Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Tuesday 13th October 2026

(began 1 day, 3 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:30
10:30
10:32
10:33
10:33
10:34
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

That's a really good question. I don't think it's been hard, in a sense, of being really clear that my role is independent and I'm not not there for the comfort of government. I am, in part there to challenge government where it's appropriate and necessary also to be working constructively alongside them. So I don't think that there's been a difficulty in being able to articulate that and in people understanding that, because, of course, people have been approaching me, quite frankly, in their droves because they understand the independent nature of my role.

I think where the difficulty comes is because we are such a small outfit. You know, there's me, there's three of us. The architecture is that we don't have an independent sort of we don't have a physical office. Some of our processes and the way we do things are dependent on the Ministry of Justice, for example, we don't have our own sort of finance and budget. Official, so we very much rely on the MoJ to help us with that function.

The where that brings in difficulty is, is just is the bureaucracy. It's , it's, it's, it's the very reason. It's the very thing that I'm sure you will hear from so many other people. Exactly. Quite, quite frankly, there are times when I ask myself how, how, how on earth does government get anything done? Because there are such I mean, the the tranche of business cases and approvals and going round the houses and speak to that one, and then you speak to that one and that one says, no, you should have never spoken to me in the first place.

You just spoke.
10:35
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:37
10:37
10:38
10:38
10:39
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Yes and no. So obviously I, I, I support where I've been deployed, but there are cases that are, if you like, legacy cases and a number of legacy cases where families campaigners have approached me for help and support. And whilst I can't support in the way that I do, if I am deployed, I do think there are. And I have been supporting in ways that I can. So the first thing and you.

This is one of the things that I think has become quite stark is, is the value of listening, the value of listening to those who might have lost people in the Chinook crash or as a result of the Primodos scandal, or indeed the Summerland fire that happened in 1970. The value of listening is so important. And that's why I have not just been supporting those following the Manchester Arena attack, but also listening to those from those cases that have gone before that I'm not, in a statutory sense sort of supporting because that listening is important.

Also, we know that people's experience and the learning doesn't follow a neat sort of statutory kind of definition. And so getting the learning from people who who are still fighting for justice, still waiting for answers is really important because that tells us about the system. And then the other area that I think is really important, and why I do engage with people from those cases, is that it helps to inform how I operate and how the the office works as well.

So, so, but the only other thing I would say is you may or may not be aware of the review that Damon Owers carried out into the death of Harry Dunn, and she recommended that the MoJ consult on whether I should have exceptional circumstances, provisions to be able to support those families where there might have been just a single death. But the impact on that family or the complexity of issues that they might be dealing with in Harry Dunn's family's case, you know, international statecraft, Donald Trump, you know, those those are tricky things, right? And the families having to deal with that on its own and where there is a public interest, I should be able, in exceptional circumstances to be able to support those families, to get through what is a really difficult process.

And I support that. The MoJ agreed to consult on it, but they haven't quite consulted on it just yet.
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:43
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

That's a really good question. And I think it's really difficult to define the split. And it's in part because. In terms. Let's take Heaton Park . Jewish community deeply, deeply affected. One of my challenges was to make sure that as a new role that I wasn't sort of trying to. Almost as a new kid on the block, not wanting to demonstrate that I, you know, I'm useful and I can make a difference.

One of one of my challenges was to actually exercise restraint because I knew and understood that the community itself has its own infrastructure and supported networks. Some of that is because it's been under sustained attack. It's had to look after itself. Some of that is because of religious needs and cultural needs. And, and part of what our work is about is about being trauma informed. And a big part of that is understanding the community first and foremost, recognising where we could add value, exercising restraint so that we're not duplicating what other organisations are meant to be doing, trying to usurp their own infrastructure.

So, so why I'm saying that is because when when the attack happened, one of the immediate things I'd done was check in on them to find out whether or not they had the sufficient trauma informed support. And they said, thank you very much. But we've flown in 4 or 5 trauma informed specialists from Israel. I, you know, and so it's understanding what their specific needs are so, so quiet ish in the beginning. But then the needs emerged over time as the process unfolds.

So, so people have been coming forward to us with their issues and concerns that we've been picking up on and trying to pursue. So it's sort of it ebbs and flows, and what it's dependent on is need and us being able to be ready to respond to that, where where it's sort of ebbed. That's when we can spend a bit more time on some of the other cases. So so it's been a mixture.
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you.
10:45
10:45
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

So I'm so officially I am two days a week, and then I go up to full time when I'm deployed, and then at some point I'm not quite sure when it's up to the Secretary of State to decide when to stand me down as the the phrase that's used in the legislation. And then I guess I go back up if something happens and I go back down and go back up and go. So right now I'm actually full time because I was deployed four days after, but officially it's part time.

I think that's, that's not the right thing for a role like this, not least because there's work to be done in between deployments. You know, I think I've already articulated just how important preparedness and resilience is that, you know, so this role doesn't just kick in when I'm deployed as important as deployment is. So I think that's a mistake. The other thing I would say is that the structure and the way it's designed in my mind.

Can limit the kinds of people who can go for this role. I took this role knowing it was two days and then going up and thinking, that's madness. But I took it anyway because my view is you take it and you make you make it different when you're in there. But actually, that would have put so many people off, people who are not, dare I say it. I think I'm still in the prime of my career.

You know, I haven't got a rich husband or a rich wife or whatever, you know, to kind of prop me up or a lovely pension, you know, I need to earn. Right? And so this idea that you can just do the role part time, perhaps, well, get another employee to say, I'll take you on knowing full well that you could be off if something happens. It's just for the birds. So I think it designs out people who could be really, really good at this role.

And I think it is a diversity issue. But as I say, I took it anyway. And my view is that you take it and you make it different for myself, but for future IPOs as well.
10:48
10:48
10:49
10:49
10:50
10:51
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:53
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

You know them. The Home Office. You know, the mayor, you know, just people and organisations, whether that's victim support, you know, people kind of descending on on them, wanting updates, wanting information. And they were really clear. We understand it's, you know, in the best interest in their best interests. It's not as if they were deliberately trying to overwhelm them. They wanted to know and understand what was going on.

But that burden being placed on them was absolutely immense. And so that's what reinforced to me just why it's so important for us to to be very clear. About our added value, not trying to duplicate, not imposing ourselves on them. I guess some of the other sort of more specific learning that's come out of, of Heaton Park is the synagogue itself was an interested person in the inquest process as, as as am I.

But the but the synagogue wasn't able to access legal aid because it's an organisation. So that's one of the areas that we've identified. There is clearly a gap there. The synagogue community at the heart of the attack happened there. You know, it's affected deeply that community. They are interested parties within the process, but they don't have access to legal aid. The only way they could access it is through exceptional circumstances, applications, which in and of itself is very complicated and complex, particularly for volunteers who oversee the the synagogue and would have to.

And then they had to try and get pro-bono support. So there are sort of systemic issues, gaps that we're identifying. Another gap is around support for carers. So people who suddenly become carers by dint of supporting people who have been attacked. There is no proper mechanism for supporting them through that in terms of benefits. So again, that's an issue that we're trying to pursue, working with the relevant departments, trying to understand that gap and see how that gap can be plugged.

Does that help?
10:57
10:57
10:58
10:59
10:59
10:59
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

So that's not a decision for me. That's a decision for the chief coroner who presided over the inquest. She we've I've got counsel that represents the IPA within those processes, and we've been involved in those deliberations. You know what the issues are in terms of the security services. We've you know, we've had disclosures in respect of the thinking around that and the evidence that has been amassed that indicate that the that it needed to go to a statutory inquiry.

So so I've been appraised via that disclosure process, have also had the opportunity and, and took that opportunity to make submissions, really pointing out. What what the what the drawbacks are of going to a statutory inquiry in that there would be no there would be no jewelry. The fact that evidence, some evidence will be heard in closed session and just really reinforcing the fact that even within those parameters that that that people affected should be able to understand those processes and be able to play a meaningful part.

So those that's what my, my submissions and my views have really tried to sort of reinforce and get across and that decisions need to be timely. And I'm really pleased that actually, that decision was announced yesterday in relatively swift time, which is good. But of course, it still needs to a chair needs to be identified terms of reference. It needs to be set up. All of that can take time. The longer that takes, the more anxious the community rightly is, and they don't have the answers that they so desperately want and deserve.

So being able to keep pushing and pressing for, for that to be done speedily, but making sure that they are at the heart of those decisions, even with the constraints that it brings.
11:01
11:02
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

I hope so. So so to be clear that the the legislation says that wherever I'm deployed, I automatically become an IP in an inquest. It is silent in respect of inquiries. So it doesn't say that I ought to immediately become a core participant. So we still need to work out. And that will be obviously, once the chair is appointed, what status I will have. I'm still undecided as to what status is the right status, whether core participant status is right.

That will I mean, part of that being a core participant is that you service, if you like, the inquiry chair, is that the right thing for the independent public advocate to be doing? It means that you have access to waves of disclosure. I mean, we're talking thousands upon thousands of documents, sometimes being servicing the the inquiry chair means that you need to get beneath all of that disclosure documentation.

If they ask you, you know, to look at this or to respond to that on their behalf. You need you need more than three people to do that. So, so I haven't quite worked out what my role is, but I am going to be working that out. So in early February, February, November. Thank you. I'm convening a a roundtable to look at the issue of public inquiries in all their forms.

What's the right thing? Where can we where can I add value to that process? What are the things that that victims and survivors would want from me in an inquiry process, whether that's statutory non-statutory. So I'm co-hosting that with Professor Andrews, who I know you've taken evidence from, and other academics, practitioners, people with lived experience to try and kind of get under the skin of it and just think about more deeply what our role should and ought to be.

And I'm happy to report back to you on, on that. If you if you if you'd like. Yeah.
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:05
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:09
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Well, thus far I haven't had the need to do that in terms of how it might work in practice, I think I think my my starting point is that victims, survivors, bereaved families are not a monolith. They have they have different views. Diversity, and a range of views of what ought to ensue. I think an important part of my role is to be able to explain the differences in terms of those processes and, crucially, to try and help them to surface what the issues are that they want answered.

I think that's where it's got to start the context, what are the issues that they want to be addressed? What you know is, is this an issue that is really technical, that might require a particular kind of setup where there might be just a sole chair supported by technical experts, or does it require a, a more a review process with a wider panel? Might it be better to have a statutory inquiry? So I think I think for me, the issue starts with what do they want answered? What do they what are the actual issues? Helping them to understand the different avenues, the pros and cons of those where they might be overly lengthy or where they may not best fit the answers that they're seeking? And that's where you start to, to help them to understand those differences, to articulate them based on need.

But, but also, I think, I think a key value that I bring is to not try and package up those differences neatly. I think sometimes ministers, politicians sometimes might want a neatly packaged with a bow. This is what victim survivors.
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:15
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Good morning.
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:16
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

No, I don't think it's enough. I don't think it's enough, which is why I think that Parliament has a really important role to play in scrutinising the decisions that ministers make on whether or not to, to, to launch a public inquiry. I think there is a need for greater transparency, particularly where there are calls for an inquiry or a review. Those calls are not heeded. Often decisions rationale for why that inquiry hasn't been set up is not given.

I think that erodes trust. People want answers. That's what they tell me. They want answers. And it's not just. And I think this is an important. I guess this is an important learning. I've had. I meet families often face to face. I often meet them virtually. If there's one thing that struck strikes me over and over again is how much families become investigators, campaigners, you know, trying to fight for the truth.

So not only does the trauma that they experience of losing a loved one sort of pass down generationally, but the fight for truth passes down generationally, too. So I met with a woman who lost her father as a result of a major incident. She is fighting for a public inquiry. She inherited that fight from her mum. Her mum fought for it. Her mum no longer fights for it because she's too old.

She's just passed it on to her daughter and. And she said to me, and she was speaking to me from her living room, and I could see stacks and stacks of papers, documents, correspondence, files. I mean, it become her life, right? But she said to me, I want to know what happened to dad because I feel like I owe it to him. But even more than that, I can't leave that inheritance to my three year old daughter, that she will then have to fight for the answers.

And so I think there is something about understanding just the impact of when people don't get answers and they don't get answers to why an inquiry hasn't been set up. And those and there isn't that transparency . I can put my views across and I will and I, I will, you know, will do that, you know, vigorously and independently. But there's something about the system that needs to change as well.
11:19
11:19
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Yes.
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:24
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Reasons for that are all too often we set up public inquiries. Huge expense, not just in monetary terms, but all the things we've been talking about the the burden pressure, the unanswered questions, the impact on families still waiting for those answers. So we set up inquiries. They take long. Too long. They cost huge amounts of money. We sometimes learn the lessons. Sadly, we all too often don't implement the learning from those lessons and make sure that there is meaningful change.

All too often those reports languish on shelves and nothing is done. So. So that's. But there's something else. And and again, it goes back to previous conversations. When there is no body that is charged with making sure that recommendations are implemented and that they are making the change, the desired change that they're supposed to. When no one takes responsibility for that, who does? It's the families.

They carry that burden to make sure that those recommendations are implemented. They become super monitors. They they monitor the institutions, they review websites, they try and have meetings and get updates. That burden falls on them. That's not right. And that's why I support an independent body to do that. An independent body that has the expertise is established in statute as having that responsibility that can be held to account, that has a single individual that is held accountable for ensuring that those recommendations are implemented and that they lead to meaningful change.

That's why I support a national oversight mechanism, because I believe that that's the only way it can be done.
11:26
11:26
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:31
11:31
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Or something else?
11:31
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:32
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

In terms of.
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Scotland for . People
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Leaders within those.
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:44
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

As it were.
11:44
11:45
11:45
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

order!
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page