Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Tuesday 30th June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Order. Order!Well, good morning, colleagues, to this session of our committee, where we are looking to the recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry. And we're very grateful and pleased to be joined by Sir Brian Langstaff, the former chair of the Infected Blood inquiry, and Jenni Richards KC, former counsel to the Infected Blood Inquiry. Were very grateful to both of you for finding the time to appear before us this morning. And can I just put on record on behalf of the Committee and Parliament, if no other committee has done so, can we thank you for the work that you did on that inquiry?You'll know from the testimony that you've heard just how important it is to so many constituents up and down the country, and an important piece of work was done.
So thank you for all that you did. Um, I'm going to kick off the question, if I may. Um, I'll start, if I may, with Sir Brian and then Miss Richards, please chip in just to get your overall assessment, if I may, of the balance of the different type of inquiries. Efficacy and the overall number being held. And if you have any sort of thoughts on ways of. Making them leaner, meaner, faster, more focused. Anything in that sort of sphere would be enormously helpful to us.
So thank you for all that you did. Um, I'm going to kick off the question, if I may. Um, I'll start, if I may, with Sir Brian and then Miss Richards, please chip in just to get your overall assessment, if I may, of the balance of the different type of inquiries. Efficacy and the overall number being held. And if you have any sort of thoughts on ways of. Making them leaner, meaner, faster, more focused. Anything in that sort of sphere would be enormously helpful to us.
10:01
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I read um, I can't quite remember the source, but just over the last few days that the breakdown between statutory and non-statutory inquiries, just limiting it to that sort of inquiry, um, was. About 80% statutory and 20% non-statutory. But of course that doesn't deal with other forms of inquiry which populate the landscape. Coroners, for instance, the Ombudsman, to the extent that ombudsmen get involved in something you might call an inquiry or take the recent rail crash where you have the investigations branch now of the of the rail industry there and active and producing a reasons why statement fairly quickly.
So there are all sorts of different inquiries, but I think we are you are focusing on. Tell me if I'm wrong is really the two the um. The statutory inquiry or the non-statutory inquiry. And I think the, the best way of starting is to say that no one size fits all. Whatever may be most appropriate to the issue in question, the issues in question is the better model. I, I was interested in looking at what Lord Norton had to say to you about about the difference.
I'm not convinced for myself that there is um. Necessarily a greater formality about statutory inquiries. It is that they are governed by the Inquiries Act and by the inquiries rules, and they they gave a. Lot of flexibility, but a degree of prescription. But what they prescribe is, generally speaking, in the area of fairness. And fairness is an essential for any form of inquiry. So what has been criticised for. Taking time and it does is the iteration between the.
The chair producing a report and the the people that may be criticised in that report towards the end of the inquiry um process that used to be called summarization um is now statutory or statutory inquiry. But it's essential for fairness because if you're going to criticise someone in a public arena where they have no opportunity afterwards to answer back, and where your word is likely to be taken as the last word, um they need. To have a chance to put their side of side of the, of the, of the, the argument.
Um and it is only fair to do so. Um so I don't see any way of easy way of getting out of that. The. I think a feature of statutory inquiries is that they tend to be the bigger ones. Um, so it's difficult to think, for instance, that you could possibly have run the infected blood inquiry as a non-statutory inquiry. The difference in the findings that we were able to make and the findings, for instance, which Lord Archer of Sandwell had tried to make in the early decade of the century, was that we.
We could command access to documents. We could command the presence of witnesses. Absent only good reason for. Reasons I need not go into. But they're obvious. There may be reasons why you. Witness is no longer. Probably because of the effects of time um available to. Give reliable evidence. Couldn't really envisage that being done in non-statutory way. And people were there. I think in.
Bridged those who were centrally involved in the inquiry, encouraged by the thought that they had the framework in the statute to to rely on. So um. I think as well, it is a mistake to think that it's a. A non-statutory inquiry is so informal that it can't. For instance, it can ride roughshod over the obligations for disclosure, which are contained in, in various um. Statutory requirements outside the Inquiries Act. But where we had to be very sensitive to the.
Revealing of details in documents and for people. The more documents you have, the more the. More risk there is that something slips out that shouldn't. It will cause can cause immeasurable distress and harm. In summary, I don't think that you can say one is necessarily one in which the, um, those people who are participating have access to the chair and panel in a more informal way than those who are in a statutory inquiry. It all depends on how the chair runs it.
And that's essentially looking at the question of engagement. And I think ideally, all inquiries should. Place an emphasis on engaging with those who are affected by it. There should be open and transparent, and part of that is letting people know how things are going, what's happening next, and keeping them informed. Um, we had a system for that. Not all inquiries do.
So there are all sorts of different inquiries, but I think we are you are focusing on. Tell me if I'm wrong is really the two the um. The statutory inquiry or the non-statutory inquiry. And I think the, the best way of starting is to say that no one size fits all. Whatever may be most appropriate to the issue in question, the issues in question is the better model. I, I was interested in looking at what Lord Norton had to say to you about about the difference.
I'm not convinced for myself that there is um. Necessarily a greater formality about statutory inquiries. It is that they are governed by the Inquiries Act and by the inquiries rules, and they they gave a. Lot of flexibility, but a degree of prescription. But what they prescribe is, generally speaking, in the area of fairness. And fairness is an essential for any form of inquiry. So what has been criticised for. Taking time and it does is the iteration between the.
The chair producing a report and the the people that may be criticised in that report towards the end of the inquiry um process that used to be called summarization um is now statutory or statutory inquiry. But it's essential for fairness because if you're going to criticise someone in a public arena where they have no opportunity afterwards to answer back, and where your word is likely to be taken as the last word, um they need. To have a chance to put their side of side of the, of the, of the, the argument.
Um and it is only fair to do so. Um so I don't see any way of easy way of getting out of that. The. I think a feature of statutory inquiries is that they tend to be the bigger ones. Um, so it's difficult to think, for instance, that you could possibly have run the infected blood inquiry as a non-statutory inquiry. The difference in the findings that we were able to make and the findings, for instance, which Lord Archer of Sandwell had tried to make in the early decade of the century, was that we.
We could command access to documents. We could command the presence of witnesses. Absent only good reason for. Reasons I need not go into. But they're obvious. There may be reasons why you. Witness is no longer. Probably because of the effects of time um available to. Give reliable evidence. Couldn't really envisage that being done in non-statutory way. And people were there. I think in.
Bridged those who were centrally involved in the inquiry, encouraged by the thought that they had the framework in the statute to to rely on. So um. I think as well, it is a mistake to think that it's a. A non-statutory inquiry is so informal that it can't. For instance, it can ride roughshod over the obligations for disclosure, which are contained in, in various um. Statutory requirements outside the Inquiries Act. But where we had to be very sensitive to the.
Revealing of details in documents and for people. The more documents you have, the more the. More risk there is that something slips out that shouldn't. It will cause can cause immeasurable distress and harm. In summary, I don't think that you can say one is necessarily one in which the, um, those people who are participating have access to the chair and panel in a more informal way than those who are in a statutory inquiry. It all depends on how the chair runs it.
And that's essentially looking at the question of engagement. And I think ideally, all inquiries should. Place an emphasis on engaging with those who are affected by it. There should be open and transparent, and part of that is letting people know how things are going, what's happening next, and keeping them informed. Um, we had a system for that. Not all inquiries do.
10:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But just sort of flowing from that. Experienced um, advocate. Senior in the court processes. You've shared this inquiry from that sort of combined professional experience and engagement. Have you given any thought to how one might arrive at. The set of inquiry recommendations back to government or whoever. But via a different. So you arrive at the destination. But you use a different route, which is not. Which is outwith inquiry, be it statutory or non-statutory.
There could be. Quicker. Less costly, but more timely in terms of arriving at. Recommendations to then lead on to implementation.
There could be. Quicker. Less costly, but more timely in terms of arriving at. Recommendations to then lead on to implementation.
10:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm hesitating to to answer that, because I think it all depends on the the nature of what the inquiry is looking at. There are some inquiries where you will want to have very quick response if. Because public safety is potentially at risk. So something like Manchester Arena or Grenfell, um you would think that there is as soon as you are confident enough in the facts, you can see to know that there is a recommendation which can be made, it should be made um for us in the infected blood inquiry, the interim recommendation that we made about um paying £100,000 as a.
Interim payment to a particular category of those infected who are easy to identify. That was. Essential because people did not have long to live. Yes. And the inquiry was bound to last a bit longer. And people in the interim were dying. So it was as I saw it. Um. I couldn't in conscience let it, let it, let it go. So I think you'll find most inquiry chairs would have the same, um, the same feeling that the inquiry is for the public.
Yes. If something arises where the public can be helped here and now, they should be the other side. Of that coin, by the way, is that the um. The department which calls inquiry. Um and obviously if it's the Cabinet Office, the cabinet unit will be following the inquiry and they too should be alert to anything which they think needs to be adjusted in the time for the time being, because the time shouldn't stand still while an inquiry is waiting. They should be getting on with reacting.
Interim payment to a particular category of those infected who are easy to identify. That was. Essential because people did not have long to live. Yes. And the inquiry was bound to last a bit longer. And people in the interim were dying. So it was as I saw it. Um. I couldn't in conscience let it, let it, let it go. So I think you'll find most inquiry chairs would have the same, um, the same feeling that the inquiry is for the public.
Yes. If something arises where the public can be helped here and now, they should be the other side. Of that coin, by the way, is that the um. The department which calls inquiry. Um and obviously if it's the Cabinet Office, the cabinet unit will be following the inquiry and they too should be alert to anything which they think needs to be adjusted in the time for the time being, because the time shouldn't stand still while an inquiry is waiting. They should be getting on with reacting.
10:11
10:11
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
One of the reasons our inquiry took the length of time it did was because it was taking place over two decades later than it should have done. And so one of the matters that will enable inquiries to be quicker and to produce recommendations more quickly is if they are set up in a timely fashion, if decisions are taken when they should be nearer, nearer the key events. Um, so that would be one factor. Um I would agree in relation to the distinction between statutory and non-statutory inquiries.
Everything depends upon the subject matter of the inquiry. So there will be plenty of inquiries which lend themselves perfectly well to being non-statutory and or to having a greater degree of flexibility. There will be others, by their nature, that really require, in the interests of transparency, delivering justice, answering questions will require a statutory inquiry with a process of hearings that take place in public.
Everything depends upon the subject matter of the inquiry. So there will be plenty of inquiries which lend themselves perfectly well to being non-statutory and or to having a greater degree of flexibility. There will be others, by their nature, that really require, in the interests of transparency, delivering justice, answering questions will require a statutory inquiry with a process of hearings that take place in public.
10:12
10:12
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you, chair. Good morning to you both. Um, you recommended that if there is sufficient support within Parliament, there should be a mechanism by which um the question is put to pacac this committee to, to consider whether the inquiry should actually proceed or not. Just in terms of, you know, how how would we go from somebody calling for an inquiry coming through Parliament, coming to here, and what sort of factors we might want to consider?
10:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I think that um. Scale of the event that has happened. Uh, the degree of surprise that is reflected. And as parliamentarians, you will be aware that there will be a number of MPs who will be raising issues which may create a groundswell of opinion that. And as parliamentarians, you will be aware that there will be a number of. That has happened. Uh, the degree of surprise that is reflected and MPs will be raising issues which may create a groundswell of opinion that this is something which should be investigated.
And I think you will have to look at that and see um, as. Has happened, uh, the degree of surprise that is reflected. And as parliamentarians, you will be aware that there will be a number of MPs who will be raising issues which may create a groundswell of opinion that this is something which should be investigated. And I think you will have to look at that and see, um, is this something that could be dealt with or should be dealt with very quickly to take the chairs point by another means.
Um an inquiry isn't really suitable for issues which are purely policy or can be debated where the facts are are known. It's more usually where the facts or the conclusions drawn from the facts are so surprising that they need some explanation. And the existing systems, the courts, parliamentary debate, the media, whatever cannot provide those answers. So it is an essential part of justice to have an inquiry into those that can establish the facts, look at the circumstances, come to answers, and I would hope that as part of the.
The sense of when an inquiry is suitable that people. Would have in mind that. Will it be. Is it likely that it will be in a position to make recommendations now?Inquiries do make recommendations. Um. The. Most um inquiry. For instance, concluded that there was nothing that was went wrong except in the case of a solicitor who was defrocked as a result. But so the inquiries serve a function.
However, there in satisfying people that justice had been done. Although there was no recommendation that came out of it. But normally I would expect that the minister setting up the inquiry will have in mind that there should be or hear scope for doing things better as a state. Um and in. Some inquiries. Preserving public safety better, which is, after all, a. The central. Certainly a central. If not the central function of.
Of ministers and government.
And I think you will have to look at that and see um, as. Has happened, uh, the degree of surprise that is reflected. And as parliamentarians, you will be aware that there will be a number of MPs who will be raising issues which may create a groundswell of opinion that this is something which should be investigated. And I think you will have to look at that and see, um, is this something that could be dealt with or should be dealt with very quickly to take the chairs point by another means.
Um an inquiry isn't really suitable for issues which are purely policy or can be debated where the facts are are known. It's more usually where the facts or the conclusions drawn from the facts are so surprising that they need some explanation. And the existing systems, the courts, parliamentary debate, the media, whatever cannot provide those answers. So it is an essential part of justice to have an inquiry into those that can establish the facts, look at the circumstances, come to answers, and I would hope that as part of the.
The sense of when an inquiry is suitable that people. Would have in mind that. Will it be. Is it likely that it will be in a position to make recommendations now?Inquiries do make recommendations. Um. The. Most um inquiry. For instance, concluded that there was nothing that was went wrong except in the case of a solicitor who was defrocked as a result. But so the inquiries serve a function.
However, there in satisfying people that justice had been done. Although there was no recommendation that came out of it. But normally I would expect that the minister setting up the inquiry will have in mind that there should be or hear scope for doing things better as a state. Um and in. Some inquiries. Preserving public safety better, which is, after all, a. The central. Certainly a central. If not the central function of.
Of ministers and government.
10:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I think there's a danger in having, um, guidelines, which are criteria. Uh. I think guidelines should be guidelines, not tramlines and. It's possible to identify guidelines. Uh, the, the sorts. Of events that might suit an inquiry or suit a judge led rather than a non judge led or a statutory and non-statutory inquiry. But um I think the important thing to recognise at the outset is that inquiries are a very, very different sorts. The my evidence here is naturally framed in one of the largest, most difficult, potentially evidentially inquiries that there's been.
Um and so it's not representative of all inquiries and. That has to be borne in mind, I think.
Um and so it's not representative of all inquiries and. That has to be borne in mind, I think.
10:17
10:17
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
One way of perhaps formalising the. Process a little more than simply having a groundswell of support amongst members of Parliament might be for there to be an expectation that a minister, if they're ever going to say no to an inquiry. And again, that's whether it's a statutory or a non-statutory inquiry, and that there's a requirement, an expectation that they set out a reasoned explanation as to why they are saying no to that particular inquiry. And that could then serve two functions. One would be to ensure that those victims families, supporters are survivors, understand what the reasons are and can make representations through their Member of Parliament.
Um, but the other could be that that such written refusals come before this committee and that would enable this committee to take at least an initial view. Is there something to see here?Is there something further we should look at?Ask questions about, or does this seem a very clear and straightforward, um, explanation as to why a minister convened inquiry is not thought appropriate?So that would be one way, I think, that this committee could be seized of the matter.
Um, but the other could be that that such written refusals come before this committee and that would enable this committee to take at least an initial view. Is there something to see here?Is there something further we should look at?Ask questions about, or does this seem a very clear and straightforward, um, explanation as to why a minister convened inquiry is not thought appropriate?So that would be one way, I think, that this committee could be seized of the matter.
10:18
10:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Absolutely. To provide independent oversight and scrutiny, because what happened again, in our inquiry was individual MPs raised faithfully their constituents concerns over decades. But the reasons that were given were defensive and uninformative. And that's a direct quote from Sir Brian's report. Um, and there was nowhere else for those infected and affected to go there other than judicial review, which, you'll know is offers very limited opportunities, um, for, for, for challenge. And so if they had that reasoned decision.
This committee could then. Advise, analyse, call the minister before them. So yes, bring a degree of of independent oversight and scrutiny rather than necessarily vesting the power to to decide on, on the holding of an inquiry into this committee, which would clearly require a substantial amendment to primary legislation.
This committee could then. Advise, analyse, call the minister before them. So yes, bring a degree of of independent oversight and scrutiny rather than necessarily vesting the power to to decide on, on the holding of an inquiry into this committee, which would clearly require a substantial amendment to primary legislation.
10:19
10:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You just mentioned judicial review. There. Is there a risk that if. There were to be a formal that sort of formalized system that you that you've just set out of, um. Perpetual application for judicial review from those who didn't support the Minister's decision, presuming the minister's decision was to a negative one, I I'm not going to have an inquiry of any type. And therefore, the system that we have at the moment may be, um, imperfect and. I think many people would argue that it's perfect, but it is, is that a risk?And therefore one just sort of creates another hamster wheel going round and round and round.
10:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I don't think that's a very likely um under. The pre-existing system, a group of individuals could still choose to judicially review a decision not to hold a public inquiry. Um, albeit they may not have very clear reasons that have been explained to them, but judicial reviews are difficult. Most people will not be eligible for funding. They have to be brought within three months. Um, promptly or in any event within three months. So it's unlikely.
10:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But does that risk go up or the unlikeliness become potentially more likely if a minister has had to set out in writing, let's say in a in a written ministerial statement to Parliament, I, the minister, have decided not to, and I the basis for my decision is one, two, three four, five, six. That is a decision which then could be cross-examined through this Committee directly, with the Minister having. Having had to set it out rather than just what we have at the moment. You're a KC.
I'm not. What's your. There must be a greater risk of a judicial review.
I'm not. What's your. There must be a greater risk of a judicial review.
10:21
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I would have thought that if Pacac is performing or indeed another committee performing an oversight and scrutiny function, that the prospect of a judicial review would be reduced, because that would be seen by the courts as being an alternative remedy. And and probably a more appropriate way of holding ministers to account.
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:22
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you, chair. Hello to you both as well. Um, you further recommended that this committee consider recommending to ministers that there be an inquiry if there is sufficient concern to justify one. How do you think this committee could make the assessment that there's sufficient concern?What do we need to be capable of seeing?
10:22
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think. You have to be alert to to what is being said. Around Parliament and Parliament itself will then reflect, no doubt what is being said to parliamentarians through their constituency or members of the House of Lords from their general experience, um, and there will be a sense that there is something which has happened. Normally you will know because people do know if there's been a disaster of some sort which may require investigation. Piper. Alpha Aberfan. Um, there may be a situation which comes to light, uh, where it looks as though people who, um, have had babies have not been treated appropriately.
And that in terms may lead to one of a number of inquiries that that have been. But there will be a sense, I think. But what I suspect if you're looking for for guidelines, which I think you are, um, then you need to have a sense of the scale of it. You need to have a sense of the scale of the harm and the importance to the public, because it is a statutory public inquiry, public means in public, but it also means for the public.
And it's the role that it serves as a for the public in identifying and putting right things which have gone wrong in the public sphere. Public administration. This is what links it in particular to Pacac. Um, and I think you would also have in mind, um, what wouldn't make it appropriate?Um, because that's the counterfoil. Um and what wouldn't make it appropriate is that there, it looks much more suited to a court case or an individual report. Or for that matter, simply to policy debate.
So I think those are the considerations that will be in the mind of any one member of the committee. And it's ripe for discussion. And if Pacac then formed the view that this is something where the minister should be invited to to have an inquiry, they would do so.
And that in terms may lead to one of a number of inquiries that that have been. But there will be a sense, I think. But what I suspect if you're looking for for guidelines, which I think you are, um, then you need to have a sense of the scale of it. You need to have a sense of the scale of the harm and the importance to the public, because it is a statutory public inquiry, public means in public, but it also means for the public.
And it's the role that it serves as a for the public in identifying and putting right things which have gone wrong in the public sphere. Public administration. This is what links it in particular to Pacac. Um, and I think you would also have in mind, um, what wouldn't make it appropriate?Um, because that's the counterfoil. Um and what wouldn't make it appropriate is that there, it looks much more suited to a court case or an individual report. Or for that matter, simply to policy debate.
So I think those are the considerations that will be in the mind of any one member of the committee. And it's ripe for discussion. And if Pacac then formed the view that this is something where the minister should be invited to to have an inquiry, they would do so.
10:24
10:24
10:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Yeah. And thank you for that. Do you think there's any expertise in particular this committee would need, or would there be something like the sobriety test to say this?This is a threshold for inquiry because the danger is, you know, we would all identify a series of emails and we might say, yes, we've all got 40 on this particular subject. But, you know, Miss Kane might have one issue we've not heard of, but it might, might we might feel it's worthy of an inquiry.
I'm just a little bit concerned that we get carried away when it becomes the committee's responsibility.
I'm just a little bit concerned that we get carried away when it becomes the committee's responsibility.
10:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I think you would be in a good position to judge if to. Many inquiries have been called for. I think it's maybe the underlying fear and in a sense, Pacac is acting in the situation we're talking about as something of a gatekeeper. Um, it may be of assistance to develop trust in, in politics that there is a body which is independent of decision makers and the administration, which may be called into question in an inquiry saying, well, this is not appropriate for an inquiry.
And.
And.
10:26
10:26
10:26
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Only a fiver. Crikey. It's not the 60s. Um, do you think there is is there a different approach you're suggesting from the one that currently exists in terms of. And that's not meant to be a trick question. It's just do you feel that the current system of just highlighting issues to ministers isn't sufficient?I guess is what I'm saying.
10:27
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um. I think the highlighting issues is, is. Um. Something which as Miss Richards was pointing out, uh. Happened in our inquiry over a long time. And the responses which came back were defensive and, um, unhelpful. And, uh. Indeed, that reflected a lot of the civil service approach in the Department of Health, which came in for criticism in the in the report, as you will have realised, um. So. There you had a minister who was um or minister.
Because it wasn't party political. Were presiding over department which just didn't want to know. And. How Pacac would have dealt with that I think had it had the power to do so in this, this counterfactual world. Um, it would have been to look at the degree of concern that was being expressed to ask if the. To reconsider, the minister said no, then you want to have a have him come to the inquiry and explain why. And in that way, it's public.
It's transparent, it's open. There is accountability. And you are in a position to say, well, thank you for that. We think those reasons are thin, and you can say that in your report, whatever. Or you may say these reasons are sound, but either way, people out there will realise that. The government has been properly held to scrutiny by Parliament, which is the function of pacac, part of the function of Pacac. Now.
Because it wasn't party political. Were presiding over department which just didn't want to know. And. How Pacac would have dealt with that I think had it had the power to do so in this, this counterfactual world. Um, it would have been to look at the degree of concern that was being expressed to ask if the. To reconsider, the minister said no, then you want to have a have him come to the inquiry and explain why. And in that way, it's public.
It's transparent, it's open. There is accountability. And you are in a position to say, well, thank you for that. We think those reasons are thin, and you can say that in your report, whatever. Or you may say these reasons are sound, but either way, people out there will realise that. The government has been properly held to scrutiny by Parliament, which is the function of pacac, part of the function of Pacac. Now.
10:29
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you that I think that is a concern of ours is that, you know, we miss a horizon or an infected blood scandal because there is so much information coming before this committee. And I suppose it's like, what guardrails can you. I don't expect a full answer, but what guardrails can you put in place to say, look, it doesn't really matter what the department is telling you. This is a serious issue and we are going to take the bull by the horns, as it were.
Is there any advice you'd give?
Is there any advice you'd give?
10:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Uh. I think it's difficult to give advice, um, in a vacuum without knowing what the situation is there. Are some conclusions, which I think you're almost bound to to reach. Looking at the facts and the, as I say, the. Touchstones, perhaps the guidelines may may be that it's something which is has had a really serious impact. Um, something which the public are concerned about. Um, it may be that you are responsive to what's been put in the media, which can be a good judge of where public opinion is.
Um. They may have particular views of their own, which you will recognise as singular, but where a lot of the media are united in saying, look, something's gone wrong here. We really need to know what and why, which is effectively what happened in infected blood. Then you might think, well, this is we should have an inquiry and. It's worth noting that in America, there was a form of a congressional inquiry by the. Held by the Institute of Medicine in 1995 in Canada, there was a commission of inquiry in 1995 reported um.
And they were the two, two countries, of course, where production of a lot of the product which caused harm. Um in many cases was being produced. So there. Again, you'd say, well, they're having an inquiry. This is something of the same problem, although it's a different, different nation, different culture. Um, we may have different infection rates and so on. Um, why aren't we having one here. Yeah.
Um. They may have particular views of their own, which you will recognise as singular, but where a lot of the media are united in saying, look, something's gone wrong here. We really need to know what and why, which is effectively what happened in infected blood. Then you might think, well, this is we should have an inquiry and. It's worth noting that in America, there was a form of a congressional inquiry by the. Held by the Institute of Medicine in 1995 in Canada, there was a commission of inquiry in 1995 reported um.
And they were the two, two countries, of course, where production of a lot of the product which caused harm. Um in many cases was being produced. So there. Again, you'd say, well, they're having an inquiry. This is something of the same problem, although it's a different, different nation, different culture. Um, we may have different infection rates and so on. Um, why aren't we having one here. Yeah.
10:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I would just add in relation to your first question about what kind of criteria or guidance you might be looking at. I absolutely agree that the nature and scale of the harm is going to be a critical factor, but also the whether there are potentially unanswered how and why questions and how did this harm of this nature and scale come to a occur?And why has this state of affairs arisen?And those were the questions that were never really asked until 2017 2018 in relation to infected blood.
This committee would not require great technical expertise to be able to ask itself those questions and look and see that the quality of the answers that it's been given and and in answer to your latter question, a more formal role for this committee would have the benefits of transparency and openness, but also, I think would provide greater reassurance to the public.
This committee would not require great technical expertise to be able to ask itself those questions and look and see that the quality of the answers that it's been given and and in answer to your latter question, a more formal role for this committee would have the benefits of transparency and openness, but also, I think would provide greater reassurance to the public.
10:32
10:32
10:32
10:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The the pros are that it would be an access. You would have access to a larger membership, um, larger human resource, um, potentially to, to deal with the, the issues, um. It would require, uh, I think as um, he was. Saying it. Uh. A standalone inquiry dealing with this sort of issue. I think. The cons would be that you have here a committee which is used to calling into question how things are done.
The process, if you like, by which decisions are made. So you look at at, for instance, a recommendation you may want to say to a minister, well, this recommendation has been accepted. When are you going to put it into effect?When you're going to take the steps. What's the timetable?What how are you going to measure success?We need to know this in order to see to be able to chart progress. And when are you going to come and tell us what how things are going, how how you're telling the public.
That's the sort of issue, which is purely a process issue, but it has a really important effect. It doesn't call for scientific or medical expertise in the particular area, though, if that is needed. There are other groups which can be accessed to come and give evidence and provide some. But essentially it's a it's something which Pacac is well used to, to scrutinising the. To, to looking at parliamentary and constitutional affairs and scrutinising the way things have been done.
The process, if you like, by which decisions are made. So you look at at, for instance, a recommendation you may want to say to a minister, well, this recommendation has been accepted. When are you going to put it into effect?When you're going to take the steps. What's the timetable?What how are you going to measure success?We need to know this in order to see to be able to chart progress. And when are you going to come and tell us what how things are going, how how you're telling the public.
That's the sort of issue, which is purely a process issue, but it has a really important effect. It doesn't call for scientific or medical expertise in the particular area, though, if that is needed. There are other groups which can be accessed to come and give evidence and provide some. But essentially it's a it's something which Pacac is well used to, to scrutinising the. To, to looking at parliamentary and constitutional affairs and scrutinising the way things have been done.
10:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yes. Deficiencies in public administration are a common feature across almost every public inquiry that I've ever had any involvement with. And so this committee brings with it an established expertise, um, a, a reputation, understanding that a new committee wouldn't have. That's not to say a new committee couldn't perform the role. I'm sure it could. You're better place than we are to judge the feasibility of, of, of a new committee being established. And Sir Brian's recommendation in part was, was led by knowing that this committee existed.
And in the inquiry's view, as a pre-existing committee, had the skills and experience to do the job.
And in the inquiry's view, as a pre-existing committee, had the skills and experience to do the job.
10:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There's a job of work to be done. You mentioned there, Miss Richards. You know, um. See, a fault of the public service delivery which is occasioned the circumstances of some egregious impact on people. Lives. And then a public inquiry. It is triggered. Um. It strikes me that often a lot of our lot, our committee work, but just work in general is very siloed. And nobody really sort of picks up any sort of cross-cutting themes.
Well, this started we did it. It's published. Oh, but ten years ago there was a similar thing and we came to similar conclusions there, didn't we?Or there was a similar reason. Have you any thought of thinking back, particularly to the work that the Lords Committee did as to I mean, is this committee a good one, do you think, or the right one to do that sort of cross-cutting inquiry work to see if there are structural themes which are emerging, which seem to be stubbornly irreconcilable?
Well, this started we did it. It's published. Oh, but ten years ago there was a similar thing and we came to similar conclusions there, didn't we?Or there was a similar reason. Have you any thought of thinking back, particularly to the work that the Lords Committee did as to I mean, is this committee a good one, do you think, or the right one to do that sort of cross-cutting inquiry work to see if there are structural themes which are emerging, which seem to be stubbornly irreconcilable?
10:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Absolutely. And that would be a reason for having this committee rather than a subject matter specialist committee, albeit there may then become inquiries, the nature of whose recommendations are such that you think, actually you've done as much as you can, and perhaps the Health Select Committee or a justice committee or another committee would be better placed then to carry on that work. Um, but, but having a single committee charged with that responsibility would increase the likelihood of picking up on those cross-cutting themes.
10:37
10:38
10:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The Compensation authority has been set up as an independent authority precisely because of the concern um that there was that it needed to be a body independent of the Department of Health, which or the Department for Work and Pensions, which had been administering the the schemes beforehand. Um. And that is has been its remit. It has um. Some of those who were infected and affected may have felt that it was too tightly constrained by the way in which the regulations which govern compensation have been, have been drafted, to the extent that the decisions were actually made by the.
Department in putting regulations before Parliament and the way in which the the um. The way in which the law had been expressed was not particularly helpful for an easy understanding, um, of what the position might be in a number of cases. Um the, there were problems with the scheme. Um I had not closed the inquiry. That's why I had a second set of hearings. Um last year. To examine what might be done to make compensation faster as it needed to be and fairer.
And we made recommendations which have all been. Accepted. Um, and. Some are subject to consultation. They were really. Recommendations that something be consulted about with a view to taking a different approach. And that has been that has been done. So that's that's as far as the the. Inquiry went. Have I. Answered your question.
Department in putting regulations before Parliament and the way in which the the um. The way in which the law had been expressed was not particularly helpful for an easy understanding, um, of what the position might be in a number of cases. Um the, there were problems with the scheme. Um I had not closed the inquiry. That's why I had a second set of hearings. Um last year. To examine what might be done to make compensation faster as it needed to be and fairer.
And we made recommendations which have all been. Accepted. Um, and. Some are subject to consultation. They were really. Recommendations that something be consulted about with a view to taking a different approach. And that has been that has been done. So that's that's as far as the the. Inquiry went. Have I. Answered your question.
10:40
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
In a way, it's more about the difference between. Well, the the fact that the center of government. So the Cabinet Office have that role. Um, and I guess the broader question is whether that model, whether that approach to have the central government. Playing a bigger role in oversight and funding of inquiries, do you think that that was effective and could that be a model that's used more broadly in inquiries.
10:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
In short. Um yes. Because there's a real danger, I think, in people who. Ask for a minister to have an inquiry. The minister may be the minister of the of the Department of State, which is the. Thought by some, rightly or wrongly, to have had a hand in what happened that they object to. And so it looks like somebody marking their own homework. Um you don't get that if you have an another part of government doing it.
And it is, after all, government collectively, which in a sense has to respond, even though the minister is the minister of the Department, responsible. So there is a proper case there for the Cabinet Office looking at it, providing the Cabinet Office itself isn't the. The body which is thought responsible for for what might be happening.
And it is, after all, government collectively, which in a sense has to respond, even though the minister is the minister of the Department, responsible. So there is a proper case there for the Cabinet Office looking at it, providing the Cabinet Office itself isn't the. The body which is thought responsible for for what might be happening.
10:42
10:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I don't think you can lose any departmental knowledge. And as to, as to downsides, uh, no, I don't think so. Um, I would expect the department most concerned in. Our inquiry, there are a number of departments perhaps concerned, but the Department most concerned to keep an eye on the inquiry and to see what needed to be improved. In the way in which its services were delivered to the public. Uh, but. That doesn't involve any loss of knowledge.
And I would expect them to be confident. That if the body is the body in charge of the sponsoring, the inquiry is independent. The inquiry will be seen as independent. And therefore, any recommendations it makes. Will to that extent be properly independent recommendations. And um, satisfy the public that the matter has been properly looked at and hasn't been um. It hasn't been. Been they haven't been fobbed off by, by a departmental response, putting it in colloquial terms.
Do you want to add to that.
And I would expect them to be confident. That if the body is the body in charge of the sponsoring, the inquiry is independent. The inquiry will be seen as independent. And therefore, any recommendations it makes. Will to that extent be properly independent recommendations. And um, satisfy the public that the matter has been properly looked at and hasn't been um. It hasn't been. Been they haven't been fobbed off by, by a departmental response, putting it in colloquial terms.
Do you want to add to that.
10:43
10:44
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Their views and their expertise, because they are usually the experts in what has happened to them, are fundamental, absolutely fundamental. And in our case, if they had been listened to at an earlier stage, the inquiry would have taken place at a much earlier stage. And so there absolutely should be a role. And whether it's the minister or this committee or another committee or another body, there should be some form of some formal means of ensuring that the views of those who have been most affected at the victims, the survivors, are taken into account, and clearly they can't be compelled to participate, and they shouldn't be.
That would be an additional and unnecessary burden. But our experience was that most people were desperate to be able to explain their position and say why they thought an inquiry was necessary.
That would be an additional and unnecessary burden. But our experience was that most people were desperate to be able to explain their position and say why they thought an inquiry was necessary.
10:44
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And, Brian, in your report into the infected Bloods, um, one of your recommendations was that members of the community would be an integral part of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority Board, and very much integral. But what has happened in practice is a separate panel has been created. Um, what are your thoughts on that?And do you think that that undermines that principle in terms of how victims and the wider community feel about how they've been incorporated into the process, which obviously directly is connected to your own inquiry?
10:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, my, my initial, um, view was that the design of the scheme itself should involve, uh, people, uh, first and last. And, and it didn't, it didn't because when it was being designed, the, the government took advice from. A committee which is set up, um, itself without input from those infected and affected and. Did not permit it to have direct contact with those infected or affected something which the chair himself, Sir John Montgomery, has commented adversely on on a number of occasions since his hands were tied by the way in which he understood he had been asked to conduct the matter.
The effect was that it was. A something which was. Designed without the involvement of those that it most concerned, and it needed to be designed with their involvement. What has happened since. Has been an attempt to. Do what one can to remedy the. The damage which flowed from that. That early approach. The. In a sense, it fits this inquiry. This committee, quite well because um, at the time that the government were conducting a design of the scheme because the day after I had reported on the 20th of May 2024.
The government produced a scheme. And none of those infected infected had had any input into it as they saw it. And apart from what might have been said by them during the course of the inquiry, which was picked up by those designing the scheme. And so they felt that this was an example of government proceeding without their involvement. And that was terribly harmful. To them. It was partly that which ended up in there being so many.
Complaints and concerns expressed to an ongoing inquiry which had as its terms of reference, the nature and adequacy and timeliness of the government response, and plainly, the nature and the adequacy of the response was, uh, was up here for consideration for me to call for further evidence. And as a result, I think there were improvements, but improvements in a situation which had moved on to one where time had been lost and time throughout our inquiry was was critical. Took a time, but I started off with the, the.
The principle that we should be as fast as reasonable thoroughness permitted. It very much like what Sir Brian Leveson had to say about. What you need is sufficient. To make a decision as opposed to everything.
The effect was that it was. A something which was. Designed without the involvement of those that it most concerned, and it needed to be designed with their involvement. What has happened since. Has been an attempt to. Do what one can to remedy the. The damage which flowed from that. That early approach. The. In a sense, it fits this inquiry. This committee, quite well because um, at the time that the government were conducting a design of the scheme because the day after I had reported on the 20th of May 2024.
The government produced a scheme. And none of those infected infected had had any input into it as they saw it. And apart from what might have been said by them during the course of the inquiry, which was picked up by those designing the scheme. And so they felt that this was an example of government proceeding without their involvement. And that was terribly harmful. To them. It was partly that which ended up in there being so many.
Complaints and concerns expressed to an ongoing inquiry which had as its terms of reference, the nature and adequacy and timeliness of the government response, and plainly, the nature and the adequacy of the response was, uh, was up here for consideration for me to call for further evidence. And as a result, I think there were improvements, but improvements in a situation which had moved on to one where time had been lost and time throughout our inquiry was was critical. Took a time, but I started off with the, the.
The principle that we should be as fast as reasonable thoroughness permitted. It very much like what Sir Brian Leveson had to say about. What you need is sufficient. To make a decision as opposed to everything.
10:47
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And again, thinking about the victims and those affected by this in year 2025, additional report, you recommended that the compensation authority should cease using the invite. System, which was designed to control who's prioritised and when, and instead go to a more simple application. Um, uh, process. Um, so whilst the IBC has stated, stated publicly that it's accepted all of your recommendations and you know, the reality is as set out in your report, there's points that have not been um accepted. Wondered, do you have any reflections on that?
10:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I obviously think that what I recommended should be put into effect and. I believe. That the people who need to be listened to and. That is listened to properly, not just heard, but listened to are those who are most concerned by the decisions which have been taken about them. Uh, at the. It is why I didn't close the inquiry until I was satisfied there was sufficient of a of a process in which concerns about what was happening with recommendations could be dealt with both in individual concerns.
The Cabinet Office setting up a system. Sorry, not Pacac the compensation authority having a a. Better system for responding to complaints and concerns. Um. When I felt that was sufficiently advanced, there was no further role for me. And therefore no further role for the inquiry in looking at the nature and adequacy of the government's response, it. I don't think it's for an inquiry to to itself follow up recommendations and see whether they've been implemented. I think that is.
A role for a body such as this, which is why I recommended, uh. Should should take on that role. Uh, because it's a process question. What, what it is for Parliament to do what Parliament for government to do, what government will do subject to Parliament. But the process needs to be clear. What are you going to do?When are you going to do it?What effect do you expect?How are we going to measure it?When will you report back and keep people informed?
The Cabinet Office setting up a system. Sorry, not Pacac the compensation authority having a a. Better system for responding to complaints and concerns. Um. When I felt that was sufficiently advanced, there was no further role for me. And therefore no further role for the inquiry in looking at the nature and adequacy of the government's response, it. I don't think it's for an inquiry to to itself follow up recommendations and see whether they've been implemented. I think that is.
A role for a body such as this, which is why I recommended, uh. Should should take on that role. Uh, because it's a process question. What, what it is for Parliament to do what Parliament for government to do, what government will do subject to Parliament. But the process needs to be clear. What are you going to do?When are you going to do it?What effect do you expect?How are we going to measure it?When will you report back and keep people informed?
10:50
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I guess the purpose of my question on that line was just to sort of I mean, for those people affected by whatever the event might might be, if there's a feeling that all that energy and investment goes into having the inquiry and gets outcomes, get recommendations from experts like yourself only for the government, for whatever reason, not to follow through. And clearly for the examples that I gave, they were very practical and understandable reasons why you made those points. Mr. Richards, do you have any thoughts on those issues?
10:51
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Only to add that, um, the. Implementation of recommendations, speed of implementation, reasons why government does or doesn't, or indeed other public bodies do or don't implement recommendations. Um, that is of fundamental importance. If the value of public inquiries is not to be lost, and it is the very reason for the recommendation that this committee could take on that role. And the there is a limit to the extent to which any public inquiry, even one with the breadth of terms of reference we had, which enabled the inquiry to.
To stay live for that further year. Um but there's a limit to the extent to which a public inquiry can just continue forever. Um, or call ministers to account before before the inquiry and, and, but it this committee or a similar committee would be able to potentially discharge that responsibility and through that ensure that all that effort from those who are affected is not lost.
To stay live for that further year. Um but there's a limit to the extent to which a public inquiry can just continue forever. Um, or call ministers to account before before the inquiry and, and, but it this committee or a similar committee would be able to potentially discharge that responsibility and through that ensure that all that effort from those who are affected is not lost.
10:51
10:51
10:52
10:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
All roads in SW1 lead. Back to His Majesty's Treasury. No matter which door of whichever government department you walk out of, you eventually end up in the Treasury. Thinking of the timeliness of a government's response to recommendations where there are cost implications, compensatory or other, and envisage a circumstance whereby a major Treasury event is about to take place. A spending review, a budget and autumn statement. Um, an acceptance of a suite of recommendations which would have a price tag attached to them, would have to be taken into account by the OBR and therefore potentially curtailing or narrowing headroom of a Chancellor to increase public expenditure one way or introduce a tax cut the other way, etc.
is. There a better way in order to. If the essay question is. Having identified the root to the problem and how to compensate attenuate against the problem through financial recompense, alongside structural reform and improvements in public service delivery. Is there another way or a better way that you've given any thought to?And if you haven't, that's not a problem. You might go away and think about it and drop us a note. If you have, as to whether a separate fund should exist in Treasury's or notionally titled inquiry generally.
Inquiry compensation fund, or whether. Because it's an inquiry which is a very special one off event into a certain issue, it should be of no concern of the OBR, not, and therefore not appear in their marking of the Chancellor of a Chancellor's homework as to whether or not their budget or their Autumn statement, or whatever it may happen to be, holds water, because that could be a real cause for setting the timetable of governmental response. If the Treasury say, slow pedal, this one, because everything's Because everything's looking a bit tight and the OBR is going to get into a, you know, get its knickers in a twist.
is. There a better way in order to. If the essay question is. Having identified the root to the problem and how to compensate attenuate against the problem through financial recompense, alongside structural reform and improvements in public service delivery. Is there another way or a better way that you've given any thought to?And if you haven't, that's not a problem. You might go away and think about it and drop us a note. If you have, as to whether a separate fund should exist in Treasury's or notionally titled inquiry generally.
Inquiry compensation fund, or whether. Because it's an inquiry which is a very special one off event into a certain issue, it should be of no concern of the OBR, not, and therefore not appear in their marking of the Chancellor of a Chancellor's homework as to whether or not their budget or their Autumn statement, or whatever it may happen to be, holds water, because that could be a real cause for setting the timetable of governmental response. If the Treasury say, slow pedal, this one, because everything's Because everything's looking a bit tight and the OBR is going to get into a, you know, get its knickers in a twist.
10:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, you're right, I hadn't thought of any alternative model, and I'd like time to to think about that. Um. An instinctive reaction which. Is just that um if. That. The the. Issue essentially will will. If it is to be that government is going to slow march on a particular recommendation then. They should be saying so. And why and. Should be saying so and why to a public.
And you are the representatives of the public here through Parliament or Parliament. Uh, why, they are slow pedalling on this one. After all, if it is a question of justice. Why should justice wait?It will be the question. I mean, there may be good answers to it. I don't, I don't at any moment. Rule out finance as being a serious consideration, but it needs to be kept in its place and not used as an excuse.
And you are the representatives of the public here through Parliament or Parliament. Uh, why, they are slow pedalling on this one. After all, if it is a question of justice. Why should justice wait?It will be the question. I mean, there may be good answers to it. I don't, I don't at any moment. Rule out finance as being a serious consideration, but it needs to be kept in its place and not used as an excuse.
10:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So do you see any merit in the creation of a sort of inquiry compensation, deposit account type thing almost held in escrow, as it were?Um which the Treasury would have as a column in the red book and other documentation. So there's always money available to pay a compensation scheme. I it's not new money that has to be found, which could have a distorting effect on the balance sheets.
10:55
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Again, I my, my answer is, is, is unconsidered. It's just off the top. Uh, it would seem rather, um, a pity if government was so unsure of its position that it was establishing a fund to deal with matters which it was sure it had done wrong on. Um. And there might be dangers in doing so, either in limiting the amount of money that was available when it needed to be more, or in encouraging people to seek to dip into the fund when there was no proper case for them doing so.
But these are purely instinctive reactions.
But these are purely instinctive reactions.
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:57
10:57
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
No, because there's one thing troubling me here, Mr. Chair, and that is the the scrutinising, scrutinising recommendations of of public inquiry, Sir Brian and Mr.. And looking at this issue of the scrutiny recommendations um and there. Augmentation I wondered if you could perhaps explain the course of action you took at the end of your inquiry, uh, with government in terms of the expectation you set on government for the implementation of the recommendations and the actions you took in preparation of that.
10:58
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I, I'd say I think my, my first expectation was that the government would look at the recommendations and either accept or reject them. I did not expect them to. To reject my recommendations, how could I bring them forward, having thought that they were deliverable, that they were appropriate, and having kept the number to a. Handful rather than a huge list?Because that way. It's more accessible to the public, it's more accessible to government, and you can more easily check off to see what has actually happened.
Mhm. The. The way in which government has reacted, which is perhaps the second what your question leads to, um, depends on which government you're looking at. So if you look at Scotland, for instance, Scotland. The Scottish Government, not the Scottish Parliament, but the Scottish Government created an oversight and assurance group. That group meets I think it's monthly, but they produce minutes which. Are full. The minutes are published. It's open.
The constitution of the group is. Those who are directly concerned in managing the Scottish response to those matters which concern Scotland in the recommendations. Of course, health is a devolved issue. Um it. And they involve. Importantly, they involve people who are representatives of the infected and affected. So the standing membership includes the Chair of Haemophilia Scotland and the convenor of the Scottish Effective Blood Forum. And the process is that if one is not able to attend, then a alternate will take their place.
This has led to discussions which led to to work. It has led to implementation of the recommendations. Importantly again in that there's been the the leader of the the Mark Turner, professor Mark Turner, who's been the chair of the Scottish Blood Services, um, forgive me if I've got his title. Not quite right. But um that's his role and Scotland has been proactive in a way that England has not in setting up this sort of response, which acts as an interesting model.
Um, because it's a model where the parliament itself, Scottish Parliament can see what is being done to recommendations. But the group is also reporting. So the public can see and reflect back any concerns they may have to their, their MP or the health Minister or the Scottish First Minister. We don't have a system such as that here. We haven't for instance, um been able to catch, I think publicly yet on the um. On the dashboard which the Cabinet Office have of recommendations to their implementation, the discussions there have now been in the the blood service about the use of tranexamic acid, which was one of the recommendations.
And that's currently under discussion with, I think, beneficial results. So. It's there are ways of doing it and maintaining scrutiny, but maintaining an input, essentially from bringing together those who are going to be involved in actually giving practical expert. Um, effect to recommendations. I hope that answers the question.
Mhm. The. The way in which government has reacted, which is perhaps the second what your question leads to, um, depends on which government you're looking at. So if you look at Scotland, for instance, Scotland. The Scottish Government, not the Scottish Parliament, but the Scottish Government created an oversight and assurance group. That group meets I think it's monthly, but they produce minutes which. Are full. The minutes are published. It's open.
The constitution of the group is. Those who are directly concerned in managing the Scottish response to those matters which concern Scotland in the recommendations. Of course, health is a devolved issue. Um it. And they involve. Importantly, they involve people who are representatives of the infected and affected. So the standing membership includes the Chair of Haemophilia Scotland and the convenor of the Scottish Effective Blood Forum. And the process is that if one is not able to attend, then a alternate will take their place.
This has led to discussions which led to to work. It has led to implementation of the recommendations. Importantly again in that there's been the the leader of the the Mark Turner, professor Mark Turner, who's been the chair of the Scottish Blood Services, um, forgive me if I've got his title. Not quite right. But um that's his role and Scotland has been proactive in a way that England has not in setting up this sort of response, which acts as an interesting model.
Um, because it's a model where the parliament itself, Scottish Parliament can see what is being done to recommendations. But the group is also reporting. So the public can see and reflect back any concerns they may have to their, their MP or the health Minister or the Scottish First Minister. We don't have a system such as that here. We haven't for instance, um been able to catch, I think publicly yet on the um. On the dashboard which the Cabinet Office have of recommendations to their implementation, the discussions there have now been in the the blood service about the use of tranexamic acid, which was one of the recommendations.
And that's currently under discussion with, I think, beneficial results. So. It's there are ways of doing it and maintaining scrutiny, but maintaining an input, essentially from bringing together those who are going to be involved in actually giving practical expert. Um, effect to recommendations. I hope that answers the question.
11:02
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yes. I think um. The way that I see Pocock's role is ensuring that the government says what it's going to do. It gives an appropriate schedule or timeline to you. You can ask it for that and then sticks to it or not for good reason. But if and reports regularly. That you know what is happening and you can chase up when things don't appear to have happened, nothing seems to have been done. Something seems to be stalled.
Now you're you're right that in some situations they may say, well, this has been dealt with. It's been put into effect. People here are not necessarily in a position to know those most concerned with. Whether it has been put into effect. The people in our inquiry, the affected and affected um will have to find a route then of informing um a body or complaining to. And I have suggested to the Cabinet Office in what I've. Said and that they were setting up a system for that, that something wasn't actually being done as it should be done.
Um I don't think that's something which pacak. Need to get involved in, but to take advice if need be from elsewhere if need be.
Now you're you're right that in some situations they may say, well, this has been dealt with. It's been put into effect. People here are not necessarily in a position to know those most concerned with. Whether it has been put into effect. The people in our inquiry, the affected and affected um will have to find a route then of informing um a body or complaining to. And I have suggested to the Cabinet Office in what I've. Said and that they were setting up a system for that, that something wasn't actually being done as it should be done.
Um I don't think that's something which pacak. Need to get involved in, but to take advice if need be from elsewhere if need be.
11:04
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
And what do you think about the role of chairs in ensuring that there's proper implementation of, of the recommendations of their inquiry?We recognise that not all chairs will be able to play a leading role once they're inquiries are closed. For example, judges who were returning to judicial functions should those issues be addressed at the start of an inquiry. When we are choosing chairs and selecting the terms of reference for an inquiry.
11:04
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think it all depends upon the nature of the inquiry and what one expects may be the result in terms of the nature of the recommendations. Obviously, at that stage you'd be looking very broadly because you don't know what the issues are. The facts are um. But. It also depends on, on the, the desires of the, of the chair. It's a, it's a lengthy process for the chair and for their family. Um, you know, we don't live on our own necessarily.
So. It depends on the chair. It depends on the issues. I, I do. Not think you can say because it's a judge, they won't be. Be available or because it's a midwife, she won't want to follow up or because she's a professor and has her her duties to go back to. Or he has his duties to go back to that. Um, that means that they won't be able to play a part if asked to follow up.
But the role that I have in following up and chasing up, um, and giving evidence here is not as chair of the inquiry, it's ex chair. Yes, yes. And I'm no more than an ordinary person in that sense, but I do have the repository of knowledge and I know exactly. Well, pretty well exactly what was happening during my inquiry from from time to time, as matters of process and character and so on.
So. It depends on the chair. It depends on the issues. I, I do. Not think you can say because it's a judge, they won't be. Be available or because it's a midwife, she won't want to follow up or because she's a professor and has her her duties to go back to. Or he has his duties to go back to that. Um, that means that they won't be able to play a part if asked to follow up.
But the role that I have in following up and chasing up, um, and giving evidence here is not as chair of the inquiry, it's ex chair. Yes, yes. And I'm no more than an ordinary person in that sense, but I do have the repository of knowledge and I know exactly. Well, pretty well exactly what was happening during my inquiry from from time to time, as matters of process and character and so on.
11:06
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I would just add, um, that what an inquiry is empowered to do, what the chair of inquiry is empowered to do is governed by their terms of reference. Um, our terms of reference were sufficiently broad to enable the exercise that was undertaken between 2024 and 2025, because the response of government, the way in which compensation schemes or quasi compensation and financial support schemes had been set up in the past was part and parcel of what we were investigating. So what the chair did between 2024 and 2025, the further hearing, the further report was actually wasn't policing the recommendations of the inquiry, but was a continuation of the investigative and fact finding work of the inquiry.
And and so if what you want is to build in some kind of more formal role for a chair, and I would agree consideration should be given to that at the outset of an inquiry, because that would enable the terms of reference to be drawn with that in mind and with that role in mind. And then, of course, you secure the agreement of the chair at the outset when they when he, she, they agree to take on, on, on that position. Um, I would simply add that in relation to if this inquiry, if this committee took on the kind of role that that Sir Brian recommended, I think it would be a very fair expectation that any chair, council, anyone else who's been had the privilege to be involved in a public inquiry could be expected to come and share what they've learnt with this committee.
And I can't think of anyone who would be unwilling to do that. But if you're going to build in a more formal policing role, that that would have to be done structurally with the inquiry.
And and so if what you want is to build in some kind of more formal role for a chair, and I would agree consideration should be given to that at the outset of an inquiry, because that would enable the terms of reference to be drawn with that in mind and with that role in mind. And then, of course, you secure the agreement of the chair at the outset when they when he, she, they agree to take on, on, on that position. Um, I would simply add that in relation to if this inquiry, if this committee took on the kind of role that that Sir Brian recommended, I think it would be a very fair expectation that any chair, council, anyone else who's been had the privilege to be involved in a public inquiry could be expected to come and share what they've learnt with this committee.
And I can't think of anyone who would be unwilling to do that. But if you're going to build in a more formal policing role, that that would have to be done structurally with the inquiry.
11:07
11:07
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
We, um, we called for submissions from core participants. Um, whilst the inquiry was still in, in its fact finding role, but coming towards an end so that people could have a clear idea about what kind of recommendations they might want. So we asked for submissions in advance of the closing submissions, specifically on the topic of recommendations. We then looked at those and set up a series of hearings and commissioned evidence that were solely concerned with the issue of recommendations. Um, so that when Sir Brian then formulated the recommendations in the report, he did so having had the benefit, both of um, submissions.
Including submissions from institutional core participants, not just individuals. And having heard evidence that had been tested in public, that went to essentially to the heart of a number of those matters.
Including submissions from institutional core participants, not just individuals. And having heard evidence that had been tested in public, that went to essentially to the heart of a number of those matters.
11:07
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
And the start of your evidence, you said that there's no one size fits all mechanism for inquiries into such a wide range of different, um, issues. And, and incidents. So should there be a difference between how recommendations coming from statutory public inquiries are monitored and scrutinised compared with those coming from other routes. For example non-statutory inquiries, prevention of future death reports and investigation bodies. Do you think there should be differences there as well?
11:08
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I. Hesitating to to answer because it seems to me the question. The first question. Is. The nature of the inquiry and what those recommendations are, rather than who made them or how they were made. They, they have a value. Uh. Which may differ. Whether or not the author is a high court judge or, or a midwife or a professor, um. And. I think. The question is the quality of the recommendation, not the quality of the person who they perceived status of the the process by which it was made.
And I think, again, I would emphasize what people have said to you. That I don't think there is any um difference. Between a non-statutory and a statutory inquiry in the sense that one is the gold standard. Mhm. It is a question of what suits and if what suits is non-statutory, then the recommendations coming out of it should be treated every bit as seriously as any recommendations would be, whether they're accepted or not.
And I think, again, I would emphasize what people have said to you. That I don't think there is any um difference. Between a non-statutory and a statutory inquiry in the sense that one is the gold standard. Mhm. It is a question of what suits and if what suits is non-statutory, then the recommendations coming out of it should be treated every bit as seriously as any recommendations would be, whether they're accepted or not.
11:10
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
So my final question, chair then would be, um, so although there's several different forms of inquiry, um, there would be a potential for um, a one size fits all process of monitoring recommendations of those of those different inquiries. So you could see this committee or a standalone committee having that ability to have a standard approach to monitoring implementation recommendations is that is that is that a fair, um, reflection on what you said?
11:10
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think it's fair to say that the recommendations will involve they are made to the minister as Minister of Government, the accountable. Ability of government for what it does in parliamentary affairs, constitutional affairs is open to scrutiny by this Committee. So it has the constitutional function of scrutinising and it can exercise that function. And that function doesn't depend particularly upon the subject matter which you're looking at, which Parliament has been looking at the the if you like the the facts or the science or whatever it may be, technology under investigation.
It's a question of what did what did government do about it?How did it go about it?And that is quintessentially the field of this committee, as I see it. And that's why, in large part, I said this committee, with its recommendation for independent proper scrutiny, familiar with process, set up for that purpose, is the right body. After all, if someone is going to call Parliament to account, it shouldn't be a national oversight mechanism which is outside Parliament. It should be, um, some body with inside Parliament.
And you are, I think the body.
It's a question of what did what did government do about it?How did it go about it?And that is quintessentially the field of this committee, as I see it. And that's why, in large part, I said this committee, with its recommendation for independent proper scrutiny, familiar with process, set up for that purpose, is the right body. After all, if someone is going to call Parliament to account, it shouldn't be a national oversight mechanism which is outside Parliament. It should be, um, some body with inside Parliament.
And you are, I think the body.
11:11
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Can I just add in relation to that. I would absolutely agree that um whether it's a statutory inquiry or a non-statutory inquiry, if it has been convened by a minister and if the inquiry is reporting to a minister, this committee, if it were to take on that role, should have a role that encompasses both both statutory and non-statutory. And the nature of the inquiry shouldn't matter. There may be different considerations that arise in relation to coronial prevention of future death reports. I absolutely agree with with much of what was said by the inquest witness in relation to the importance of those reports, um and to the need for some form of oversight of them.
But there are hundreds of PhDs report produced each year, I think 600 odd in 2025, 700 odd in 2024. And some of them will be very specific, very local, others absolutely will have more national or thematic issues. And so it may be that a separate consideration would be need to be given to the role of oversight in relation to PhDs. And no doubt the chief coroner would have observations to make in relation to that.
But there are hundreds of PhDs report produced each year, I think 600 odd in 2025, 700 odd in 2024. And some of them will be very specific, very local, others absolutely will have more national or thematic issues. And so it may be that a separate consideration would be need to be given to the role of oversight in relation to PhDs. And no doubt the chief coroner would have observations to make in relation to that.
11:12
11:12
11:12
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you. Yes, it was actually it was about future death. Prevention of future death. I just wondered if you had any comments, perhaps, on whether government is taking them seriously enough at the moment and whether there is an effective process in place for at least government to be reviewing them properly.
11:13
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So prevention of future death reports can be addressed to such a wide range of bodies that I don't think there's a yes or no answer. I can I can give to you so they can be addressed to a prison operator, to a government department, to a regulator such as the General Medical Council, to an individual hospital. And there are an enormously wide range of bodies and private private entities, private corporations and so on. Um, and there is, I think, a general feeling from those who practice in, in coronial, um, work, which I do, and that it's a very hit and miss.
So you get responses which are timely, which are thorough, which are reassuring that clear proactive steps have been taken. And then you get, um, PhD. Reports to which there is either no response or a wholly inadequate response. And currently there isn't really any satisfactory system of oversight in relation to that. But that would apply not just to government bodies who are receiving PhDs. Um, but also to, uh, the multiplicity of other organisations and public bodies that receive them.
So you get responses which are timely, which are thorough, which are reassuring that clear proactive steps have been taken. And then you get, um, PhD. Reports to which there is either no response or a wholly inadequate response. And currently there isn't really any satisfactory system of oversight in relation to that. But that would apply not just to government bodies who are receiving PhDs. Um, but also to, uh, the multiplicity of other organisations and public bodies that receive them.
11:14
11:14
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I mean, the chief coroner has, I think, published a, I can't remember whether she called it her badge of dishonour list or something of that kind of, of where there hadn't been timely responses to PhD reports. Um, but I'm, I'm only able to give you a snapshot. And so I think it's very much the, the chief coroner and potentially the Ministry of Justice who may be able to give a more across the board response in relation to that.
11:14
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you. That might be worth considering. May I ask one further question, sir?Yes, it was just about um and we've touched on this a little bit, but do you inquiry chairs and panel members have enough roots at the moment to raise the alarm when they feel that a government isn't acting on their recommendations quickly or effectively?And if not, what?What could those roots look like?
11:15
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think it probably depends upon their terms of reference. Um. And. It. The. The function of the inquiry is to find the facts. Um, make its report. And if it has the, in its terms of reference, the ability to make recommendations, to make recommendations. And. Having made the recommendations at the moment there is no compulsion on government to do anything other than to consider those recommendations. The government, having considered the recommendation of the Minister having considered the recommendations.
Whichever it is, will then decide whether to accept or not or accept in part, or as they have done in the with the infected blood inquiry, except. But some are accepted in principle because they're necessarily involve consideration amongst a lot of other considerations amongst those, for instance, the duty of candour. The. Should the inquiry chair have have a right to police the recommendations. I think I agree with what Miss Richard said, that it's not our function to police the recommendations. And so I think probably no.
We in the infected blood inquiry were able to look at what had been done and whether it had been done sufficiently in time, improperly, because our terms of reference were drafted in a way that permitted that. And that's what we did. But that was within the terms of reference. So I think it all comes back to the terms of reference and and whether that permits and what it permits an inquiry chair to do.
Whichever it is, will then decide whether to accept or not or accept in part, or as they have done in the with the infected blood inquiry, except. But some are accepted in principle because they're necessarily involve consideration amongst a lot of other considerations amongst those, for instance, the duty of candour. The. Should the inquiry chair have have a right to police the recommendations. I think I agree with what Miss Richard said, that it's not our function to police the recommendations. And so I think probably no.
We in the infected blood inquiry were able to look at what had been done and whether it had been done sufficiently in time, improperly, because our terms of reference were drafted in a way that permitted that. And that's what we did. But that was within the terms of reference. So I think it all comes back to the terms of reference and and whether that permits and what it permits an inquiry chair to do.
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Ah, now that depends on the recommendation. Um and. There may be some recommendations where you would expect that the recommendation could only be implemented fully over time. So. Take the recommendation. Um that was made, I think made in 50 odd years ago in the Ely hospital. Um in inquiry investigation that the culture needed to change. That's a recommendation which had been made by inquiry after inquiry after inquiry into health care. And almost every health care inquiry there has been has said the culture is got to change.
Um, how do you how do you deal with that?How do you monitor that?That's not an easy question, but it does. I think the fact that it's difficult. Doesn't mean to say that it's not important, as indeed those repeated requests demonstrate. And you need to know that something has been done and what's been done. And if that goes on for a long time before you see any change, if inquiries are still coming up with this, culture needs to change, then you need to ask government, well, what are you doing about it?
Um, how do you how do you deal with that?How do you monitor that?That's not an easy question, but it does. I think the fact that it's difficult. Doesn't mean to say that it's not important, as indeed those repeated requests demonstrate. And you need to know that something has been done and what's been done. And if that goes on for a long time before you see any change, if inquiries are still coming up with this, culture needs to change, then you need to ask government, well, what are you doing about it?
11:19
11:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, I would hope not. I would hope that the process would produce a pretty swift response, and government would get on with it. And that that will be it. And you would recognise that that that was done. But I don't I can't rule out that there are some recommendations which, though deliverable. Will only be deliverable over time and with persistence and. Persistence mustn't be an excuse for indolence.
11:20
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
And, um, you've touched on several times the fact that your terms of reference allowed you, as it were, to keep the inquiry open so you could go back. Other inquiries may not have such wide terms of reference. So would it be wise, in your view, for inquiries to. Make interim reports and interim recommendations as a matter of course, so that they have a chance to hold the feet to the fire.
11:20
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think there is a tension. Between time and. Expense and making effective or recommendations which are going to be followed through, as you suggest. Because if interim reports are made. Purely as you go along, rather than to deal with something which is of significant urgency. Then it takes time to do it. And the whole within the Inquiry Inquiries Act, there is a need for submissions to be made by those who are core participants. There is a need to notify people who might be criticised and deal with those criticisms for the interim report, just as there is for the main report.
Um, that takes time. The writing up takes time, and time may be something which is always your enemy in terms of delivering justice. Um. Justice is not just getting it right. It's getting it right as quickly as you reasonably can at a reasonable cost, without taking up a disproportionate share of resources. Um, that's the way in which the civil courts now look at, uh, justice. And I think that's right. And it's a way in which I think inquiry chairs have to look at justice.
You, you always balancing the need to do things as quickly as you can. Because after all, if an inquiry is called, people want an answer as soon as possible. But you can't give it as soon as possible without compromising the quality of what you're saying and the thoroughness with which you're looking at matters. Never leave every stone unturned. No stone unturned. Because that's nonsense. You can't look at that will take you forever. And so you have to have sufficient material to.
Make decisions which again will depend on the subject matter. Um, and you have to spend only as much as will let you do this reasonably, but that may be quite a lot. Um so. The problem with interim reports is that, um and yes, if there is an interim report, you can follow up and see what's what's happening, whether you can make a commentary on what the government is doing about recommendations. An interim report depends upon the terms of reference. And you come back to square one.
Um, that takes time. The writing up takes time, and time may be something which is always your enemy in terms of delivering justice. Um. Justice is not just getting it right. It's getting it right as quickly as you reasonably can at a reasonable cost, without taking up a disproportionate share of resources. Um, that's the way in which the civil courts now look at, uh, justice. And I think that's right. And it's a way in which I think inquiry chairs have to look at justice.
You, you always balancing the need to do things as quickly as you can. Because after all, if an inquiry is called, people want an answer as soon as possible. But you can't give it as soon as possible without compromising the quality of what you're saying and the thoroughness with which you're looking at matters. Never leave every stone unturned. No stone unturned. Because that's nonsense. You can't look at that will take you forever. And so you have to have sufficient material to.
Make decisions which again will depend on the subject matter. Um, and you have to spend only as much as will let you do this reasonably, but that may be quite a lot. Um so. The problem with interim reports is that, um and yes, if there is an interim report, you can follow up and see what's what's happening, whether you can make a commentary on what the government is doing about recommendations. An interim report depends upon the terms of reference. And you come back to square one.
11:23
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yes. Just to add in relation to interim reports can be an incredibly useful tool, but simply having the power to make an interim report doesn't mean you necessarily have the power, as Sir Brian said, to follow through and examine what the government is doing. That will depend upon what your terms of reference say, because if your terms of reference are limited to, for example, a specific fact finding exercise about an event, and it is unlikely that the use of an interim report would be a legitimate device to enable you then to police what was being done in response.
Um terms of. Included an examination of the response of government at all stages, essentially. And that was why we were able to do it.
Um terms of. Included an examination of the response of government at all stages, essentially. And that was why we were able to do it.
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Briefly, your report highlights the benefit of individual select committees doing scrutiny. For example, the independent expert panel used by the Health committee. Um others which have been highlighted for doing good work were example, the Housing Committee on Grenfell and on building Safety in general. Now, given these points, why did you settle on recommending that a single committee, i.e. this committee, fulfils the scrutiny role?Is it. Purely the sort of collective residual corporate memory and an understanding of public administration?
11:25
11:25
11:25
11:25
11:26
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yes, I do. Um, I recommended this committee, not a national oversight mechanism. And I stand by that recommendation. The views expressed about it to you by, by Lord, Lord Norton, um, are ones I, I would align myself with, uh, that, um. Why create another body?Outside Parliament where what?You're asking what you are dealing with is the scrutiny of what is happening within Parliament or within government. It is. That's essentially the role of this committee.
If you set up an outside body. Well, the argument for it may be resources, but then it costs to set up the outside body and fund it, and that is money which is going outside to an outside body, but it does not need to. So I think the existing, um, institutions within Parliament yourselves are fit for purpose.
If you set up an outside body. Well, the argument for it may be resources, but then it costs to set up the outside body and fund it, and that is money which is going outside to an outside body, but it does not need to. So I think the existing, um, institutions within Parliament yourselves are fit for purpose.
11:27
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I guess the question would be if, if these structures already exist and if we already do undertake some measure of oversight of these recommendations as, as we are here today. People may well question whether or not Parliament is, uh, currently proving itself functional and looking at, uh, recommendations of inquiries. Uh, and there's always the question, of course, around whether or not partisan interests may well interfere in the functional scrutiny of government policy, whereas an external body may well have greater willingness to investigate these things.
11:27
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well. You're probably right that that there are lots of people outside Parliament who think that government policy is open to be criticised, but that's not really the test. The the question is whether there should. There is sufficient confidence in the independence of the of the of the system. Uh, the national oversight mechanism is established because I think there's a sense that there's a lack of trust. Uh, but one of the features which made me confident in the recommendation I made that this committee could take it on was his history of being thought to be an independent of government, not frightened to to say when you you think government has fallen short, the.
General picture of select committees is that they do have that sort of function. Um, but this, this body. Has an honourable tradition of doing just that. That I think is public's greatest assurance. After all, if they had a national oversight. Mechanism, they report back to the government and minister and they may say exactly the same thing as they did, but you can call the minister to account and to explain within Parliament, and you are much closer to those who have power to get government to change its mind.
If it needs to.
General picture of select committees is that they do have that sort of function. Um, but this, this body. Has an honourable tradition of doing just that. That I think is public's greatest assurance. After all, if they had a national oversight. Mechanism, they report back to the government and minister and they may say exactly the same thing as they did, but you can call the minister to account and to explain within Parliament, and you are much closer to those who have power to get government to change its mind.
If it needs to.
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:29
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
National oversight is what is required. And a national oversight body or mechanism in my own personal and professional view, may be a good thing to have for many of the reasons outlined in the evidence from, from inquest to this committee. But it wouldn't be a substitute for the specific role which Sir Brian recommended for this inquiry, which is absolutely that ability to call ministers before it and to call ministers to account. And it's difficult to see how a national oversight body could fulfill that, although there might be lots of other very good work that they could do of.
11:29
11:29
11:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yes. Um, currently. The Cabinet Office has set up a, a dashboard of the recommendations of main inquiries. Um it, it doesn't give much as much detail at all as the reports which the minister has given, uh, the Cabinet Office minister has given to Parliament about, about my inquiry and its progress. So. If the um. If the model of the dashboard is going to be effective, it will have to give more information. I think.
There is an external um website which uh, designed by. Someone who worked in the Cabinet Office at one stage, which uses AI to pick together, bring together various things which have been said, developments which have taken place in respect of inquiry recommendations. That's more informative. So it something of that sort could be the model of the dashboard could be expanded and used to to give the public the information it needs, because the. What you're looking. For is accountability, openness, transparency.
And in essentially the involvement of those people who most need to know, which are those people who are affected by whatever the inquiry recommendation may be. In the case of my inquiry, those people who were infected and affected, um, are. Concerned that all the recommendations which I've made, including the ones about Pacac as it happens, are put into effect, as I understand it.
There is an external um website which uh, designed by. Someone who worked in the Cabinet Office at one stage, which uses AI to pick together, bring together various things which have been said, developments which have taken place in respect of inquiry recommendations. That's more informative. So it something of that sort could be the model of the dashboard could be expanded and used to to give the public the information it needs, because the. What you're looking. For is accountability, openness, transparency.
And in essentially the involvement of those people who most need to know, which are those people who are affected by whatever the inquiry recommendation may be. In the case of my inquiry, those people who were infected and affected, um, are. Concerned that all the recommendations which I've made, including the ones about Pacac as it happens, are put into effect, as I understand it.
11:31
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And if there was just to be one thing done by central government, greater transparency, because that the earlier questions about the establishment of Ibca and so on, and the relationship between the Cabinet Office and Ibca and, uh, we. Saw in that, um, a repetition of a lot of the problems of the past that things were being done, but no one was telling the people most closely involved what they were. If there were greater transparency and less defensiveness on the part of central government, that would go a long way towards addressing many of the problems and making scrutiny and oversight a great deal easier.
Thank you.
Thank you.
11:32
11:32
11:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Parliament is the UK Parliament. Um, so there will. Be issues which are purely English, purely Welsh, purely Northern Irish, purely Scottish. Um. They will be informed by. No doubt what happens in England, in Wales, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland. I rather wish, as you gather from comments which I made earlier, that the response in England was was uh more informed by the Scottish Episcopal Assurance Group than it has been. But that's, that's, I think what I would want to say about about that the scrutiny obviously, is scrutiny of the implementation of the recommendation on the national national level as it stands for the those matters, which are purely.
Say purely. Mean, um, devolved will have to be matter for the devolved administrations, but they will take take up. I mean, they don't they don't operate in a in a complete vacuum.
Say purely. Mean, um, devolved will have to be matter for the devolved administrations, but they will take take up. I mean, they don't they don't operate in a in a complete vacuum.
11:33