Procedural hearing outlining inquiry structure, phase one scope, witness evidence plans, expert instructions, and disclosure process
00:00:16 Wow.
00:02:06 Hold on.
00:02:32 Well, good morning everyone and welcome to this procedural hearing which I've called in order to enable us to discuss the future progress of the inquiry. I'm sorry if the weather's made it
00:02:43 I'm sorry if the weather's made it difficult for some of you to get here this morning. And if you've had heavy snow, as I think some of you had, well done for making the effort to get here on time. Thank you very much. Um, I'm
00:02:54 on time. Thank you very much. Um, I'm sorry that uh there's fairly limited space for the legal teams. We thought that it was important to make as much space available as we could in this hearing room uh for uh bereieved
00:03:07 hearing room uh for uh bereieved survivors and other local residents who of course at the heart of the inquiry. So I'm afraid that means we have to limit the number of people who can attend for any one legal team to two
00:03:18 attend for any one legal team to two people. And uh I hope you can manage to work with that. Uh, thank you all for your written submissions. All of which I have read and found very helpful and all of which I can assure you I shall read
00:03:30 of which I can assure you I shall read again in the light of what you're going to say this morning. Uh, in that context, I'm grateful to Burnbergs for uh, identifying questions for discussions. I hope they will forgive me
00:03:42 discussions. I hope they will forgive me if I say that I'd prefer to have advocates speaking in the running order that we suggested. uh but uh since I have read all your submissions, you're welcome to
00:03:54 submissions, you're welcome to concentrate on particular areas when you come up to address me. So I leave that to you and if you want to deal with a limited range of topics in accordance with the Bernberg's timetable, if I can
00:04:06 with the Bernberg's timetable, if I can call it that, then I'm perfectly happy for you to do that. Uh our timetable allows 30 30 minutes for council. I hope that'll be enough for you not to feel unduly cramped for time. I'm sure you'll
00:04:19 unduly cramped for time. I'm sure you'll understand that it's been necessary for us to impose some sort of time limits uh to ensure that everyone who wants to make some submissions has a chance to do so.
00:04:30 so. Uh you don't of course have to take up the whole of your allotted time and if you can get through without doing so, I'm sure everyone will be very pleased. Uh but please try not to overrun. Uh if
00:04:41 Uh but please try not to overrun. Uh if you do overrun, you're taking time from somebody else and that would be a pity. Uh I think you all know that these proceedings are being recorded and they're being streamed live to other
00:04:54 they're being streamed live to other locations. When you're invited to speak, I'd be grateful if you've come up to the uh reading desk here. Uh it's necessary to ask you to do that because the uh
00:05:05 to ask you to do that because the uh otherwise you won't be seen on camera and what you say won't be recorded for the purposes of the streaming and the transcript. That's the only microphone that's recording and the cameras are here and here. So, if you're not there,
00:05:18 here and here. So, if you're not there, you can't be seen and heard by anyone who's not in the room. Well, that's all I really wanted to say by way of introduction and I'm therefore going to call now on uh Mr. Millet Council for the inquiry to address me and you,
00:05:38 Mr. Chairman. By way of introduction, uh what I'm going to do is to update the core participants or CPS as to the work of
00:05:49 participants or CPS as to the work of the inquiry so far and to indicate the more pressing issues facing us all so that we can together move ahead as speedily as possible with the important
00:06:00 speedily as possible with the important work before us. I start with representation. Present today, excluding me and the inquiry legal team here are some 23
00:06:12 inquiry legal team here are some 23 council and solicitor teams representing a large number of core participants or groups of core participants. Some CPS are present but have not put in
00:06:24 Some CPS are present but have not put in written submissions and do not wish to address you. Some CPS are both present and have put in written submissions but do not wish to address you and some CPS
00:06:35 do not wish to address you and some CPS are neither present nor have put in any written submissions. There may be CPS who are not legally represented but who are here today uh but we have had no indication uh they
00:06:46 but we have had no indication uh they would wish that they would wish to address you. All CPS should have an updated speaking list. There are some late additions to it uh for further resident and and
00:06:57 it uh for further resident and and berereved CPS and for the fire officers association. That speaking list is only for this procedural hearing. It establishes no precedent. The reason we
00:07:08 establishes no precedent. The reason we have the MPS, the Metropolitan Police Services as the first CP to speak is so that they can provide a brief update on the criminal investigation.
00:07:20 the criminal investigation. The CPS will then speak in two successive groups. First, those representing the survivor survivors, the residents, and the bereaveved families who we suggest should speak in
00:07:31 who we suggest should speak in alphabetical order according to solicitor firm names. And second, the CPS who are organizations or government departments. In terms of total numbers of CPS in this
00:07:44 In terms of total numbers of CPS in this inquiry to date, we have some two 424 out of a total to date of 554 applicants for CP status. Those currently with CP
00:07:56 for CP status. Those currently with CP status are 60 from families uh of the deceased,
00:08:02 deceased, 193 who were Granfell Tower residents, four lease holders, 124 from the walkways,
00:08:13 124 from the walkways, uh one survivor who was neither a resident of the tower nor of the walkways, and 26 CPS who are organizations including the TMO
00:08:24 including the TMO the council uh and the metropolitan police services and various government departments. Uh there have been uh there has been one application which is deferred and we
00:08:36 application which is deferred and we have had indications in the written submissions that further persons will be applying for CP status. The position as regards CPS is therefore still a little in flux.
00:08:49 in flux. We will publish a list of CPS in due course,
00:08:53 course, but with the interests of the survivors and the bereaveved in mind, we do not intend to do so without hearing submissions from them.
00:09:04 submissions from them. In addition to the documents on the inquiry's website, all CPS present here today have had the following documents. our council's statement dated the 15th
00:09:15 our council's statement dated the 15th of November, the provisional program, an accompanying letter dated the 15th of November about this procedural hearing, a copy of the instructions given by the
00:09:27 a copy of the instructions given by the inquiry to our seven experts and all the other uh CP submissions save where any CP has wished to remain anonymous.
00:09:38 anonymous. Uh what I propose to do, Mr. chairman is first to introduce the issues briefly for phase one. I will then move to a consideration of witness evidence for
00:09:49 consideration of witness evidence for phase one. I'll then say a little bit about the role of the inquiry experts at phase one and our thoughts on timing and I'll I'll then finish with some dock points on the document disclosure
00:10:00 points on the document disclosure process. We'll then move on to hear various applications by CPS following the speaking order in the list and I'll then respond at the end to the specific
00:10:11 then respond at the end to the specific applications before the inquiry uh and then wrap up. In this opening address, I don't propose to provide answers to all the many points made in the CP's written
00:10:23 points made in the CP's written submissions. Instead, we will wait to hear what further points are made to you, Mr. chairman by the CPS during the next two days.
00:10:34 next two days. So I can turn to issues for phase one. The focus of phase one will be the events of the night of the 14th of June 2017
00:10:45 2017 and in particular the the existing fire safety and prevention measures at Grenfell Tower, where and how the fire started,
00:10:56 where and how the fire started, the development of the fire and smoke, how the fire and smoke spread from its original seat or starting place to other parts of the building,
00:11:08 parts of the building, the chain of events before the decision was made that there was no further savable life in the building and the evacuation of the residents.
00:11:20 evacuation of the residents. Phase one will also examine what the emergency services did by way of response and when. As we have said in the council's statement, the aim is that phase one is
00:11:31 statement, the aim is that phase one is a purely factf finding exercise. That is because the logical place to start is to find out what happened and how it happened before moving to why it
00:11:42 happened before moving to why it happened and what could be done to stop it happening again. Those issues are issues in the list of issues corresponding to paragraphs 11 A
00:11:54 issues corresponding to paragraphs 11 A and B and 12 A, B and D, plus so far as relevant the issues at paragraphs 1 A, 4 B and 5 A and I. All other questions
00:12:07 B and 5 A and I. All other questions contained in the terms of reference and expanded upon in the list of issues will be considered in phase two. Now, the FBU, the Fire Brigades Union, has suggested a slight expansion of
00:12:19 has suggested a slight expansion of these primary factual issues and the LFPA,
00:12:24 LFPA, in other words, the London Fire Brigade, has also suggested some clarification uh that matters such as policy and training be included at phase 1 so as to provide
00:12:35 be included at phase 1 so as to provide some context around firefighter actions on the night. Other CPS have have suggested expansion of phase one to cover specific further issues and many
00:12:46 cover specific further issues and many have expressed doubt that there is any workable division between phase one and two.
00:12:52 two. What issues are or should be added to phase one should be approached with an open mind provided that we all stick to the basic principle that it must be an investigation of the facts as they
00:13:04 investigation of the facts as they occurred on the night of the fire and into the next day and provided that it is done as swiftly as possible so as to enable you to report on that question by the autumn of 2018.
00:13:17 the autumn of 2018. The fire at Grenfield Tower, Mr. chairman has provoked widespread public concerns about fire safety in tower blocks both in Britain and internationally
00:13:28 internationally and those concerns must be addressed urgently.
00:13:31 urgently. The answers to the phase one issues will not necessarily provide all the answers on public safety, but they will go a long way to providing a measure of
00:13:42 long way to providing a measure of clarity and may enable urgent recommendations to be made at an interim stage.
00:13:48 stage. In addition, and perhaps mostly most importantly, this inquiry does need to be conducted promptly. The need for promptness is strongly supported today by the submissions of many of the CPS,
00:14:01 by the submissions of many of the CPS, including the mayor, Mr. Sadi Khan, and that applies to both phases of this inquiry.
00:14:09 I then turn now to the witness evidence at phase one. The basic underlying logic of our provisional program of phase one is that the phase one factual witness evidence
00:14:22 the phase one factual witness evidence both written and oral will come from three sources. First, the Grenfell Tower residents uh in other words uh the survivor residents of the tower,
00:14:33 survivor residents of the tower, residents of the walkways, and the bereaveved families of those who were lost in the tower. Second, firefighters, including incident commanders and certain control room staff.
00:14:46 certain control room staff. And third, experts called by the inquiry.
00:14:50 inquiry. I'm going to come back to the question of experts in due course. I just want to focus for the moment, if I may, on the phase one factual witness statements.
00:15:01 phase one factual witness statements. A as to the Grenfell Tower survivors, residents, and the bererieved. It is of great importance to the inquiry that each individual voice of those most
00:15:13 that each individual voice of those most affected by the fire is heard. This was a shared trauma, a community devastated, but each of them has their own story to
00:15:25 but each of them has their own story to tell. Their evidence will be crucial to the inquiry's understanding of what happened inside and around Grenfell Tower, before the fire, during the fire,
00:15:37 Tower, before the fire, during the fire, and after the fire. Their evidence can and will help us to save the lives of others. Giving that evidence is also one aspect
00:15:49 Giving that evidence is also one aspect of the way in which each of them individually can be heard and perhaps find some measure of closure.
00:15:59 The fire at Grenfell Tower was an utterly appalling event and the experiences of it are stamped on the lives of the many to whom Grenfell
00:16:11 the lives of the many to whom Grenfell Tower was home and of the families of those who were lost and each in so many different ways. As individuals, they may each have a different wish and a different view as
00:16:23 different wish and a different view as to how they individually can assist and join in the work of the inquiry. and how the inquiry can assist them give their evidence.
00:16:32 evidence. We do understand that many of them have other immediate issues which are far more pressing than assisting this inquiry. We also recognize that being asked to relive the events of the night
00:16:44 asked to relive the events of the night to prepare a statement for the inquiry will for many of them be be difficult and traumatic and the process of giving oral evidence to the inquiry equally if
00:16:55 oral evidence to the inquiry equally if not more challenging. But we must also try to move promptly and effectively with the aim of learning lessons from this awful event in order to save the lives of others and in order
00:17:07 to save the lives of others and in order to ensure that something like this can never happen again. That in turn means that we must work towards producing a phase one report by the autumn of next year in order to start to address those urgent public
00:17:19 start to address those urgent public safety issues. As to the witness statements which we would like the survivors, residents and bereieved to give us for phase one, we envisage that these will be taken by
00:17:30 envisage that these will be taken by their respective solicitors and will be prepared with the benefit of their individual police statements and exhibits where they have given them and any 999 calls relevant to them and any
00:17:42 any 999 calls relevant to them and any photographs or videos that they made. In essence, a witness pack, one for each. There are strict security arrangements as to the use of any material coming
00:17:54 as to the use of any material coming from the police investigation. Those are governed by our memorandum of understanding with the police. It's for the inquiry team to provide these witness packages to them subject to the
00:18:06 witness packages to them subject to the memorandum of understanding. The statements that they made to the police which are given to their solicitors must be sent back to the police by the inquiry uh once their
00:18:18 police by the inquiry uh once their statements are signed. There are some who are willing to provide their phase one statements to us within some 6 to 8 weeks or so after receipt of this basic phase one
00:18:31 receipt of this basic phase one information. We warmly welcome that approach that would at least allow the inquiry to feed their vital written evidence and experiences about what happened on the night of the fire into
00:18:43 happened on the night of the fire into the inquiry experts work on phase one and the opening statements for council to the survivors residents and bereaveved so as to ensure that the phase one expert conclusions and your
00:18:54 phase one expert conclusions and your report Mr. Chairman on the phase one issues are as comprehensively evidence-based as possible. Some of their solicitors have requested disclosure of their housing files in
00:19:06 disclosure of their housing files in order to start work. We're not clear at the moment what will be in those files that would be relevant to the phase one issues. And so we would welcome clarification on that.
00:19:17 clarification on that. There are also some who may not wish to provide any statement to the inquiry until they have all the phase one and phase 2 disclosure or who would only wish to give evidence to the inquiry at
00:19:28 wish to give evidence to the inquiry at phase two and in one go. We would ask that they help the inquiry to work effectively by agreeing to provide us anyway with their standalone
00:19:39 provide us anyway with their standalone phase one written statements based on their own individual preliminary evidence packs. However, if they do not wish to give oral evidence more than once, then we
00:19:50 oral evidence more than once, then we will only call them to do so at phase two, even if that means hearing further phase one evidence. We would therefore invite their solicitors to consider these issues
00:20:02 solicitors to consider these issues further as soon as possible and then to inform the inquiry how they would wish to proceed. The inquiry wrote to the numerous solicitors for these CPS on the 7th of
00:20:14 solicitors for these CPS on the 7th of November, asking them to identify each survivor, resident or berieved client who was able and willing to give evidence about the events of the 14th of
00:20:25 evidence about the events of the 14th of June
00:20:26 June and whether they had provided statements to the police. Some solicitors have indicated that they are willing and able to do so, but the numbers are yet as yet
00:20:37 to do so, but the numbers are yet as yet very small and we would encourage them all to communicate with us on these fa on these issues as soon as possible and tell us which client is willing to provide statements for phase one.
00:20:50 provide statements for phase one. We wrote again on the 28th of November reminding solicitors to provide us with that information uh and uh confirming advanced funding with which to be able to provide it. We would also invite all
00:21:03 to provide it. We would also invite all those solicitors to sign and return the undertakings that we've sent them so that they the police material can be provided to them. I would also repeat what we've said in
00:21:15 I would also repeat what we've said in the council's statement that the written witness evidence from survivors, residents, and the bererieved, on the subject of the personal impact of the fire on them,
00:21:26 fire on them, will, if they so wish, form part of the formal inquiry record, come what may, and regardless of whether they have any other evidence of relevance, and whether
00:21:37 other evidence of relevance, and whether or not they are called to give oral evidence,
00:21:41 evidence, Each personal experience is as important as the next and each statement about it will be treated in the same way so as to form an enduring written written
00:21:53 form an enduring written written testimony. There will in due course be further correspondence uh or announcements about how the inquiry will take any evidence from vulnerable witnesses including
00:22:04 from vulnerable witnesses including children. We would welcome further dialogue with solicitors about this subject over the forthcoming weeks in order to identify at an early stage those who may fall into this category.
00:22:16 those who may fall into this category. There are a very small number of resident EPS who are currently without legal representation. It would be helpful to the work of the inquiry if those persons would instruct one of the
00:22:27 those persons would instruct one of the firms of solicitors currently acting for the CP uh residents, survivors and the bereaveved also to act for them. To the extent that they do not wish to be
00:22:38 extent that they do not wish to be represented but do wish to make a statement then they are strongly encouraged to contact the solicitor to the inquiry and she will make the necessary arrangements.
00:22:49 necessary arrangements. I turned to firefighters. The witness statements of those members of the London Fire Brigade who fought the fire on the night and the following day and were in command of the
00:23:01 day and were in command of the firefighting responses are being taken by the police in close liaison with uh the uh London fire brigade and the fire brigades union, the FBU.
00:23:12 brigades union, the FBU. The inquiry expects that interviews with some 250 or so firefighters will have been completed by Christmas and that the totality of the signed firefighter statements will have been provided to
00:23:24 statements will have been provided to the inquiry team by the end of January 2018.
00:23:28 2018. We have already received more than 40. So far as the provisional program is concerned, I'm not proposing to go through that in detail at this stage.
00:23:40 through that in detail at this stage. Clearly some of the detail in it will need to be revisited in the light of the submissions uh that we have received for this hearing and which Mr. Chairman will be developed orally before you over the
00:23:52 be developed orally before you over the next two days. We do hope to be in a position to publish a more detailed timetable in January before a further procedural hearing which we would anticipate holding towards the end of
00:24:04 anticipate holding towards the end of January 2018.
00:24:09 So I turn next to the question of experts to the inquiry. I'm going to provide an update on the work of the experts who have currently been instructed.
00:24:21 been instructed. As you Mr. Chairman explained in your opening statement, many of the questions which have to be answered in this inquiry are of a highly technical nature. To that end, the inquiry has
00:24:32 nature. To that end, the inquiry has instructed a number of respected experts, including in the field of fire forensic analysis and fire engineering to assist the inquiry by examining the evidence and producing expert reports.
00:24:45 evidence and producing expert reports. The identities of those experts uh were published on the 12th of October 2017. More recently and in response to requests from core participants to do so, the inquiry published its letters of
00:24:58 so, the inquiry published its letters of instruction to each expert. Some of the experts have been asked to produce a phase one report as well as a phase two report and others will not be reporting until phase two.
00:25:10 until phase two. Um I would like briefly to identify those experts and expand on the areas that they've been asked to address. First, uh, Professor Neve Nick Dade. She
00:25:22 First, uh, Professor Neve Nick Dade. She is a professor at the University of Dundee and is an expert in forensic science and fire scene investigation. She has been instructed to advise on the cause and spread of the fire in the flat
00:25:33 cause and spread of the fire in the flat of origin and the spread of fire within and out of that compartment. She will be producing a report of phase one only.
00:25:44 one only. Next, there is Professor Luke Bisby. He is a professor at the University of Ed Edinburgh engineering department. He is a structural engineer and an expert in fire structures. He has been instructed
00:25:57 fire structures. He has been instructed to appine on the ignition of the facade materials including the cladding and insulation and the fire spread over the building's external facade.
00:26:08 building's external facade. Those issues will be addressed in a phase one report. At phase two, he will also report in further detail on the performance of the materials which form
00:26:19 performance of the materials which form part of the external envelope and the contribution to the spread of the fire together with any issues relating to the mechanical response of the concrete structure of the building.
00:26:31 structure of the building. Next, there is Professor Barbara Lane. She is a chartered fire engineer and a UK leader for the applied innovation and technology group at ARP, a large firm of
00:26:43 technology group at ARP, a large firm of engineering consultants. At phase one, she will be producing a report which addresses the active and passive fire protection measures within the building
00:26:54 protection measures within the building and the extent to which they failed to control the spread of fire and smoke and contributed to the speed at which the fire spread. At phase two, she will be
00:27:05 fire spread. At phase two, she will be giving an opinion on the design and construction of the building, whether regulations, legislation, guidance, and industry practice were complied with and the fire safety measures adopted in
00:27:16 the fire safety measures adopted in relation to it. Next, Steve Mcgherk. He is a former chief fire officer who previously led three of the country's largest fire and rescue services, Cheshire, South
00:27:28 rescue services, Cheshire, South Yorkshire, and Greater Manchester. in a career which span spanned 39 years in the fire service. He will be producing a phase two report which will focus on the
00:27:39 phase two report which will focus on the adequacy of the London Fire Brigade inspections and risk assessments and procedures and training for high-rise buildings. He will also be looking at the adequacy of the London Fire Brigade's response on the night and also
00:27:51 Brigade's response on the night and also the adequacy of the response to similar incidents including the Lacol House fire.
00:27:59 fire. Next, there is Colin Todd. He is an expert in fire safety legislation and runs a consultancy in fire risk assessment. At phase one, he will be producing a report which sets out the
00:28:11 producing a report which sets out the different statutory and regulatory requirements in force over the lifetime of this building i.e since the early 1970s to the present day. He will also explain how the needs of vulnerable
00:28:23 explain how the needs of vulnerable persons must be considered and met in accordance with the relevant statutory duties. At phase two, he will consider the adequacy of risk assessments in relation to Grenfell Tower and the
00:28:35 relation to Grenfell Tower and the extent to which regulations, legislation, guidance, and industry practice were complied with in the case of Granfell Tower and fire safety measures adopted in relation to it.
00:28:49 measures adopted in relation to it. Next we have Professor Edwin Gala. He is a professor and director of fire safety engineering at the University of Greenwich. He is a fire engineer but
00:29:00 Greenwich. He is a fire engineer but with particular expertise in human behavior and evacuation. He will be producing a report at phase two which will involve and include various computer modeling including a
00:29:12 various computer modeling including a fire and smoke modeling and fatality and evacuation model. That modeling will then assist in answering various questions about the fire, including the contribution of the design and
00:29:23 contribution of the design and construction of the building to the fire and smoke spread and factors which may have influenced those things. Finally, there is Professor Jose
00:29:34 Finally, there is Professor Jose Terrarero. He is a professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland in the US. He will be reporting on the forensic fire spread throughout the building at phase one of
00:29:47 throughout the building at phase one of the inquiry's work. At phase two, he will be looking at the correlation between the fire safety provisions and strategy for Granfell Tower and the adequacy of the London Fire Brigade
00:29:58 adequacy of the London Fire Brigade procedures for dealing with fires in high-rise blocks. He will also provide an overview of conclusions to be drawn about the fire, including lessons to be learned in the context of other fires
00:30:10 learned in the context of other fires both internationally and domestically. In the submissions which you have received for this hearing, Mr. Chairman, the question of expert evidence has been raised by a number of core participants.
00:30:22 raised by a number of core participants. Prior to the prior to hearing any further oral submissions uh which CPS may wish to make on this subject, it may assist you if I make the following points and there are seven of them.
00:30:34 points and there are seven of them. First, it is the case that careful conflict checks were carried out in relation to all experts before they were instructed. As inquiry council, we are satisfied
00:30:45 As inquiry council, we are satisfied that none of our experts is conflicted and we will ensure that their written reports to the inquiry uh contain appropriate declarations to that effect when they are produced. That includes
00:30:57 when they are produced. That includes the most recent inquiries raised by the fire brigades union about Mr. Mcgherk and Miss Redern to whom we have put those concerns and have received full and satisfactory responses. Although
00:31:10 and satisfactory responses. Although it's correct that they know each other professionally, the inquiry team has no concerns that that they will not be able to discharge their respective roles as expert and as assessor respectively to
00:31:22 expert and as assessor respectively to the highest standards of independence and integrity. Secondly, we recognize that core participants have not had long to digest the instruction letters to experts which
00:31:34 the instruction letters to experts which were circulated on the 30th of November. We would welcome any observations that CPS may have on those instructions which can be made in writing after this hearing if that is convenient.
00:31:46 hearing if that is convenient. The inquiry has been asked to provide the CVs of these experts in due course and this seems to the inquiry team to be a sensible suggestion which we will take forward so as to ensure that those CVs
00:31:59 forward so as to ensure that those CVs are circulated as soon as possible. Uh they would be attached to the written experts reports in any event. Thirdly, as inquiry council, we recognize that there are other areas of
00:32:11 recognize that there are other areas of expertise where expert evidence may be necessary. This remains an ongoing issue which is being actively considered as the expert evidence develops and if and when it becomes apparent that other
00:32:22 when it becomes apparent that other areas of expertise are required. It appears highly likely that there will be a need for other expert other experts at phase two and we will keep that under
00:32:33 phase two and we will keep that under review as the inquisitorial process unfolds.
00:32:38 unfolds. Fourth, a number of concerns have been raised about the precise cutff point between the expert evidence in phase one uh and in phase two. For example,
00:32:49 uh and in phase two. For example, questions have been raised about whether it is necessary to have any qualitative assessment of the active and passive fire safety measures within the building at phase one and as part of a
00:33:00 at phase one and as part of a consideration of whether they failed to control the spread of fire and smoke. Whilst it's right that the principal focus of phase one is about establishing
00:33:12 focus of phase one is about establishing the factual events of the night, our submission is that it is necessary at this early stage to understand how those active and passive measures performed,
00:33:23 active and passive measures performed, not least given the need to report on matters affecting public safety in the interim report after phase one uh has concluded by way of evidence. There is also a need to ensure that any
00:33:35 also a need to ensure that any conclusions about fire spread at phase one are appropriately informed by an understanding of the fire safety issue uh measures and issues uh which are actually present in the building.
00:33:48 actually present in the building. Fifthly, a number of core participants have raised the possibility that they may wish in due course to apply to instruct their own experts. uh and they note that the current provisional
00:33:59 note that the current provisional timetable in the provisional program uh does not allow sufficient time to digest the inquiry experts reports and make any such applications. We are sympathetic to that uh and we do
00:34:11 We are sympathetic to that uh and we do recognize that core participants may need longer to digest the reports and make any such applications. We suggest that this be taken into account uh when it comes to setting down the directions
00:34:23 it comes to setting down the directions in the leadup to the commencement of the phase 1 hearings. This is not, I should say, an invitation to apply. Core participants will be expected to make
00:34:34 participants will be expected to make out why they should be treated exceptionally. Sixthly, a number of core participants have raised the question of whether their experts may have access to the site. As to that, the site remains a
00:34:46 site. As to that, the site remains a crime scene and as a result, any access is strictly controlled by the police. We understand that the police's position is that access generally for core
00:34:57 that access generally for core participant experts cannot occur while the site remains a crime scene and that access in the future will be a question for the owners of the building to determine once the site is handed back to them by the police. In order to
00:35:10 to them by the police. In order to mitigate the lack of access at the present time, we have asked our inquiry experts to keep a careful uh eye and record of their visits to the tower, which will form part of their reports
00:35:21 which will form part of their reports and which will hopefully assist other experts when it comes to considering their work. We will also continue to encourage the police and the owners of the building in due course to permit access to the site
00:35:34 due course to permit access to the site at a time when that is considered compatible with the criminal investigation and assuming that such access can be safely facilitated given given the condition of the building.
00:35:46 given the condition of the building. Seventhly, and finally, I would reure reassure all core participants that all evidence relied upon by the inquiry experts will be appropriately annexed and cross-referred to in the inquiry
00:35:58 and cross-referred to in the inquiry expert reports so that the evidential basis for those reports is absolutely clear, objectively verifiable and readily digestible.
00:36:09 So now I turn to the question of disclosure. A number of core participants have asked questions about the inquiry's processes for obtaining documents and onward
00:36:20 for obtaining documents and onward disclosure to core participants. I I provided an update on disclosure uh in my council statement on the 15th of November at paragraphs 11 to13.
00:36:33 November at paragraphs 11 to13. In that statement I said that we would provide further details about how the mechanics of disclosure would work in due course. And I understand that and I know that some core participants want
00:36:45 know that some core participants want further clarity now and I'm very happy to provide that. It's important to note at the outset that the process of obtaining relevant documents started immediately after the
00:36:57 documents started immediately after the inquiry setup date in August this year. It remains ongoing. A large number of document request letters requesting all documents relevant to the inquiry's
00:37:08 documents relevant to the inquiry's terms of reference were sent out within the first few weeks of the establishment of the inquiry. Relevance is defined in paragraph 3 of the document protocol as quotes those
00:37:21 the document protocol as quotes those which having regard to the inquiry's terms of reference it is likely that the inquiry panel would if aware of their existence wish to be provided with. close quotes. As explained in the
00:37:33 close quotes. As explained in the protocol at paragraph 10, providers are are required to undertake quotes comprehensive, thorough, and rigorous searches in response to a request for
00:37:44 searches in response to a request for documents close quote. Now, in order to help document providers, the inquiry also identified specific categories of document which the inquiry expected
00:37:55 document which the inquiry expected would be included in such disclosure. Those letters were sent to a wide range of persons and organizations. Many of those requests resulted in very
00:38:06 Many of those requests resulted in very significant numbers of documents being provided to the inquiry. The inquiry has currently gathered approximately 231,000 documents from some 33 document
00:38:18 documents from some 33 document providers, i.e. an additional 31,000 documents since our council's statement in mid November. That number continues to increase week on week as we identify
00:38:29 to increase week on week as we identify more document providers and ask existing document providers for more documents. Such document providers are giving us rolling disclosure. We estimate that there may be at least
00:38:42 We estimate that there may be at least another 40,000 documents to come. We will say we will say we will probably have some 270,000 documents in all. that does not include the phase 1 9999 calls and pictorial
00:38:56 the phase 1 9999 calls and pictorial material uh which we will have obtained uh from the police. To date, the solicitor to the inquiry has requested documents from a wide range of providers as I say including
00:39:08 range of providers as I say including those responsible for Grenfell Tower, public authorities, the emergency services, designers, contractors, suppliers and manufacturers.
00:39:19 suppliers and manufacturers. If at any stage it comes to light that further requests for information or documents need to be made, then that is actioned swiftly by the inquiry team.
00:39:31 actioned swiftly by the inquiry team. There have been occasions where further information has come to light about who may have had a role to play in the matters that the inquiry is investigating. And as that information has become available, the solicitor to
00:39:44 has become available, the solicitor to the inquiry has made document requests of other organizations and persons. The inquiry has devoted a considerable amount of resource to the disclosure exercise. Once documents have been
00:39:56 exercise. Once documents have been obtained, the inquiry has in place a large team of parallegals and junior barristers who are responsible for reviewing the documents for relevance and for categorizing the documents in a
00:40:09 and for categorizing the documents in a way which reflects the inquiry's list of issues.
00:40:13 issues. That work is supervised by an experienced barristister and in turn closely monitored by council to the inquiry.
00:40:22 inquiry. At the moment, our review rate is about 12,000 documents per week. We estimate that that will rise in January to about 20,000 documents per week as we bring on
00:40:33 20,000 documents per week as we bring on stream more barristers and more parallegals to the review teams. Core participants have asked what processes the inquiry has in place to ensure that providers have not been
00:40:44 ensure that providers have not been selective and that all relevant documents have been disclosed. The processes are as follows. Each provider has been asked to provide a signed inventory of documents. That's
00:40:56 a signed inventory of documents. That's required at paragraph 13 of the documents protocol. If appropriate, the inquirer has requested a witness statement from the provider setting out details of how the
00:41:07 provider setting out details of how the documents were originally stored, search terms used or other processes used to locate documents, and the nature of any review carried out by the document provider.
00:41:20 provider. Where the inquiry has any queries or concerns about a provider's uh processes for locating relevant documents, it has raised them and pursued them.
00:41:31 raised them and pursued them. As documents have been reviewed and gaps have been identified, further documents have been sought. To the extent that it has been necessary for the inquiry to see documents in the
00:41:42 for the inquiry to see documents in the format in which they were originally stored or organized, we have requested copies in that format. This process will continue throughout the inquiry's investigation.
00:41:55 investigation. Some have also asked whether the inquiry has taken steps to seize documents before they are destroyed. Uh you, Mr. Chairman, do not have the power to seize documents. However, you do have the
00:42:07 documents. However, you do have the power to compel production of documents under section 21 of the inquiries act. There are also provisions in section 35 of the inquiries act which make it an
00:42:18 of the inquiries act which make it an offense if during the course of an inquiry a person does anything to alter or distort a relevant document or prevent any relevant document being produced to the inquiry uh or
00:42:30 produced to the inquiry uh or intentionally destroys, suppresses or conceals a relevant document. At this stage, provision of documents has been voluntary and the inquiry has had considerable cooperation from
00:42:43 had considerable cooperation from document providers. But it has been made clear in the protocol that you will consider exercising your section 21 powers in circumstances where a request is refused, incomplete, or not provided
00:42:55 is refused, incomplete, or not provided by the stated deadline. In any event, the Metropolitan Police Service seized a very considerable number of documents in the days and weeks following the fire as part of its
00:43:07 weeks following the fire as part of its criminal investigation. If it becomes necessary to do so, the inquiry can request access to those documents from the police pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of
00:43:18 the terms of the memorandum of understanding. Finally, a number of core participants have requested disclosure of all document requests and a full transparency over the inquiry's process
00:43:29 transparency over the inquiry's process for obtaining documents. We're sympathetic to the desire for core participants to understand the inquisitorial processes which are being adopted.
00:43:40 adopted. We understand that at this early stage in the work of the inquiry and prior to the disclosure to core participants of relevant information, individuals are
00:43:51 relevant information, individuals are anxious to know what work has been taking place and to receive some reassurance that relevant documents are expeditiously being gathered. In that regard, I would make three points at
00:44:02 regard, I would make three points at this stage. First, as an inquiry team, we propose to give regular disclosure updates in which we can report on progress which has been made in obtaining relevant documents.
00:44:15 made in obtaining relevant documents. We will also aim to do at any relevant procedural hearings although we are happy to meet uh representatives of the core participants to explain in greater detail how that process is being
00:44:27 detail how that process is being progressed. Secondly, we would wish to emphasize that core participants will be receiving a large quantity of relevant material in due course once the inquiry has digested
00:44:39 due course once the inquiry has digested the material in raw form which it has received. We do not propose only to provide core participants with documents relevant to them. Everybody will receive
00:44:50 relevant to them. Everybody will receive the same documents. We will provide all documents that the inquiry has received subject to four things. First, a relevance review so that only relevant
00:45:02 relevance review so that only relevant documents are provided. Second, a dduplication exercise. We have already identified very significant duplication in some of the documents uh which have been provided to us. Uh third, the
00:45:15 been provided to us. Uh third, the memorandum of understanding with the police and fourth uh a um form of redactions in accordance with the redactions protocol. A number of core participants have urged
00:45:28 A number of core participants have urged us to begin the process of phase one disclosure as soon as possible and to ensure that phase 2 disclosure does not await the conclusion of phase 1. Again, we are sympathetic to that and we will
00:45:40 we are sympathetic to that and we will try to ensure that disclosure of relevant material is disclosed as soon as possible so that it can be digested by the core participants or at least the process can start. We will also give
00:45:53 process can start. We will also give further thought to the suggestion of rolling disclosure at logical points in the lifetime of the inquiry. Thirdly,
00:46:04 Thirdly, it isn't however sensible or practicable to disclose every document request the inquiry has made. Nor is it possible to disclose to core participants every
00:46:15 disclose to core participants every document the inquiry has received. In terms of document requests, we've explained our processes in the documents protocol and I have given details as to how we propose to put that protocol into
00:46:27 how we propose to put that protocol into practice. We are regularly going back to document providers with queries or further requests. And although we as I say very happy to provide regular updates on disclosure, it is not
00:46:38 updates on disclosure, it is not necessary or proportionate to disclose every single piece of correspondence or exchange on this subject as that would impose a significant administrative burden on the inquiry thereby
00:46:50 burden on the inquiry thereby distracting the inquiry from its inquisitorial work. In terms of disclosure to core participants, the inquiry has received a substantial number of documents that are irrelevant to its investigation on any view. It has
00:47:03 to its investigation on any view. It has also received a significant number of duplicates and it would be costly and timing for core participants to work through irrelevant and duplicate documents. It would also place a further
00:47:15 documents. It would also place a further burden on the inquiry team as the redactions process would need to be applied to all documents, not just relevant documents. In in those circumstances, we would propose that the
00:47:26 circumstances, we would propose that the inquiry should provide all core participants with relevant documents in due course. Prior to that, we are very happy to receive suggestions from core
00:47:37 receive suggestions from core participants about lines of inquiry uh which they think we should be pursuing if there is any concern that particular categories of document may not be being sought. We are also happy to meet with
00:47:49 sought. We are also happy to meet with representatives of core participants so that we can discuss with them in detail any concerns that they may have about the gathering of relevant information and the disclosure that they will be
00:48:00 and the disclosure that they will be receiving in due course. Core participants will also be in a good position once they receive the relevant documents for each phase of the inquiry to make further suggestions if they feel
00:48:11 to make further suggestions if they feel that there are any areas where further documents or information ought to be sought.
00:48:18 sought. To conclude, I've laid out where the inquiry stands at present in procedural terms, but we are here to listen to all core participants about how this inquiry
00:48:30 core participants about how this inquiry should proceed so that in our planning we can take careful account of what they say. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Minute.
00:48:41 Thank you very much, Mr. Minute. Now, Mr. Johnson, you're here for the Metropolitan Police Service, I believe. Would you like to say something now?
00:48:56 Chairman, as you know, my name's uh Jeremy Johnson. I appear with Amy Clark, instructed by Sarah Winfield for the Metropolitan Police. There are many families, residents, and survivors, as
00:49:08 families, residents, and survivors, as well as other core participants who have important submissions to make to you. I don't have any applications to make and I don't want to eat into their time and I won't do so. What I do want to do
00:49:20 I won't do so. What I do want to do briefly is three things. Firstly, to provide some information about the police investigation. Second, to provide some observations about the different functions of your
00:49:32 about the different functions of your inquiry and the police investigation. and third to provide some observations about the consequences of there being two parallel investigations serving different but linked functions. First,
00:49:46 different but linked functions. First, the police investigation. We have through you published to call participants the terms of reference of the police investigation. The Metropolitan Police is committed to
00:49:58 The Metropolitan Police is committed to carrying out a meticulous, thorough, and fearless investigation in order to identify all those who may have committed criminal offenses and to refer
00:50:09 committed criminal offenses and to refer files to the Crown Prosecution Service for decisions on prosecutions. That is a process that we respectfully submit is desperately needed and carries
00:50:21 submit is desperately needed and carries with it a huge level of responsibility to the public generally and the victims of the fire in particular. The criminal offenses that are being investigated include, but are not
00:50:33 investigated include, but are not limited to, offenses of manslaughter, offenses of corporate manslaughter, misconduct in public office, and breaches of fire safety legislation.
00:50:46 breaches of fire safety legislation. Nothing has been excluded from the scope of the criminal investigation. Outside certain counterterrorism inquiries, the investigation is
00:50:57 inquiries, the investigation is unprecedented in terms of its scale and complexity. Just to give some figures, as at last Monday,
00:51:06 Monday, 187 police officers and civilian staff had been assigned to the investigation. Well in excess of 31 million documents had been gathered.
00:51:18 had been gathered. 2 and a half thousand physical exhibits had been seized. 2,332
00:51:25 2,332 witness statements had been taken from 1,144
00:51:30 1,144 witnesses. And 383
00:51:34 And 383 companies had been identified as having some involvement in or connection to the construction or refurbishment of Grenful Tower.
00:51:45 Tower. There were some 3,916 investigative tasks or lines of inquiry that had been generated. Uh the Metropolitan Police has instructed a number of forensic experts
00:51:57 instructed a number of forensic experts to consider every aspect of the cause and spread of the fire and smoke. That involves careful analysis of every room within the tower as well as every inch
00:52:09 within the tower as well as every inch of the communal areas and of course importantly the outside of the tower. After that analysis has been completed, there will be a series of further forensic tests including
00:52:22 forensic tests including reconstructions. The full and accurate picture of how the fire spread and took hold can only be obtained from that forensic evidence once it's in complete form. The
00:52:34 once it's in complete form. The Metropolitan Police does not expect it to be complete until the autumn of next year.
00:52:40 year. Interviews of further witnesses or of suspects in the light of that examination are therefore not likely to take place before autumn 2018. Of
00:52:51 take place before autumn 2018. Of course, the police wish that this could be done more quickly, but there is a robust logic to that timetable, and all I can say is that my client is committed to keeping the families and survivors
00:53:03 to keeping the families and survivors updated as to the progress of the investigation in regular briefings. Chairman, secondly, the different functions of your inquiry and the police investigation.
00:53:14 investigation. Your inquiry established by the prime minister serves many vital functions that cannot be fulfilled by a police investigation. Most importantly, it ensures a public
00:53:27 Most importantly, it ensures a public examination of everything that is within your broad terms of reference and a public examination in which core participants can take part, including in
00:53:38 participants can take part, including in particular families, survivors, and residents. That is not something that a criminal investigation can do. The police are absolutely committed to the
00:53:49 police are absolutely committed to the regular briefings I have mentioned. But everyone, I think, understands that a criminal investigation cannot sensibly take place with the sort of publicity that a public inquiry can and must.
00:54:03 that a public inquiry can and must. Conversely, chairman, your inquiries, you have made clear, cannot make determinations of criminal liability. That is something that can only be done by a criminal investigation followed if
00:54:16 by a criminal investigation followed if appropriate by criminal trials. Justice can only be achieved in that sense if that process is able to take place such that any individual or corporation who
00:54:28 that any individual or corporation who may have committed a criminal offense is held to an account in an independent and fair investigative and judicial process. Third, the consequence of the two
00:54:40 Third, the consequence of the two processes running in parallel. There are two extreme options that could be adopted. One would be for the inquiry simply not to start work until the criminal
00:54:52 to start work until the criminal investigation had been completed. We do not and have never suggested that that is appropriate here. We respectfully agree that it is possible for the two to
00:55:03 agree that it is possible for the two to run in parallel so long as importantly there are appropriate safeguards to prevent prejudice to the criminal investigation. The other extreme would be for the
00:55:15 The other extreme would be for the inquiry to launch immediately into a public examination of every aspect of its terms of reference without any regard to the impact that might have on the police investigation. I do not
00:55:28 the police investigation. I do not understand anyone to support that approach.
00:55:31 approach. The middle course is for the inquiry to make use of evidence that is obtained in the course of the police investigation, but to do so in a way that minimizes the risk of prejudice to that investigation
00:55:43 risk of prejudice to that investigation or subsequent criminal proceedings. That is the course that we respectfully suggest and it's reflected in the memorandum of understanding that has been agreed between the police
00:55:54 been agreed between the police investigation and your inquiry and which in the interest of transparency is published on your website. That course is also consistent with the phased approach that the inquiry is
00:56:06 phased approach that the inquiry is taking and which is in any event rendered necessary in order for the inquiry to report on urgent safety issues within a time period which is
00:56:17 issues within a time period which is simply not compatible with anything other than a phased approach. Chairman, it's not easy and it will give rise to many difficult issues on which judgments will have to be reached. but
00:56:28 judgments will have to be reached. but nor is it impossible. This approach means that the inquiry will have the benefit of material produced by the criminal investigation. It will for example have all the expert
00:56:40 It will for example have all the expert uh reports that are produced. That of course does not mean that the inquiry or the inquiry's experts are obliged to agree with the experts who've been instructed by the Metropolitan Police.
00:56:51 instructed by the Metropolitan Police. The inquiry is entirely independent of the Metropolitan Police as are you and your inquiry team. The inquiry has with a high degree of transparency instructed its own experts
00:57:04 transparency instructed its own experts who are themselves independent and the police have provided them where necessary with access to the tower and physical exhibits. That means that your inquiry can reach its own conclusions as to the cause and
00:57:16 its own conclusions as to the cause and spread of the fire and smoke. It is, we respectfully submit, important to recognize that the inquiry is very different from adversarial litigation
00:57:28 different from adversarial litigation precisely because it is independent and performs an inquisitorial function and has its own independent experts. Uh there is or may be less of a need for
00:57:40 there is or may be less of a need for here for it to hear evidence from experts instructed on every individual business or corporate body that may have an interest in the outcome of the inquiry or the criminal investigation.
00:57:53 inquiry or the criminal investigation. Indeed, it is simply not safe or practicable to allow unfettered access to what is a crime scene to experts instructed on behalf of many other
00:58:04 instructed on behalf of many other bodies.
00:58:06 bodies. What I can say is that there will come a point when it may be possible to allow limited and controlled access to the tower where that is necessary and we will certainly engage with the inquiry
00:58:18 will certainly engage with the inquiry and other core participants in relation to that.
00:58:23 to that. Chairman, we note that in the written submissions of at least one corporation issue is taken with the conclusions that are said to have been reached by forensic experts. I'm not I am going to
00:58:35 forensic experts. I'm not I am going to resist the temptation to engage with that. We respectfully submit that it is not an issue on which it's remotely appropriate for you to rule at this stage. It will of course be open to the
00:58:48 stage. It will of course be open to the inquiry and call participants to test the evidence in the course of the hearings. Chairman, that is all I wish to say on behalf of Metropolitan Police. That's very helpful. Thank you very much indeed.
00:59:01 indeed. Now, um,
00:59:03 Now, um, Mr. Freriedman, you appear next in the running order, so are you ready to go? Yes.
00:59:08 Yes. Thank you very much.
00:59:14 Thank you, chairman. Um, I'm Danny Freriedman. I appear here today with Liz Davis and I speak from the group submission served on behalf of the core participants represented by Bat Murphy
00:59:27 participants represented by Bat Murphy Bman's Hickman and Rose Hod Jones and Allen and Irvin Fami Natas. Um those submissions like all of the submissions today that are written will be on your website. You've already referred this
00:59:39 website. You've already referred this morning to the helpful agenda that was sent through by Burnberg Piss where a group of core participants lawyers who you're going to hear from I think till about 3:45 or 4:00 today have divided up
00:59:53 about 3:45 or 4:00 today have divided up and distributed the matters that each of us will lead on to avoid duplication but also to ensure that you hear different voices and different perspectives on behalf of the hundreds of people who
01:00:05 behalf of the hundreds of people who live survived and in 71 known cases died in Grimfell Tower. So, Mr. is it your plan to deal with the first item on what I've called the Burnberg's agenda?
01:00:17 Burnberg's agenda? I am going to deal with the purpose of inquiry and building confidence in its process which is item one. Yeah.
01:00:24 Yeah. Um the division between the so-called two phases and the task of taking statements from survivors and the berieved.
01:00:32 berieved. Very good. All right. Thank you. Um sir with you as the chair with your inquiry team your assessors and we hope some other eminent women and men who will sit
01:00:45 other eminent women and men who will sit with you on a panel. We are here to publicly find out why this tragedy happened and who or what was responsible. Um, if I turn to the
01:00:59 responsible. Um, if I turn to the purpose of the inquiry, I want to focus, if I may, on article two of the European Convention of Human Rights. You, sir, have previously spoken about
01:01:10 You, sir, have previously spoken about the anger, frustration, and the sense of injustice that our clients understandably labor under. Your council in their public statement have referred to the need to provide a voice to those
01:01:23 to the need to provide a voice to those who have been personally affected by the fire and to make sure that those who are who have suffered are fully involved. These sentiments are welcome and of course morally and rationally sound that
01:01:35 course morally and rationally sound that they also reflect the law of human rights. There are minimum requirements to investigate when an event of mass casualty and suffering occurs, especially one of these proportions.
01:01:48 especially one of these proportions. This is recognized at a European level in article two of the European Convention of Human Rights. This inquiry is therefore required by section six of the human rights act to act compatibly
01:01:59 the human rights act to act compatibly with that law so that there will be no misunderstanding. These rights are now recognized at a global level. The same rights can be
01:02:10 global level. The same rights can be found in article six of the UN covenant on civil and political rights. They form part of customary international law or the law of nations and all peoples. So section one of the inquiries act 2005
01:02:24 So section one of the inquiries act 2005 which provides the foundation for this inquiry is one of the means through which the United Kingdom will comply with that law. The basic requirements
01:02:36 with that law. The basic requirements for an investigation will be known to the lawyers in the room. They may also be obvious as a reflection of basic decency and humane treatment. But let me recall, sir, those five core features
01:02:48 recall, sir, those five core features because everyone you hear from today and quite possibly tomorrow will no doubt be guided by them. The process must be one independent,
01:02:59 The process must be one independent, two thorough, three public, four sufficiently transparent and inclusive to enable effective participation by the
01:03:10 to enable effective participation by the survivors and the berieved and five prompt.
01:03:14 prompt. All of that must combine to ensure accountability and where justified attribution of responsibility. Because we're talking about rights, these are not mere rules that must be
01:03:26 these are not mere rules that must be complied with, but foundational values that should be the anchor for the whole endeavor that brings us before you. Put simply, the survivors and the bererieved
01:03:37 simply, the survivors and the bererieved must be placed at the center or heart of this process. That does not mean that you should be biased in their favor. They do not want
01:03:48 biased in their favor. They do not want that. And it does not mean that you should treat those who could be criticized in an unfair fashion. Far from it. But you must put the survivors and berieved at the center of the
01:03:59 and berieved at the center of the process because that is where the law requires them to be. And one of the foundation cases for the proposition I just made is a case called El Mazri and the former Republic of
01:04:11 El Mazri and the former Republic of Macedonia. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights adopts and endorses the restorative justice case law that was decided in the American Court of Human Rights in the
01:04:22 American Court of Human Rights in the 1990s
01:04:24 1990s and refers to the victims and the next of kin as having the right to the truth. It is a right that they enjoy in their own capacity and it is a right they
01:04:35 own capacity and it is a right they enjoy as representatives of the public which marries up with a leading case in the United Kingdom perhaps the leading case Lord Bingham in a case called Amen in the House of Lords where he said that
01:04:48 in the House of Lords where he said that the purpose of the investigative function is to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice
01:05:00 is exposed and brought to public notice that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing, if unjustified, is delayed. That dangerous practices and procedures are rectified, and that those who have lost their relatives may at least have the
01:05:11 their relatives may at least have the satisfaction of knowing that lessons learned from his or her death may save the lives of others. These purposes are not just about practical lesson learning
01:05:23 not just about practical lesson learning and uncovering wrongdoing, but also we say something more profound. I am repeatedly told and I have seen that the overriding things that our client seek
01:05:36 overriding things that our client seek right now is a restoration of respect for their human dignity. That is to say that the task must not just be to discover technical matters
01:05:47 just be to discover technical matters that caused and spread this fire but to promote the dignity and equality of those who have suffered from it. That is what the beginnings of justice would
01:05:58 what the beginnings of justice would look like. Um they want the dignity that they have shown to be mirrored back to them.
01:06:04 them. Um which brings us to the question of how to build confidence in this inquiry and make it relevant to the recovery and raw grief and trauma of its central core participants. So that's not simply your
01:06:16 participants. So that's not simply your responsibility or the responsibility of your council team. It's the responsibility of everyone who comes here before you. Um, you cannot learn at school, college or university or any
01:06:28 school, college or university or any area of working life, law or otherwise, how best to conduct the Grenfell Tower inquiry.
01:06:36 inquiry. There is no substitute for being endlessly curious about what is required, most of all from the people who live through it. And we've heard
01:06:48 who live through it. And we've heard today importantly um uh uh that there is sympathetic engagement um with the matters that have been raised and we are beginning um a
01:06:59 been raised and we are beginning um a dynamic and openminded um conversation. But there are confidencebuilding issues and we have set them out in paragraph seven of our submissions in the spirit that the best way to join forces in
01:07:12 that the best way to join forces in meeting those issues is to voice them and to work on their solutions. Um we called them seven concerns. Let me call them confidence building issues. Issue number one
01:07:25 Issue number one is that the bererieved, the people in grief who have suffered a traumatic and wholly unexpected loss do not as yet have any formal recognized
01:07:36 not as yet have any formal recognized status in the process at all. Um, I noted the words used today, but in the council to the inquiries public statement, they were subsumed under the
01:07:47 statement, they were subsumed under the categories residents or those who speak for those who are unable to participate in the inquiry, which means that they are not as yet properly recognized as persons entitled to effective
01:07:59 persons entitled to effective participation in their own right. Given all that I've said to you about the fundamental human rights um legal framework, you could say something quite soon which would make a tangible uh
01:08:11 soon which would make a tangible uh difference in terms of promoting um the dignity of that situation and assisting their grief. Um but there's a more formal issue to resolve if I may. Um the inquiry must fulfill the function of the
01:08:25 inquiry must fulfill the function of the inquest. Um the setting up of an inquiry produced an important public debate about the difference between the two types of proceedings. The reason why it was important to have a public inquiry
01:08:37 was important to have a public inquiry is that it is capable of conducting a broader investigation than an inquest and resolving more issues. That said, it would be terrible if at the end of this process, the inquiry had not done what
01:08:50 process, the inquiry had not done what an inquest would do, which is to record who, how, and in what circumstances each person died. However you structure the phases or
01:09:01 However you structure the phases or modules or whatever we will call them, by the end of them, we would not want Bereieve families to have to go through an inquest in addition to what you have done. The inquests have been formally
01:09:13 done. The inquests have been formally adjourned, but article two of the convention requires the investigation, whatever form it takes, to be conducted promptly. Um, the inquiry therefore must complete this work. Sir, today uh I'm
01:09:26 complete this work. Sir, today uh I'm standing before you on behalf of 62 berieved relatives relating to 47 deceased people, of which 10 were children. Um and as a matter of law and
01:09:37 children. Um and as a matter of law and basic compassion, those people need to know that they will not have to go through another process after this. Um confidence issue number two is that the core participants will be treated as
01:09:48 core participants will be treated as mere vehicles for providing evidence and their crucial participatory role marginalized. Um your council have in writing said they want them to be fully
01:10:00 writing said they want them to be fully involved. They've said it again today. But how the full involvement will work in a manner that is effective, equal and inclusive is what we are now here
01:10:12 inclusive is what we are now here starting to design. But if your team and I say this with respect, but it needs to be said to be to be resolved. If your team writes letters asking for views on any matter,
01:10:24 letters asking for views on any matter, be it experts, the law or procedures, none of us will reply until we are satisfied that we can do so on instructions from our clients. Um, we
01:10:35 instructions from our clients. Um, we serve our clients, they don't serve us. Uh, in Mr. Stein's words later on, this cannot be or seem to be a mere conversation between lawyers. Confidence
01:10:47 conversation between lawyers. Confidence issue number three, disclosure. The fear is that it will be late, limited, and with insufficient funding or time to read and consider. Now, Mr.
01:11:00 or time to read and consider. Now, Mr. Weatherbe will address this as an issue in detail later. Um, for our part, it's essential to add that there should be at least preliminary disclosure of general
01:11:12 least preliminary disclosure of general materials and what you call materials from phase one and phase 2 as soon as possible.
01:11:19 possible. We do not need to wait for everything to begin
01:11:24 begin and what can be made available while we wait for everything can be done in tranches.
01:11:30 tranches. In the annex of our submission, we have isolated by way of draft suggested suggestions some core items such as the housing files which I'll come to if I may 999 calls and emergency response
01:11:42 may 999 calls and emergency response logs that would enable everyone to begin. That list is a draft work in progress. We have also seen a helpful breakdown of the standard emergency response documents provided by the fire
01:11:54 response documents provided by the fire brigade union in the call submissions for today and that makes clear what could be disclosed all to all parties near enough straight away. So with group discussion we can work with your team to
01:12:07 discussion we can work with your team to enable everyone to start on these core materials soon. One of the things that is aggravating the suffering is delay. So the sooner the disclosure can begin
01:12:19 So the sooner the disclosure can begin on some things, the quicker some of that aggravation can be managed. Is that something on which discussions with the inquiry team could uh could take things forward?
01:12:30 take things forward? Uh in indeed I believe they could. I don't on my feet want to design the discussion taking process but I think I think I can speak for for for for for many um representatives and core
01:12:41 many um representatives and core participants that for us to work together a a and of course consult with our clients while those discussions go on would take things forward I believe. Yes. Thank you. Confidence uh issue number four please.
01:12:55 Confidence uh issue number four please. Hearings will be conducted exclusively by your council and you rendering the rendering the core participants passive attendees able only to give their own
01:13:06 attendees able only to give their own evidence if asked and to suggest questions but never to ask them. Well, we want to ask questions on behalf of our clients. That could be done at an
01:13:18 of our clients. That could be done at an inquest. So, it should be done here. But it must also be done in a way that saves time and avoids repetition. And yet there will be occasions when
01:13:30 And yet there will be occasions when someone might wish to ask questions on the same point from a different perspective. Sometimes we will seek to test controversial evidence ourselves. And
01:13:41 controversial evidence ourselves. And sometimes, sir, we will want to give a client the experience that the lawyer they trust was able to ask a question that is essential to them, something
01:13:52 that is essential to them, something that goes to the heart of their grief. Um, from that, can I just deal with the issue of witness statements and giving evidence?
01:14:01 evidence? Because in this context, we and the barristers are going to follow on from me.
01:14:07 me. are assisting the berieved survivors and ordinary local people who knew how unsafe the building was as of that night and try to make a difference. None of them are state agents or
01:14:19 None of them are state agents or employees or leaders of corporate organizations. They do not have a system, union or company to support them. Many of them are in acute need of support because they were left with
01:14:30 support because they were left with nothing saved often physical and psychological injury. Um both Sam Stein and Fiona Murphy are going to add to this later. We've dealt with it in paragraphs 11 to 13 of our submissions.
01:14:44 paragraphs 11 to 13 of our submissions. Just briefly, first point is that the aim to publish a permanent testimony testimony of what has been lost by the tragedy is hugely valuable. Secondly, we understand that
01:14:57 valuable. Secondly, we understand that the inquiry wants statements from the residents regarding the fire itself, but that there will be flexibility to supplement those statements in relation to any fresh evidence disclosed and in
01:15:09 to any fresh evidence disclosed and in relation to later issues that will be dealt with. Thirdly, there will be different ways to give and publish our clients evidence, including
01:15:20 publish our clients evidence, including providing special measures for video link or perhaps playing a video uh statement and pastoral care for witnesses that need it uh inside an inquiry room and outside.
01:15:31 inquiry room and outside. Fourthly, there needs to be agreement about the provisional disclosure, which we've already touched upon, to make sure that clients are not giving an unsighted
01:15:42 that clients are not giving an unsighted account without the basic assistance of a seeing the emergency logs, the 999 calls, the videos, etc. I want to say something about housing records.
01:15:53 something about housing records. In social housing, the housing file is um an essential record of who that resident is and who is in their household. It details their personal
01:16:06 household. It details their personal characteristics, age, disability, children, and everything about the people who are living with them. So, it helps us to know our clients and advise
01:16:18 helps us to know our clients and advise them,
01:16:20 them, but it helps you to know who was living in Grimfell Tower as of the night of the 14th of June. It's not the complete answer. You know that, but it is an
01:16:31 answer. You know that, but it is an absolutely fundamental answer and this has been touched upon um by those who instruct me and other solicitors have spoken about it. Um the statements even
01:16:42 spoken about it. Um the statements even if uh in Mr. Millet's helpful description. They are a narrow first attempt that can be preliminary, can be held off to deal with what happened on
01:16:53 held off to deal with what happened on the night. Are nevertheless capable of being referred to in later criminal proceedings, civil claims, housing proceedings, and others may have
01:17:05 housing proceedings, and others may have to deal with them in immigration proceedings. Is not right, therefore to ask people to give an account about the most significant night of their lives
01:17:16 most significant night of their lives whilst they are still in trauma without their lawyers having access to this basic information and without them being sufficiently informed in order to give the appropriate advice. Fifth point on
01:17:30 the appropriate advice. Fifth point on statements and Mrs. Steen in particular will develop this. So I think you'll be surprised as others have been about how challenging it is to
01:17:42 have been about how challenging it is to take the statements and the need to provide a great deal of care to the people who are being asked to give them um on a very provisional basis uh taking
01:17:55 um on a very provisional basis uh taking into account the unknowns etc. We've written to you separately to say that 2 days per core participant is at least what is needed and after the disclosure has taken place at least for the first
01:18:08 has taken place at least for the first branch of statements it's going to take about 8 weeks. It would be wrong to to become concrete today but it gives you a ballpark figure. Confidence issue number
01:18:21 ballpark figure. Confidence issue number five.
01:18:23 five. the inquiry will get bogged down in the technical question of how and not move quickly enough to the question of why. And this is relevant to whether an
01:18:35 And this is relevant to whether an inflexible division of phase one and two with an enforced hiatus in order to produce an interim report would be positively counterproductive. Uh now Mr.
01:18:46 positively counterproductive. Uh now Mr. Mansfield's going to take this up, but in headline form there are two potential problems. one, delayed reporting on matters relevant to fire safety in tower
01:18:57 matters relevant to fire safety in tower blocks, and two, artificially investigating the response of the fire brigade by separating key issues of how and why between two phases.
01:19:08 and why between two phases. We've dealt with this in our submissions at paragraph 15 to 17. It is noteworthy that both the Fire Brigade Union and the London Fire Brigade are concerned about
01:19:20 London Fire Brigade are concerned about the exact same artificial artificiality um of the split. Can I just make two observations about this? Firstly, the firefighting strategies on the on the
01:19:31 firefighting strategies on the on the night do not logically in many cases fit into phase two uh on the current plan. And there are some obvious emissions, most significantly being the fatal
01:19:44 most significantly being the fatal effects of people being told to stay put once the external parts of most of the building were replaced. The second thing to add,
01:19:56 The second thing to add, it is it is important with respect for you sir to keep an open mind about how and when the inquiry can report on technical issues or otherwise make
01:20:09 technical issues or otherwise make provisional observations about matters arising from the evidence. The advantage of the public inquiry mechanism is that you can do that in different ways at different times. So the discovery of
01:20:21 different times. So the discovery of dangerous material or the existence of a dangerous practice does not require you to wait for the end of phase one or indeed phase two in order to act. Nor must the state and corporate part
01:20:33 must the state and corporate part corporate core participants necessarily wait themselves. There are many instances in inquests and inquiries where the authorities serve statements saying they have already decided to
01:20:44 saying they have already decided to change a practice and explain why. So you could make their change of practice public and provide provisional endorsement as to why you agree with their stance from what you presently
01:20:55 their stance from what you presently know. Equally, when your council make opening statements or other state or corporate core participants asked to open themselves, they could invite you to reach a certain conclusion
01:21:07 to reach a certain conclusion immediately. And furthermore, if you reached a decision that something was unsafe during the course of evidence, then you could issue a provisional analysis to that effect and invite
01:21:19 analysis to that effect and invite submissions or carry out a focused hearing to discover whether you were wrong.
01:21:24 wrong. So coroners under their legislation can produce prevention of future death reports at any time and accordance submissions from those who were responsible or involved in those
01:21:36 responsible or involved in those recommendations would be heard before they were finalized. So is your message keep it flexible and see where the investigation leads and report on important things as and when
01:21:47 report on important things as and when you come across them. And indeed, and if I may say so, and I don't want to go into any example now today for obvious reasons, but if if there's an elephant
01:21:58 reasons, but if if there's an elephant in the room, you should just say it's an elephant rather than spending three to four weeks talking about something with a long trunk, tus, and the like. Please don't let phases delay you in declaring
01:22:10 don't let phases delay you in declaring the obvious or using case management powers to narrow the issue so that we get to the why. Um confidence issue number six. Six of seven nearly done.
01:22:21 number six. Six of seven nearly done. The human experience of the core participants including their backgrounds, their difficulties and their suffering will not be properly understood.
01:22:32 not be properly understood. We have to get to know our clients so that we can enable you to know them. That's our job. But they have to have the confidence and trust in the process
01:22:44 the confidence and trust in the process in order to believe that the difficult work that they will be asked to do is both worthy and relevant to their recovery.
01:22:52 recovery. Others are going to address you on extending the diversity and inclusiveness of the panel. Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Thomas, and Miss Monroe. There can be little doubt that to do so
01:23:05 There can be little doubt that to do so would have a paradigmshifting positive consequence in terms of confidence. There are lots of different reasons to explain why that is so.
01:23:16 reasons to explain why that is so. Grenfell Tower was a beautifully diverse place to live. Diversity improves the quality of any institution, but especially a public inquiry committed to
01:23:29 especially a public inquiry committed to hearing those diverse voices. Justice is not just about outcomes. It's also about the process and journey that gets you to the outcomes. And then
01:23:41 gets you to the outcomes. And then please recall why this inquiry was established in the first place to allay acute public anxiety that concerns had gone unheard and uncared for. The question therefore is
01:23:53 uncared for. The question therefore is not what an objective informed bystander would say about you as the chair being able to reach independent findings. That's the wrong question if I may say
01:24:04 That's the wrong question if I may say so not one that I raise. The right question for the in objective informed bystander to answer is what in this extraordinary situation of loss of
01:24:16 extraordinary situation of loss of confidence and mistrust would be justified to restore those very things.
01:24:23 things. To which the answer would be the fire was a disaster of mass fatality, near death, homelessness and people left destitute.
01:24:34 people left destitute. The inquiry into the fire not only deserves the chairmanship of an eminent retired senior judge. It deserves more
01:24:45 retired senior judge. It deserves more confidence issue number seven. And to conclude,
01:24:51 conclude, a process that could provide transitional justice will become irrelevant to and even hinder the core participants post-traum.
01:25:04 participants post-traum. Well, much of that has been dealt with what I've said on issues 1 to six. So, I realize that it may be daunting, but as a judge, you're being asked to be more
01:25:16 a judge, you're being asked to be more than a judge and decide and to decide more than a case. And that is why the solutions suggested by your council and in the various submissions before you today are so important to get right and
01:25:28 today are so important to get right and to correct if original decisions prove not to be the best ones. We are not in litigation. We are building an inquiry. So what people want
01:25:40 So what people want is something that can be a proud and positive example of justice and equality in 20th 21st century Britain. A load
01:25:51 in 20th 21st century Britain. A load star of dignity if you will. And there is no false promise or naivity in making that the aim that guides us all. Thank you. Well, thank thank you very
01:26:03 Thank you. Well, thank thank you very much and some very good points to think about there. Thank you,
01:26:10 Mr. Mensfield. I think you're next on the running order.
01:26:28 I gather you had some difficulty getting here this morning. I'm afraid so. I don't live in London anymore and it was a touch and go, but thank you for making Fortunately, more touch than go in the end.
01:26:38 end. Well, thank you for making the effort to be here in time for the start, if I may say. So, thank you. Uh, thank you. Uh, it it's clear, or at least I ought to make it clear that I
01:26:49 least I ought to make it clear that I represent obviously more than one firm. Uh, I'm here representing Burnberg Pierce, a second firm, Saunders Law, and a third, Hanover Bond Law.
01:27:01 a third, Hanover Bond Law. uh altogether they constitute 24 different families and 44 different individuals including children.
01:27:12 individuals including children. If I may uh I I don't we we've made a sincere sincere effort a and a detailed effort on behalf of the bererieved and the survivors and the residents.
01:27:25 the survivors and the residents. uh all of those that's the solicitors and the barristers have been cooperating over the last few months in fact to ensure
01:27:35 ensure uh that the breadth of representation in terms of spoken and as well as written representations are made in a coordinated way so that they dovetail
01:27:47 coordinated way so that they dovetail and therefore reflect what uh the desires are of the people we represent. and and you will see from the list that was sent to you in advance the
01:28:00 was sent to you in advance the considerable achievement that has been made in with that regard and may I assure you that that endeavor will continue
01:28:09 continue uh so that you have have no fears that you'll be facing a phallank of the same arguments that's just not going to be the case but there will be some overlap
01:28:21 the case but there will be some overlap and and may I just follow on from Mr. Freriedman's um emphasis on the Human Rights Act. by not repeating that but by coming perhaps to a focal point today
01:28:34 coming perhaps to a focal point today I I think everyone in the room recognizes that there's a watershed opportunity here today with you to make a real
01:28:46 here today with you to make a real difference to what is perceived to be unfortunately a a process which has become disengaged. Ed,
01:28:57 Ed, in many respects, it's no no individual's fault, but it often happens that things fall by the wayside unless it's grasped at an initial stage.
01:29:08 it's grasped at an initial stage. And Mr. Freeman just touched on it, but one recognizes that the first stage at which
01:29:15 which public confidence was shaken was was actually the fire itself because it's it's a national I I I've used the word before. It's a national
01:29:26 used the word before. It's a national atrocity.
01:29:28 atrocity. And in that sense, one asked the rhetorical and vernacular question, how on earth in the 21st century
01:29:39 century in one of the richest burrows in the United Kingdom, can a block like this just go up in flames with so many casualties involved? I
01:29:51 with so many casualties involved? I don't mean those I do of course include those who died in the block but the casualties are far greater than that that is the people who live around the
01:30:02 that is the people who live around the immediate vicinity but far greater than that because everyone who lives in a tower block will have been affected by that in fact everybody has a collective responsibility and that is the way in
01:30:14 responsibility and that is the way in which in a sense the system was shaken at that point everybody said to themselves well it can happen to them can happen to me. And therefore uh the
01:30:26 can happen to me. And therefore uh the need to excuse my voice to generate and regenerate trust began the moment the fire took place but there is a slight
01:30:38 fire took place but there is a slight reflection backwards which I I mention at this stage I is that and I know it's in the list of issues but but this had
01:30:49 in the list of issues but but this had been predicted or at least the danger a fire had been predicted. So it's even before the fire, people who lived in the
01:31:00 before the fire, people who lived in the block and it's a very you've heard diverse community in its own right. Some of them that's very kind of me. Thank you. Long as you don't tip it over me, that's fine. Um thank you very much
01:31:11 that's fine. Um thank you very much indeed. um people in the block as well as neighboring blocks had actually made warnings given warnings of this kind of thing. A and I I just want to quote the
01:31:24 thing. A and I I just want to quote the prime minister said when uh that these matters had just happened and were fresh in everybody's mind and these are important words said by the prime minister at that time 22nd of June to
01:31:36 minister at that time 22nd of June to the House of Commons and it's it's this essence of confidence that needs to be uh regenerated and she said this for too long
01:31:48 said this for too long residents have been overlooked and ignored board. So it's not just the residents saying it. It's not just the berie saying it. Here you have the prime minister saying it.
01:31:59 minister saying it. We will ensure they are involved in every step of this process.
01:32:06 process. No stone will be left unturned in this inquiry.
01:32:12 inquiry. and we move from the fire and from a community that had been ignored to what was going to happen thereafter. Well, what has happened thereafter to
01:32:23 Well, what has happened thereafter to some extent has not restored the confidence whether it is by oversight or any other reason. There is a distinct feeling today
01:32:36 feeling today that
01:32:38 that they have not that is those people most affected
01:32:42 affected have not been included. So that the res restoration of public confidence generally and the restoration of confidence by those most affected a as
01:32:53 confidence by those most affected a as claimed by the prime minister are yet to be fully engaged. Now some of the points have already been made. I don't repeat those but I want to concentrate on uh
01:33:04 those but I want to concentrate on uh one of the ways in which that that trust the integrity of the process being as it were put back in the center along with the berieved is in fact to look at the
01:33:17 the berieved is in fact to look at the decision making process that has been going on
01:33:23 going on and we say that the decision-making process cannot be left to one person. It should be reflective of the community and to some extent the public at large
01:33:36 and to some extent the public at large for there to be at the end of the day confidence in the findings. You cannot be you yourself cannot be expected to reflect the diversity in one person. No
01:33:48 reflect the diversity in one person. No one person on earth could do that. And the way that the families will, as it were, be encouraged to respond and engage is if they see
01:33:59 engage is if they see alongside yourself, we've called it a panel. May I just say there's been considerable confusion in the public domain between
01:34:10 the public domain between uh panel members and assessors and that continues to this day. There obviously a difference. I spell it out so that it's clear what we're asking for at this stage. Now, we appreciate that you're
01:34:22 stage. Now, we appreciate that you're not in a position to appoint panel members. But what we are asking is that if at this juncture and it's not a matter that I've raised
01:34:34 and it's not a matter that I've raised today for the first time as you well know uh I I did uh write uh along these lines many many months ago that the prime minister who's also being
01:34:46 prime minister who's also being addressed by these submissions we've sent the same points to her and she said in September to the house of commons that the matter was then in September mber under review
01:34:59 September mber under review were the words she used. And so we we hope genuinely hope that it is still under review. And if it is that you have today the support of the families to as
01:35:14 today the support of the families to as it were ask the prime minister maybe you can't go much beyond a request that in fact she consider as soon as possible and now there is a different
01:35:26 possible and now there is a different time frame to the one that existed before. There is now time for you to be accompanied by one's looking at figures here. It's either it's got to be an odd
01:35:37 here. It's either it's got to be an odd number otherwise it's very difficult to take decision decisions. So we we would submit either another two or another four uh have experience of the
01:35:48 four uh have experience of the McFersonen inquiry where in fact there were four others. So it had a total of five. uh it was much easier one understands to take decisions in that in
01:35:59 understands to take decisions in that in those circumstances and that would then begin to uh satisfy some of the problems that are perceived uh by the families that exist at the moment.
01:36:12 families that exist at the moment. Now the
01:36:14 Now the and and obviously if one of the additional panel members could have an expertise or a reflection of the community some families would would like
01:36:25 community some families would would like to have some make some contribution to that and that's of course in other words make suggestions as to who the panel member might be but I'm not going to as you've read all the paperwork I'm not
01:36:37 you've read all the paperwork I'm not going to do very much more than just a brief reference to a a report that um Bambber Pierce had commissioned. I think you've seen it. Dr. Marie Stewart's
01:36:48 you've seen it. Dr. Marie Stewart's report.
01:36:49 report. They did have that and I did read it. Yes.
01:36:51 Yes. Yes. I'll just refer to two paragraphs. That's all par so that perhaps when you have a moment to reread them. It's paragraph seven in uh section B of the report and particularly paragraph 8
01:37:05 report and particularly paragraph 8 where she talks about the diversity of the tower and the different backgrounds and the sort of issues uh that will be raised in relation to this
01:37:18 that will be raised in relation to this inquiry beyond the technical but dealing with uh their own experiences are all spelt out there. I'm not going to read it out. It's all there for you to see.
01:37:29 it out. It's all there for you to see. And paragraphs 12 and 13. Uh perhaps 13 is is the initial sentence of 13 is important. This inquiry will be required
01:37:40 important. This inquiry will be required to take account of human factors. Same point that's been made before where diversity is central to the matters under investigation. Particularly relevant will be issues
01:37:51 Particularly relevant will be issues seven governance. Eight, communication. And just to give an illustration, how you communicate the fire safety measures to the people who are there when you
01:38:03 to the people who are there when you have a diverse community. What warnings were given? And what what was the reception of their communications about their difficulties? And nine, fire advice, of course, same
01:38:15 And nine, fire advice, of course, same point. 12, response of the emergency services. And 13, the aftermath. the aftermath, just pausing for a moment, is is a matter that is easily spoken aftermath, but of course it's massive
01:38:27 aftermath, but of course it's massive here and one of the big questions uh will be whether there were contingency plans and if they weren't, why weren't they in place to deal with something like this? Perhaps the biggest
01:38:39 like this? Perhaps the biggest contingency that's been overlooked uh or or at least marginalized. It hasn't had center stage until the last two months when eventually it surfaced
01:38:51 two months when eventually it surfaced and that's mental health in relation to it's not just therefore people who who who died but the ones who continue to be suffering under the stress and trauma of
01:39:02 suffering under the stress and trauma of what has happened. So, and therefore there are other comparisons made with which I don't go through the McFersonen Lawrence inquiry in in which the
01:39:13 Lawrence inquiry in in which the benefits of having more than one person helping to decide the various facets and of course McFersonen was dealing with a very wide range of issues just as we we
01:39:25 very wide range of issues just as we we are here.
01:39:31 So I pause for a moment. That's the issue. We would ask that perhaps you make a recommendation after today in relation to that uh particularly important aspect.
01:39:42 important aspect. Before you leave that, can you just help me on one thing? Um I think you recognize that whether to appoint other people to a panel is for the prime minister.
01:39:52 minister. Yes, it is. Do you think it would be of any uh value if the inquiry were to try to put together a consultative panel of local people and not decision-making
01:40:04 local people and not decision-making panel but a panel who could talk to the inquiry and receive information from the inquiry and and become to that extent more involved? Would that be helpful? It would be helpful. May I just say I
01:40:16 It would be helpful. May I just say I think that that is a concept that's been employed in the child abuse inquiry and has proved to be successful with the meeting of the group the individuals concerned as well as experts as well as
01:40:27 concerned as well as experts as well as lawyers. So it's a a multifaceted situation in which the panel represents in that way. But I think the core point we make is whether you have more assess
01:40:38 we make is whether you have more assess assessors, more experts or a consultative panel at the end of the day who is taking the decision. That is that is the key point
01:40:49 is the key point because of course the decision maker would be quite entitled to say in in their discretion if there's more than one uh we don't accept the advice we don't accept that or we accept something
01:41:01 don't accept that or we accept something else. So they're the decision makers that's what matters to the families that the decision makers they have confidence in will reflect the sort of matters that uh Dr. Stewart refers to in her report.
01:41:14 uh Dr. Stewart refers to in her report. So, it would help, but I'm afraid it doesn't quite solve it. All right. Thank you very much. Um, I'm keeping an eye on the clock. Perhaps somebody I didn't know didn't notice when I how how much longer I've
01:41:25 notice when I how how much longer I've got, but anyway, I think you you've got a little while because those ahead of you have been quite economical. Good. Yes. Is that I wonder if that's a hint. I'll be I I'll keep it short as
01:41:37 hint. I'll be I I'll keep it short as short as I can. I pass to a second area which is on the on the list and has been referred to in passing by Mr. Freriedman. Namely uh the the division
01:41:50 Freriedman. Namely uh the the division or structure in which the uh inquiry is seeking to to go ahead and
01:42:01 and the word robust has been used. I'm going to apply it to to what I have to say in relation to this because our submission is that you revisit this
01:42:12 our submission is that you revisit this whole issue.
01:42:16 I don't know when it was first envisaged but whenever it was it was a much earlier stage and it was understandable at the beginning because everybody was
01:42:27 at the beginning because everybody was saying
01:42:29 saying uh let's have a a a quick answer to this so we can do something about it putting it again shortly and if you just reflect on what's
01:42:40 and if you just reflect on what's happened in the past uh a number of the people sitting here today along with myself were involved olved in Hillsborough. Now, what happened there is of interest because 96 people, so it's not not
01:42:53 because 96 people, so it's not not substantially different, a very complicated situation and so forth. But the the Taylor inquiry, which I'm sure you're familiar with, uh got off the
01:43:04 you're familiar with, uh got off the ground very quickly indeed. In fact, within a month or so of the disaster that happened there on the terraces in April, within two months, it was off the
01:43:15 April, within two months, it was off the ground. The importance of it, and I'm only going to emphasize this one aspect, was that
01:43:23 was that the inquiry were conscious of the fact that if they were going to make a difference, they'd have to report back to make changes to prevent further deaths, which is the matter that's come
01:43:35 deaths, which is the matter that's come up in many people's submissions and today already orally. If you're going to prevent further deaths, you don't wait until you know October next year uh which is a new timetable because you
01:43:47 uh which is a new timetable because you will remember you yourself thought it would be possible to get a report by Easter. So that's shifted. Again, no criticism of that. It's obvious that there's a lot to be considered. However,
01:43:59 there's a lot to be considered. However, my point is that all of this contributes unlike Hillsborough where there were massive changes made to football grounds for the start of the season, all seater stadiums and so on. I don't need to go
01:44:10 stadiums and so on. I don't need to go through what happened that now that time has passed. And in fact, I don't want to be glib about the causes of the fire, but many
01:44:22 about the causes of the fire, but many of the families say, "Well, wait a minute. It's all on film. We can see what happened." Well, they can see an oversight of what happened and it's not the detail obviously, but there is a as
01:44:35 the detail obviously, but there is a as it were a
01:44:37 it were a an understanding that the fire may have come from a particular particular item may have spread very fast through the cladding and so on. So that isn't the
01:44:48 cladding and so on. So that isn't the big question. It's the big question that I put at the beginning namely the public are saying how could this have happened in this day and age to to that extent. So it's it's that question and of course
01:45:00 So it's it's that question and of course many local authorities have already addressed the causes. 82 tower blocks within about a month by the middle of July last year 82 tower blocks in this
01:45:12 July last year 82 tower blocks in this country with similar cladding failed the current fire safety test. So if I can put it against the vernacular, people are on to this already and therefore the
01:45:23 are on to this already and therefore the need for you is still there to examine the precise causes but actually uh not any longer to do what the Taylor report
01:45:35 any longer to do what the Taylor report had to do. Therefore we take a step back and say what is well it's Mr. Freriedman's question. What's the purpose of the inquiry? And if it is in fact what the families want is a an
01:45:49 in fact what the families want is a an identification of responsibility for the matters that went wrong here and no one's doubting that things did go
01:46:01 no one's doubting that things did go badly wrong. So they want accountability. That's all part of the human rights aspect of this. How are they best going to begin that process? In other words, I'm coming back to the
01:46:13 In other words, I'm coming back to the overarching need for public confidence and families confidence. Not only would that be reinstated by the panel, it would also be reinstated if
01:46:24 panel, it would also be reinstated if they felt the question they most want answered is going to be addressed sooner rather than later. Now, I pause again.
01:46:35 rather than later. Now, I pause again. uh there is a an unspoken fear well sometimes articulated fear that were you to as it were enter this arena you would in some way or the inquiry would be in
01:46:46 in some way or the inquiry would be in some way jeopardizing the police inquiry that Mr. Johnson spoken about.
01:46:55 We are all conscious of that, the families included, that nobody wants to jeopardize what the police are doing. However,
01:47:04 However, there is,
01:47:06 there is, as it were, a welltrodden path here. It's happened before. I I can give you the illustrations whereby the police in parallel with an
01:47:18 whereby the police in parallel with an inquiry andor an inquest has taken place because of the undertakings that are given and because the inquest no more than an inquiry has the power to
01:47:30 than an inquiry has the power to identify individuals and say somebody's guilty that's not the function of either of them. So therefore to that extent u that's not the conclusions that overlap. One understands meanwhile that
01:47:41 One understands meanwhile that evidential bases that are being looked at could overlap. However, it was successfully overcome recently in Hillsborough. There
01:47:52 overcome recently in Hillsborough. There was a police inquiry going on at the very same time and feeding into the I appreciate it's an inquest not an inquiry. Although Mr. Freriedman's point about you're performing the role of an
01:48:04 about you're performing the role of an inquest anyway or that's the suggestion. So
01:48:08 So we we say that that that that position has been countenanced and overcome but that's not the only one. Zebra going back many years the rail inquiries going
01:48:21 back many years the rail inquiries going back Clappam King's Cross and so on uh they all happened at the same time. So it's entirely possible for it to happen. So we say as a sort of policy issue you
01:48:34 So we say as a sort of policy issue you and any other panel members if if there are any appointed uh can as it were revisit this on that basis that there won't be jeopardy provided everybody acts responsibly and uh there's no
01:48:47 acts responsibly and uh there's no suggestion here that those uh core participants are going to act irresponsibly and there's been plenty of time for any irresponsibility to be shown and it hasn't been quite quite the
01:48:58 shown and it hasn't been quite quite the opposite. So may I move from the policy issue to why we say in practice practical terms it's um it's artificial division and not work
01:49:11 it's artificial division and not work not seriously workable. So that if uh if I just look at if I may uh section B of your council statement where at
01:49:22 of your council statement where at paragraph 20 he sets out the issues and you'll be very familiar with them for phase one. The first one is an extremely important one. The existing fire safety
01:49:33 important one. The existing fire safety and prevention measures at ground tower period. Now we say as an example others have given the evacuation and um in a sense splicing and dicing
01:49:46 and um in a sense splicing and dicing these issues so that you don't deal with uh the stay put strategy. Well, here on 5A is an extremely important as it were area and we say it can't possibly be
01:49:59 area and we say it can't possibly be that witnesses come whether they're experts
01:50:02 experts or whether they're members of the the groups that we represent that the the deceased and the uh berieved and and survivors and residents.
01:50:14 survivors and residents. Is it to be said that they come to the witness box and they can only speak to their experiences on the nights? I'm dealing with it from the point of view of the families in particular. It's artificial
01:50:27 families in particular. It's artificial and unreal because we we say that and I can give you many illustrations uh from the families themselves already. They haven't all put put it into words yet,
01:50:39 haven't all put put it into words yet, but they can do. namely and and I can just say it as it were from the experience of speaking to them. They all the ones particularly who lived there
01:50:51 the ones particularly who lived there and who've lived there in one case for 30 years.
01:50:56 30 years. That 30-year experience means that when this particular individual comes into this witness box, wherever it happens to be at that time, he can only speak as to
01:51:07 be at that time, he can only speak as to what the effect was on the on his floor and so on. But he can't speak about the fact that for example he will say there have been fires there in Grenville Tower before but they've
01:51:20 in Grenville Tower before but they've been contained. Why were they contained and this one wasn't? A and of course when it gets into the detail each and every family are saying fire hoses, sprinklers, fire doors,
01:51:33 fire hoses, sprinklers, fire doors, access for fire engines, car park out of use. They all were there and it will be unreal for them to have some cut off point at which you can't speak about
01:51:45 point at which you can't speak about that today very sorry come back again well they won't want to do that now if you're not going to quite rightly expect them given the trauma to come back twice it means that some of those and it's
01:51:57 it means that some of those and it's nearly all of them have got much more to say
01:52:01 say sorry yes I was going to say you you may recall that our initial view on this was that not only that people should come and give evidence once only for the very reason you've
01:52:13 once only for the very reason you've indicated but they should give all their evidence once only at the beginning. Yes.
01:52:18 Yes. But we were then told by many of those who represent them that they didn't want to do that and it was for that reason that we we changed our view and said well if you
01:52:29 changed our view and said well if you don't want to do it all at the beginning you can do the beginning at the beginning and the rest later on. So we're we're really trying to be as accommodating as possible and as flexible as possible. Yes, that is appreciated. The points
01:52:41 Yes, that is appreciated. The points that we're we're trying to make now is that it's all moved on considerably from when they were first asked about things. And when when they
01:52:52 asked about things. And when when they were first asked, I mean, I I I don't underestimate the trauma because as you you know, one's having considerable contact and experience that the trauma is still there. There's still
01:53:03 the trauma is still there. There's still people without homes to go to. There's still people without support. There's still people suffering on a daily basis. So the trauma's still there. But at the very beginning when the most they could do was try and get up each day to be
01:53:17 do was try and get up each day to be asked to come and be first on in an inquiry that was thought to be happening very soon was too much. that's changed because now it I I think
01:53:30 that's changed because now it I I think from the latest prognosis is that perhaps the statement taking might happen quite soon but the giving of evidence certainly not because the precondition that they're all asking for
01:53:43 precondition that they're all asking for it's already been touched on Mr. Weatherbe is going to come to it after I finish namely disclosure that the the key to this is for all of them is ensuring that you and the panel
01:53:55 them is ensuring that you and the panel if there is one get to see everything and that is disclosed there is transparency. A lot is said in sympathy of transparency. But at the end of the
01:54:06 of transparency. But at the end of the day, if we as it were are not able to see what the miscreants in this particular instance have in their possession, hopefully still or in the possession of the police. And that's one
01:54:19 possession of the police. And that's one of the key aspects to this that they see that at the time that they're giving evidence they know that the exercise of retrieving what is necessary for as it
01:54:31 retrieving what is necessary for as it were assessing and identifying culpability and accountability then it gives them another element of confidence in what is going on. So it it's a circular situation in which you come
01:54:43 circular situation in which you come back to the same issue. So but uh 5A which was the the one I was just has got a whole number of if you look at the main issues from which it comes uh 20
01:54:56 main issues from which it comes uh 20 paragraph A was the existing fire safety well that's taken from 5A in the original list of issues there's no no contention about the list of issues except one matter I'll mention in a
01:55:07 except one matter I'll mention in a moment and if you look at 5A and you go down the rest of the page on which it's cited B D they're extremely important questions which the families recognize
01:55:19 questions which the families recognize because they're asking what at the moment are not going to come up. In other words, you know, were they effective measures? Did they fail? And if they failed, who failed them? Now, it
01:55:30 if they failed, who failed them? Now, it may not necessarily always be a case of identifying individuals at the beginning. It may be a case of identifying the authority responsible for this and then you whittle it down at
01:55:41 for this and then you whittle it down at a later stage. So I need perhaps go through further illustrations of why we say it's an artificial division and it will be for the witnesses experts as
01:55:53 will be for the witnesses experts as well as the indivi individual families a much more sensible situation that they give it all at once which they were not able to do at the beginning but may I assure you many of them are now more
01:56:05 assure you many of them are now more than willing to as it were contribute to the picture of failure because they were on the as it were the cutting edge of what went wrong. Now there is I trespass
01:56:17 what went wrong. Now there is I trespass slightly into another area but it fits here. There there your council went through the various experts and that's very helpful but there's one or two
01:56:28 very helpful but there's one or two areas well there's more than one or two but I just emphasize one area that is missing
01:56:33 missing a and it one only begins to touch on it when one begins to see the families speak to the families and they say and they talk about the environment. Now
01:56:44 they talk about the environment. Now environmental consequences are important. There's no as far as I can see on the expert there's no one who is actually
01:56:52 actually uh dealing with that area environmental damage. Now the environmental damage here is not just uh obviously the the block of flats
01:57:03 uh obviously the the block of flats itself but the people who managed to get out
01:57:08 out and in many cases many of the ones on the higher floors uh weren't necessarily burned to death although they may in the beginning uh have died from other causes and the
01:57:19 have died from other causes and the biggest other cause is smoke in this case and the distribution of smoke And of course the the families again have got very strong views on what can be
01:57:30 got very strong views on what can be done in tower blocks to ensure that smoke is dispersed at an early stage and isn't in the communal areas. But it's not just smoke because it's smoke that is toxic. Now, toxicity
01:57:43 is toxic. Now, toxicity combined with environmental issues is something we would ask you to consider being put specifically on the list for experts uh or assessors andor a member
01:57:55 experts uh or assessors andor a member of the panel with a view to that because there were reports and I go carefully because they would have to be verified reports that a number of people were
01:58:07 reports that a number of people were treated for cyanide poisoning in hospitals. So the these are impacts which we say have got to be for the future considered within any contingency plan.
01:58:18 plan. So that by the time you've as it were weighed up these two aspects, the policy issue of having it all in one and the practicality of attempting to split this
01:58:29 practicality of attempting to split this up and then effectively what it would mean is that people would have to hang on to the results of phase one and and the impact of phase one until you get to phase two. Now on the timetable I don't
01:58:42 phase two. Now on the timetable I don't want to preempt it. It would appear that phase two wouldn't start much well it wouldn't start before the autumn as such as a phase. It would start after the report into phase one final. Therefore
01:58:55 report into phase one final. Therefore it's delayed too much. There's it would have one thing to have delay to prepare quite another when the delay by then would be far too long in terms of an effective report uh on the overall
01:59:07 effective report uh on the overall question that is the one that everyone wants answered but it's already been mentioned I just put as a footnote doing it this way as it were revisiting the issue and
01:59:18 it were revisiting the issue and deciding that it can all be done as one ongoing matter without jeopardizing anybody else you could at any point. The panel could at any point just say as has been said
01:59:30 at any point just say as has been said for coroners, you you you enter as it were an interim, not not your version of an interim, but an interim interim. In other words, uh a few weeks down the
01:59:41 other words, uh a few weeks down the line when you've got enough information to indicate and identify what has really gone wrong, you can you can put that into the government and suggest that the these matters require urgent attention.
01:59:53 these matters require urgent attention. So that would be a way of as it were dealing with that. So unless unless there are any other questions on that issue, I pass to the the the the last one
02:00:06 the the the last one that uh I I would like to address and this this is the question and again it has a ramification for uh the question of confidence and that is assessors
02:00:21 of confidence and that is assessors because
02:00:23 because and I say it on behalf of another group as well so council who can't be here today. Uh but one of the concerns is that the assessors that you already have
02:00:35 that the assessors that you already have may have um some experience I I I cite one Joe Montgomery uh in relation to areas of urban regeneration and renewal.
02:00:46 areas of urban regeneration and renewal. But what the concern is whether there's any assessor, this is again going back to tenants and the families who actually has experience of social housing
02:00:57 has experience of social housing management. A and we say there isn't anybody who is at the moment on the assessor panel who's capable of really dealing with that that aspect of it. And
02:01:09 dealing with that that aspect of it. And so we would ask that uh consideration is given to appointing somebody who has has that experience and who can advise in relation to that that will infuse the
02:01:21 relation to that that will infuse the confidence issue if there is somebody who's got that experience. Now we appreciate the terms of reference don't go as wide as many wanted in the first
02:01:33 go as wide as many wanted in the first place and that's another aspect of it which has caused concern. But there are it's very very difficult when one gets to the division and certainly phase two
02:01:44 to the division and certainly phase two to not have regard to aspects of social housing as it affected how these people were dealt with before the people who lived in that area as opposed to any
02:01:56 lived in that area as opposed to any other area and how questions of safety were addressed and more particularly financed.
02:02:03 financed. And that's the these are issues that the families again would like put to the four in order for answers to be given.
02:02:16 So that in in summary form therefore the the matters that I've raised all go to one issue and at the end of the day and that is the real desire that the
02:02:27 that is the real desire that the families have to engage. They want to be involved, but they want to be, as it were, feeling and being seen to do that through the measures that we've attempted to put forward constructively.
02:02:38 attempted to put forward constructively. Thank you very much indeed.
02:03:02 Your t your turn has come. Yes. And it may be possible even if you want to take the whole of your 30 minutes to complete you before we stop for lunch if
02:03:14 complete you before we stop for lunch if that's what you'd like to do. Yes. That that would probably be very helpful around. I'm not putting you under any pressure. No.
02:03:20 No. 30 minutes even if you overrun. Thank you. Um well I'm Pete Weatherbe and I am here representing uh 73 uh individuals who are either core
02:03:31 uh individuals who are either core participants or those who are awaiting that status. Uh and um um they are a mixture of um people from the tower and
02:03:42 mixture of um people from the tower and from the walkways. Uh some of them are berieved, some of them are survivors. Uh some of them are displaced residents and of course some of them are in each of those uh categories. Um, as you've been
02:03:54 those uh categories. Um, as you've been told, um, uh, we've, uh, representatives of the, uh, the victim core participants have used our time usefully, um, in terms of taking the inquiries prompt to
02:04:08 terms of taking the inquiries prompt to try to avoid repetition. Uh, we've taken that seriously. Uh, and indeed, as you know, many of us have considerable experience of doing this in previous proceedings. Um and therefore um I I I'm
02:04:22 proceedings. Um and therefore um I I I'm the appointed person to deal mainly with disclosure which I will um come on uh to uh after I made some uh preliminary uh comments if I may.
02:04:34 comments if I may. Um I I also like to make clear uh publicly that that I've spoken to two of your leading council and I view that as a particularly important part of the
02:04:45 a particularly important part of the whole process to keep a dialogue going between uh all um uh C participants and um your inquiry team. Um also within the
02:04:56 um your inquiry team. Um also within the the families and individuals representatives um we are actively discussing ways of combining to uh deal with future parts of the inquiry in the
02:05:07 with future parts of the inquiry in the most efficient way possible. Uh plainly, no one has a bigger stake in the success of both the criminal investigations and this inquiry uh than those who've lost family members and
02:05:19 those who've lost family members and friends, the injured, the survivors, those who have lost their homes and lost their communities. Uh on behalf of all of those that that I represent, I make clear um that all of
02:05:32 represent, I make clear um that all of my representations to you today and going forward will have that well in mind.
02:05:38 mind. Um I also make clear that we intend to engage fully uh with the inquiry uh assist its work. However uh that does not mean that we will do so passively or
02:05:51 not mean that we will do so passively or indeed uncritically where appropriate and that leads me to um a first submission. uh that indeed many of uh those that I
02:06:03 uh that indeed many of uh those that I represent are disappointed that six months on from the disaster. Um there is a lack of progress with the inquiry particularly with the issue of
02:06:14 particularly with the issue of disclosure. Uh they are also concerned at the uh provisional nature of the timetable. Of course, we all recognize that that's a matter that needs to evolve.
02:06:27 matter that needs to evolve. But today uh we would certainly um uh wish to come away uh from these hearings or in the next few days perhaps come away from these uh hearings um with a
02:06:38 away from these uh hearings um with a commitment to the fullest possible uh disclosure to a commitment to an immediate start to the disclosure process to C core participants.
02:06:50 participants. uh to a plan to provide us as soon as possible um with a roadmap of what material the inquiry currently has, what
02:07:01 material the inquiry currently has, what it expects um to receive in due course uh and a an idea of when it expects to uh receive that material uh and therefore onwards to where when it might
02:07:13 therefore onwards to where when it might be disclosed. We we say and we know that you recognize that justice cannot be delivered to the victims of Greful by courier. It has to
02:07:25 victims of Greful by courier. It has to be uh with the involvement it has to be achieved with the involvement of all and in particular uh the victims. Most of the questions that are being posed to us at the moment perfectly
02:07:37 posed to us at the moment perfectly properly uh about how witness statements are to be provided and when about input into the instruction of experts about timetable
02:07:49 timetable uh we can only properly answer these questions once the disclosure process starts to roll. Let let me just give a a quick example. I'll come back to it with experts.
02:08:02 I'll come back to it with experts. Although very recently we've had uh the disclosure of the letters of instruction, um we haven't had any of the material or indeed knowledge of any of the material that the experts have been provided
02:08:14 that the experts have been provided with. In those circumstances, it's uh impossible for me to properly advise my clients or revert to the inquiry with with proper uh comments about the
02:08:26 with proper uh comments about the instruction of experts. Before I come to disclosure in a little more detail, um can I just um um uh uh turn to uh two topics which others have
02:08:37 turn to uh two topics which others have and will speak about only because they are so important. Uh I wanted to say that we uh fully endorse these submissions by Mr. Mansfield
02:08:49 submissions by Mr. Mansfield um that the inquiry uh should uh uh sit with the panel. We fully understand that that's not in your gift. Um but we would seek um that the inquiry is proactive on
02:09:02 seek um that the inquiry is proactive on on that uh um issue. We hear what um you've you have said this morning about a consultative group uh and we will certainly go back and take instructions
02:09:13 certainly go back and take instructions about that. But we would urge you strongly not to view a consultative group as being any substitution for uh a a proper panel. they are two distinct uh
02:09:26 a proper panel. they are two distinct uh and different uh issues. Uh we also uh strongly uh support submissions regarding uh diversity that have been made and are going to be made in more uh
02:09:38 made and are going to be made in more uh detail by Ms. Monroe when I finish my um submissions. Uh diversity has to be a central consideration at all stages of the inquiry.
02:09:49 the inquiry. Uh we say this that if you were to sit with a panel which reflected uh the community which has been visited by this tragedy uh then it would uh send a clear
02:10:02 tragedy uh then it would uh send a clear message that the inquiry understood the concerns of the community and the needs of diversity. We've made further written submissions about that and I won't trespass
02:10:13 trespass uh much further on this subject. But in terms of diversity, we stress that our clients are all different. They are young and old, men and women.
02:10:27 are young and old, men and women. They're from diverse heritage. Most of my clients are Muslim. Many of them from a North African heritage. They
02:10:38 them from a North African heritage. They need an inquiry uh at all levels to understand their experience so far as that is possible uh and in order to give them the confidence uh that the inquiry
02:10:51 confidence uh that the inquiry understands diversity and that it'll be uh uh it'll be marked by action uh and hopefully the composition of the inquiry and not simply by words. Uh before uh I
02:11:03 and not simply by words. Uh before uh I I go to my main topic again one further matter phases uh we've listened carefully to what's been said by the the others ahead of me
02:11:14 been said by the the others ahead of me in in respect of phases. Uh we don't have a fixed view on on whether there should be two phases. Uh we make the comment that time has rolled on of
02:11:26 comment that time has rolled on of course for whatever reason. uh and we note the comments that have been very properly made about the equivalent of preventing further death recommendations that can be made. And we make the
02:11:38 that can be made. And we make the comment that were for example uh one of the expert reports to come back to you in a month or six weeks time was to raise a matter which was of urgent
02:11:50 raise a matter which was of urgent concern. Then of course you wouldn't wait until the end of phase one or phase two or phase whatever. you would report that um um immediately.
02:12:01 that um um immediately. So we we doubt the the efficacy of having two phases, but as I say, we don't have a strong view on that. Witness statements. We've listened carefully again to um the need for
02:12:14 carefully again to um the need for witnesses to provide evidence about the 14th of June as soon as possible. uh we will um assist in that process to the fullest extent possible and we've
02:12:26 the fullest extent possible and we've estimated um a time scale of 6 to 8 weeks although that could be um optimistic. Uh it will depend we would say um on the progress that is made with
02:12:37 say um on the progress that is made with um disclosure and how quickly that can be made.
02:12:41 be made. Um we uh are sure that the inquiry will recognize that our clients um are not only important witnesses but participants and victims and must be
02:12:52 participants and victims and must be treated as such. So the disclosure that is made cannot simply be tailored to the issues of them giving a witness statement and in particular it can't be
02:13:03 statement and in particular it can't be tailored to to giving one part of their story the 14th of June. So um I move on um to um uh disclosure.
02:13:14 So um I move on um to um uh disclosure. In general terms the default position we say should be that call participants should see everything that the inquiry sees. We accept of course that there are
02:13:25 sees. We accept of course that there are categories of material which are out of scope. Um, we accept that there are exceptions, narrow exceptions we would say, where disclosure may not be
02:13:36 say, where disclosure may not be appropriate or indeed where delays to disclosure might be necessary. For example, for the purposes of the criminal investigations. But these exceptions we say should be
02:13:47 But these exceptions we say should be considered by application as against the default position. Uh they should not be assumed.
02:13:55 assumed. We understand uh for example there may be um um applications to withhold or um redact documents because of commercial sensitivities
02:14:07 sensitivities uh about contracts. Uh these of course may be at the center of parts of of your inquiry
02:14:15 inquiry whether corners were cut because of financial uh considerations. Uh we would um um hope um that the uh inquiry uh would receive applications
02:14:28 inquiry uh would receive applications for such redaction or withholding of disclosure and would uh promulgate them to the uh all of the the CPS in terms that submissions may be made uh as a
02:14:39 that submissions may be made uh as a part of process. Have have you got a process in mind by which that could be done without disclosing that which ought not to be disclosed? Well, um uh well, you might you might be prepared to
02:14:51 well, you might you might be prepared to discuss some. Of course, we'll discuss that with with your team, but but that those sorts of problems are not uncommon. Uh and therefore, um uh categories of documents, for example, can be dealt
02:15:03 documents, for example, can be dealt with. In the example I give, I I would venture that there would be no great difficulty in that process um uh doing doing that uh uh uh in in very short
02:15:15 doing that uh uh uh in in very short order.
02:15:17 order. um from our discussions um we don't think that the default position that we put forward is particularly controversial of full disclosure. We would hope not. Uh if it is, we're happy
02:15:30 would hope not. Uh if it is, we're happy to uh have it out further at a future um uh uh uh hearing, but the process that Mr. the Freriedman has spoken to under article two uh we would say uh uh
02:15:43 article two uh we would say uh uh compels the inquiry to take that as a default position in terms of a full effective and independent investigation. Uh uh full disclosure not only to the
02:15:54 Uh uh full disclosure not only to the inquiry but to the bereaveved and survivors is fundamental to illuminating the facts and reaching judgments. uh uh and it's essential also to the confidence in the process by those
02:16:06 confidence in the process by those affected and indeed the public more generally. A full disclosure also has a further role in confirming uh uh or allaying rumor and suspicion
02:16:17 allaying rumor and suspicion uh whether well-based or false and there are of course u uh well-known cases where lack of disclosure has led to substantial miscarriages of justice.
02:16:30 substantial miscarriages of justice. So to the nuts and bolts, if I may, of disclosure,
02:16:36 there are very obviously two uh stages to uh disclosure, at least two stages to to disclosure. Uh production to the uh inquiry and disclosure from the inquiry.
02:16:47 inquiry and disclosure from the inquiry. And can I just uh uh deal with that in in those two parts? Um we uh note that the inquiry has sent letters of request to various bodies. We five particular
02:16:59 to various bodies. We five particular points to make uh regarding production to the inquiries. Um we particularly refer to paragraph six and onwards and particularly 10 in our written
02:17:10 particularly 10 in our written submissions. But I want to start with a submission which we set out at paragraph 16 and this relates to cander. In our submission, the inquiry should
02:17:21 In our submission, the inquiry should seek position statements um from all the public authorities and other organizations and companies who may have uh an involvement in the disaster and we
02:17:33 uh an involvement in the disaster and we say that the inquiry should do so without delay. It should do so now. Experience has shown that such institutions and entities don't always act with cander. Uh there has been much
02:17:46 act with cander. Uh there has been much public debate following other high-profile inquiries and investigations concerning institutional defensiveness uh uh what has been described as a culture of denial. Uh there are in fact
02:17:59 culture of denial. Uh there are in fact specific regulations dealing with the duty of cander in the health care sector for that very reason. Uh experience also shows it is that if
02:18:10 Uh experience also shows it is that if there is cander at an early stage, the victims of such a traumatic disaster uh may not have to be subjected to such unnecessarily long proceedings. Uh and
02:18:23 unnecessarily long proceedings. Uh and the inquiry itself would be hugely assisted uh by being informed of areas of evidence which are less controversial than they might otherwise have been assumed to be. Let me develop this Um
02:18:37 assumed to be. Let me develop this Um the public authorities here, the other institutions, the companies involved six months on from the disaster uh will have gathered their own material, formed
02:18:48 gathered their own material, formed their views of what they uh uh understood happened. Uh and they will know to a significant degree uh if there were failures on their part and what
02:19:00 were failures on their part and what those failures were. given the imperative that this inquiry comes uh as quickly as is possible to conclusions that will prevent further disaster and loss of
02:19:12 prevent further disaster and loss of life. uh and given the duty of cander on public officials and authorities which exists both at common law and under the convention. Um we um submit that such
02:19:23 convention. Um we um submit that such position statement setting out as full a statement of what they say happened and crucially what failures uh they accept on their behalf should be sought um
02:19:35 on their behalf should be sought um immediately. The position statements would greatly assist the inquiry in targeting further disclosure, honing expert evidence, tailoring the hearings to those areas that actually are in
02:19:47 to those areas that actually are in dispute or are unclear. Um given the public interest in Graanful, we would hope that none of the public officials or authorities who of course work for the public interest
02:20:00 course work for the public interest um or or should do or those organizations or companies who've undertaken management or work at public expense uh would resist the provision of such position statements. But if they do
02:20:12 such position statements. But if they do uh resist such transparency and openness um in the cause of giving the victims of greater justice and assisting the inquiry, then of course let them explain why.
02:20:24 why. Uh we remind the inquiry and everybody else that in criminal matters, defendants are now required uh to give uh a a statement setting out their case and what part of the prosecution case uh
02:20:38 and what part of the prosecution case uh they take uh issue with. uh in civil proceedings. Of course, the defense has been um required for many years. Uh what is therefore the imperative in inquisitorial proceedings?
02:20:51 imperative in inquisitorial proceedings? One would hope that position statements would be seen by all as a common common sense and important aid uh through which to get to the truth as efficiently and as quickly as possible.
02:21:05 as quickly as possible. Four other quick points on the production to the inquiry. they've been dealt with in some uh uh uh uh uh uh way by uh Mr. Miller this morning. Uh
02:21:16 by uh Mr. Miller this morning. Uh firstly, that producers of documents should be left in no doubt as that to their duty of cander and frankness uh to the inquiry. They should be in no doubt that
02:21:28 They should be in no doubt that disclosure should be made where there's any doubt. Secondly, um we would seek transparenc transparency about the process of production uh and the correspondence
02:21:39 production uh and the correspondence generated by it. We do seek disclosure of the letters of request for material and the responses to those um letters of request. Uh we don't frankly understand
02:21:53 request. Uh we don't frankly understand uh the reticence uh uh to be transparent about this part of the process. If a public authority or a company or anybody else
02:22:04 else uh is expressing doubt about uh their disclosure uh uh duties or there are delays then with respect we should know about it and we should be in a position to make
02:22:16 we should be in a position to make submissions about it. Thirdly, we note that uh there is a uh suggestion from council to the inquiry uh that um signed statements from chief
02:22:28 uh that um signed statements from chief officers or chief executives of each producer of documents uh may be uh required.
02:22:35 required. We would invite you to consider making that um a requirement in each case. Firstly, so that no one is actually singled out, but also so that nobody is
02:22:46 singled out, but also so that nobody is missed. Uh and lastly, in our written submissions, we've raised the issue uh of the need to uh uh uh uh uh gather
02:22:57 of the need to uh uh uh uh uh gather original documents and in particular take close attention to electronic documents. But I hear what Mr. Miller says about that. and I'll say no more about it. Finally, in terms of production,
02:23:09 in terms of production, um we say um that um the relationship between the police investigation and the inquiry is something that we've all acknowledged as being one of sensitivity
02:23:22 acknowledged as being one of sensitivity and difficulty. We accept that. Um but uh uh uh beyond that acceptance of course the victims have a key interest in both the investigation and the
02:23:34 in both the investigation and the inquiry and although the concerns that are raised are uh very legitimate. uh they should not be allowed to unnecessarily impede the proper progress
02:23:45 unnecessarily impede the proper progress of the inquiry and therefore the relationship between the inquiry and the police investigation um should acknowledge that the problems that are raised are in fact in practice
02:23:58 that are raised are in fact in practice less than sometimes supposed. Mr. Mansfield has adverted to uh another uh um inquest in which both of us were involved um where the relationship
02:24:10 involved um where the relationship between the inquiry uh and the um uh investigation um uh managed to cut a middle line um um very carefully. So finally in terms of
02:24:22 very carefully. So finally in terms of disclosure to core participants uh we've already emphasized the necessity of full full disclosure. We note that that is acknowledged in the written um uh material before uh today's
02:24:34 written um uh material before uh today's hearing. However, we also note that there has reference to selective disclosure in some of those documents. Um and we respectfully uh um uh submit
02:24:46 Um and we respectfully uh um uh submit that there is something of a mixed message here. Uh we would invite you to make clear uh that the default position will be um
02:24:57 that the default position will be um full disclosure full disclosure. We say that um uh disclosure to core participants should be of everything relevant or potentially relevant apart
02:25:08 relevant or potentially relevant apart from the small uh narrow areas where there is a counterveailing public um interest.
02:25:16 Um um we say that the process that has worked elsewhere should be uh to recognize that disclosure uh has to be
02:25:27 recognize that disclosure uh has to be made on an an ad hoc and somewhat chaotic uh way. Uh I say that because producers of documents will produce those documents at different times and
02:25:39 those documents at different times and that the only practical way of doing it and maintaining the progress of the inquiry in our respectful submission is to treat disclosure as it comes in to
02:25:52 to treat disclosure as it comes in to triage it for relevance uh and to take those narrow areas where disclosure can't be made um out of it and then to disclose it disclose it in trenches and
02:26:03 disclose it disclose it in trenches and we would invite the uh in inquiry to look carefully at doing that and do that. Now the idea that the inquiry needs to wait until um it gets
02:26:14 needs to wait until um it gets disclosure about particular parts of the list of issues before disclosure can be considered and then made to core participants is a process that we would say will not work and more more than
02:26:27 say will not work and more more than that will lead to huge delays in terms of disclosure and then an inability by any of the core participants the individuals or the organizations to be
02:26:38 individuals or the organizations to be able to manage that disclosure and properly prepare and make proper submissions about experts, witness statements, hearings or whatever. And so we would urge you to rethink that uh and
02:26:51 we would urge you to rethink that uh and to to make disclosure um in trenches as has been um um uh suggested. Further to the general disclosure process, um we note that of course the
02:27:04 process, um we note that of course the inquiry has priorities. is there's been discussion about phase one and 14th of June. Um apart from the general disclosure, we would invite the um um
02:27:15 disclosure, we would invite the um um inquiry team to prioritize certain areas. Um there's been discussion about the witness statements that that our clients are being asked to provide.
02:27:26 clients are being asked to provide. Um we would um um urge the inquiry to take a wide view of the um disclosure that's required for those witness
02:27:37 that's required for those witness statements. It simply isn't just that our clients need to see their police statements. There is a whole uh number of different areas that they need to see. uh some of
02:27:50 areas that they need to see. uh some of our clients uh want to give statements which uh uh uh uh consider many different areas apart from the 14th of
02:28:01 different areas apart from the 14th of June from which of course we will extract uh those relevant parts for the the phase one but we can't take that statement without having a greater amount of disclosure.
02:28:13 amount of disclosure. Uh we note that there there hasn't been any discussion this morning about um video footage. Uh we would invite the inquiry uh to make available to core
02:28:25 inquiry uh to make available to core participants all of the video footage that's available of the uh fire and its immediate aftermath and all of the 999 calls um as well as the other matters
02:28:37 calls um as well as the other matters Mr. Freriedman in particular uh listed which are appended to his submissions uh and to those which are appended to the fire brigade union uh uh submissions
02:28:48 fire brigade union uh uh submissions which have been very helpful. Uh it is in our our submission essential that we have such material so that we know what questions we should be asking
02:28:59 know what questions we should be asking of our clients to elicit the relevant material. Uh we also wish to have the housing and repair files which may well
02:29:10 housing and repair files which may well uh bring to the four complaints that have been made by um our clients about safety issues uh and the such like. So the fuller the uh disclosure that's made at this state this this um um juncture
02:29:25 at this state this this um um juncture uh the better the statements that we um provide to the inquiry the more useful they will be. Um those are our submissions. Um beyond those um we we endorse what's been said
02:29:37 those um we we endorse what's been said about experts with the caveats that I've um uh spoken to already. Uh and we note you will be addressed further about the venue for hearings and we would like to
02:29:48 venue for hearings and we would like to put on record um that our our view is that the venue should be at at a a location closer to uh where the disaster occurred. I don't know whether there's anything I can assist with further than
02:30:00 anything I can assist with further than that.
02:30:00 that. I think not at the moment. Thank you. But that's certainly been very useful and very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. And very good timing if I may say so. Um before uh we all rise for some lunch,
02:30:13 Um before uh we all rise for some lunch, Miss Murphy, you wanted to be included in this list of those who are going to address me. So when I saw the time that I was in Mr.
02:30:25 I was in Mr. points.
02:30:26 points. He He's going to take your point. Oh, well that's a shame because I was going to tell you that as a result of all other council being so efficient, there's quarter an hour in the timetable which you could have. We thought we would prepare.
02:30:39 We thought we would prepare. All right. So, um after the lunch break, we'll go straight to uh Miss Monroe. Is that right?
02:30:50 Right. Uh good. Thank you very much. Well, that's that's a good time. We'll stop now for some lunch and uh start again at 2:00, please. Thank you very much.