The Right Rev. James Jones and Ken Sutton gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from the Right Rev. James Jones, chair of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and Ken Sutton, who was adviser to the panel. I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed to. I welcome our witnesses and invite them to make a brief opening statement.

Rt Rev James Jones:

No, thank you very much. I am happy to answer the questions. I welcome the proposal to set up an independent public advocate.

Mr Sutton, would you like to say anything?

Ken Sutton:

Thank you for the invitation. I headed up the secretariat that supported the Hillsborough Independent Panel and worked with Bishop James Jones in that capacity, as I have done ever since. I hope that my experience can shed some light on the independent public advocate.

It is good to see you, Mr Sutton, and the Right Rev. James Jones; you were my constituent when you were Bishop of Liverpool, and we have had dealings over many years through our work on Hillsborough. It is good to see you bothQ164 . The Hillsborough Independent Panel was set up in 2010 and completed its work by 2012. It did a fantastic job of looking through many documents and setting out the truth that families had been searching for since 1989. Bishop, why was the panel able to do what numerous legal proceedings over the years appeared to fail to do? What was it about how you went about your work that meant that it was successful in difficult circumstances?

Rt Rev James Jones:

We had to gain the trust of the families, understandably. At the outset, families were not instantly persuaded that the panel, which was set up by the Government, would do what we were charged with doing, which was to access all the documents available from public authorities, analyse those documents with a team of experts, and write an account, so that there would be greater public understanding of what happened on that day. In the end, I think we gained the confidence of the families, and due to their tenacity and the expertise of the various panel members, we were able to shed light on what happened on the day and in the aftermath.

Q Did the panel have particular powers that ensured that the job could be done while maintaining the trust of the families, who of course, after 21 years, were disinclined to trust public authorities and investigations because so many of them previously had not come through with the facts?

Ken Sutton:

I think the success of the panel did not come from its powers; as a non-statutory form of inquiry, we did not have any powers. I think the success of the panel was built on the relationship that the panel members and the secretariat established with the Hillsborough families from the start of the work. At the heart of that—I think this is very relevant to today—was the fact that the panel listened to the families. That may sound like a very simple statement, but the experience of the Hillsborough families and others was that they were not listened to. Individual Hillsborough families made the point to the panel, and to me, that they felt listened to for the first time when the panel was established. There is a clue there for the work of the independent public advocate going forward: they should, first and foremost, be listening to the families affected.

Rt Rev James Jones:

To add to what Ken has said, Maria, the title of the second report, which was about learning from the families’ experiences, was “The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power”. That is exactly how the families felt that public authorities were treating them over those years.

Q Bishop James, you have said on record that you support the establishment of an independent public advocate. What would that person or persons do that would add to what happens in the aftermath of a disaster, which is that there are inquiries, possibly public ones, inquests if there have been fatalities, and possibly ongoing legal cases thereafter? What would the establishment of an independent public advocate add to that landscape?

Rt Rev James Jones:

Contrary to the Government’s proposal, I believe that there should be a standing independent public advocate. Why? Because in the immediate aftermath of a public tragedy, people are grief-stricken and traumatised. They are unprepared and disorientated, and they no longer feel in control of their life. It is in that immediate moment that they need an advocate—somebody who will represent them to Government and signpost them to the agencies that are available to support them in that moment of trauma.

Q You have said that there should be a standing advocate, but do you have a view about who should call on the advocate to get involved in any particular circumstances? Should it be the standing advocate themselves? Should it be done only if the families ask for it? Or should the Secretary of State perhaps be the person to decide? Do you have a view about that?

Rt Rev James Jones:

I do. I think the independent public advocate should have the right to engage with the families, but the families should also have a right to call upon the IPA if the IPA has not taken that initiative. My view is that the independence of the IPA has to be at the moment of decision. Unless the IPA is free to make the decision about engaging with the family or families, then I think the IPA is just a public advocate, and not an independent public advocate.

Q So independence is very important to the way in which you see these things. You will have had a chance to look at the Bill and its proposals. Do you think that Bill provides enough independence?

Rt Rev James Jones:

I am afraid I do not. I welcome the Government’s initiative, and I welcome their determination to continue to listen to various parties as they shape this appointment. However, I do not think that that independence is sufficiently guaranteed by the Bill as it stands; I think it can be guaranteed only if it is a standing appointment.

Q Are there powers or other roles that you think the advocate should have, apart from those you have already set out? For example, the Hillsborough Independent Panel had the power of data control, and could collect and look after all the information, which you duly did, before it was published. Do you recall that some of the Hillsborough families could be cynical about whether things were going to be revealed—until they were—because of the use of freedom of information, and because the Government could avoid handing out certain documents, which would give rise to suspicions about what was being held back? In the circumstances of Hillsborough, after many years, there were a lot of suspicions. Do you think that the independent public advocate has a role—and if so, what—in ensuring that those suspicions do not arise?

Rt Rev James Jones:

I do think the IPA has a role, but I think there is a difference between the IPA and the Hillsborough Independent Panel. I will leave it to Ken to differentiate those two things. As to your question about what specific responsibilities the IPA should have, I would list them as follows. First and foremost, the IPA should be able to instruct all implicated agencies to keep, and not to destroy, public records. We should not have to wait until a panel or public inquiry is set up to instruct those agencies to keep all records. Secondly, I think the IPA could call on all implicated agencies to adopt the charter for families bereaved through public tragedy, which in essence calls on those agencies not to put their reputation ahead of the interests of the families of the victims and the survivors.

I think, too, the IPA can advise the Government on the setting up of an appropriate review, be that a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, an independent panel or a different form of review or commission. I think, too, the IPA is in a good position to advise the Government on the terms of reference for such an inquiry or panel. One problem that I have observed over the years is that terms of reference are often cobbled together at very short notice, at the last minute, and are not adequate to the task.

The IPA could also advise the Government on the sponsoring Department. I draw attention to the infected blood inquiry: the families were very concerned about the fact that the sponsoring Department was the Department of Health, which was implicated in many of the allegations. Indeed, I was asked by the families whether I would petition the Prime Minister to transfer the sponsorship of that inquiry from the Department of Health to the Cabinet Office, which Theresa May, when she was Prime Minister, did, to the satisfaction of the families. The IPA could also have a role in scrutinising whether lessons really have been learned from the inquest or inquiry, so that those lessons can be embedded across Government and prevent future tragedies.

Ken Sutton:

It was crucial to the success of the Hillsborough Independent Panel in the task that the bishop has described that it was, and was seen to be, impartial and certainly not merely an advocate for the families. Had that not been the case, we would not have had the success in publishing the documents that were published, because we would not have had the trust of the public authorities in exercising that role. I think it is important to distinguish the role of the panel from the role of an independent public advocate, going forward.

There is one other point that I think is relevant. I had the privilege of consulting the Hillsborough families about the membership of the panel, but I was very conscious that I was doing that 20 years after Hillsborough. If we were talking about a similar disaster now, where an advocate was needed, that is not the conversation that would be relevant to the families at the time of the disaster. The Bill is in some danger of creating a conversation with families that is not the right conversation to have at the moment of bereavement. I worry that the well-intentioned idea of consulting the families about prospective advocates would be more damaging than helpful at that time, and that it is wrongly placed in the process.

That is why I agree with the bishop that the better option would be for the independent public advocate to be appointed in advance, so they can discuss with the families the help that they can bring, and be immediately available for that purpose. That does not rule out there being a panel of advocates; I can well see that the independent public advocate might want to bring in a panel, or advise on other panel members being appropriate. That might be relevant for reasons to do with skills, if there are other panel members, geography, or possibly the multiplicity of incidents, if there is more than one at the same time, which is conceivable in the terrorist context. There is some learning from the Hillsborough Independent Panel, but it is important to distinguish that what the panel did is not what the independent public advocate would be doing.

Q Do you think that the independent public advocate should have the power to appoint a panel like the Hillsborough Independent Panel to try to do the job that the panel did, which was to get at the truth, albeit many years later?

Ken Sutton:

Honestly, I do not think it is a matter of powers; I think the independent public advocate will have a voice. The importance for me is the authority of the person in taking forward this work. That person would have the authority, and maybe in legislation could be entitled to express a view on what form of inquiry should go on alongside their work.

If I put myself momentarily in the shoes of South Yorkshire police, I would not have wanted or welcomed the panel being created through an independent public advocate who is there, by definition, for the families. The decision on an inquiry has to be for the Government, but the independent public advocate, having talked with the families in the immediate aftermath, would be well placed to offer advice on the form that that inquiry should take.

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?

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 togetherQ ?

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.

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

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

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?Q

Rt Rev James Jones:

Could you specify what bit of part 2 you are referring to, in terms of needing more work?

No, because it is not in front of me. Do you think that the Bill would get you the independence that you want, and give the families a voice?

Rt Rev James Jones:

At the risk of repeating myself, no, I do not. I think independence can be assured only by there being a standing public appointment.

Ken Sutton:

I agree.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Do you think that the duty of candour should be extended to include public servants, so that they have to proactively tell the truth? Shall we start with you, Bishop?Q

Rt Rev James Jones:

Yes, I think that there should be a duty of candour on all public officials. Anybody who accepts public office should bind themselves according to their own conscience to speak with candour and not to dissemble when called upon to give the truth and an account of what has happened. But I do not think that that is part of this Bill.

It is not, but it could be included, so it is important to get your perspective. Ken?

Ken Sutton:

The bishop referred to how the independent public advocate could urge the public authorities not only to adopt the charter, but to live by it. I think the influence of the independent public advocate would be to bring about more candour in the terrible circumstances that we are imagining, beyond what would otherwise be the default. Unfortunately, we have seen many examples where candour has not been apparent in those kinds of circumstances. The IPA could help to hold public authorities to a position of candour.

Thank you very much.

This may be my misunderstanding, but I want to ask about the argument for having a standing independent public advocate rather than somebody brought in to respond to a specific incident. I understand why you would want a standing IPA—if they are primed and ready, they can respond with more speed—but there is merit in having somebody dedicated to a particular incident, especially in awful circumstances where there are a number of different national incidents all at once.Q

Is it the proposal that a standing IPA would basically step aside once the specific IPA got involved? How do you see it all working in practice? That is what I cannot get my head around.

Ken Sutton:

I certainly have not seen them standing completely aside. The independent public advocate would have an authority through that office that would be beneficial going forward.

It is basically doubling up.

Ken Sutton:

But I can see that they might decide that, for a particular tragedy, an advocate with medical experience, let us say, would be appropriate. We were greatly aided on the Hillsborough panel by Dr Bill Kirkup, whose work was decisive to the outcome of the Hillsborough independent panel. I can see circumstances in which that kind of advocate could be brought on board when you know the nature of the so-called incident. But I do not see the independent public advocate washing their hands, as it were, of an incident going forward.

Bishop?

Rt Rev James Jones:

If we look at Hillsborough, we see that it was the immediate aftermath that compounded the tragedy—the role of the emergency service, the police, the media, the coroner. Within 48 hours, a narrative was being shaped over which the bereaved and the survivors had no control whatever.

My concern about not having a standing IPA is that there would inevitably be a process in which the Lord Chancellor would then consult with his team to see whether or not they should set up an IPA. But even in that short space of time, a false narrative can be created. I feel that in that short space of time, too, the families, who are disorientated and traumatised, feel even more bereft.

Q Does either witness want to make any last comments?

Rt Rev James Jones:

Just to say thank you very much for inviting us. We stand ready—we have made this point to the Government—to share out of our own experience information that would help to shape the IPA. The Government have put it on the record that they want to continue to consult, and the families themselves have much to contribute to this proposal.

Mr Sutton?

Ken Sutton:

indicated dissent.

Thank you very much for speaking so clearly to us on a very difficult subject. We are very grateful.