Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Clause gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint a lead advocate where multiple advocates have been appointed for the same major incident. The Government believe that the ability to appoint multiple advocates for the same major incident will ensure that the IPA has the necessary capacity and resilience to support victims.

Let us cast our minds back to 2017, when the awful and tragic events in Manchester and at Grenfell Tower happened only a few weeks apart. The number of victims in need of support was in the hundreds, if not higher, and it would not have been possible for a single advocate to provide the right amount of support to all the victims in two very different geographical locations. The clause is intended to deal with such situations by granting the Secretary of State the ability to appoint multiple advocates for the same and different major incidents. We hope that it gives the IPA the greatest ability to serve victims. It was endorsed by the respondents to the 2018 consultation.

Subsection (3) says:

“An advocate must have regard to any directions given by the lead advocate as to how they are to exercise their functions in respect of the incident.”

Having “regard to” is not necessarily “following the instructions of”. Is it not a recipe for chaos if there is a disagreement between advocates about the best way to act?

The right hon. Lady will know the legal connotations of the phrase “have regard to”. What we are seeking to do is recognise that while there may be a lead advocate, there will potentially be other advocates in the team who have particular strengths and expertise. In appointing more than one advocate, I am sure that the Secretary of State will have due regard to ensuring that the team is coherent and able to work together.

It is important that if we are bringing different advocates with different areas of expertise into a team, their voices are able to be heard. There is an expectation that they will behave reasonably and have regard to that principle. Equally, I would not want the lead advocate to be able to silence the expertise of others in the team. It is a difficult balance to strike; like so many things do in public life and in our work, it requires people to behave in a reasonable and responsible manner. I am confident that that that will be the case, but the right hon. Lady is right to highlight the challenges were it not.

We will set up a register of individuals from a range of different professions, backgrounds and geographical areas to enable the IPA to respond to the broadest range of circumstances and the unpredictable nature of major incidents. It will also enable the Secretary of State to appoint an advocate as soon as possible and then appoint further advocates over a slightly longer period, including community advocates, to ensure that voices are reflected and the confidence of victims is maintained. That approach will allow for engagement with the families about the type of support they need from an IPA.

To the point made by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, when multiple advocates are appointed, there must be clear lines of accountability in order to avoid confusion, which is especially important if decisions need to be made quickly. That was alluded to by Lord Wills, and I hope that the measures in the Clause alleviate some of his concerns that multiple advocates could cause confusion. I am sure he is following our proceedings.

The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint a lead advocate where multiple advocates have been appointed for the same major incident. That helps to make decisions clearer and—specific to the point made by the right hon. Lady—in requiring other advocates to have regard to any directions given by the lead advocate, it helps to give the IPA a defined structure. Once appointed, however, the IPA will be operationally independent. It is therefore important to make it clear from the outset how it will operate.

In the circumstances that the right hon. Lady described, the power granted under earlier clauses to the Secretary of State in certain circumstances to remove or change members of the panel is the ultimate backstop. If the panel becomes ineffective, rather than constructively challenging with different points of view, that power is there to be used in extremis. I hope we will see people pulling in the same direction, but the backstop power is there under earlier clauses.

The Government’s intention is not to split victims up between advocates, but to use the different areas of expertise to complement one another. I hope that goes some way to alleviating the right hon. Lady’s concerns but I suspect that she may wish to return to this for greater clarity.

We have no objection in principle to the appointment of multiple independent advocates for the same major incident, therefore creating a panel. However, will the Minister clarify the context in which that panel would operate? Importantly, would it be the same as the Hillsborough Independent Panel—granted the same powers—or would it still be open to Government interference? Will he set that out in his response?

The IPAs are not envisaged as akin to the Hillsborough Independent Panel; they are to be set up as independent public advocates, but the office can have multiple holders simultaneously, if that makes sense, to draw on different expertise. The key element lies in the word “independent”. We are confident that the measures that we are putting in place will create and sustain that independence. I appreciate that the hon. Lady might press back on that on Report or in subsequent debate, but on that basis we consider the Clause to strike the right balance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.