Last week it was confirmed that the inquiry would begin hearing oral evidence again ‘on a limited attendance basis’ from today, after having been suspended in March due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That same month, it discussed plans to resume hearings remotely, while a later update noted that ‘the work of the Inquiry continues’, and ‘potential options’ were outlined, with core participants and witnesses asked for their views on three options.
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, it received responses that ‘indicated a substantial consensus in favour of limited attendance hearings’, and had ‘come to the clear conclusion’ that this ‘present[ed] 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’ and enabling hearings to resume ‘safely and in accordance with government guidance’. 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’.
However, these restrictions created ‘anger’ among the bereaved, survivors and other residents ‘who will be prohibited from attending’. The NFCC has now shared its view that the inquiry ‘get to the truth about why such dangerous cladding came to be installed on the building – and ensure those responsible are held to account’. It noted its ‘shock’ earlier this year after evidence was given that suggested ‘companies knew the components of the cladding system would fail in the event of a fire’.
The council stated that the evidence ‘undoubtedly showed a clear lack of concern for fire safety and a blatant disregard for people’, and ‘made it clear manufacturers and distributors were fully aware of the flammability of the cladding’, with this ‘disregard for safety’ having ‘undoubtedly contribute to the loss of life’.
The council welcomed the decision ‘not to grant any person or corporate entity involved in the refurbishment’ immunity from future criminal prosecutions, adding that witnesses in the first phase ‘did not make such a request and gave unfettered, open and honest disclosure’. Chair Roy Wilsher stated: ‘It is imperative we find out why a non-compliant, extremely dangerous cladding system was on Grenfell Tower, along with hundreds of other buildings across the country.
‘The bereaved, survivors and families deserve answers and I truly hope they get the answers they need from Phase 2. The evidence presented was so shocking I am not sure how anyone – including London Fire Brigade – could have possibly known the building was wrapped in such a cladding system that so clearly breached building regulations.
‘Firefighters faced an impossible situation when faced with the enormity of the fire, with no prior knowledge of the materials used in the refurbishment. The extraordinary work of firefighters on the night must be commended. As highlighted by expert witnesses in phase one it was not reasonable the brigade should be expected to fully mitigate a fire arising from the installation of these materials, particularly where the brigade had never been informed that a combustible system had been installed in the first place.
‘The Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy waiting to happen; it is indefensible that we still have such cladding systems on buildings across the country. The Independent Expert Advisory Panel highlighted this cladding system is a level of risk beyond anything else we have seen and has noted that there was nothing else firefighters could do that wasn’t already procedure.
‘Fire and rescue services are doing their utmost to minimise the risk; however, twenty years of building safety failure is not the responsibility of fire and rescue. Phase two should reemphasise the importance of the reform of building safety and how it needs to happen at pace.’
The council emphasised that it has ‘repeatedly stated’ that it is ‘wholly unacceptable’ that people are still living in combustibly clad buildings, with protection and business safety committee chair Mark Hardingham adding: ‘It is only through better legislation, regulation and clear lines of responsibility we can ensure we do not see another tragedy of this scale unfold.
‘The Grenfell Tower fire highlighted beyond doubt that the building safety regime was broken, yet three years’ later, tens of thousands of people are still living in buildings clad in the same or similar materials as that on Grenfell Tower.’