You can say race, as that is specifically the subject for some strange reason.
While the QC is saying "race" I'd instead change the word to "poor" instead as I agree with this -
I think the point he's making is that despite being in one of the richest boroughs of London, corners were cut and decisions made that in their opinion was influenced by the "type" of end user / tennant that would be inhabiting Grenfell.
Where "type" (for me at least) would insinuate "poor" rather than "race" because I think that the idea was to make the flats look nice for those in the local area who were better off financially as well as the tenants but, as the tenants were poor, the people in charge of the decision didn't put much money into it leading to some cost cutting going on. It's one of those "perfect storm" situations where if any one thing was done differently, from as simple as the owner of the fridge that started the fire buying a different brand to the council buying different cladding to the fire brigades response being different, then we wouldn't be here now.
I'm personally very surprised by the QC's choice of language here and I'm, not sure that a supposition such as that will add anything additional to his legal case that might help win it over the facts they already have.
) saying "I am pretty certain he's not insinuating X" And "I think the point he is making" suggests he is not making things at all clear already, especially as many to whom he is addressing these words have poor English and a sub standard education, not being the promised and needed doctors, scientists and architects as Terminal_Boy so rightly notes