The chairman of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry has been criticised for a lack of sensitivity after suggesting that a packed hearing on Wednesday should continue despite a fire alarm interrupting proceedings.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick only agreed to adjourn the hearing when a lawyer representing survivors and victims suggested it was insensitive to ask them to stay inside the room.
During Pete Weatherby QC’s submission to the hearing at Holborn Bars on Wednesday afternoon, the alarm sounded. A loudspeaker announced: “May I have have your attention please. Fire has been reported in the building. This report is being investigated. Please remain at your workplace whilst the fire alert exists.”
Moore-Bick said: “Mr Weatherby I think for the moment we should stay where we are and you carry on if you are happy to do so.”
Weatherby responded: “I’m conscious of the bereaved and survivors’ position, given such a warning.”
Moore-Bick said: “Well, if you’d rather rise, we can do that.”
The judge was criticised for his insensitivity to victims of the fire. Karim Mussilhy wrote on Twitter: “Fire alarm just went off at #grenfell inquiry. unbelievably chair suggested we just carry on.. no sensitivity to fire victims #stayput”.
When the fire broke out in the early hours of June 14, many residents heeded official advice which said they should stay in their homes.
The “stay put” policy has long been estabilshed policy for residential blocks such as Grenfell for decades. The guidance recommends residents should only evacuate their home if the fire is in their own flat.
Grenfell United, the main group representing survivors and the bereaved, said: “Ironic that the fire alarm goes off during the Public Inquiry. Confused why the judge asked everyone to stay put. #Insensitive”
Khadijah Mamudu, whose mother and brother escaped from the tower, said she was disappointed. Speaking outside the hearing she said: “It was quite worrying. I’d already started packing my stuff and then the judge says ‘stay’, and I thought ‘you’re joking’, and I just gathered my stuff up and I walked out, and I’m going home because I think it’s a farce.
“It might not have been intentional but considering where we are and why we are here, sometimes you need to pause and think.
“I can’t imagine what those people went through, I can’t imagine what my family went through and I will never stay put anywhere under nobody’s advice.”
Proceedings were adjourned for about an hour, resuming shortly after 1.30pm.
Upon return to the hearing, Moore-Bick said: “Before we resume, can I just say I am very sorry that the fire alarm interrupted the hearing. I’m particularly sorry because I feel sure that for some of those in the room to hear the fire alarm would have been distressing if not frightening and I am sorry for that.”
Moore-Bick said that the reason for the fire alarm was “genuine”, but that it related to a neighbouring building. “So we weren’t actually in any danger, I’m very glad to say.”
He stressed that, if the alarm was to sound again, he would “rise straight away and we will all leave”.
Earlier in the hearing it was revealed that each of the 71 victims of the fire will be individually commemorated to mark the start of evidence being heard.
The lawyer leading the inquiry, Richard Millett QC, said survivors and bereaved family members will be able to memorialise their loved ones however they wish, “calmly and with dignity”, during a special period of hearings ahead of the oral evidence.
He added: “By starting the public hearings of this inquiry in this way, we can ensure that, however technical and scientific the issues may then become, however dry, however legal, we will never lose sight of who our work is for and why we are doing it”.
Pen portraits of those who died in the tower will also be included in the inquiry, Leslie Thomas QC, a lawyer representing some of the bereaved, announced.
Thomas said the personal portraits would provide a sketch of who they were, where they lived and their contribution to the local community. Thomas told Moore-Bick that the portraits were “so that you know the people who are being referred to.
He added: “They are not just another statistic, not just another number, not just another dead person. We are dealing with real people, who had real lives, who’ve suffered real loss and who are in real pain.”
Lawyer for Mayor of London Sadiq Khan suggested the inquiry team considers having a formal opening to precede the memorial hearings.
Anne Studd QC said: “We would suggest, perhaps, that consideration should be given to a formal opening of some sort of the inquiry to take place in advance of those pen portraits in order to give appropriate formality, dignity and respect to that evidence before it is given.”
She also suggested that it could take place nearer to the Grenfell Tower so that local residents wishing to offer support could attend more easily.
The inquiry is being held at Holborn Bars, in east London, which Millet said was the “best possible option”. More than 150 venues that were considered.
However Grenfell United tweeted in response: “Disappointing news regarding the Grenfell Inquiry venue.
“Holborn Bars is not a suitable location and ignores the traumatic emotional impact of travelling in deep claustrophobic tube tunnels.
“We hope common sense will prevail.”
Many survivors and bereaved want the inquiry held closer to the community in North Kensington.
Sam Stein QC, who is representing some of the residents of the tower, told the inquiry: “It doesn’t take much thinking to work out that someone who has found their way through the packed corridors of a burning building may not enjoy the rigors of going on the Tube to this particular area.”
The inquiry is believed to have the largest number of core participants to date, with more than 500 survivors, bereaved families and friends, and members of the North Kensington community participating.
The participants include 128 bereaved families, 209 residents or visitors of Grenfell at the time of the fire, four leaseholders and 163 residents of the blocks on the Lancaster West Estate immediately around Grenfell.
Another 28 are organisations, including the Kensington and Chelsea Council and the Metropilitan Police.
Speaking at the start of the proceedings, Danny Friedman QC, who is representing 277 core participants – 62 of whom are bereaved families –said: “As of today we have yet to see any public admissions by the council or the various contractors that any features of the refurbishment was causative of the deaths. Surely the inquiry will need to answer that?”
He added that the inquiry must be a “cultural event as well as a technical one”.
“If it ends up not telling the chronicle of the deaths ... then it will only have told half the story. It will not be the inquiry it was meant to be. But it will drag out the ordeal and arrest the grief of those who should be its greatest concern.”
The issue of toxicity was discussed at the hearing, with Martin Seaward from the Fire Brigades Union telling the inquiry: “It’s... going to be relevant to the question of the long-term health effects on those who were in Grenfell Tower exposed to poisonous gases. And they will have very real concerns about how it’s going to affect them.”
Michael Mansfield QC, representing 11 legal firms, told the inquiry that five people have been treated at hospital for cyanide poisoning, which may be the “tip of the iceberg”.
“Carbon monoxide is another threat,” Mansfield said. “Not only to those who lived and survived in the tower and their own personal health but also those in the walkways and elsewhere.”
He raised concerns that post-mortems may not show the level of toxicity.
The inquiry is expected to receive 400,000 documents. Millet said the evidential stage of the hearings could begin on June 4.
Speaking after today’s hearing, Yvette Williams, from campaign group Justice4Grenfell, said she believes progress had been made, despite there still being a lack of confidence in the team leading the inquiry.
“I still don’t think that Martin Moore-Bick is really getting that understanding (of cultural sensitivity) and I don’t know how much further they (the lawyers) can drive it home to him,” Williams told HuffPost UK.
“I just think he comes from a position of privilege and when you come from that position you never have to think about those things.”
Williams added that she “still has no confidence in Moore-Bick and his advisors”, but has a lot more faith in the legal representation survivors and the bereaved now have.