CHAIRMAN’S OPENING STATEMENT
This is the formal opening of the public inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower in June
this year. On that dreadful occasion, exactly 3 months ago, at least 80 people died when
the building was engulfed by flames in a tragedy unprecedented in modern times.
It is fitting that we should remember with humility and compassion those who died in the
fire, their families and friends and all who grieve for them.
I therefore invite you to stand and join me in observing a minute’s silence as a mark of
respect for those who died and for those whose lives have been changed for ever by the
loss of those whom they loved.
[A PERIOD OF SILENCE]
It is right that at the very outset of the Inquiry I should express on my own behalf and on
behalf of all members of the Inquiry team the dismay and sadness we feel at the loss of
life, devastation and injury caused by the fire. We are acutely aware, not only that so
many people died or were injured in the fire, but that many of those who survived have
been severely affected by their experiences. We are also conscious that many have lost
everything and even now are dependent on others for many of their daily needs. The
Inquiry cannot undo any of that, but it can and will provide answers to the pressing
questions of how a disaster of this kind could occur in 21st century London and thereby, I
hope, provide a small measure of solace.
It is also right to recall that a disaster of this magnitude provided an unprecedented
challenge to the emergency services, in particular the London Fire Brigade. There are
many aspects of the response to the fire that the Inquiry will wish to examine, but it is
right that I should pay tribute to the members of the Fire and Rescue Service, many of
whom risked their own lives in an attempt to save others.
1
And last, but by no means least, I should like to pay tribute to the members of the local
community who, together with volunteers from outside, have done so much to help and
support each other in these very difficult weeks. I was astonished to learn recently that
some children who had escaped from the tower had gone into school the next day to take
their exams and by all accounts had managed to do very well in them. It would be
difficult to find a better example of the fortitude and resilience of the community.
In response to that terrible event, on 28
th
June the Prime Minister appointed me to chair a
public inquiry into the disaster. The purpose of the inquiry was to find out what had
happened and why it had happened, with a view to ensuring that a similar catastrophe
could never occur again.
On 5
th
July a public consultation was launched about the Inquiry’s terms of reference. The
consultation continued until 4
th
August, by which time over 550 responses had been
received, including many from among those who had been residents of Grenfell Tower
and other parts of the Lancaster West estate.
In the light of the responses to the consultation I wrote to the Prime Minister on
10
th
August recommending terms of reference, which she subsequently accepted. A copy
of my letter and of the Prime Minister’s reply can be found on the Inquiry website.
Following that exchange of correspondence the Inquiry was formally set up on
15
th
August.
In my letter I also said that I was giving active thought to appointing assessors to provide
me with advice. Since then I have had discussions with a number of people who seemed
to me likely to be able to bring to the Inquiry expertise and perspectives which I do not
myself possess. I know that many of the survivors would like me to appoint someone
from among their number, or perhaps another local resident, as one of my assessors.
Many of them can, of course, provide valuable evidence and I shall ensure that all their
evidence is heard and carefully considered, but to appoint as an assessor someone who
had had direct involvement in the fire would risk undermining my impartiality in the eyes
2
of others who are deeply involved in the Inquiry. I have therefore come to the conclusion
that I cannot take that course. As a result, I have approached a number of people, all
completely independent of those whose conduct may have to be investigated, who have
expertise of a social and administrative nature that enables them to provide me with the
assistance I need to carry out my task.
I shall also need the assistance of people who can give me expert advice in more technical
areas, in particular, the development of fires in high-rise residential buildings and the
intricacies of the building regulations, with particular reference to protection against fire.
I am currently in discussions with several people who, in my view, have the expertise
necessary to fulfil those roles and I am pleased to say that those discussions are making
good progress. I hope to be able to announce the appointment of the first group of
assessors within the next week or so.
My assessors will provide me with advice as may be appropriate throughout the Inquiry.
In general they will attend those hearings at which evidence is taken that falls within their
particular areas of expertise, but they will also keep themselves abreast of the proceedings
by familiarising themselves with the transcripts of the hearings they do not attend. When
the time comes to draft a report I shall look to them for their comments and advice, but
ultimately responsibility for the Inquiry’s findings and recommendations rests with me.
The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference have been widely published and can be found on its
website, but it may be useful if I read them out for the benefit of anyone who has not seen
them. They are:
“1. To examine the circumstances surrounding the fire at Grenfell Tower on
14 June 2017, including:
(a) the immediate cause or causes of the fire and the means by which it spread
to the whole of the building;
3
(b) the design and construction of the building and the decisions relating to its
modification, refurbishment and management;
(c) the scope and adequacy of building regulations, fire regulations and other
legislation, guidance and industry practice relating to the design, construction,
equipping and management of high-rise residential buildings;
(d) whether such regulations, legislation, guidance and industry practice were
complied with in the case of Grenfell Tower and the fire safety measures
adopted in relation to it;
(e) the arrangements made by the local authority or other responsible bodies
for receiving and acting upon information, either obtained from local residents
or available from other sources (including information derived from fires in
other buildings) relating to the risk of fire at Grenfell Tower, and the action
taken in response to such information;
(f) the fire prevention and fire safety measures in place at Grenfell Tower on
14 June 2017;
(g) the response of the London Fire Brigade to the fire; and
(h) the response of central and local government in the days immediately
following the fire;
and
2. To report its findings to the Prime Minister as soon as possible and to make
recommendations.”
The terms of reference are deliberately cast in broad terms in order to give me scope to
pursue whatever lines of inquiry seem likely to be fruitful. I think it worth emphasising
that the specific areas of investigation to which they refer are intended to identify the
main subjects of the Inquiry, but they are not intended to be exhaustive. It is for me to
interpret the terms of reference and I shall not be deflected from pursuing lines of enquiry
which may lead to information of value. I shall have more to say about that in a moment,
4
but it is important to understand the size of the task ahead. It will require much hard work
in obtaining and analysing documents and in the preparation of statements from those
who may be able to give valuable evidence. With the help of my team I intend to make
sure that the work proceeds as quickly as possible.
I have mentioned the Inquiry team and this may be a good moment to introduce them:
The Secretary to the Inquiry is
Mark Fisher
. He is an experienced civil servant
who was previously Director of the Office for Civil Society at the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport. Mark is the head of an administrative team which is
made up of a number of civil servants, chosen from many hundreds who
expressed interest in working for the Inquiry. His Deputy is Amanda Jeffery, who
acted as Secretary to the Hillsborough Inquest and before that as Deputy Secretary
to the Leveson Inquiry. The team handles the whole range of administrative tasks
and is currently based at the Royal Courts of Justice.
The Solicitor to the Inquiry is
Caroline Featherstone
. Caroline was previously a
senior solicitor in the Government Legal Department. As a Deputy Director she
led a large team dealing with many different kinds of litigation. She leads the
Inquiry’s team of three solicitors, which includes Cathy Kennedy and Shafi
Nasser, both of whom also come from the Government Legal Department.
I also have the benefit of a team of leading and junior counsel:
Richard Millett QC
was called to the Bar in 1985 and was appointed
Queen’s Counsel in 2003. He has extensive experience of handling
complex civil disputes of many kinds and sits as a Deputy High Court
Judge. He leads a team of five other barristers, each chosen for his or her
particular expertise;
Bernard Richmond QC
was called to the Bar in 1988 and was
appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2006. He is a criminal defence specialist
with substantial experience of cases involving vulnerable witnesses. He
also sits as an Assistant Coroner;
5
Kate Grange QC
was called to the Bar in 1998 and was appointed
Queen’s Counsel in 2017. She has particular expertise in relation to
commercial, construction, public and inquiry law;
Andrew Kinnier
and
Rose Grogan
are both Junior counsel. They are
familiar with the complex web of legislation and guidance which relates
to fire safety in buildings; Andrew also has experience of acting in large
public inquiries, including the Ladbrook Grove Inquiry;
Zeenat Islam
is another criminal defence specialist who will work in
conjunction with Bernard Richmond.
It is important to understand that the inquiry process is not adversarial. My task is not to
decide which of two (or more) competing parties has the better case; nor is it to punish
anyone or to award anyone compensation; it is simply to get at the truth with the help of
all those who have relevant evidence to give. The process should therefore be essentially
co-operative. Accordingly, the role of solicitors and counsel to the Inquiry is not to
promote any particular conclusion or result, still less to favour any particular witness or
class of witnesses. Rather, it is to place before me and before the public evidence that will
enable me to make findings about what occurred and put forward recommendations for
the future. They will do that by presenting the evidence in public hearings and by
questioning those witnesses whom I decide should be called to give oral evidence. When
required, they will also provide me with impartial advice on matters of law and
procedure. All hearings will be conducted in public unless the particular nature of the
evidence or argument requires otherwise.
I am well aware that the past few months have turned the world of those who live in
North Kensington upside down and that former residents of the tower and other local
people feel a great sense of anger and betrayal. That is entirely natural and
understandable, but if the Inquiry is to get to the truth of what happened, it must seek out
all the relevant evidence and examine it calmly and rationally. The solicitors and counsel
acting for the Inquiry will approach their task in that way, as I hope will the legal
representatives of the various Core Participants. In that way they will help us all discover
where the truth really lies.
6
I should also remind everyone that section 2 of the Inquiries Act 2005 prohibits me from
ruling on or determining anyone’s civil or criminal liability. However, the same section
also expressly provides that I am not to be inhibited by the likelihood of liability being
inferred from any findings or recommendations that I may make. I shall therefore not
shrink from making any findings or recommendations that are justified by the evidence
simply because someone else may at a later date consider that they form the basis of civil
or criminal liability. The police are, of course, conducting their own investigation into
possible criminal offences.
This room was chosen for today’s Formal Opening because it was necessary to find a
space large enough to accommodate the number of people it was thought might wish to
attend. I intend, if possible, to find a room of sufficient size in a convenient location for
future hearings at which evidence will be taken. Information about the time and place of
future hearings will be posted on the Inquiry’s website.
Information about how to make contact with the Inquiry Team in the meantime can be
obtained from those members of the team who are here this morning and from the Inquiry
website. In due course a transcript of today’s proceedings and any rulings and directions
which I may give from time to time will be posted on the website. Unless there is a good
reason not to do so in any particular case, the hearings themselves will be streamed live to
other locations, if there is sufficient demand for that, and through the Inquiry website, so
that the public as a whole can follow the proceedings. Transcripts of the hearings will be
posted on the website as soon as possible after the conclusion of each day’s proceedings.
The evidence given by witnesses at the hearings will, however, be only part of the
material which the Inquiry will have to consider. Much of that material will be in the
form of documents. I therefore intend to ensure that all relevant documents that can
properly be made public are scanned on to an electronic database which will allow them
to be called up and displayed on screens at the hearings and made available for inspection
through a link on the Inquiry website after they have been put in evidence.
7
Although the hearings will be streamed to places where they can be viewed
contemporaneously, I think it important that members of the public should be able to
attend the hearings in person, so far as reasonably practicable. I shall therefore take steps
to ensure that hearings at which evidence is to be taken are held in rooms large enough to
accommodate a substantial number of members of the public as well as representatives of
the press and media organisations.
I propose to conduct the Inquiry in two phases. In the first phase I shall investigate the
development of the fire itself, where and how it started, how it spread from its original
seat to other parts of the building and the chain of events that unfolded during the course
of the hours before it was finally extinguished. I shall also be looking into the response of
the emergency services and the evacuation of residents. It is necessary to address these
questions first for two reasons.
The first is because there is an urgent need to find out what aspects of the building’s
design and construction played a significant role in enabling the disaster to occur. That is
important because, if there are similar defects in other high-rise buildings, steps must be
taken quickly to ensure that those who live in them are kept safe.
The second is because until we understand the chain of events in some detail it will not
be possible to pinpoint the critical decisions that had a direct bearing on the exposure of
the building to the risk of an uncontrollable fire.
My intention is that as part of this first phase the Inquiry should obtain written and oral
evidence from those who can give direct accounts of what occurred on the night in
question. They will include, in particular, former residents of the tower who escaped the
fire, people living in the surrounding area and firefighters. Their evidence is likely to be
of great value and I hope that many will come forward to tell us about their personal
experiences. I shall also have access to photographs and video footage of the fire and
recordings of the calls made to the emergency services.
8
I know that giving evidence, whether in the form of a statement or in person, can be a
stressful experience for anyone, so I intend to ensure as far as possible that any former
residents of the tower, and indeed other residents of the Lancaster West estate, should be
asked to give evidence once only. I therefore intend that those who can provide evidence
relating to the first phase of the Inquiry should have the opportunity at the same time to
provide any evidence they may have about the matters that I shall be considering in the
second phase, such as concerns which they may have expressed before the fire about the
safety of the building or their experiences in the days immediately following the fire.
For some of those who escaped from the tower, however, the stress of giving evidence is
likely to be greatly magnified by the continuing effects of what can only have been a most
traumatic experience. I am acutely aware of the challenges that presents. I intend to do
everything possible to ensure that the process of assisting the Inquiry does not result in
further unnecessary suffering. To that end I shall be looking for particular help and co-
operation from those who represent the victims, the families and the emergency services.
I am open to suggestions about how I can obtain evidence from those witnesses in a
sensitive and appropriate way. The work of the Inquiry is urgent and there is an obvious
need to begin hearings as soon as possible, but I recognise that it is necessary to act with
sensitivity and compassion and I shall take whatever steps are appropriate in line with
current practice to ensure that witnesses are able to give the best evidence they can.
The second phase of the Inquiry will examine across a broad front how the building came
to be so seriously exposed to the risk of a disastrous fire. That will involve an
investigation into the design of the building, its modification from time to time over
previous years, the decisions relating to design and construction that were made in
connection with each of those modifications and the reasons for those decisions. I shall
also be asking whether at each stage of its development the building complied with the
regulations then in force and whether the regulations themselves were adequate. The
extent to which fire risk assessments were carried out and what steps were taken in
response to them will also come under scrutiny. Those and similar questions will assume
particular importance in relation to the most recent refurbishment of the building and the
fitting of the external cladding. One important part of my investigations will be to
examine the communications between residents and the Tenant Management
9
Organisation (the TMO) and the Council in relation to the safety of Grenfell Tower and
the responses to those communications.
As part of the second phase I shall also examine the response to the disaster and the steps
taken in the days immediately following the fire to provide food, shelter and other basic
amenities to those whose homes had been destroyed and who had lost everything.
This part of the Inquiry is likely to take rather longer than the first phase, because it will
require the examination of many documents obtained from the council, the TMO and
other bodies involved in the most recent refurbishment of the building, as well as
evidence from many of those who were personally involved in the decision-making
process.
Although I have referred to two phases of the Inquiry, I want to make it clear that I intend
that, as far as possible, work on both phases should proceed in parallel. The Solicitor to
the Inquiry has already written to several of the companies and other bodies that were
involved in the most recent refurbishment asking them to produce documents relating to
their particular areas of involvement. Those bodies include, of course, the Council and the
TMO. I have every reason to expect that we shall receive a very large number of
documents which will have to be read and analysed. That will take a considerable amount
of time, but many of those documents may not be of direct relevance to the first phase of
the Inquiry, so there is no reason why that work should hold up the first phase, which is
likely to turn more on evidence of a different kind.
As part of its preparation for the investigation my team has produced a list of issues
which is intended to set out in greater detail the questions that I shall seek to answer. It
will be published on the Inquiry website later today so that anyone who wishes to do so
can see what the Inquiry is aiming to do. But I need to sound one note of caution: the list
of issues is not intended to be an exhaustive summary of what the Inquiry will investigate.
It is in the very nature of a process of this kind that I shall want to follow up leads and
new lines of inquiry as they emerge, so the list of issues should be viewed more as a
statement of current thinking than a definitive programme of work.
10
As will be evident from the list of issues, the Terms of Reference encompass a wide range
of questions and indeed the specific matters to which they refer are not intended to be
restrictive. It is for me to interpret the Terms of Reference and I wish to emphasise that
the Inquiry is not limited to factual questions concerning the development of the fire, as I
hope I have already made clear. It is my intention to look closely at the ways in which
decisions relating to modifications to the building were reached, including the
considerations which motivated them. That will be an integral part of understanding how
and why this fire occurred and of learning lessons for the future.
The Inquiry Rules 2006 place certain duties upon me in relation to the designation of
Core Participants and of lawyers as recognised legal representatives. Procedures for
applying for Core Participant status were published on the Inquiry’s website in
midAugust and those who wish to become Core Participants were asked to make their
applications by 8 September. I have received around 300 such applications, most of them
at the end of last week. Through the Solicitor to the Inquiry I have already informed some
applicants that they will be given Core Participant status, but inevitably many
applications remain to be determined and are currently under consideration. The process
of dealing with them may take some time and in some cases I may need to hear oral
submissions to enable me to reach a decision. If so, arrangements will be made for
hearings to be held for that purpose.
Core Participants are, of course, entitled to be legally represented, but where several of
them have the same interest it would not be sensible for their lawyers to make the same
points on behalf of each of them separately. To do so would simply be a waste of time
and resources.
Rule 7 of the Inquiry Rules seeks to avoid that situation by imposing on the chairman a
duty to direct that Core Participants whose interests in the outcome of the Inquiry are
similar and who rely on similar facts are to be represented by a single recognised legal
representative, if he thinks it fair and proper for them to be jointly represented. Even in
cases where there are different lawyers representing people with different interests, it may
11
make sense for one of them to lead on matters in which those they represent have broadly
similar interests.
It would be in everyone’s interests, therefore, for discussions to take place between Core
Participants with the same or similar interests with a view to reaching agreement on
sensible arrangements which reduce the number of separate legal representatives
appearing before the Inquiry without sacrificing the essential requirements of fairness and
justice. I hope that some such agreement can be reached, but if it cannot, I may have to
act in accordance with Rule 7 and determine arrangements for legal representation
myself. Before doing so, however, I shall seek submissions in writing from those who
will be affected and may wish to hear oral submissions at a hearing specially arranged for
that purpose.
As far as possible I intend to seek voluntary co-operation in the production of the
documents and other evidence, such as witness statements, that the Inquiry will need to
carry out its work. I expect everyone to whom a request of that kind is addressed to
provide all relevant material without the need for me to exercise my statutory powers.
However, I have the power under section 21 of the 2005 Act to require the attendance of
witnesses and the production of documents and, if necessary, I shall not hesitate to make
use of it.
The Inquiry team has already made a number of requests for the production of relevant
evidence and documents, which are in the course of being provided. This will be a
continuing process and further requests will be made as the Inquiry progresses. Moreover,
I wish to take this opportunity to ask anyone who is, or thinks he or she may be, in
possession of any information, evidence or documents relevant to the matters I am
looking into to do whatever they can to preserve that material and to inform the Inquiry
team at once.
Details of the way in which the Inquiry proposes to deal with documents can be found in
the Protocol for the Receipt and Handling of Documents which can be found on the
Inquiry website.
12
It is obvious that many of the questions that have to be investigated, particularly in the
first phase of the Inquiry, are of a highly technical nature. They require expert knowledge
of a kind that I do not currently possess. I have therefore instructed, or am in the course of
instructing, some of the most eminent people in the fields of forensic fire analysis and fire
engineering to examine the evidence and give me the benefit of their opinions. The
experts will produce reports for my consideration and those who are core participants will
have an opportunity to read those reports and comment on them before the evidence is
given. The experts may be called to give oral evidence to explain their reports and to
answer questions submitted by other parties.
Experience has shown that in many fields of expertise different people can legitimately
hold different opinions and I am certainly willing to accept evidence from suitably
qualified experts who have been instructed by other parties. If it becomes clear that there
is a range of expert views on any particular subject, I am likely to direct that the witnesses
discuss the issues with a view to identifying areas of agreement and disagreement. That
should ensure that oral evidence can be directed to any remaining areas of disagreement.
I should like at this stage to say a little more about the procedure I intend to adopt in
carrying out the Terms of Reference.
It is likely that it will be necessary to hold one or more Directions Hearings at which I
shall hear submissions and give directions on matters of a procedural nature. It will not be
necessary for Core Participants to attend those hearings unless they are directly concerned
in the matters under consideration. Similar hearings will be arranged as necessary to deal
with issues that arise in the course of the Inquiry. The times and places will be
communicated to those involved by email and posted on the Inquiry’s website. Parties
who wish to make submissions at a Directions Hearing will be expected to send the
Solicitor to the Inquiry a skeleton argument, together with any supporting material, not
later than 5 working days in advance of the hearing. Skeleton arguments must not exceed
15 pages in length and must be printed on A4 paper, one side only, 12 point font, 1.5 line
spacing and must not contain footnotes.
13
At the beginning of any hearing at which the Inquiry intends to take evidence Counsel for
the Inquiry will make an opening statement outlining the nature of the evidence to be
called in the course of that hearing.
At the beginning of the first such hearing the recognised legal representative of each Core
Participant will be invited to make an opening statement in accordance with Rule 11 of
the Inquiry Rules 2006. I shall give further directions about those opening statements at a
later date.
All witnesses who are called to give oral evidence will be the Inquiry’s witnesses. They
will therefore be called and examined by Counsel to the Inquiry. Although the Inquiry
will seek the assistance of legal representatives (where they have been appointed) in the
preparation of witness statements, I shall decide which statements are to form part of the
record of documentary evidence and which witnesses should be called to give oral
evidence in addition to their written statements. The Solicitor to the Inquiry and those
working under her direction will be closely involved in the process of obtaining
statements from potential witnesses. Where appropriate she will send out checklists and
agendas which explain the topics which should be covered in witness statements and any
procedures which should be followed, for example, when dealing with vulnerable
witnesses.
Core participants who wish to have specific questions put to witnesses must provide them
in writing to Counsel to the Inquiry not later than 5 days before the witness is called to
give evidence. The Inquiry will publish on the Inquiry website as far as possible in
advance a programme of dates and times when it is intended that witnesses will attend to
give oral evidence, and will ensure that that programme is kept up to date.
Whether to allow questioning of a witness by other parties is a matter entirely within my
discretion and will be allowed, if at all, only on application in accordance with Rule 10 of
the Inquiry Rules. I shall not permit the same topic to be canvassed by more than one
14
party and where that requires prior consultation and co-operation between the parties, I
shall expect it to have been carried out.
I am currently minded to invite final submissions in writing after the conclusion of all the
evidence and to give Core Participants an opportunity to make brief oral submissions. I
shall give further directions about that in due course.
At this point I should like to say something about the timetable to which I am hoping to
work. Three months have passed since the fire and to some it may seem that not much
progress has been made, but that is not the case and it may be helpful for me to
summarise what has been happening in relation to the Inquiry since 14
th
June.
As I have said, I was appointed to chair the Inquiry on 28
th
June, but the period of
consultation, to which I have referred, meant that the Inquiry was not in fact set up until
15
th
August. Although the intervening period was used to put together the Inquiry team,
set up our office and make preparations for starting work, we could not take active steps
to start collecting evidence until I had received my terms of reference and the Inquiry had
been formally set up. Once that had happened, we could get started. Within a few days
the Solicitor to the Inquiry had written to the organisations most closely involved with the
management of the tower and its most recent refurbishment asking them to produce any
documents in their possession relevant to the matters under investigation. Letters of that
kind have been sent not only to the council and the TMO but to the contractors and
suppliers concerned in the refurbishment. We expect to receive many thousands of
documents and in order to manage them we have had detailed negotiations for the
provision of an electronic document management system that will enable us to analyse
them, present them effectively at hearings and make them available to the public though
the Inquiry’s website. As I have mentioned, we have also had discussions with, and have
now instructed, a number of experts who will give me the benefit of their skill and
knowledge in relation to various aspects of the investigations.
The process of gathering evidence has therefore already begun in earnest, but there is
much more to do. It has become clear that there are many potential witnesses still to be
15
interviewed and many thousands of documents to be reviewed. The scale of the task is
enormous. I should like to begin taking evidence in relation to the first phase of the
Inquiry before the end of the year, but whether that will be possible will depend in a large
measure on how long it takes to obtain statements from those who were directly involved
in the fire and to obtain and digest the documents relevant to their evidence. For the
reasons I have indicated, taking statements from those important witnesses will require
care and sensitivity and may take longer than first thought. The time and place of the first
hearing at which evidence will be taken will therefore be announced when our work is
further advanced. I shall decide on detailed arrangements for hearings, such as sitting
days and times, after hearing submissions from Core Participants.
Similarly, it is too early to say when I shall hold Directions Hearings, since that will
depend in part on what needs to be determined. However, I hope that Core Participants
will inform my team as soon as possible of any matters which they think I need to deal
with.
In my letter to the Prime Minister of 10 August 2017 I said that I hoped to be able to
produce a first report by Easter 2018. Such a report will have to be limited to what I have
described as the first phase of the Inquiry, but even so, that presents a challenging goal.
To achieve it will require much hard work as well as the active co-operation of all
concerned, but I hope I can count on that co-operation to ensure that the Inquiry proceeds
as quickly and smoothly as possible. It is in the public interest that findings which may
affect the safety of people who live or work in other high-rise buildings should be made
as soon as possible.
I am aware that there have already been informal meetings between the lawyers serving
the Inquiry and those representing some prospective Core Participants with a view to
identifying areas of common ground and possible differences of approach in relation to
procedural or administrative matters. I encourage co-operation of that kind and I am
grateful for the fact that it has proved beneficial to everyone involved. I hope that it will
continue, because we share a common goal. We are all searching after the truth about the
cause of the fire and the massive loss of life that it caused and we owe it to those who
16
died, and to those whose homes have been destroyed, to work together to achieve that
goal.
17