Grenfell Inquiry judge will limit recommendations despite expert advice, letter reveals

Sent on 5 April

The purpose of this letter is to explain the approach the chairman intends to take in relation to urgent interim recommendations following consideration of the various submissions he has received from core participants, and the views of the inquiry’s experts who were asked to express their opinions about what recommendations could and should be made now.

As part of the inquiry’s terms of reference the prime minister has asked the chairman to make such recommendations as he considers appropriate in the light of the facts that are uncovered as a result of the inquiry’s investigations.

If recommendations are to carry weight with those to whom they are directed they must be clearly supported by the inquiry’s findings, which must in turn be clearly supported by the evidence.

The chairman’s findings will be set out in his report to the prime minister, together with a summary of the evidence on which they are based, so that those who read the report can understand the position clearly.

For that reason recommendations are normally set out in the report and linked to the findings.

That would not prevent the chairman from writing to the prime minister at an earlier stage, if he had discovered something that in his view was so urgent that it called for immediate action in the interests of public safety, but that would be unusual.

If a recommendation of that kind were to carry any weight, however, it would also have to be supported by a summary of the evidence and conclusions on which it was based.

At the procedural hearing on 3 September 2018 counsel for some of the core participants submitted that a number of steps were so urgently required in the interests of public safety, and were so obvious, that they should be the subject of interim recommendations in advance of the Phase 1 Report now being prepared.

In the light of those submissions the chairman agreed to allow core participants to suggest potential recommendations and a timetable for doing so was subsequently set.

At that stage the chairman envisaged that at some point it might be helpful to have a hearing to discuss the suggestions and responses to them and provision for that was also made, together with an opportunity for him to seek advice from the expert witnesses instructed by the inquiry.

Short reports from those experts from whom the chairman has sought advice have now been received and are being disclosed to core participants today.

The chairman has given careful consideration to the proposals put forward by core participants and to the statements from various institutional bodies about the steps they have taken in response to the fire.

He has also considered the advice he has received from the inquiry’s experts.

Although many useful suggestions have been made which may contribute to recommendations in the Phase 1 Report, the range and divergence of views expressed by those who have offered suggestions (as well as by the experts) have led the chairman to the conclusion that there are no steps whose implementation is of such immediate obviousness, urgency and importance that he should write to the prime minister with recommendations in advance of the Phase 1 Report.

The chairman is concerned to ensure that subjects of wide-ranging importance are fully and carefully considered in the context of the broader evidence to be heard at Phase 2, when the inquiry’s investigations will include some areas of interest that were touched on, but not fully explored, in Phase 1.

Until that has been done it is not possible to determine in relation to any particular area of investigation whether limited changes are called for or more radical reform is required.

The divergence of opinion between the core participants themselves and between some of the inquiry’s experts, is a strong indication that the question of recommendations is far from simple and needs to be firmly rooted in the chairman’s analysis of the evidence and his conclusions based on it.

The chairman intends to complete his Phase 1 Report and send it to the prime minister as soon as possible.

For the reasons set out earlier, the nature and scope of any recommendations made in that report will depend on his findings which must themselves be based on the evidence adduced at Phase 1.

However, in addition to making formal recommendations, the chairman also intends to consider whether he should draw attention in his report to areas of particular concern that call for immediate review by those responsible for them and, if necessary, further investigation in Phase 2 of the inquiry.

Indeed, the chairman would go further. It is clear from the opinions expressed by the inquiry’s experts in their various reports, including their reports on recommendations, that they harbour very significant concerns which call out, they believe, for urgent reform, and in some cases very far-reaching reform.

Those concerns arise now. All those interested, whether they are commercial or public bodies, should note them with care. The fact that the chairman does not consider it appropriate to make any particular recommendation at this stage should not be taken as an indication that he does not regard the matter as important or that he will not make a recommendation in due course.

The fact that in some instances the inquiry’s experts have expressed views on matters which will be investigated in Phase 2 (such as the adequacy of the current testing regime) reflects both the width of their instructions, their honestly held views based on their expertise and experience, and the fact that core participants themselves have raised concerns about matters that will be considered in Phase 2.

The fact that such concerns may be regarded as Phase 2 matters on which the evidence is at present incomplete should not be taken as a reason for ignoring them.

The chairman is grateful for all the proposals and suggestions put forward by core participants, all of which he will take into consideration when writing his Phase 1 Report.

However, in the light of the matters set out above he has come to the view that any recommendations that can be made at this stage ought to be made in that report.

In those circumstances, he does not think that at this stage an oral hearing to discuss recommendations would be of assistance.

The following documents will be available in the Core Participant Workspace on Relativity later today as Phase 1 Disclosure Tranche 106:

1. Letter of Instruction to Prof Luke Bisby

2. Letter of Instruction to Prof Edwin Galea

3. Letter of Instruction to Prof José Torero

4. Letter of Instruction to Dr Barbara Lane

5. Letter of Instruction to Colin Todd

6. Letter of Instruction to Steve Mc Guirk

7. Summary Table of Core Participants’ Submissions on Recommendations

8. Report of Prof Luke Bisby

9. Report of Prof Edwin Galea

10. Report of Prof José Torero

11. Report of Dr Barbara Lane

12. Report of Colin Todd

13. Report of Steve McGuirk.

Yours faithfully,

Caroline Featherstone

Solicitor to the Inquiry