Page:Hillsborough Taylor Interim Report Cm765.pdf/10

 Subsequently, during the hearing, I further accorded representation to:

(viii) Trent Regional Health Authority, for the South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service (SYMAS). and (ix) Dr W Eastwood, consultant engineer to Sheffield Wednesday Football Club.

Since the circumstances of the disaster raised urgent questions of safety, especially at football grounds, you indicated at the outset that you would welcome any recommendations, even of an interim nature, which I might be able to give in advance of the new football season due to commence in mid-August 1989. I therefore announced at the preliminary hearing on 28 April that I would conduct an oral hearing with all possible expedition as the first phase of the Inquiry to discover the facts and causes of the disaster and enable me to make any immediate interim recommendations necessary in the short term.

The West Midlands Police investigation began on 24 April. A "Freephone" number was advertised to enable members of the public, especially those who had attended the match, to offer their evidence to the Inquiry. Initially this number was available for three days on 28 different lines. The response from the public was such that the lines were continued for a further three days by the end of which 2,666 calls had been received. There were also many written offers of help. Some 440 West Midlands officers were deployed on the Inquiry. To service this operation, special police offices were established in Birmingham, Liverpool and Sheffield and computer technology was used to the full. In all some 3776 statements were taken. There were also some 1550 letters to Ministers, to the Inquiry and to me personally all of which I read. The police, Sheffield Wednesday Football Club and the BBC had video cameras filming at the ground on 15 April. In aggregate, they recorded some 71 hours of film covering the period before, during and after the disaster. Thus the material gathered and potentially available for presentation at the oral hearing was enormous. From this mass it was essential to select only sufficient good and reliable evidence necessary to establish the facts and causes of the disaster.

Where it seemed likely that any allegation or criticism might be made of the conduct of any person or party, the Treasury Solicitor, after consultation with Counsel for the Inquiry, wrote to the party concerned setting out the likely grounds for complaint. This followed the practice established by the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry (the Salmon Commission).

The hearing began on 15 May. It continued, sitting long hours, for 31 days concluding on 29 June. In that period, 174 witnesses gave oral evidence. Counsel's submissions were delivered in writing on 7 July and on 14 July I heard their brief oral submissions supplementing the written argument.

Witnesses were not sworn. Since this is a departmental inquiry, there was no power to administer the oath but there was no instance of any witness giving evidence which I considered might have been different had he or she been sworn.

The witnesses called were only a small fraction of those from whom statements were or could have been taken. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that they were sufficient in number and reliability to enable me to reach the necessary conclusions. To have called more would have prevented me from presenting an interim report in the required time and would not have added significantly to the relevant evidence. I have, however, been able to take into account many written statements in addition to oral testimony.

Apart from the evidence called by Counsel for the Inquiry which was drawn from statements taken by the West Midlands Police and others volunteered by individuals, each of the represented parties was given full opportunity to put forward any witnesses they considered should be called. A final submission was made by Counsel for the South Yorkshire Police that since the investigation by West Midlands Police is still continuing, all the evidence has not been assembled and it would be unsafe for me to make findings of fact. I should therefore make clear that the investigation continues principally to furnish as much detail as possible to HM Coroner for the City of Sheffield as to the cause of death, the precise position at death and the care and movement of each of the 95 victims individually. I am assured by Chief Constable Dear and Assistant Chief Constable Mervyn Jones that it is most unlikely any further evidence gathered will significantly alter or add to the history of events which emerged at the hearing.

I should like to thank all those who made it possible for the oral hearing to take place so soon after the event and for evidence to be efficiently presented and tested so as to give a full and fair account of what happened in all its aspects without irrelevancy or duplication. I pay tribute particularly to the West Midlands Police for their speed and dedication in gathering the evidence and to all those responsible for processing it. Rh