I beg to move Amendment 76, in Clause 29, page 21, line 38, leave out from beginning to the first “the” on line 39.

This amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to instruct the Independent Public Advocate to issue a report.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 77, in Clause 29, page 21, line 39, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “Parliament”.

This amendment ensures that the Independent Public Advocate reports to Parliament.

Amendment 78, in clause 29, page 22, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 and insert—

“(2) The Independent Public Advocate must report to Parliament —

(a) on an annual basis, summarising their work;

(b) at the conclusion of support relating to a particular event; and

(c) at any other time they identify a need so to do; and the first such report must be laid before Parliament before the end of 2024.”

This amendment ensures that the Independent Public Advocate reports to Parliament rather than the Secretary of State at least annually in respect of each major incident.

Amendment 79, in clause 29, page 22, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.

This amendment ensures that the Independent Public Advocate reports to Parliament rather than the Secretary of State at least annually in respect of each major incident.

I am sure hon. Members will be glad to note that this is my last group of amendments on today’s selection list. I do not intend to detain the Committee for too much longer.

Amendments 76 to 79 would ensure that the public advocate reports to Parliament, rather than to the Secretary of State, and that he does so on a regular rather than on an ad hoc basis. There is always a great deal of public interest in the aftermath of disasters, and there are usually MPs who have constituents with a particular interest in getting as much information as possible about what is happening in the months and years following any such disaster. They, and those affected, have an overwhelming interest in getting to the truth and having, as soon as possible, a clear exposition of what has gone wrong.

Clause 29, as currently drafted, requires the advocate to report to the Secretary of State only if he is sent a notice to do so by the Secretary of State. What is in the report is specified by the Secretary of State, although there is an arrangement under clause 29(4) for the advocate to include in his report other matters that he considers relevant. However, although the Secretary of State must publish the report, he must do so only

“as the Secretary of State thinks fit”— and presumably when he thinks fit. There are also to be redactions for data protection and the catch-all public interest exemption, which means that any report that is published may well have worrying and suspicious omissions or black lines through its text.

I can be very clear with the Committee that publications dealt with in that way—with redactions by the Secretary of State, and published only via the Secretary of State when he gets around to it—will do nothing other than fuel controversy about cover-ups. They are the very antithesis of the kind of reporting and transparency envisaged under the Bill that Lord Wills and I have brought forward. It would inspire more confidence if the public advocate reported on a regular basis to Parliament, so that it was clear that there had been no interference. It would be much better, if at all possible, to ensure there were no redactions.

The Government’s current proposals really will not do the job. I can see any such arrangements being viewed by bereaved families and victims not as something they can rely on and have confidence in, but as yet another part of the state machinery conspiring to keep them from the truth of what has happened to their loved ones, and to protect the state agencies in the line of fire. Whether or not that is true, that is what it will look like to those affected by the disaster.

I urge the Minister to let go of the control freak tendencies that appear to have been prevalent when civil servants were given policy decisions and thereafter gave some instructions to parliamentary counsel. I recognise that he may have inherited them from predecessors or even had them passed down from the predecessor of the current Lord Chancellor, who I hope has more sense than to think of the current drafting as a good idea. I hope he will change the way in which this report-writing clause is legislated for. The Minister cannot go wrong if he arranges for the report—unredacted, please—to be made to Parliament, when there will be significant public interest following any disaster. What could be more transparent than that?

I rise to support the amendments.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for her amendments 76 to 79. As they would all amend Clause 29, which focuses on the reporting function of the independent public advocate, I will address them together.

Collectively, the amendments would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to instruct the IPA to issue a report; would require the IPA to report to Parliament rather than the Secretary of State, and to do so either periodically or at specified time periods; would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion over how to publish the advocates’ report; and would remove the ability for the Secretary of State to omit material if they consider it to be contrary to the public interest or to contravene data protection legislation.

Before I take each of those points in turn, providing clarity on our intention behind the drafting, I want to reiterate that I fully endorse the underlying principle of transparency and the ability of the IPA to highlight the experience of victims, call out issues and make recommendations that hold public authorities to the proper standard. I wholeheartedly believe in the importance and value of reports produced by those in a position to speak with authority on the experiences of victims, because they are a tool not only for getting to the truth, but for learning and for seeking to avoid the repetition of particular events or experiences. That is clearly illustrated in Bishop James Jones’s report.

I turn to Amendment 76. The intention behind clause 29(1) is to provide an oversight role for the Secretary of State whereby reports are issued once requested, so the Secretary of State can ensure that the advocates produce reports only during periods when there are no active criminal investigations into the incident or ongoing inquiry proceedings. If the advocates issued a report during those periods, there is a risk that the content of the report would prejudice or undermine the conclusions of any legal investigatory processes.

I think Parliament has pretty well-defined ways to ensure that things are not discussed in Parliament or called for in Parliament when they could create a problem of sub judice. That exists already, so I suggest that that concern is not a founded one.

I gently say to the Shadow Minister that while those processes exist, they are—as we have seen from admonitions from Mr Speaker—not always adhered to by right hon. and hon. Members, who on occasion are called to order for straying into sub judice matters on the Floor of the House. Although a process exists by which the Speaker can rule and can admonish, it is not universally the case that all right hon. and hon. Members will fully adhere to that without having to be called up by the Speaker. We need a degree of caution with respect to legal proceedings, particularly as we are seeking not only transparency but justice for victims and survivors. I would be very wary of anything that could even potentially prejudice that.

The Secretary of State can ensure that IPA reporting occurs only during appropriate periods in the aftermath of an incident. I reassure the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood that if the advocates wish to produce a report when it has not been requested, they can still contact the secretariat and consult with the Secretary of State. Of course, any such requests will be properly and fully considered. Although I understand and appreciate the desire for advocate agency in the reporting function of the IPA, I believe that the current drafting of subsection (1) will ensure that that is balanced against the need to consider the wider context of any report’s content.

Turning to Amendment 77, I reassure hon. Members that under the Clause, the Secretary of State must publish any report that they receive from the advocates. It is our intention that those reports be published as swiftly as possible, notwithstanding previous comments. When it is most appropriate for the reports to be laid before Parliament or referred to the relevant Committee, I reassure hon. Members that they will be.

However, as was alluded to just now, there may be instances when it is more appropriate for the report to be published through other means, especially if it is an interim progress report. Having the advocates report to the Secretary of State ensures that discretion can applied in deciding on the most appropriate method, whether that is laying a report before Parliament or publishing it on the IPA or gov.uk website. Again, that depends on the report’s content and nature, and other proceedings. If the report is published on a website, it will be publicly available, and can still be discussed in Parliament in a debate secured by the usual means.

I want to clarify that our clauses do not prohibit reporting at any of the points set out in amendment 78, or indeed sooner, if the Secretary of State makes a request. It is likely that while an incident is active, the Secretary of State will request an annual report from the IPA, and a report after the conclusion of an incident.

It sounds to me as though the Minister is accepting the Amendment.

I gently ask the right hon. Lady to let me make a bit more progress. She may not be so confident when I have finished; we will see. As I previously stated, if the advocates wish to report when they have not been requested to, they can raise that with the secretariat, which will then consult the Secretary of State, who will consider any requests carefully. The inclusion of provision giving the Secretary of State discretion allows for the required flexibility when it comes to the frequency of reports.

As I rise to my feet, news is emerging that the courts have forced the Government to give in to Lady Hallett on the covid report, and to reveal something that they went to court to try to hide. One can understand concerns about what may get hidden. Also, during this Committee, we have debated an Amendment on sex offenders changing their names. There is a Government report on that issue that has never been allowed in public or in front of Parliament. Even Committee members who are seeking to debate it have not seen it. I am sure the Minister understands that the discretion of Government Departments is not something that we—certainly not I or the public—feel we can always rely on.

I will make a couple of points. First, in my view there needs to be a degree of discretion, as there always has been under Governments of both the hon. Lady’s party and ours. That has generally always been the approach. Secondly, I want to gently clarify a point about what the Paymaster General said. That court case was not about hiding anything; it was about clarifying the lines and the boundaries of the inquiry, what is and is not admissible material, and getting a definitive court judgment, which we now have. I gently correct her point.

Mmm-hmm.

She may take a different view, as of course she is entitled to, as a matter of debate.

I do.

Amendment 79 would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion over how to publish the advocates’ reports.

The Minister may recall that during an evidence session, I asked Lord Wills whether he thought it was acceptable that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish a copy of the report made by the independent public advocate in whatever manner they considered appropriate. He replied that it was an example of the Bill giving the Secretary of State “too much unfettered discretion”, as one of my hon. Friends has said. Could the Minister respond to that?

Although I have a huge amount of respect for the noble Lord Wills, I disagree with him on that point, hence the approach that the Government are taking in this legislation. If the hon. Lady allows me to make a little more progress, I might give her a little encouragement—maybe more than a little—in that respect.

I have already set out that where it is most appropriate for the reports to be laid before Parliament or referred to the relevant Committee, they will be. Amendment 79 would also remove the Secretary of State’s ability to omit material from the report that would be contrary to the public interest or contravene data protection legislation. Although I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments, I believe that the public interest and data protection legislation are important. The purpose of the public interest test is to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to sensitive information, such as matters that relate to national security. That is consistent with the approach taken in the Inquiries Act 2005, and ensures that there are no unintended negative consequences as a result of disclosing information that could impact national security.

Furthermore, if a report were to be produced and published while there were ongoing proceedings, such as a police investigation or an inquiry, it would be important to check that any material published did not undermine those proceedings. Advocates will have valuable insights that should be publicly and openly shared. We are committed to that, which is why there are only a limited number of instances in which material may be omitted from their report.

I am determined to ensure that the IPA is able to speak freely, and I reassure the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood that those discretionary abilities of the Secretary of State would be used only when and where necessary. I recognise the importance of getting that right, so I am happy to continue working with her on those provisions, and, if necessary, to return to them on Report, depending on the conversations we have.

I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response on what seemed to me a straightforward set of amendments that would simply increase transparency. I heard what he said about further work. I am slightly worried that he is saying that there will not be any reports from the IPA until after every possible kind of legal action has ended. That worries me, because we are then talking years. That will not inspire confidence in families affected by disasters. However, given that the Minister has tried to be constructive, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment 25, in Clause 29, page 22, line 15, at end insert—

“(5A) An advocate must provide periodic reports, at least annually, to the Secretary of State, regarding relevant events and occurrences.

(5B) In any case where an advocate is of the opinion that the duty under section [

(5C) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any reports received under (1) and (2) within 14 days of receipt, and where appropriate, refer the content to relevant Parliamentary committees.”

This amendment would require a public advocate to provide reports to the Secretary of State about relevant events and to report if, in their opinion, public authorities or public servants have not complied with the duty of candour in NC3.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new Clause 3—Major incidents: duty of candour—

“(1) In discharging their duties in relation to a major incident, public authorities and public servants and officials must at all times act within their powers—

(a) in the public interest, and

(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.

(2) If a major incident results in a court proceeding, official inquiry or investigation, public authorities and public servants and officials have a duty to assist—

(a) relating to their own activities, or

(b) where their acts or omissions may be relevant.

(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials shall—

(a) act with proper expedition;

(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,

(c) act without favour to their own position,

(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,

(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and

(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.

(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials shall have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation but shall not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the said proceedings, inquiry or investigation.

(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) shall—

(a) be read subject to existing Laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security,

(b) apply in a qualified way with respect to private law and non-public functions as set out in subsection (6), and

(c) not be limited by any issue of insurance indemnity.

(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) shall be enforceable by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or the court or inquiry may act of its own motion. Where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, the duties may be enforced by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.”

This new clause would require public authorities and public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when carrying out their duties in relation to major incidents.

Again, I want to mention INQUEST, Hillsborough Law Now and Justice, the organisations working with me on these provisions. There is an urgent need to introduce a duty of candour for those from across the public services, such as policing, health, social care, and housing, when a major incident occurs. A duty of candour would place a legal requirement on organisations to approach public scrutiny, including inquiries and inquests into state-related deaths, in a candid and transparent manner. The duty would enable public servants and others delivering state services to carry out their role diligently, while also empowering them to flag dangerous practices that risk lives.

Institutional defensiveness has been found to be a pervasive issue in inquests and public inquiries; we heard about that today. It causes additional suffering to bereaved persons, creates undue delay to inquests and inquiries, undermines public trust and confidence in the police, and undermines a fundamental purpose of inquests and inquiries, which is to understand what happened and to prevent recurrence. Establishing a statutory duty of candour when major incidents occur would go some way to addressing those issues.

Justice’s report, “When Things Go Wrong: the response of the justice system”, found that in both inquests and inquiries,

“lack of candour and institutional defensiveness on the part of State and corporate interested persons and core participants are invariably cited as a cause of further suffering and a barrier to accountability”.

In his Government-commissioned report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families, the Right Rev. James Jones concluded that South Yorkshire police’s

“repeated failure to fully and unequivocally accept the findings of independent inquiries and reviews has undoubtedly caused pain to the bereaved families”.

During the evidence sessions, when asked if a duty of candour should be extended to include public servants, the Right Rev. James Jones answered:

“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.” ––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 90, Q173.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that duty of candour is a serious issue? It is so serious that I cannot think of anybody who, during the evidence sessions, did not agree that duty of candour should be extended to include public servants.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A lack of candour frustrates the fundamental purpose of inquests and inquiries, as we heard in the evidence sessions. Candour is essential if we are to reach the truth and learn from mistakes, so that similar tragedies do not occur in the future.

Public bodies such as the police have consistently approached inquests and inquiries as though they were litigation. They have failed to make admissions, and often failed to fully disclose the extent of their knowledge surrounding fatal events. For example, South Yorkshire police have been repeatedly criticised for their institutional defensiveness in respect of the awful Hillsborough tragedy in 1989. A 1989 briefing to the Prime Minister’s office on the interim Taylor report on the Hillsborough disaster noted that

“senior officers involved sought to duck all responsibility when giving evidence to the Inquiry”.

It went on to say:

“The defensive—and at times close to deceitful—behaviour by the senior officers in South Yorkshire sounds depressingly familiar. Too many senior policemen seem to lack the capacity or character to perceive and admit faults in their organisation.”

A statutory duty of candour would compel co-operation, and so enable major incident inquests and inquiries to fulfil their function of reaching the truth, so that they can make pertinent recommendations that address what went wrong and identify learning for the future.

Failure to make full disclosure and act transparently can lead to lengthy delays as the investigation or inquiry grapples with identifying and resolving the issues in dispute, at a cost to public funds and public safety. A recent example is the Daniel Morgan independent panel, which was refused proper access to HOLMES, the Home Office large major enquiry system, by the Metropolitan Police Service over seven years. The panel needed access to HOLMES to review the investigations of Daniel Morgan’s murder, but the lengthy negotiations on the panel’s access led to major delays to its work. The delays added to the panel’s costs and caused unnecessary distress to Daniel Morgan’s family, and the panel concluded that the MPS was

“determined not to permit access to the HOLMES system”.

A statutory duty of candour would significantly enhance participation in inquiries by bereaved people and survivors, as it would ensure that a public body’s position was clear from the outset, and so limit the possibility of evasiveness. The duty would also direct the investigation to the most important matters at an early stage, which would strengthen the ability of the inquiry or investigation to reach the truth without undue delay. By requiring openness and transparency, a statutory duty of candour would assist in bringing about a culture change in how state bodies approach inquests and inquiries. It would give confidence to members of an organisation who wanted to fully assist proceedings, inquiries and investigations, but who experienced pressure from their colleagues not to do so. It would compel co-operation with proceedings, inquiries and investigations, dismantling the culture of colleague protection—for example, in the police service.

I am sure the Minister is aware that my right hon. and learned Friend Keir Starmer has committed a Labour Government to introducing a Hillsborough law. That would place a duty of candour on all public bodies, and those delivering state services, going through inquests or investigations. I am sure the Minister will understand the compelling reason for strengthening the Bill, and will voice his support for the Amendment and new Clause.

I rise very briefly to support my hon. Friend’s Amendment. A statutory duty of candour is an essential part of giving confidence to families caught up in public disasters. The Hillsborough law, proposed by the Right Rev. James Jones in his 2017 report to the Government, “The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power”, said as much. It is extraordinary that all these years later, we still do not have a Government response to that report, even though the report was delayed while criminal prosecutions were ongoing. They ended two years ago, and we still have not had the final response from the Government. We were promised it in spring this year. It is now summer. I was promised it by December 2021 in a debate on the Floor of the House, and it has not happened.

I really do not see what is holding up the response. I hope it is not that the Government do not want to implement its findings and points of learning, one of which was that the statutory duty of candour ought to be legislated for. I hope that the Minister can tell us when the response to that report will be published, because spring is long gone. The response is long overdue. The Hillsborough Law Now campaign would be pleased to hear from the Minister on whether the statutory duty of candour, the equality of arms at inquest and the other recommendations of Bishop James Jones will be accepted.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff North for Amendment 25 and new Clause 3. I reassure her that Parliament will be kept up to date and made aware of any findings of the IPA. It would perhaps be helpful if I explained a little further the intention behind the measures. I addressed the effect of proposed new subsections (5A) and (5C) of amendment 25 when responding to amendments 77 and 78 tabled by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood. As I said then, the Bill does not prohibit annual reporting, and it is likely that while the IPA is active, an annual report will be requested. Additionally, it is our intention that any reports will be published as soon as possible, and when it is most appropriate to do so, they will be laid before Parliament or referred to the relevant Committee.

Proposed new subsection (5B) in amendment 25 and new clause 3 both relate to the duty of candour. I reiterate to the Committee that I fully understand that at no point is candour and transparency more important than in the aftermath of a major incident. The bereaved families and friends of the victims have an absolute right to understand what happened to their loved ones, and to understand what went wrong so that lessons can be learned. The Hillsborough families were denied that right in the months and years following the awful events of April 1989. Specifically, Lord Justice Taylor commented on the defensiveness and evasiveness of South Yorkshire police, but in truth, the families experienced obfuscation from a wide range of public bodies and agencies. It took decades of campaigning before it was established by fresh inquests that the 97 victims were unlawfully killed. I pay tribute to the Hillsborough families’ strength and tenacity in their prolonged campaign to ensure that other bereaved families do not suffer as they have.

The landscape in relation to duties and obligations on public servants has changed significantly since 1989. Most notably, the Inquiries Act 2005 places legal duties on participants, and there are sanctions for failure to comply. More recently, following the publication of Bishop James Jones’s report on the Hillsborough families’ experiences, the Home Office legislated for a duty of co-operation, which means that all police officers now have an individual responsibility to give appropriate co-operation during investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings, and to participate openly and professionally, in line with the expectations that we have for police officers, when identified as a witness. As I have said, a failure to co-operate is a breach of the statutory standards of professional behaviour by which all officers must abide, and could result in disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal.

We recognise that there is more to be done to ensure that public authorities are clear on the requirements on them in the aftermath of a major disaster. My right hon. and learned Friends the Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary recently met with some of the Hillsborough families to talk to them about the work done to address the failures identified by Bishop Jones, and to talk through the forthcoming Government response to the bishop’s report. That response will set out the Government’s position on the bishop’s points of learning on candour, and on the Hillsborough law and next steps. Ahead of that, it would not be right to impose a duty on advocates to report on the discharge of the duty. I will disappoint the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, but I cannot give her a date. However, I am reassured by ministerial colleagues that the report and response will be published shortly.

I am happy to return to this topic on Report, once that report and response can be read in the round. The right hon. Lady is always constructive, but I appreciate her disappointment. She would, at the least, like a date. I apologise, but I cannot give her that; I can say that it is due to be published shortly. In the light of that, I encourage the hon. Member for Cardiff North not to press the amendment. I have no doubt that we will return to the issue on Report.

I am disappointed by the response on the Amendment, new Clause 3 and the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood for a response to the report that was published in 2017—more than six years have gone by since then. I hope that the Minister can guarantee that response before the end of the Committee; that gives him an extra week.

I can go no further than “shortly”.

Although I am disappointed, I will not press the Amendment to a vote. I hope that we will continue discussion of the importance of the duty of candour, and ensure that it is a core element of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment 23, in Clause 29, page 22, line 18, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to omit material in the advocate’s report if they believe it is contrary to the public interest.

I think this is my last amendment; I am grateful to the Committee. The amendment, similarly to my previous amendments, seeks to ensure the independence of the independent public advocate. Again, I give my deep thanks to Ken Sutton, secretary to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, for his continued support and work on these issues. The fact that the independence of the independent public advocate is being debated should be a worry for us all. The clause relates to the reporting process for the advocate. This clause states that the Secretary of State can require the advocate to produce a report on the investigation processes, but that the report can be redacted by the Secretary of State on public interest grounds. The amendment seeks to rectify that.

Yet again, a provision of the Bill is undermining the independence and transparency of the IPA’s role. This is another example of the Government suggesting that they believe in an independent body, but then restricting it in a way that completely contradicts that notion. Redacting the work of the supposedly independent IPA is hopeless. We cannot subject someone’s work to redaction while claiming that they have independence.

Why does the Minister think that the public will trust the Government to redact the IPA’s work in a way that does not serve their own interests? We are going back to the whole question of trust. The responsibility to report to Parliament should, at the very least, encourage a feedback loop that ensures that Government conduct can, through the fact-finding process and in its aftermath, be properly scrutinised by the legislature and, more generally, the public. That will not happen if the clause is left unamended. During our evidence sessions, Lord Wills echoed my concerns and stated:

“As I understand the Government’s proposals, the independent public advocate will not have the right enjoyed by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, for example, to be an independent office that has the right to produce reports on its own initiative.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 91, Q176.]

The failure to address concerns expressed about the independence of the supposedly independent public advocate demonstrates that lessons are not being learned from Hillsborough. When the next major incident occurs—which, unfortunately, it will—we will be discussing not legal terminology, but human tragedy. I hope the Minister heeds our calls and ensures genuine independence for the independent public advocate.

I am grateful to the Shadow Minister for the Amendment, which would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to omit material in the advocate’s report if they believe it is contrary to the public interest. I am conscious that amendment 23 is similar in nature to amendment 79, to which I spoke earlier. It may be helpful, however, if I briefly revisit why the Government thought it necessary to include in the Bill the ability for the Secretary of State to omit material that, if published, would be contrary to the public interest.

Although I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, this ability for the Secretary of State is vital for national security and is not novel—parallel provisions were included by the previous Labour Government in the Inquiries Act 2005 for, I would assume, that reason. Removing a Secretary of State’s ability to omit material from the reports that the IPA produces would risk being contrary to the public interest and could contravene data protection legislation. This is a necessary measure to ensure that sensitive materials, such as those relating to national security or an ongoing investigation, are protected.

There is no question but that advocates will have valuable insights and I am committed to ensuring that the IPA can speak freely and that the substance of what they have to say is made public. I want to stress once again that the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State will be used only when and where absolutely necessary. We have an obligation to be transparent, but it is also important for us to keep all our citizens safe and ensure that information is shared responsibly. Clause 29 strikes the right balance in that regard. However, I am, as with previous clauses, always happy to reiterate my commitment to speaking further with hon. Members to get it right on the IPA’s reporting functions, as I know that has been the focus of many amendments reflecting broader concerns.

I am disappointed because I think the Amendment would really strengthen the Bill, as would amendment 79 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood. The Government may not support this amendment, but why could they not instead subject the IPA to a protocol of disclosure similar to that of the Hillsborough Independent Panel? Can the Minister respond to that now?

It would be premature for me to say anything like that at this point. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention, as I said, to this being replicative of the provisions put in place by the last Labour Government in the Inquiries Act 2005. I will reflect on what she says, but I cannot commit to going further than that.

I thank the Minister for agreeing to reflect on the issue. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Clause 29 allows the Secretary of State to request a report from an advocate while they are supporting victims of a major incident and at the conclusion of that support. The Secretary of State will have the discretion to specify the matters that the report must address and the timeframe within which the report is to be completed. The clause also provides advocates with the ability to include any points or topics that they think are relevant to the incident in respect of which they are appointed.

One of the main objectives of the IPA is to ensure that the voices of victims of a major incident are amplified and heard. An advocate will work with victims from the immediate aftermath of a major incident and help them to navigate the different state processes. A report may be on a specific issue to which attention should be drawn during the investigations, or the Secretary of State may request a report at the conclusion of all proceedings to share the victim experience and identify areas for improvement in future. We have seen the impact that such reports can have—perhaps none more powerful than the bishop’s report on the experience of the Hillsborough families. It is the Government’s intention that such reports may include recommendations, which would be valuable to inform wider public policy on support for victims of major incidents.

Clause 29 further places an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish any reports produced. That ensures transparency and accountability. As is standard, the clause makes clear that certain material related to the public interest and personal data may be omitted. I want to make clear, as I have during debates on previous amendments, that that exception is not designed to suppress uncomfortable truths but to protect important matters of national security or an individual’s personal data, for example. It mirrors provisions in the Inquiries Act 2005. We are committed to the IPA’s operational independence and will carefully consider the content of any reports produced, with the aim of being as transparent as possible.

I simply say that I think the arguments that I set out in my amendments and new clauses still stand. The Clause states that the Secretary of State can require the advocate to produce a report on the investigation processes, but that the report can be redacted by the Secretary of State on public interest grounds. Amendment 23 seeks to rectify that, while amendment 25 and new clause 3 seek to ensure the transparency and openness that the Minister speaks about. They would add not only that additional strength to the Bill but, most importantly, that trust.

I am grateful to the Shadow Minister for her comments, and, with that, I commend the Clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.