Nick Hurd and Tim Suter gave evidence.

Our next witnesses are Nick Hurd, the independent adviser to the Prime Minister on Grenfell, and Tim Suter, a solicitor at the Manchester Arena inquiry and the Hillsborough inquest. Welcome, Nick; you are appearing via Zoom. Who wants to lead off the questions? Is it Maria again?

I am happy to, but I do not wish to monopolise.

No, let’s hear from—

The expert.

Q Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing, Mr Hurd and Mr Suter. Mr Hurd, will you set out what problems you came across in your role as adviser to the Prime Minister on Grenfell? As a former Minister and in that role, you must have had a lot of contact with families affected by disaster. In those roles, what has your experience been of the main problems in the aftermath of a terrible public disaster like that, which affects so many people, and what should we do to address them?

Nick Hurd:

Thank you for the welcome, Chair, and thank you for the question, Ms Eagle. Every disaster has its own specific context. I will take a minute to clarify my role in Grenfell and how it came about before answering your question.

The specific context of the Grenfell disaster was that, at the time, I was Minister for Policing and the Fire Service. I had some involvement in the co-ordination of the response in the aftermath, which was inadequate. The combination of the disaster and the response resulted in a situation in which there was zero trust—negative trust—between the communities affected and the state in the form of both the local authority, which many blamed for the disaster, and the national Government, which many blamed for the inadequate response to the disaster. I was asked by the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, to play a special role. It might have had some parallels with the role that Tessa Jowell played in a different context, that of 7/7. My role was to build a bridge of communication between the communities affected—the bereaved, survivors and residents close to the tower—and the state, in particular the central Government, who were more involved in the aftermath than they had expected to be. That was the specific context: I was not an independent advocate, but a Minister trying to build bridges of trust and communication.

To answer your question, I think that the central point is the one that Michael Wills made. The central difficulty that I faced was the lack of trust that the community felt and their lack of agency. In the specific context of Grenfell, many felt that they were victims of the state, and they found it difficult to believe that the state had an interest in supporting them or that they had any agency or voice in that process. In hindsight, that was one of the biggest challenges that we faced. I support the emphasis that Michael Wills put on it.

Q Thank you. I will come to you in a minute, Mr Suter, because your role was slightly different. Mr Hurd, what do you think about transparency? Grenfell has not lasted 34 years like Hillsborough did, but time has passed and there is still a feeling that a lot is not known about what went on, inquiries are still ongoing and there has not been a definitive outcome. Do you feel that the independent public advocate as proposed in the Bill—or a version of that advocate if the proposals are amended—could offer something positive to stop the lack of trust and prevent families from feeling excluded, “done to” and that they are not being told the truth, which often happens in the aftermath of disasters?

Nick Hurd:

If set up in the right way and with the right individual, the role could be very valuable in helping families to believe that there is someone on their side, given that of course they do not understand the system—why should they?—and feel that it is not listening to them and is not on their side. In principle, I am supportive.

I would enter a caveat around expectation, however. To the point that I think you were making, sometimes it takes a long time to get to the truth and to justice, which is the word that is used in the Grenfell context; “accountability” is a softer word. That process takes time. In the case of Grenfell, the public inquiry is generally extremely well regarded for the rigour of its processes and how it is led, but it is inevitably going to take quite a long time to get to the point of ultimate truth and accountability. I doubt that there is very much that an independent public advocate can do to speed up the process in the context of formal public inquiries and inquests. I would have a concern about expectation management and about how the thing is set up in a way that the system is required to respond to an independent public advocate.

Q Thank you. Mr Suter, you have acted as solicitor to the Manchester Arena inquiry and have had professional involvement in the aftermath of a number of disasters. Do you have any general observations about the proposal for an independent public advocate? Given your experience, would it be helpful in your professional opinion?

Tim Suter:

Thank you for the question, and thank you to the Committee for inviting me along today. Let me just give you some context about my experience. I am a solicitor, and for the last 15 years I have helped those conducting inquests, inquiries and investigations. You referred to the new inquest into the Hillsborough disaster; I was the solicitor to that, and I am the current solicitor to the Manchester Arena inquiry. I also assisted the inquests into the Birmingham pub bombings and the 7/7 inquests. Through those and other investigations, I have had lots of experience and exposure to the difficult issues that those cases have to investigate, but also to the bereavement and anguish that those who are at the heart of those investigations go through. It is clear to me that the role of an IPA is very valuable. To be frank, I think there is some confusion in the Bill about the role that the IPA could and should fulfil, but at its core I fully support the need for an IPA.

As people gave their evidence, I jotted down words that absolutely ring true for me—references to “anguish”, “impotence”, “distrust”, “patronising” and “lack of access to power”. I have experienced all those things. On the flip side, there was talk of “agency”, “voice”, “empathy”, “the truth” and “compassion”. At its heart, that is the purpose of an inquisitorial process such as an inquest or inquiry. If the IPA can help with that in the right way, I think it is absolutely right.

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.

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.

I should say, we do not have much time.

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.

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

Tim Suter:

No.

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.”

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.

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

Q Good afternoon. My questions are about legal aid, and whether it should be extended as non means-tested legal aid to all cases where there are mass fatalities and where public bodies are potentially at fault. I am interested in your opinion on that. Can we start with you, Tim?

Tim Suter:

I do not know all the ins and outs of the legal aid regime. For a public inquiry, section 40 allows the chair to make the provision for lawyers—for legal representation—at public expense. In that sense, there is already the ability to grant funding. For inquests, I absolutely agree that it goes to equality of arms, and that there must be the ability for bereaved families to be properly legally represented. It makes my job harder, sometimes, but that is a thoroughly good thing—that I can be asked, “Why are you advising the chair or the coroner to take this view? Have you taken this into account?” Having that makes it a proper inquisitorial process—a search for the truth—so yes, I agree.

Q Thank you, Tim. Would you agree on that, Nick, in terms of equality of arms and as a matter of right?

Nick Hurd:

Yes, I do. It came up in the Grenfell context. You will understand that what I call the system tends to try to stay rational in these situations and try to respect their processes and structures, but in my experience in these seismic moments it is better to be decisive, up front and generous and just show that you are on their side with a decisive offer such as that.

Q I have a further question on the area of duty of candour. Do you believe that should be extended to public servants so that they must proactively tell the truth? Can I start with you, Nick?

Nick Hurd:

I have discussed this with the bishop. I am, again, in favour in principle of the duty of candour.

Wonderful. Tim?

Tim Suter:

The duty of candour obviously makes sense. I would just urge some caution in terms of the process of, the role of, the IPA for getting access to material, if that is a duty that is brought in. I think there is a risk of duplication of effort and added complexity if the IPA is to have the role of gathering and holding material. I think it should have the ability to direct public authorities to retain material, but I do not think it should go further. I think there might also need to be a check in the Bill about the role of FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, because for the 2005 Act, an inquiry is not a public authority that is subject to FOIA. Here, I think that does not necessarily carry across, so that probably needs to be looked at.

Q So you are saying that the independent advocate should have the right to have access to the information, but the information should be held within the public body. Is that what you are saying?

Tim Suter:

I think the organisation should retain it, because there will be materials that are subject to legal professional privilege and materials that are subject or potentially subject to public interest immunity; there will be other confidences attaching to materials. Embarking on a process of redaction of that material by the IPA—when, gosh, you are in the foothills of what is going to be a very long process, I suspect—will take the IPA away from its key job of advocating on behalf of the families to make sure they get access to services. So I would urge caution.

I had better go to Jess now, because she has not had a question, and then Sarah.

Q I want to focus in on the trust that both of you have in the idea of the Secretary of State appointing the public advocate. It would be lovely to hear in this Committee some evidence from the victims commissioner; the Secretary of State is responsible for putting them in place, but they have not done so. Similarly, we have not had a human trafficking commissioner —from the Home Office—for more than a year. So do you have any concerns about the role of the Secretary of State in appointing this person—even if it is done at pace in certain cases?

Nick Hurd:

I would have genuine concerns about that, fully respecting the need for speed and decisiveness. There need to be systems in place so that not least those affected by the disaster at that moment in time have some confidence in the integrity of the process, because ultimately, the individual who is appointed to that role has a very short window of opportunity to build trust. People will form a view very quickly about whether they are useful, so the recruitment is critical and I would think the system would be well advised to build in processes that increase the chances of trust from early doors.

Tim Suter:

I agree wholeheartedly with that. I wrote down four words: speed, trust, confidence and independence.

Q On the point that you made, Tim, about the person being a lawyer—as my colleague, Maria Eagle, pointed out, all the lawyers nodded—I am just wondering. I am somebody who has been a victim advocate who got to the truth my entire career and I do not have a law degree. Do you think that there is also potentially some need for special expertise in how to deal with, specifically, bereaved people and people who have suffered terrible abuses? I am thinking of big national disasters such as child abuse in children’s homes or something like that, where there is a big state actor. Do you think that there is potential for other skills to be important in that?

Tim Suter:

Absolutely. In saying that a lawyer can do it, I completely agree with you. That is actually something I have seen improve remarkably through the course of the cases that I have been involved in—to the extent that for the Manchester Arena inquiry, there was something called the NHS resilience hub and it was fantastic. It was able to guide, support and assist the bereaved and victims. On the need for victim support and people who have specialist skills, I absolutely agree there is a role for that within the IPA.

Q A quick clarification—which Act is the 2005 Act that you referred to?

Tim Suter:

Sorry, I used my shorthand for the Inquiries Act 2005: section 1—matter of public concern, set up inquiry.

Q Got it. You mentioned under-18s. In Clause 27, under-18s are mentioned twice. Subsection (4) refers to the advocate providing “support” to such persons, but subsection (5) says they “may not represent” such persons. What is the distinction between the two and why do you say the Bill does not go far enough?

Tim Suter:

I only looked at it quickly, but I just thought that it is almost saying that the IPA, through another support agency, can give you the voice of that child, or that person who is under 18, but it is not representing. I do not know where representing features in terms of the IPA.

Q So what would you like to see?

Tim Suter:

I would like the IPA to be able to directly represent, subject to parental consent, someone who is under 18. It is just as important for those under 18, if they want to, to have that agency through the IPA. I think there is a real risk it gets lost.

On the Manchester Arena inquiry, we had a number of people under 18 giving evidence and they expressed the impact of the bombing on them so well, so clearly and so powerfully, and there is a real risk of creating a lacuna.

Q In terms of both getting to the truth and getting closure for those involved, how does having their representation help with that?

Tim Suter:

I just think that there is a risk that they will not be able to access services in the same way and I think we all realise that those under 18 may have a need for very specialist services. So, just making sure that it is absolutely crystal clear that the IPA can help those victims under 18 to access the services that are more specialist is going to be important.

If there are no further questions, that concludes this evidence session. Thank you very much, gentlemen.