the bereaved and the survivors said that ‘this was perhaps the last chance to avert disaster […] and it was not taken’.