Victims and Prisoners Bill (Third sitting)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Could I just interrupt for a moment? We do not have a lot of time and we have quite long answers. Does anybody else want to ask a question? Would you mind if I interrupt, because I want to get other people in? Sir Oliver Heald and then Sarah Champion. Please can we have short answers?

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Q It is made clear in the Bill that the work of the independent public advocate is not to carry on a legal activity, but in the inquest that followed your work, it was clear that the inquest had learned a lot from what you had done, and made sure the witnesses were able to put forward their case. What would you like to say about the difference between the lawyer representing the families and the role of the independent public advocate in supporting them, and how the two mesh together?

Ken Sutton: They are very different roles. It is welcome that the Government recently made it clear that the purpose of the independent public advocate is not to be the legal advocate for the families involved. I think the independent public advocate would have a role in making sure that the inquest or inquiry properly engages the families as participants. I am conscious of your remarks, Chair.

[The Chair]

I think we got there. Oliver, do you want to ask one more?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

No, that was the point I wanted to get at. Thank you.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Q Thank you both very much for the evidence you have given. It has clarified in my mind what an independent public advocate is. Do you both feel that part 2 meets the objective that you think should be at the core of the role, or does it need work?

Rt Rev James Jones: Could you specify what bit of part 2 you are referring to, in terms of needing more work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q Lord Wills, do you agree with the idea of having a standing appointment rather than an appointment for a particular incident? Could you also explain how you see the independent public advocate? Is it an impartial person, as described by Ken Sutton, about the panel? What sort of person would it be in terms of qualifications and skills? Do you agree that this person should not be able to take part in legal activity? In other words, if they were at an inquest they would be there as an interested person but represented by a separate lawyer. Do you want to comment on that?

Lord Wills: Yes, I believe it should be a standing appointment, for the reasons that the bishop set out extremely well. In the turmoil of the aftermath of a big public disaster, it is important that someone is on the ground immediately to support the families. I do believe that, and I think it is a perfectly achievable position to have. A secretariat could be drawn together at short notice—a standing secretariat, as it were. It would be doing work within the civil service, but when a public disaster happened it could be brought to bear to act as a secretariat for the independent public advocate.

I hate to think of what might happen. If you imagine a big terrorist incident, for example, the Government would be in turmoil anyway, and then they would have to find the time and space to go through all the selection processes, find out people’s availability and negotiate terms of reference. In the meantime, the poor families are left without anyone to support them, as they always have been up until now. It rather defeats the object of this whole exercise. So I am in favour of having a standing appointment.

As for who the independent public advocate should be, when I originally drafted my private Member’s Bill I had it in mind that it would almost certainly be a lawyer of some sort, and they would function in a similar but not identical way to the reviewer of terrorism legislation. In other words, they would be a distinguished lawyer with a lot of experience in these sorts of areas. Every public disaster is different and it would be very difficult to find someone who had expert knowledge in every possible area, but the broad parameters would be the same.

The main point would be to be able to guide the families through all the various processes that might be taking place, and above all to secure full transparency about what had happened and produce a report on it. As I say, I had it in mind that it would be a lawyer. They are usually extremely useful in these circumstances— I do not speak as a lawyer—but it is not impossible to imagine that it could be someone else with a similar sort of expertise.

Forgive me: there was another part to your question, but I have forgotten it.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q If there were a following inquest, it is proposed that the independent public advocate would be an interested party but would not be able to carry on legal activity himself or herself; they would be represented. Do you agree with that?

Lord Wills: I do agree with that. That is one part of the Bill that is probably sensible. I can understand why it is in there and I can see possible conflicts of interest with professional lawyers, so I do agree.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Thank you very much.

[Janet Daby]

Q Good afternoon, Lord Wills. We last met when you spoke to the Justice Committee, of which I am a member. Do you believe that the independent public advocate should have the ability to access all data, communications, documents and other information to avoid future cover-ups? If so, do you think that the Bill achieves that?

Lord Wills: The prevention of a cover-up is essential in the wider interests of our democracy. People are losing faith in our democratic institutions. When they feel that Governments are covering up things that are crucial to them, they lose faith. In my view, that is worrying and dangerous. We have to do everything we can to protect against that, so anything we can do to raise the barriers against those sorts of cover-ups is crucial. That is why I would also support the introduction of a duty of candour.

We have to accept that a cover-up is part of the pathology of a big public disaster. It is human nature. When something happens like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing or Grenfell Tower, it is a huge story for the nation, and obviously those in power at the time, who feel they might be blamed for it, will feel that they have to cover up in some way. We saw what the police did with Hillsborough: they created a false narrative as part of that cloud of unknowing that they wanted to create, to cover up. What they feared, rightly in the end, was that they would be blamed for it.

That is true of pretty much every public disaster: obviously the details are different, but there is that essential pathology. There is always a risk of cover-up. I hope this Bill, suitably amended, will raise the barriers against that, but it does not mean that we can drop our vigilance against the potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Q You might not have read the details of the Bill, but if you have, do you have a view about whether the current draft would do that job? If you have concerns about it, do you have any views, given your experience, about what the Bill ought to say in order to make a difference?

Tim Suter: I think the bishop summarised it very well in referring to a standing IPA. In my mind, I have characterised it as a standing office—the office of the IPA—whereby there is almost a chief IPA who is appointed. That would be a process that happens as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. It would be properly resourced; or it may not be resourced, but it should be absolutely firm that the resources for the chief IPA to fulfil their job are available. I think they should have the power to appoint IPAs in the light of a particular disaster. They may or may not be involved themselves; it depends on the nature of the disaster.

There are some issues in the Bill as well about the terms of appointment and the resignation of the IPA. I did not really understand why that is there. It needs to be much more forceful and brought almost into line with how the 2005 Act is framed, which is much clearer about the appointment process and the need for that appointment only to be terminated in very particular circumstances.

I have some questions—perhaps points of granularity—about how an IPA is going to advocate on behalf of those under 18. For the Manchester Arena inquiry, many of those affected were under 18. No one should be excluded just because of age from the vital work that an IPA would do. For me, that came across as needing a little bit more work and analysis. There was an intriguing reference to “no immunity” in the Bill as well, which I thought seemed a little out of kilter—perhaps I just do not know the detail. Why does the Bill refer directly to the IPA having no immunity? Then you go through to the process of reporting; as far as I can see, a report is not necessarily laid before Parliament, where it would get the protection of parliamentary privilege. All of felt that it needed to be reviewed with a little bit more scrutiny.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Having a standing appointment or an office would mean that you could have speedy action. I was asking the previous witnesses whether they thought the role should be an impartial one, as the Hillsborough panel inquiry was. What sort of skills and qualifications should the person have? Do you agree that that person should not be able to undertake legal activity? For example, at an inquest, they would be an interested party and could be represented, but they would not be doing the representation themselves.

Nick Hurd: Oliver, good to see you. I have not thought it about very deeply.

[The Chair]

I should say, we do not have much time.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I have just one more question, Chair, which will be very quick. Please go on, Mr Hurd.

Nick Hurd: I am quite attracted to the idea of a standing body because I think it can begin to accumulate knowledge, experience and insight into what is required in these situations. The Government system struggles with that, not least with people moving on. I am attracted in principle to the idea of a standing body and my instinct, like yours, is that the person leading that should not be engaged in legal activity. That would be my instinct as well.

Tim Suter: I find the point about impartiality quite difficult because I think the role of the IPA is, in its very nature, to assist the victims of that disaster. I am not sure you can do that if you are properly going to be impartial. I have a question: they must be independent of Government, but I question whether that is different from the impartiality point. They should be able to really advocate on behalf of the particular victims.

There is also a question about how disaster is always, by its very nature, complex. There will be different types of victim—those who are bereaved, those who have suffered physical harm, those who have suffered mental harm. They will all have different needs from the IPA, which leads you through to the question about perhaps needing a number of IPAs and how that duty of impartiality would work across all of them. That gets quite complex.

As for skills, I would say this, but I think you probably have to have a lawyer. That may be something that everyone has a different view on. In terms of not undertaking legal work, I strongly agree with that. We may get on to it, but I do not think that they should be an interested person in an inquest, because there is a real risk of duplication and confusion. Provided that a bereaved family has access to a lawyer and that lawyer is properly funded so there is equality of arms, they should be the person who is standing up and advocating on behalf of a family in an inquest, not the IPA.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q So you would not be in favour of clause 28.

Tim Suter: No.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q Can I just ask you one final question, if there is time? One of the impressions I have had is that the Hillsborough Independent Panel report and the way it conducted its business affected the way in which the consequent and subsequent inquest was conducted. I know that Lord Goldring, who chaired that, went to great efforts to hear the voices of the victims and families. Would you agree with that? Do you think that, in fact, it has changed the nature of inquests of this sort?

Tim Suter: Yes, I think the change was happening before Hillsborough. The 7/7 inquests were actually the process that introduced pen portraits—the memorialisation of the deceased—and the opportunity to say, “This was my loved one, and this was who they were as a person.”

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q That was Dame Heather Hallett, wasn’t it?

Tim Suter: That was Dame Heather Hallett. That actually came from an inquiry into an air crash in Canada, so taking learning internationally is really important. Hillsborough was a journey—it has been a very long journey—where I have had the privilege to take a small part, but yes, it did give a voice to families. It undoubtedly could have done more; any process can always do more. That is why I would support the role of the IPA to be able to report on the experiences of victims in these processes, because I think being able to be held to account for the process you have been involved in has to be of real value. You need to ensure that there is still judicial independence in that process, and not going behind the decisions reached, but I think it is absolutely understanding the experience of those. The Hillsborough inquests were a very important part of that.

[The Chair]

We have three more people. We have Janet Daby, then Sarah Champion, then Jess Phillips.