Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Phase 2 Submissions RE undertaking application - Monday 3rd February
00:00:19 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing we're going to continue hearing submissions in relation to the application that I should seek and undertaking from the Attorney General to
00:00:31 undertaking from the Attorney General to in relation to evidence given by witnesses in the inquiry and at this stage I'm going to invite mr. Mansfield who is instructed by these group of
00:00:42 who is instructed by these group of listeners that we for convenience called team two to come and make his submissions yes may I begin by thanking
00:01:01 submissions yes may I begin by thanking both you sir and you madam for the opportunity that we've had since this application was made late last week as
00:01:14 application was made late last week as we anticipated managing to gather together the numbers involved in terms of the bereaved and the survivors and the residence is a major task but in
00:01:27 the residence is a major task but in fact we did achieve that I stand here today representing all the families of team two there are a number of Lee I'm
00:01:38 team two there are a number of Lee I'm not going through the numbers a number of legal representatives but also the families represented by Imran Khan so it's two groups in fact thank you and there is I can say at once an
00:01:49 there is I can say at once an overwhelming and strong consensus of these families in opposition to this application what we have done for your
00:02:03 application what we have done for your assistance I hope it's not too formidable we've put together a hard copy file may I just make it a little bit easier the first also pages of the actual submission the
00:02:16 also pages of the actual submission the rest of it are materials that just make it easier rather than going through transcripts their position statements transcripts of these hearings and also the authority bombers who which has been
00:02:28 the authority bombers who which has been referred to already that's all in one place thank you that'll be very useful just so that you know we've both read your submissions that's the first thing thirteen pages right I have to confess
00:02:40 thirteen pages right I have to confess my own part I didn't but I only got them this morning well I've only just got be on with myself because others have been working very hard over the weekend for whose work I thank also it may be also
00:02:54 whose work I thank also it may be also be of assistance for you therefore having read them I'm certainly not intending any more than anyone else does to read them out verbatim or saryati my
00:03:05 to read them out verbatim or saryati my I do wish however if I may to highlight certain points half a dozen points that arise out of the written submissions but before I do
00:03:16 the written submissions but before I do I would ask for a moment an opportunity a further opportunities through you sir through you madam to address some
00:03:29 through you madam to address some observations obviously that you would want to take account of but to the witnesses who I might call corporate
00:03:40 witnesses who I might call corporate witnesses that includes TMO for these purposes so if I call incorporate them in that way compendium and what is
00:03:52 in that way compendium and what is required at this stage we feel given how this has arisen we would ask them respectfully all of them and may I pause
00:04:03 respectfully all of them and may I pause we don't at the moment know exactly how many there are and I'm not asking for an answer doubt perhaps mr. millet or later point today we'll be in a position to
00:04:14 point today we'll be in a position to indicate how many have jumped on this bandwagon but we had a list provided before but we suspect that the list is much greater and that
00:04:26 much greater and that perhaps a majority are going of corporates other than the ones who are disassociating themselves from this but the remarks that I now wish to make are
00:04:38 the remarks that I now wish to make are addressed to them that is the corporates who are making this application by which I mean the individuals because mr.
00:04:49 I mean the individuals because mr. Laidlaw and it is a an issue that's been pointed up by others when he spoke here it's not entirely clear what his locus was because he was representing a company and the undertaking will not
00:05:02 company and the undertaking will not apply to them but it applies to individuals and we would ask that you take into account the individuals who want this ought to be making this application themselves individually I'll come to the reasons why they should be
00:05:14 come to the reasons why they should be doing it when I indicate our in summary form the basis for the objection which is set out so you you know the paragraph its paragraphs in our submissions 8
00:05:27 its paragraphs in our submissions 8 onwards there are objections set out the the message we would wish to convey to those witnesses who wish to seek this or
00:05:38 those witnesses who wish to seek this or ask you to ask the Attorney General for an undertaking is this it's barely a week ago that their representatives of
00:05:51 week ago that their representatives of the witnesses we understand are now claiming the undertaking or the grant of an undertaking only a week ago they were standing here commiserating with the
00:06:02 standing here commiserating with the families one after another indicating how they sympathized with the agony and the tragedy of and the horror of what they've been through and at the
00:06:16 of what they've been through and at the same time saying of course they are entitled to know answers to questions and the truth of course what we didn't
00:06:27 and the truth of course what we didn't know at that stage and the families didn't know at that stage was underneath all of this was an intention to tell the truth on their
00:06:41 intention to tell the truth on their terms in other words yes you can hear the truth but not from us unless what we say is not used to prosecute us
00:06:56 say is not used to prosecute us individually or held us at hold us accountable individually and we say therefore as anticipated by some of the
00:07:07 therefore as anticipated by some of the speakers that the families strongly object to that position adopted which was basically saying one thing but do another promising one thing but actually
00:07:20 another promising one thing but actually not doing it and only setting parameters within which the truth shall be sought at this inquiry so we would say the
00:07:31 at this inquiry so we would say the family say to them directly today would they kindly take a moment to reflect and
00:07:43 they kindly take a moment to reflect and reconsider whether they really want to put the families through more anguish more agony through the months that come
00:07:55 more agony through the months that come in phase two either because they don't want to answer questions affecting themselves and their own culpability which of course is paramount here
00:08:07 which of course is paramount here accountability on whether they really want to do that or only speak provided the words they speak escape accountability now there will be time
00:08:20 accountability now there will be time I'm not suggesting a delay of any substance but possibly today I don't know how many of the core participant corporates are here and I call them corporates but I mean the individuals
00:08:31 corporates but I mean the individuals are here today but no doubt this message can be conveyed through their representatives for them to seriously consider their position and it can be
00:08:42 consider their position and it can be considered against a back loss which is dramatic the back loss is drama is phase one phase one was undertaken as
00:08:56 is phase one phase one was undertaken as you know without witnesses refusing to answer questions without witnesses saying well I'll only answer if there's an undertaking say it would be a gross
00:09:10 an undertaking say it would be a gross unfairness putting it in the broadest sense if in Phase two core participants at the heart of responsibility act
00:09:24 at the heart of responsibility act irresponsibly because we say it is irresponsible in the context of this particular tragedy characterized as the worst in terms of a fire and loss of
00:09:36 worst in terms of a fire and loss of life since World War two if the families and the public and the community at large are to be beholden to this kind of
00:09:48 large are to be beholden to this kind of corporate approach to this inquiry and of course in Phase one perhaps the finest example of people who in the end
00:10:00 finest example of people who in the end and I say in the end in the sense of when it came to giving evidence I've no doubt before that as well were members of the fire brigade who went in to as it
00:10:13 of the fire brigade who went in to as it were the entrails to clear up and prevent the loss of life if they could of the actions of the people who are now saying to you please write and ask for
00:10:26 saying to you please write and ask for an undertaking for us why do they deserve that we say they do not deserve that kind of treatment and so we'd ask you sir knew madam to bear in mind and I
00:10:41 you sir knew madam to bear in mind and I understand representatives of the firemen here today wish to add some observations and weight to this as well so that it but is by way of introduction
00:10:54 so that it but is by way of introduction we hope today we will find out whether any of them even answer this appeal to them and if they don't that
00:11:06 appeal to them and if they don't that speaks volumes and if they answer no they're not going to reconsider they're going to maintain their position that also speaks volumes for their community
00:11:19 also speaks volumes for their community responsibilities yes they have a right no one's denying the right the question is are you going to exercise that right in the face of what has happened to
00:11:30 in the face of what has happened to these families and in the face of what we've called in our submissions the duty of candor I don't explore that any further it is explored further in the submissions there is a duty of candor
00:11:42 submissions there is a duty of candor that they ought to have regard to at this point moment so I pass from that to just indicate factors why we say this
00:11:54 just indicate factors why we say this application is totally without merit we say that and we I'm going to characterize it generally as it is in the submissions as a disingenuous
00:12:06 the submissions as a disingenuous application and one is careful about using such words unless one has a very clear basis upon which to say it and we say there is a very clear basis in this
00:12:17 say there is a very clear basis in this instance to say that that it's just in genuine and just for a moment one needs to step back and assess the magnitude of
00:12:29 to step back and assess the magnitude of what's happened first of all all these witnesses knew from the moment of the fire that there would be a robust as it
00:12:45 fire that there would be a robust as it has been and thorough inquiry into what happened and of course they must have recognized right there on the day of the fire that somebody was going to ask
00:12:58 fire that somebody was going to ask questions at some point and it can't have taken long for it to sink in because the police themselves announced in July 2017 that they were already
00:13:10 in July 2017 that they were already investigating notionally those offenses that relate to corporate manslaughter as an example so they must have known this train was already coming down the line
00:13:23 train was already coming down the line but it gets far worse than that in terms of what they must have known and what they've sat on until the doors of this court because after that you published
00:13:38 court because after that you published the terms of reference in the summer of 2017 if they really hadn't got the point they must have got it then however just for a moment in case they are a bit slow
00:13:51 for a moment in case they are a bit slow off the mark later in 2017 of course the inquiry began its initial hearings and your counsel towards the end of that year
00:14:03 counsel towards the end of that year made very clearly how it was all going to be managed I was all going to be split what the issues were they were spelt out in large print so they knew that corporate individuals who
00:14:15 they knew that corporate individuals who are now claiming that they don't wish to answer without the undertaking they must have known then and of course at the same time as that throughout 2018 there
00:14:28 same time as that throughout 2018 there was a police investigation we know that an active one looking at a broad range no doubt well beyond the corporate manslaughter issue so they knew that
00:14:42 manslaughter issue so they knew that questions were going to be asked and were being asked at that point and what is particularly interesting and it may be concede if it's my fault it's my
00:14:53 be concede if it's my fault it's my fault but I don't think many of us were aware until you mentioned it yourself the last at the end of last week not only were they aware that this was coming up and should have been sorted in
00:15:06 coming up and should have been sorted in that sense right at the beginning instead of as it were lulling people into a sense of false security TMO 18 months ago maybe 16 I'm not sure the
00:15:19 months ago maybe 16 I'm not sure the date when they did it there was some communication between the inquiry and the TMO who were invited to make patience apparently now what's happened
00:15:32 patience apparently now what's happened is on the back of all that in other words they knowing full well that responsibility and the chain of responsibility was going to be one of
00:15:43 responsibility was going to be one of the many themes of Phase two what do they do
00:15:46 they do what are these corporates and this if this is important in terms of should I write to the Attorney General should the Attorney General Grant these people and undertaking I think not because what
00:15:58 undertaking I think not because what they do is they believe the true situation that they're adopting their true situation is the one that was announced at the doors of the court namely we don't answer unless they do
00:16:11 namely we don't answer unless they do the opposite and this is extremely important in terms of weighing out whether an undertaking is going to mean anything what they do is they let
00:16:22 anything what they do is they let everybody believe that they're not going to ask for it because I'm perfectly certain and we're short in our own approach to this that had you thought
00:16:34 approach to this that had you thought for one moment that any of them really did want that you would have taken the initiative you would have asked as you did of TMO who then stood remain silent
00:16:45 did of TMO who then stood remain silent as far as I'm aware for representation so the matter could be sorted out long ago so we did not have this enforced
00:16:56 ago so we did not have this enforced delay but no not only do they provide
00:17:04 openings do they provide positions statements all of these are as it were and I'm going to put it as high as this
00:17:15 and I'm going to put it as high as this they are pretending that they want a full an open inquiry that in which they will cooperate I'm just going to read one paragraph from our submissions taken
00:17:28 one paragraph from our submissions taken from position statement which is included its paragraph 20 and it relates to TMO and this is echoed by the
00:17:40 to TMO and this is echoed by the position statements of others so I'm only going to read one because they're all very very similar in this but it sees the extent to which the
00:17:51 but it sees the extent to which the there has been this attempt as it were we say to derail this inquiry because if it been serious this would have been hired out months ago the TMO this is
00:18:03 hired out months ago the TMO this is this is comes from the position statement TMO welcomes the public Inquirer is fully supportive of its objective to obtain clear reliable
00:18:14 objective to obtain clear reliable evidence and to learn all possible safety lessons so as to minimize the chance that such a tragedy will ever be repeated TMO is committed to providing
00:18:27 repeated TMO is committed to providing full and frank evidence to the inquiry in an open and transparent way it has offered to the inquiry all of its documentation without reservation or
00:18:39 documentation without reservation or exception this documentation was captured within four days of the fire occurring and was locked down and fully captured by independent IT specialists a copy in both its raw state and process
00:18:51 copy in both its raw state and process state making it fully searchable was provided to the police and offer to the inquiry all TMO staff employed at the
00:19:02 inquiry all TMO staff employed at the time of the fire and those who are former staff have fully committed themselves to providing whatever evidence the inquiry seeks from them and do so in an open and transparent way
00:19:16 do so in an open and transparent way now that sentiment is reflected in many of the other position statements and we say to be as it were Lily lulling
00:19:29 say to be as it were Lily lulling readers and recipients of these position statements into the false sense of security that there isn't going to be an approach they're all going to come and do what the firemen did then it's hardly
00:19:40 do what the firemen did then it's hardly surprising that when it's announced actually funnily enough not in most of the openings it only started to emerge in the openings when TMO interestingly
00:19:51 in the openings when TMO interestingly having it having then been communicated to the family that they had a right to warm their witnesses and so on other than that not a hint of it up until that point so we
00:20:06 a hint of it up until that point so we say we've called them in the submission the pledges that were made over this period of time when they knew full well what was coming our rather likes of the
00:20:19 what was coming our rather likes of the sentiments they expressed of the families about sympathy and needing answers are hollow meaningless which
00:20:30 answers are hollow meaningless which then leads me to a further point on the back of it even if and I appreciate and we all appreciate the gift of an
00:20:43 we all appreciate the gift of an undertaking is not within who so you madam but case the Attorney General but even if you were to write and one were granted think for a moment are we to
00:20:55 granted think for a moment are we to trust that these very same people with this blanket undertaking will come here and tell the unvarnished truth I doubt
00:21:10 and tell the unvarnished truth I doubt it in fact I'm going to go one stage further and say were it to be granted given the climate of denial and the buck-passing
00:21:21 buck-passing which we've already seen over the first days last week the granting of an undertaking in this case will be tantamount I fear to a license to lie
00:21:37 well most immense of that might be going a bit far I can it because the undertaking that's been canvassed would not extend to giving false evidence to
00:21:50 not extend to giving false evidence to the inquiry no if that if that were established yes the prosecution for that could follow that I accept that but the problem is
00:22:01 that I accept that but the problem is the establishment of the lies is really come is an offshoot of this inquiry plainly if you are in a position to prove that they've told yes they can be prosecuted but that's in
00:22:15 yes they can be prosecuted but that's in a sense what's already in the pipeline because of what they've put in statements and may I come to that straight away what is interesting is and this is why the status of the observations made last week by mr. law
00:22:28 observations made last week by mr. law Laidlaw it is is again one has to look at the locus here in fact the threshold
00:22:39 fact the threshold I thought we call it that in the submissions the threshold has not been crossed because this statements that have been taken by the Indian on behalf
00:22:52 have been taken by the Indian on behalf of the individuals and by the individuals according to the openings and according to the statements are truthful and further than that there are
00:23:03 truthful and further than that there are non incriminatory which of course is another reason why no one has thought they're going to come here and say oh well we're worried about incriminating ourselves so the position there is at
00:23:16 ourselves so the position there is at this moment somebody's sitting on a whole load of truth which has not been disclosed who knows what it is we
00:23:27 disclosed who knows what it is we certainly obviously have an idea of what it is but we don't know they know what the truth is but not a single shred of evidence in mr. laid laws submissions
00:23:41 suggests that they've crossed the threshold of indicating that they might be incriminating just indicating to you there's a harvest of offenses here which there are of course a number of offenses
00:23:53 there are of course a number of offenses right through to health and safety that's not the point of course people are at risk of those offences if in any way they're connected with the construction design and all the
00:24:04 with the construction design and all the other issues you're looking at however that's not enough to just we put it as merely assert that there's a risk you have to be able to provide reasonable
00:24:16 have to be able to provide reasonable grounds and therefore we say in relation to this
00:24:25 if it were not granted we say the proper procedure here should be which is why we urge you not to ask for it the undertaking is that each individual
00:24:38 undertaking is that each individual witness comes here and is faced with what I've suggested in opening is a conscientious decision about what the
00:24:52 conscientious decision about what the honorable thing to do is at that point now if they decide the honorable thing is they don't wish to answer questions because in the community or I'm sorry I won't use that word it's a bit lacks
00:25:03 won't use that word it's a bit lacks that there has been an undertaking they won't be prosecuted on what they say about themselves at that point they would have to justify to you sir knew
00:25:16 would have to justify to you sir knew madam they would have to justify provide reasonable grounds not all the details but exactly what they're worried about in other words what what's the area in which they have material which may
00:25:29 which they have material which may incriminate them and that's the normal way in which it's done and not all inquiries have had undertakings one would think from mr. Laidlaw submissions they all have but that not all have and
00:25:41 they all have but that not all have and we've put an example of one where the attorney refused to give an undertaking and the distinction with that so so we say it can be managed and we say they
00:25:54 say it can be managed and we say they must come here and justify it in front of you and in front of the families and in front of the public so we know what it is and who it is who is trying to as it were hide behind this blanket right
00:26:07 it were hide behind this blanket right which we admit it exists within the statute there is another caveat to this which is of interest at that point that
00:26:18 which is of interest at that point that they're having to justify you would be entitled and and madam you as well obviously if you wanted to through counsel to give the witness a warning
00:26:32 counsel to give the witness a warning about not answering questions that are relevant
00:26:35 relevant and the warning is very common in criminal the criminal arena and that is if you don't answer questions your silence may give rise to an adverse
00:26:47 silence may give rise to an adverse inference that might just encourage a different approach so this whole question of it's really a threat the
00:26:58 question of it's really a threat the smooth running of this inquiry can only be affected and implemented by us being allowed to say what we want without any come back to us individually that should
00:27:12 come back to us individually that should be cast to one side and so one gets to this position we say here and we say
00:27:24 this position we say here and we say it's abhorrent to the interests of Justice that those who are potential perpetrators of this inferno who have
00:27:36 perpetrators of this inferno who have caused the loss of life injury which is often in fact overlooked the loss of homes then and continuing now and well into the future can those potential
00:27:48 into the future can those potential perpetrators come here and dictate essentially dictate the terms on which they will provide their assistance and
00:28:00 they will provide their assistance and we say that that would be abhorrent it needed the public interest for them to do so and we would ask that no more insult to the families upon the injury
00:28:13 insult to the families upon the injury already incurred should now occur by writing to the attorney so so we say at this point enough is enough and we are
00:28:28 this point enough is enough and we are aware that others support this particular approach to this problem may I just before I finish just mention one
00:28:41 I just before I finish just mention one other matter it's unrelated but in a way may may have in the end of relationship I stood here before to ask if it's possible for you to lend your weight to
00:28:55 possible for you to lend your weight to a request for a replacement panel member and I say again it's quite shocking a number of organizations including my own
00:29:06 number of organizations including my own solicitors have approached the Cabinet Office time and again on a daily basis and they haven't even had the courtesy to indicate that one is being sought or
00:29:18 to indicate that one is being sought or not sought or what the position is and we say that's intolerable as well what else do the families as it were have to put up with and we say it's about time
00:29:29 put up with and we say it's about time that the Cabinet Office faced up and said what are they're doing or not doing and we would ask for your assistance in that matter as well so there's a my submissions well that's Thank You mr. Manchu and
00:29:41 well that's Thank You mr. Manchu and could you just help me on one question yes my own reading of materials and some suggest that at the end of the day is a question that we have to decide is
00:29:54 question that we have to decide is whether the inquiry can properly fulfill its terms of reference if a significant number of witnesses claim privilege against self-incrimination and on that
00:30:07 against self-incrimination and on that ground don't answer questions would you accept that that is the question that ultimately I have to we have to decide yes I do I do accept that but but I
00:30:18 yes I do I do accept that but but I could answer the question to some extent that I think that obviously put in bland terms that is a question we were to accept is at the core of it but and it's the the duty you have to have a fully
00:30:33 the the duty you have to have a fully inquiry a thorough inquiry but the the point we would make with regard to that question is it can't actually be fully
00:30:45 question is it can't actually be fully answered until somebody's crossed the threshold so the threshold question comes first and at the moment nobody's crossed it so therefore we would say
00:30:56 crossed it so therefore we would say it's another situation in which you're not going to reach the only thing what you're saying that we should wait and see yes but there will come a point won't there
00:31:07 there will come a point won't there where we shall either find that we're completely bogged down with people claiming privilege as each question is asked because it has to be claimed in relation to every question as it's asked
00:31:19 relation to every question as it's asked and the position will become clear at least in relation to the particular witness and we might then move on and see what the next one says but there will come a point I suppose when it's
00:31:30 will come a point I suppose when it's well clear we are hoping that conscience will enter the arena here and can I just cite it's in the submissions in the case
00:31:41 cite it's in the submissions in the case of Granger where the attorney refused an undertaking in the end the witnesses turned up and answered questions and we think actually that's what will happen
00:31:52 think actually that's what will happen here and you raised the possibility that one might draw adverse inferences yeah that that is commonly done in
00:32:04 that that is commonly done in adversarial proceedings because one the parties are seeking to assert a case yes and it may enable you to reach a conclusion based on other evidence but we're not in that situation are we I
00:32:17 we're not in that situation are we I mean the inquiries function is to find out in as much detail as it can exactly what happened and being left with
00:32:28 what happened and being left with inferences that can be drawn from other materials but not getting the answers from the particular person concerned is not entirely satisfactory is it it's not satisfactory in one sense but there's
00:32:40 satisfactory in one sense but there's nothing to preclude it and furthermore you would be in this case obviously is going to be other material from which inferences can be drawn and if they point towards a particular witness who's
00:32:51 point towards a particular witness who's refusing to answer questions then although it's not adversarial the question is whether that witness has is withholding material that would assist
00:33:02 withholding material that would assist and certain inferences can be drawn from that and it's a very important we would say a very important exercise of a discretion even though not adversarial because if you are to fulfill the
00:33:14 because if you are to fulfill the function of as it was seeking the truth in the wholehearted way otherwise it's going to lead to situations in which there will
00:33:25 lead to situations in which there will be a carte blanche and that's almost what's being asked for here anybody's got any connection with these companies pretty well because there's a risk of an offense at the end of it well then we
00:33:36 offense at the end of it well then we have an undertaking well that if anything is thwarting because if it was going to lead in a situation other than this one with the witnesses coming out with the truth and that might matter but
00:33:48 with the truth and that might matter but in fact what we're also saying is that in this particular case given the behavior of the corporates and their witnesses to date one can have
00:33:59 witnesses to date one can have absolutely no face that the undertaking will provide you with the material that you want and therefore the only way in fact you might get it is through an adverse inference all right well thank
00:34:11 adverse inference all right well thank you very much I understand miss Barr Wyatt that you would like to make some
00:34:23 Wyatt that you would like to make some submissions on this although I've got you're sure yes with your permission madam I'd like to do two things first explain our position my very short
00:34:36 explain our position my very short summary and secondly make three further short point yes that our clients are keen that you should here you have our written submissions the effect that our
00:34:47 written submissions the effect that our clients wish to adopt a neutral position and leave to you the question of whether to seek undertakings from the Attorney General the reason we are doctor neutral stance is that we cannot in the short
00:35:00 stance is that we cannot in the short time available obtain complete instructions from all clients and those with whom we did manage to speak had understandably different and reasonably held views one response all our clients
00:35:14 held views one response all our clients without exception add to this application was that of utter outrage at its timing and frankly the fact of it at all our clients find themselves placed
00:35:25 all our clients find themselves placed in a wholly impossible position by the application because they cannot know the nature of the evidence which will emerge in this inquiry and it is not possible to know how these undertakings
00:35:36 possible to know how these undertakings if given may affect subsequent prosecutions we know that you're well aware of our clients the threefold desires which are first transparency and
00:35:47 desires which are first transparency and truth in relation to the matters within your terms of reference secondly meaningful change for the purpose of prevention thirdly accountability in the form of clear attribution of responsibility but ultimately and beyond
00:36:00 responsibility but ultimately and beyond this enquiry prosecutions as to future prosecutions and the risk to them imposed by the grant of undertakings we recognize that these will not be your
00:36:11 recognize that these will not be your primary concern those questions are for the Attorney General and the DPP our clients are very keen that we should make three points but none of these
00:36:22 make three points but none of these points should be understood as arguing either for or against the application upon which we wish to remain neutral first our clients are profoundly upset and angry that the application is being
00:36:34 and angry that the application is being made at all in circumstances where hitherto these participants have all claimed to be being cooperative and therefore should not at this very late stage be seeking to protect themselves
00:36:46 stage be seeking to protect themselves the very fact of their application perhaps explains why the position and witness statements say so very little and do not truly engage with the real
00:36:57 and do not truly engage with the real issues with which this inquiry is concerned the other circumstance which the BSR feels strongly about is the fact that the firefighters were just as much at risk of prosecution under the Health
00:37:08 at risk of prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act and yet freely gave their evidence without seeking undertakings second as we said to you in opening the timing of this application
00:37:19 opening the timing of this application appears disingenuous and an attempt at sabotage
00:37:22 sabotage nothing mr. Laidlaw QC said in making the application changes our submission we offer two examples Harley appears to have been a position
00:37:33 Harley appears to have been a position in a position to understand it's a risk of self-incrimination much earlier than was suggested by mr. Laidlaw mr. Laidlaw was listed as Harley counsel in the registered legal
00:37:45 counsel in the registered legal representative list in phase one there was no suggestion from mr. Laidlaw that counsel did not assist Harley throughout phase one on the contrary mr. Laidlaw
00:37:56 phase one on the contrary mr. Laidlaw suggested that all court Hartley's counsel stopped work due to funding constraints only in summer last year that was a transcript day for page 124 lines 24 25 Harley's legal
00:38:10 lines 24 25 Harley's legal representatives had submitted a position statement explaining Harley's role in February 2018 and had the first phase 1 report of dr. Lane asked from mid April 2018 dr. Lane's report indicated the
00:38:23 2018 dr. Lane's report indicated the lack of cavity barriers around windows and the extent of combustible material in the facade Harley should therefore have known from mid 2018 onwards at latest once it had digested dr. lanes
00:38:36 latest once it had digested dr. lanes report that it was exposed to the risk of prosecution given the terrible outcome of the fire the points made by mr. Laidlaw that he did not see the Hiatt report until December and that
00:38:49 Hiatt report until December and that prior to receipt of it he considered the risk of self-incrimination to be low seems at odds with the knowledge Harley and its lawyers must be taken to have had in phase one as you sir intimated
00:39:02 had in phase one as you sir intimated during the making of the application on Friday TMO asked the inquiry to consider an application for undertaking some 15 months ago but on being asked by the inquiry to provide detail simply drop
00:39:15 inquiry to provide detail simply drop the issue given that TMO legal representatives in phase 1 included mr. James agura skew see one of the authors of the textbook Health and Safety enforcement which was cited by mr.
00:39:28 enforcement which was cited by mr. Laidlaw it may be suppose that mr. agüero's would have been alive to the likelihood of prosecution for health and safety offences and on the face of it it is likely that he would have advised his
00:39:39 is likely that he would have advised his clients accordingly TMO has not apologized for its failure to engage with the inquiry on the subject of undertakings and stood OE ridin and
00:39:50 undertakings and stood OE ridin and Osborne berry have not even sought to assert that they were not in a position to appreciate their risk of self-incrimination until now it beggars belief that they were not in
00:40:03 beggars belief that they were not in short the timing of this application is highly disingenuous and bears all the hallmarks of sabotage of this inquiry third and finally if you're minded to accede to the application then we ask
00:40:16 accede to the application then we ask you to urge upon the Attorney General the extreme urgency within which any decisions should be made we wish to repeat my remarks in opening that the current regulatory system represents a
00:40:29 current regulatory system represents a dangerous system which very likely puts the government in breach of our of article 2 of the Human Rights Act and requires very urgent recommendations to be made there is therefore no time to
00:40:41 be made there is therefore no time to lose in the process of deciding whether to grant the undertakings I'm grateful so madam those are my submission thank you thank you very much
00:40:55 now the Metropolitan Police is a core participant and I think mr. Warneke would like to say something on their behalf right Sarah madam if I could just
00:41:12 behalf right Sarah madam if I could just explain the Metropolitan Police's position that we those instructing me wrote a letter to the solicitor to the inquiry on Friday and if I could perhaps just read that out the Commissioner of
00:41:26 just read that out the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolitan Police has considered the application made for undertakings from the Attorney General on behalf of a number of core participants and module 1 witnesses
00:41:39 participants and module 1 witnesses although the Commissioner is a core participant in the inquiry the Metropolitan Police Service have a separate and independent role to conduct
00:41:51 separate and independent role to conduct the criminal investigation into the fire at granville tower for that reason it is not appropriate for the Commissioner to make any representations to you mr.
00:42:04 make any representations to you mr. chairman are you madam in response to the application it is important that the Commissioner maintains the independence and integrity of the criminal
00:42:15 and integrity of the criminal investigation and does not do anything that could be perceived to influence the way in which evidence could or could not be used as part of the criminal
00:42:27 be used as part of the criminal investigation in due course therefore the Commissioner takes a neutral stance on the application yes thank you very much mr. Maxwell Scott I
00:42:43 thank you very much mr. Maxwell Scott I have received something in writing from you this morning but it came very late and I think you were told by the solicitor to the inquiry that there wasn't time to circulate it but we're willing to hear from you if you'd like
00:42:54 willing to hear from you if you'd like to come and address us now
00:43:04 sir madam I'm grateful for this opportunity to state publicly what rbk sees position is on this application our
00:43:15 sees position is on this application our bkc was not one of the signatories to the letter to the inquiry dated the 27th of January and was not one of the parties who made the application dated
00:43:27 parties who made the application dated the 28th of January our bkc is a separate legal entity to the TMO and does not share its position on the application our bkc
00:43:39 application our bkc did not and does not support the application our bkc has adopted the Charter for families bereaved through public tragedy and made a commitment to
00:43:50 public tragedy and made a commitment to candor in its oral opening statement for module 1 it admitted certain failings in respect of module 1 issues and stated in
00:44:01 respect of module 1 issues and stated in our closing submissions for modules 1 2 & 3 we will set out in detail and with candor the council's position on all issues relevant to it that have arisen
00:44:14 issues relevant to it that have arisen in those modules are be KC's position is that it would encourage all witnesses called to give oral evidence to the
00:44:25 called to give oral evidence to the inquiry to answer all of the inquiries questions and to do so truthfully that is what it will be encouraging all our
00:44:37 is what it will be encouraging all our bkc witnesses in phase 2 I current councillors former councillors current employees and former employees to do so
00:44:50 employees and former employees to do so we recognize that it is difficult to gauge what the practical effect on the inquiries proceedings would be if there were no undertaking from the Attorney
00:45:01 were no undertaking from the Attorney General but we encourage you to guard against overestimating the possible effect our bkc considers that the views of the be SRS who are at a center of
00:45:14 of the be SRS who are at a center of this inquiry should be of paramount importance when deciding what decision to make in respect of this application thank you
00:45:25 respect of this application thank you right thank you very much mr. c-word you also circulated something at least to the inquiry this morning I regret to say
00:45:38 the inquiry this morning I regret to say that I haven't had a chance to read it it came so late but you'd like to address as briefly as well would you yes I would thank you sir on behalf of the fàbregas Union and it came so late so I
00:45:49 fàbregas Union and it came so late so I apologize for that because we were waiting for instructions which in turn we were trying to to find out what the beers arse position was in the event the
00:46:02 beers arse position was in the event the fire brigade union opposes this application we but if the four FB you supports a full and open inquiry and
00:46:14 supports a full and open inquiry and supports the beer czars in their quest for the truth about what happened there at the center of this inquiry and the FPU will support their response to this application taking a broad view one team
00:46:28 application taking a broad view one team opposes the application the other team is neutral and seems to us that one plus a naught equals 1 and so on balance the BS ARS opposed the application we
00:46:41 BS ARS opposed the application we certainly oppose the application the FBO contends that Harley facades and those joining them should be left to make their own application to the Attorney General if they choose to do so in
00:46:52 General if they choose to do so in considering any such application the Attorney General will take into account the refusal of this application and the reasons given birth chairman there for
00:47:02 brief reasons for our opposition I won't go through it of all it is set out and I'm sure you'll have an opportunity to read it in the force of time the fe is concerned that if this application is granted there will be seen to be
00:47:14 granted there will be seen to be particularly by our members who gave evidence different rules for witnesses in phase one phase two and indeed different rules in phase two but
00:47:25 different rules in phase two but those witnesses who are covered by an undertaking and those witnesses who are not firefighters probability surely is that if the attorney were to grant an
00:47:36 that if the attorney were to grant an undertaking it would be in terms probably broad enough to cover any witness wondered well I don't know I haven't had experience of an application like this being made without naming the
00:47:49 like this being made without naming the persons for whom the application is made and we we have an application by mr. ladle QC instructed by Harley façades limited and he does not appear to have
00:48:03 limited and he does not appear to have instructions from the individual witnesses concerned and on the face of it it looks like the application was made without instructions one wonders what his locus is it's not enough just to stand up and
00:48:16 is it's not enough just to stand up and make an application that on behalf of which it can't be assumed that all of the witnesses for the corporate bodies or the other CPS involved in Phase two
00:48:28 or the other CPS involved in Phase two actually want this attitude well we've treated it as an application but I think in reality it's a problem so to speak before the panel itself isn't it mr.
00:48:41 before the panel itself isn't it mr. Mansfield accepts that the question is ferocity is whether we can fulfill the terms of reference if witnesses claim privilege against self-incrimination indeed that raises a obviously a
00:48:55 indeed that raises a obviously a difficult question which will have to give some careful thought to whether a likelihood of that occurring is sufficiently great to approach the attorney for an undertaking indeed in a
00:49:07 attorney for an undertaking indeed in a sense it's a problem for the panel more than an application on behalf of any particular person okay well I'd like to echo if I may what mr. Maxwell Scott
00:49:18 echo if I may what mr. Maxwell Scott said about overestimating your face can I am going forward outline a few thoughts that you've had on that on
00:49:30 thoughts that you've had on that on those practicalities if the inquiry should
00:49:35 should if I were to proceed as planned then the witnesses can claim to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination in response to questions if they choose to do so the panel controlling for incision
00:49:46 do so the panel controlling for incision the evidence viewed as a whole including the refusal to answer any particular questions there's no need to give a warning against self-incrimination for witnesses who are represented by lawyers who really are or soon will be fully
00:49:59 who really are or soon will be fully aware of the provisions of section 14 of the civil Evidence Act and section 17 and 21 of the inquiries a a warning can be given to those who are not separately represented now moving on to the
00:50:12 represented now moving on to the difficulties there will be occasions when the Chairman will have all the panel and sorry panel will have to determine whether or not a witness should be required to answer a question or should be entitled to claim privilege
00:50:24 or should be entitled to claim privilege it's likely after a few such decisions that the principles underlying your decision will become clear the
00:50:35 decision will become clear the guidelines will become obvious to everybody in this room and the process will not cause undue delay it's likely it'll cause initial delay because there'll be an application of the
00:50:46 there'll be an application of the submissions you'll have a difficult job in going away in deciding it but your you'll make your decision you'll give reasons and everybody will know where the parameters lie picking up on the
00:50:59 the parameters lie picking up on the point you made to mr. Mansfield about these proceedings not being adversarial but being investigative that is of course right but phase two does give the
00:51:12 course right but phase two does give the corporate witnesses an opportunity to explain any misunderstandings that they may allege Stephanie bar wise QC or Adrienne Williamson QC have made in their opening submissions and those
00:51:23 their opening submissions and those careful submissions crafted on the back of the evidence disclosed to all core participants and some submissions already made on their behalf so take a a
00:51:38 already made on their behalf so take a a broad view of it and mr. chairman there's a lot of evidence already before this inquiry as my history teacher used to tell me
00:51:50 as my history teacher used to tell me you can write a much better essay on ten clear facts than you can on a hundred contradictory ones but certainly the
00:52:01 contradictory ones but certainly the panel have enough evidence to decide the phase two issues on the evidence already disclosed what what what the inquiry is offering these witnesses in Phase two is an opportunity to say something that
00:52:13 an opportunity to say something that they want to say that hasn't already been said and some of them may may take that opportunity the fbi's position is it's up to them and if they choose not to then the AFP
00:52:24 and if they choose not to then the AFP thinks those individual witnesses should say I claim that I claim privilege they should be allowed to hide under a blanket undertaking so I think you've
00:52:41 blanket undertaking so I think you've got the point already I'm sure mr. Barr whereas mr. Mansfield's have already said it but can I just explain that firefighters in control room staff in phase one faced the same dilemma but
00:52:53 phase one faced the same dilemma but they chose to assist the inquiry with full and frank evidence without any such assurance they found themselves at the epicenter of this disaster on the 14th of June 2017 they tried to help then and
00:53:04 of June 2017 they tried to help then and they tried to help this inquiry ever since so should the witnesses involved in the refurbishment if you decide so that that it would be too disruptive not
00:53:18 that that it would be too disruptive not to give the undertaking if that's your conclusion then the FPU would contend that the scope of any undertaking should be drawn as tightly as possible and qualified as set out in in our submissions there's a qualification that
00:53:31 submissions there's a qualification that essentially is designed to ensure that the evidence given by one witness may be used to further a prosecution of another person and that's set out in me in the
00:53:43 person and that's set out in me in the river submissions unless I can help you any further sir thank you very much see what
00:53:48 what [Music]
00:53:50 [Music] now in a moment I'm going to ask mr. Laidlaw um well I was going no no don't worry because I was about to say before I asked mr. ladle whether there's anyone else he would
00:54:02 whether there's anyone else he would like to be heard for or against the application and I take it you would
00:54:11 would you like to come up here and say it though because well you're not on camera down there and the watching public would like to know what it is you're well I could say it very quickly
00:54:22 you're well I could say it very quickly thank you but but it is important that they do this because firefighters need to understand what the portal position is can I say straight away that I make no submissions on the application before
00:54:35 no submissions on the application before you today and so far as it is an application because of course it's a matter for the Attorney General at the end of the day but the lfp doesn't support it and I wish only to make this
00:54:47 support it and I wish only to make this point on behalf of the brigade so that firefighters are clear that the lfb is a public body with a duty of
00:54:58 lfb is a public body with a duty of candor which is reflected in the open manner in which so many of its firefighters gave evidence in phase one as public servants of course that is
00:55:11 as public servants of course that is because the brigades primary aim is to keep Londoners safe and to learn lessons in the wider public interest and
00:55:22 in the wider public interest and openness
00:55:24 openness firefighters have demonstrated is the best way of learning those lessons and that is how the London Fire Brigade intends to conduct itself onwards into
00:55:36 intends to conduct itself onwards into Phase two
00:55:37 Phase two thank you very much ank you very much thank you now does anyone else wish to be heard for or against yeah mister do you want to say something yes Sorry mate
00:55:54 you want to say something yes Sorry mate because I have to get instructions from City Hall this morning [Music]
00:56:00 [Music] it's very short what the mayor would like to say but first of all he would like to endorse the bereaved survivors a resident outraged at the timing of this application and asks that you sir note
00:56:14 application and asks that you sir note how a legitimate feeling of outrage and injustice is promoted by the late attempt of corporate core participants to obtain an undertaking full thing that
00:56:25 to obtain an undertaking full thing that bereaved survivors and residents to make decisions on such a difficult issue but such very short notice the mayor would also endorse the need for clarity as to who it is seeking such
00:56:37 for clarity as to who it is seeking such an undertaking from the Attorney General so that you and your panel members are clear about the parameters within which an individual is giving evidence it's
00:56:49 an individual is giving evidence it's not clear from the application such as it is who is seeking the undertakings and would wish to exercise their privilege in circumstances when they
00:57:01 privilege in circumstances when they give evidence ultimately though sir of course it's a matter for you together with your panel members to decide how best to ensure that the issues relevant
00:57:12 best to ensure that the issues relevant to this very important and wide-ranging inquiry are best answered as fully as possible so that your significant work can be fulfilled and so that the
00:57:24 can be fulfilled and so that the interests of the bereaved survivors and residents and of Londoners more generally can be properly protected by a full analysis of what went wrong on this
00:57:36 full analysis of what went wrong on this night in June 2017 thank you very much now does anyone else want to say anything at this stage otherwise I'm
00:57:47 anything at this stage otherwise I'm going to invite mr. Laidlaw to come and respond to what he's heard and I'm finally I'm going to ask counsel to inquiry to say something to wrap things up but I think no one else mr. Leeds or
00:57:59 up but I think no one else mr. Leeds or so would you like to come up and let's respond to what you've heard
00:58:07 I'm not going to repeat and submissions made on Thursday and we would suggest that your analysis of the difficult situation which confronts the inquiry
00:58:20 situation which confronts the inquiry now should lead you to the following three conclusions firstly that a parallel Criminal Investigation for
00:58:31 parallel Criminal Investigation for offences of the broadness in terms of their ingredients that are presently under consideration by the police means
00:58:42 under consideration by the police means as a matter of law a warning as to the right not to self-incriminate when answering questions will have to be given to a great many of the witnesses
00:58:57 given to a great many of the witnesses that we would suggest is an unavoidable legal reality which is imposed upon you sir and it will arise certainly in
00:59:09 sir and it will arise certainly in respect of the witnesses who work or worked for Harley the company that I represent and with great respect to mr.
00:59:20 represent and with great respect to mr. Mansfield and his submissions on behalf of team two he does not appear to have addressed the law as it set out in the application or as I supplemented it on
00:59:34 application or as I supplemented it on Thursday afternoon and his submissions are effectively an invitation to ignore the law and that is not a disingenuous
00:59:46 the law and that is not a disingenuous application for me to make or one which is without merit as to the submissions in respect of Baja Musa I would suggest
00:59:59 in respect of Baja Musa I would suggest that they fall to be considered against these two points a the investigation in that inquiry preceded the public inquiry in the words they were over and secondly
01:00:13 in the words they were over and secondly the nature of the undertaking drawn upon that sort in bar Musa was the product of course as a series of undertakings which had been given in
01:00:25 undertakings which had been given in previous public inquiries it was not as appear to be suggested the product of particular factors arising in some William gages inquiry the second
01:00:40 William gages inquiry the second conclusion that the we that we suggest you should be drawn to is this because a number of the witnesses and this applies
01:00:52 number of the witnesses and this applies to each of the Harley witnesses is unrepresented and the warning will have to be administered by you mr. chairman
01:01:03 to be administered by you mr. chairman assisted by your council team it will require a constant appraisal and reappraisal of the particular
01:01:14 reappraisal of the particular circumstances and it may well be if you were persuaded of the approach that the BSR team to argue for that that warning
01:01:26 BSR team to argue for that that warning should be taken and that there would need to be discussion about individual questions asked of each of the witnesses and that we would suggest would
01:01:38 and that we would suggest would represent a significant interference with the smooth running of the inquiry whereas the solution that we suggest namely the seeking of an undertaken it
01:01:49 namely the seeking of an undertaken it granted so obviously avoids that problem and it's been used effectively of course as a number of previous inquiries and
01:02:00 as a number of previous inquiries and then thirdly we would suggest that the conclusion you should be driven to is in fact that the best interests of the public inquiry and therefore of the
01:02:13 public inquiry and therefore of the public interest lie in the mechanism of the undertaking of the sort we invite you to consider and we would suggest
01:02:24 you to consider and we would suggest respectfully that the charity of the BSR group won no doubt in part reflects an appreciation of this it is the undertaking which is most likely
01:02:37 is the undertaking which is most likely to lead to a to full and frank answers and that the inquiry through its Council have called for can I just deal with one
01:02:48 have called for can I just deal with one further point which is the question of my status my locus in this case mr. Mansfield is quite right about my questionable locus I conceded it
01:03:02 questionable locus I conceded it immediately on Thursday afternoon I am speaking up for but do not represent the Harley individuals but are on analysis
01:03:16 Harley individuals but are on analysis mr. Mansfield and mr. Seward's submissions that the application should be made on an individual basis sensible against these two realities
01:03:27 sensible against these two realities firstly the Harley witnesses are and do not have representation but secondly and perhaps more importantly what more is it that they could add to the argument as
01:03:40 that they could add to the argument as has been set out now in writing and supplemented by the oral submissions again we would suggest that this as a solution or as some sort of compromise
01:03:52 solution or as some sort of compromise would actually add further delay to these proceedings about which mr. Mann still complains and so bitterly so those are my and short submissions
01:04:05 so those are my and short submissions unless I can assist you or your colleague and further well I think there's one thing you might or might not this the impression that I had from what
01:04:19 this the impression that I had from what you said last week and from your written application as we'll call it is that you had reason to think that at least in the case of the Harley witnesses and maybe
01:04:30 case of the Harley witnesses and maybe others as well there were grounds to think that they would play in privilege against self-incrimination now I know you're not instructed by them
01:04:41 now I know you're not instructed by them and of course I'm not instructed by employees or former employers of other companies but is there anything you can tell us about that because the
01:04:54 tell us about that because the submission being made expressly by mr. Mansfield is we can see if they do it which is one possible approach it might be time-consuming it might be disruptive
01:05:06 be time-consuming it might be disruptive but it's one possible approach yes well as you observe I don't represent these individuals I can't commit them or pretend to be given advice or on their
01:05:20 pretend to be given advice or on their behalf but my clear understanding is that they would want to be warmed and they would take very seriously the warning which was given to them in light
01:05:31 warning which was given to them in light of the situation they confront namely that they have either being interviewed or are due to be interviewed and those interviews will continue for a broad range of offenses right the way through
01:05:42 range of offenses right the way through your work and as far as the Harley witnesses are concerned with whom you may or may not have had anything to do I just don't know about that do you happen to know whether anyone has discussed
01:05:54 to know whether anyone has discussed with them the range of offenses which might be relevant to the question of taking privileges yes I do know that the range of offenses have been discussed by
01:06:05 range of offenses have been discussed by the criminals list to who represents them at the interviews which are taking place thus far
01:06:20 well thank you very much whistles mr. millet and give you an opportunity to say anything you feel in relation to the
01:06:34 say anything you feel in relation to the application yes mr. chairman mr. chairman
01:06:38 chairman madam first timing I should set out our position on the timing of the application lest people think that the
01:06:49 application lest people think that the inquiry council team are neutral about that though we do share the surprise and the dismay of many of the bereaved
01:07:00 the dismay of many of the bereaved survivors and the residents about the timing of the request for the undertaking from the Attorney General when I rose to open phase two last
01:07:13 when I rose to open phase two last Monday mr. Chairman I had no inkling at all that you were going to be asked by the applicant witnesses and core participants to write to the Attorney General and asked for the undertaking
01:07:26 General and asked for the undertaking now thought I had read as we had all read the written opening statements from Studio e Harley riding and Osborne Barry and the TMO none of those statements
01:07:37 and the TMO none of those statements gate contained any suggestion that any witness from those organizations to be called to give oral evidence would refuse to answer any question on the
01:07:48 refuse to answer any question on the grounds that the answer might incriminate them all of them expressed in different terms and in different degrees they desire to assist the inquiry that was repeated in oral
01:08:01 inquiry that was repeated in oral opening statements I give you two examples mr. pop at qc4 studio he said in his oral opening statement day one page 36 line 17 to 23 that it's the
01:08:14 page 36 line 17 to 23 that it's the inquiries role to question the actions of everyone involved in the project to refurbish the tower and quote Studio II will do its best to answer the questions asked of it and it wholly supports the
01:08:26 asked of it and it wholly supports the need for a thorough and wide-ranging investigation close quotes was the Laidlaw Queen's Counsel for Harley told you quotes again that the Harley witnesses do not want to be
01:08:37 Harley witnesses do not want to be accused of ducking the criticisms of aspects of their work which will fall to be considered in this part of the inquiry day one page 94 lines 9 to 12 neither of those statements that I've
01:08:50 neither of those statements that I've just quoted even hinted that that would of course all be subject to your obtaining and Attorney General's undertaking without which witnesses would all take the privilege against
01:09:01 would all take the privilege against self-incrimination across a wide front the reason I say all this is because I would not wish core participants members of the public are all the families the
01:09:12 of the public are all the families the bereaved the survivors and residents to think that the counsel to the inquiry team was in any way indifferent to the timing and the manner in which this issue has raised the previous statements
01:09:25 issue has raised the previous statements and positions taken by the applicants and others is a factor which you must take into account when reaching your decision and I will come back to it that
01:09:36 decision and I will come back to it that takes me to the position of counsel to the inquiry and the position is but with some regret perhaps counsel to the inquiry considers that it is in the
01:09:47 inquiry considers that it is in the public interest for you to seek the undertaking sought there are three reasons why from the point of view of counsel to the inquiry it is in the public interest to do so
01:09:59 public interest to do so first without it you will not get of the truth you are obliged by statute to investigate as fully as possible
01:10:10 investigate as fully as possible the matters falling within the terms of reference and to do so in a way which in which the public and the be srs in particular can see the questions many of
01:10:22 particular can see the questions many of which have been formulated and posed by them put publicly and answered by the witnesses publicly if the inquiries witnesses in any module take the
01:10:33 witnesses in any module take the privilege against self-incrimination they cross a wide range of questions successfully as may be thought to be likely given the range of offenses and as I can tell you the range of
01:10:45 and as I can tell you the range of questions we have that will frustrate the exercise of public investigation and you will only have a partial picture the
01:10:57 you will only have a partial picture the inquiry needs its witnesses to be able to tell you the unvarnished truth free of the threat of use of their answers by prosecutors in furtherance of criminal
01:11:09 prosecutors in furtherance of criminal proceedings we disagree with team twos submission that an attorney general's undertaking as a blanket that covers up the truth that was paragraph 32 of their
01:11:22 the truth that was paragraph 32 of their written submissions it is actually the removal of a potential blanket and a pretty big blanket because otherwise if witnesses successfully take the privilege they blanket themselves from
01:11:34 privilege they blanket themselves from answering once the privilege is removed by the undertaking their new mr. chairman can compel and answer on pain of punishment second reason without the
01:11:48 of punishment second reason without the full facts found by you based on a complete exploration of the evidence through the witnesses we would like to call you would not be able to make
01:11:59 call you would not be able to make recommendations at all let alone recommendations for lasting and deep change a criminal trial will not establish the facts authoritative lis so
01:12:11 establish the facts authoritative lis so as to form a secure foundation for recommendations indeed the result of any criminal trial against any witness would
01:12:22 criminal trial against any witness would not be findings of fact or a report of any kind but quite simply a verdict one of guilt or one of acquittal or where perhaps there is a guilty plea nothing
01:12:34 perhaps there is a guilty plea nothing more than a sentence putting it simply mr. chairman madam the purpose of criminal proceedings is punishment for the commission of an offense the purpose
01:12:45 the commission of an offense the purpose of this inquiry is to find out exactly what happened at grenfell tower why it happened and who was responsible so that it never happens again
01:12:59 fourthly at mr. Mansfield said this morning that the words they speak will escape accountability that and that was page 8 of this morning's transcript the
01:13:12 page 8 of this morning's transcript the reasons why we disagree with that form a fourth reason for why it is in the public interest to seek the undertaking this inquiry is interested in the
01:13:23 this inquiry is interested in the accountability of witnesses and organizations the words they speak it are answers to questions and they if they speak with the benefit of the
01:13:34 they speak with the benefit of the undertaking they will not escape accountability they will be accounting by giving their account for their actions their decisions their omissions and their approach it will be for others
01:13:47 and their approach it will be for others to decide whether they should be punished you are prohibited by the act from reaching any conclusion on liability civil or criminal but as I said when opening phase two to you last
01:13:59 said when opening phase two to you last week accountability in the inquiry follows from the evidence and from the findings you make about that evidence finally in terms of reasons in favor it
01:14:14 finally in terms of reasons in favor it is only fair to those who are the subject of criticism that they are free to answer the criticisms leveled against them by the inquiries experts as they
01:14:26 them by the inquiries experts as they say they would wish to of course they have a choice whether to answer or whether to take the privilege against self-incrimination however mr. chairman
01:14:38 self-incrimination however mr. chairman madam that is more a dilemma than a truly free choice since the inquiry is only interested in getting reliable and complete answers from its witnesses it
01:14:50 complete answers from its witnesses it is interested in their being relieved from any dilemma so that they have no reason to refuse to answer it is also I should say in your interests to ensure
01:15:01 should say in your interests to ensure that if criticisms are to be made of anybody in your report then those who are criticized cannot later say that they were unfairly prevented from answering because you refused to seek to
01:15:13 answering because you refused to seek to relieve them by means of obtaining or seeking an undertaking from the Attorney General there is an additional point which I would wish that also arises in
01:15:26 which I would wish that also arises in terms of practicality from what mr. Mansfield said this morning and although he said that the conscience in the end would triumph and witness his will in the end do the right thing that was the
01:15:38 the end do the right thing that was the burden of the point we are skeptical about that on the material we have seen it is in in many sense is too much of a gamble to wait to see what happens and
01:15:50 gamble to wait to see what happens and wait to see whether or not the true extent of the taking of the privilege against self-incrimination is as great as mr. Laidlaw says it will be and I
01:16:01 as mr. Laidlaw says it will be and I simply say this the conduct in making in the way in which the application was made so far does not prompt any degree of confidence that the conscience of
01:16:12 of confidence that the conscience of these witnesses will somehow triumph in the end so that is why you in our submission need to clear the way so that there is absolutely no impediment at all
01:16:24 there is absolutely no impediment at all for each and all of the witnesses that we seek from going into that witness box and answering our questions on pain of punishment if they don't say those are
01:16:35 punishment if they don't say those are the reasons in favor for the reasons against you should balance the delay and the disruption to the timetable which would result now mr. chairman delay has
01:16:46 would result now mr. chairman delay has two facets first although it may not seem like it to the bereaved the survivors and the residents for whom justice cannot come soon enough this inquiry has proceeded at speed and must
01:16:59 inquiry has proceeded at speed and must continue to do so that is because there are major questions of public safety which our investigations have revealed and which need to be addressed with the
01:17:10 and which need to be addressed with the utmost urgency any delay without a very good reason is not just inconvenient but potentially dangerous secondly you have an obligation under
01:17:22 secondly you have an obligation under Section 17 three of the inquiries Act 2005 in making any decision as to the procedure or the conduct of this inquiry to act with fairness with regard to the
01:17:34 to act with fairness with regard to the need to avoid any unnecessary cost whether to the public funds or to witnesses or others fairness of course includes ensuring that the legitimate
01:17:46 includes ensuring that the legitimate expectations of other core participants and witnesses about the procedure and the timetable are reasonably met now mr. chairman and madam both of those
01:17:57 chairman and madam both of those considerations involve asking the question what impact of the request to the Attorney General will involve it will certainly involve disruption and delay to our timetable
01:18:08 delay to our timetable without any certainty of when we might get to the first witness so that's those are factors against third I come back to it the timing of the application while
01:18:23 it the timing of the application while we as I have said have much sympathy with the points made by team two and share their sense of dismay if I can use a a neutral or slightly less colorful
01:18:35 a a neutral or slightly less colorful word there's more to it or may be said to be more to it than that there is the outline of an argument not pressed heavily by mr. Mansfield but nonetheless lurking there that the
01:18:48 nonetheless lurking there that the request has been made in bad faith and for an improper purpose but in the end the answer to that has to be this even
01:19:00 the answer to that has to be this even if you were to conclude that the application has been made in bad faith and for an improper purpose the conduct of the applicants whether one likes it or not does not operate of itself to
01:19:12 or not does not operate of itself to deprive the witnesses of their right which is enshrined in law to the privilege against self-incrimination and so mr. chairman when you balance the factors in favor of seeking the
01:19:23 factors in favor of seeking the undertaking with the factors against doing so and the answers to those factors the counsel to the inquiries submission is that the scales come down in favor
01:19:33 in favor of seeking the former in the public interest if you are able to come to a speedy conclusion and write to the Attorney General as soon as possible and impress upon him the urgency of your
01:19:46 impress upon him the urgency of your request then that may go a long way that to assist in mitigating as as much as possible the effects of the delay and to ensure as far as possible that the inquiry can resume its work as soon as
01:19:59 inquiry can resume its work as soon as possible and in that way mr. chairman the DES railing effect of the application can be undone mr. chairman unless I can assist further that is all we had to say on behalf of counsel to
01:20:10 we had to say on behalf of counsel to the inquiry well thank you very much well we're very grateful to all of those who've made submissions on this matter it's not easy and there are powerful
01:20:21 it's not easy and there are powerful arguments on both sides so we're going to need time to consider those arguments we'll make a decision as soon as we can and provide it with reasons in writing
01:20:33 and provide it with reasons in writing as soon as we're able to do so we've stood down the witnesses for today and tomorrow in any event so we're going to adjourn now for today I think all I can
01:20:44 adjourn now for today I think all I can say about resumption is that we all let you know as soon as we can see where we're going what course we're going to take and we'll keep you all as fully informed as we can but for now that's it
01:20:56 informed as we can but for now that's it for today thank you all very much