NEWS Grenfell inquiry resumes after three months


THE INQUIRY resumed hearing oral evidence ‘on a limited attendance basis’ from Monday 6 July, after having been suspended since the COVID-19 lockdown took effect. In March, the inquiry discussed


plans to potentially resume hearings remotely, after chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick suspended hearings due to the COVID-19 outbreak. A later update noted that ‘the work of the inquiry continues’, and ‘potential options’ for hearings to continue were outlined, with core participants and witnesses written to, in order to establish their views on three options. These were suspending hearings until social restrictions ‘have been lifted’; conducting them remotely via video conferencing; or resuming with limited attendance ‘when social restrictions are partially lifted’. In late May, it had received responses that ‘indicated a substantial consensus in favour of limited attendance hearings’, and had ‘come to the clear conclusion’ that this ‘present[ed] the best way in which the Inquiry can pursue its important work with the necessary urgency’.


Consequently, it was developing


a ‘detailed plan for implementing this’, and enabling hearings to resume ‘safely and in accordance with government guidance’. The earliest it believed it would ‘be possible to resume’ was July, as ‘it [was] likely to take up to a month to reorganise the inquiry’s premises in an appropriate way and to reschedule the witnesses for Module 1’. Most recently, it was ‘working


towards’ resuming on Monday 6 July, and was ‘proceeding on the basis that the current restrictions will remain in place’. Hearings would ‘only resume if it is safe to do so’ and if proceedings remained ‘consistent with the available guidance’ as well as the ‘easing of restrictions’. The ‘primary concern is the


health, safety and wellbeing of all those who would need to attend’, and it had been working alongside contractors ‘to put arrangements in


place so that a limited number of attendees’ can use the premises ‘safely and in line with government guidelines’. In addition to that, a ‘thorough’ risk assessment process was to be undertaken by the Government Property Agency ‘to ensure compliance with all health and safety requirements’. For arrangements to be ‘effective’,


it would ‘need to begin by restricting attendance’ to panel members, counsel and witnesses, as well as their legal representative ‘and any person providing immediate support’, alongside inquiry staff and contractors ‘critical to the operation of the hearings’. A member of the Press Association would attend ‘to enable first-hand reporting and assist in making the process as transparent as possible’. Hearings would ‘continue to


be streamed online’ and remote wellbeing support services would ‘continue to be available’ for the bereaved, survivors and residents. Attendance numbers will be kept ‘under constant review’ and the inquiry is ‘particularly keen’ for the bereaved, survivors and residents ‘to return when possible, but their safety must be our overriding concern and it is too early to suggest when or how that might be possible’.


In its latest update, the


inquiry noted that it has ‘made preparations in order to protect everyone involved, particularly


12 JULY/AUGUST 2020 www.frmjournal.com


those in vulnerable groups’, and ‘ensure that their safety is in no way compromised by the wider desire to continue’. By maintaining social distancing and ‘managing touch points’, it would aim to ‘protect the health, safety and wellbeing of all those who need to attend’. While it was clear from the


consultation that ‘the consensus’ was that it ‘should begin taking evidence in limited attendance hearings’, the inquiry ‘acknowledges the importance of allowing the bereaved, survivors and residents to be present in the building as soon as possible’. However, being an inquiry ‘concerned with building safety, they also know the particular importance of taking health and safety guidance extremely seriously’. As guidance remains that a two


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


reconfigured’, and while ‘relatively straightforward to maintain social distancing in the hearing room’, this is ‘more challenging’ at break times ‘when people are moving around


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60