Bill Wright and Stephanie Needleman.

Q47 The Chair: Good afternoon. Thank you both for being with us this afternoon to answer questions. We are very grateful to you for being here. Before we put our questions, I invite you to introduce yourselves for the record.

Stephanie Needleman: I am the legal director of Justice, which is a cross-party law reform and human rights organisation.

Bill Wright: I am co-chair of the registered charity Haemophilia Scotland. I am what might be termed a victim of infected blood. I am a veteran, unfortunately, of two statutory inquiries and several non-statutory inquiries. I have spent 13 years of my life as a core participant in inquiries.

Q48 The Chair: Thank you. What is the role of victims and survivors in a public inquiry? How effectively are victims and survivors currently involved in the inquiry process?

Bill Wright: I regard the inquiry process as being in three stages. The first stage is getting a statutory inquiry. That itself can be a very challenging exercise. In the Scottish Parliament, we first called for a statutory inquiry in 1999. The UK infected blood inquiry is about to report in May, and we are now a quarter of a century on. Achieving a statutory inquiry largely involves victims asking questions in places where questions do not necessarily want to be asked.

The second stage is the conduct of an inquiry itself. As I mentioned, I spent seven years in the first statutory inquiry in Scotland as a core participant, and it is now getting on for a further six years with the UK statutory inquiry as a core participant. There are a lot of issues with disclosures and it is highly traumatic. Nevertheless, it is the route to the truth because of the compulsory elements under the statutory inquiry.

The third stage is what happens afterwards. That, again, can be a highly frustrating exercise. I have been asked, “What will you do when all this is over?” I am afraid I do not think that May is the end of the story for those of us who have spent so much time on this inquiry. We have to see it through and, once the truth has been revealed, see justice from the recommendations.

Stephanie Needleman: It might be helpful to explain my experience in this. Justice, back in 2020, convened a working party, chaired by Sir Robert Owen, looking at institutional responses to deaths or other serious incidents where a systemic pattern of failure was evident. That working party looked largely at phases 2 and 3 of what Bill just described: the conduct of the inquiry and what happens afterwards.

From the perspective of the working party and of Justice, it is crucial that there is effective participation of the victims and survivors in an inquiry. That means that they need to feel heard. Their involvement is crucial for the legitimacy of the inquiry and to promoting public confidence in and a robust evidence base for the inquiry.

Q49 The Chair: The second question, then, is how effectively you think the victims and survivors are involved in inquiries at the moment.

Stephanie Needleman: There are lots of ways in which that could definitely be improved. I do not know how much detail you want me to go into at this stage, but I have a list.

The Chair: All right. Do you want to add anything on involvement, Bill?

Bill Wright: I also have a very long list from the inquiry. I am afraid that the experience I have had in the two statutory inquiries I have been involved in has been very contrasting.

The Scottish inquiry was extremely challenging, and I would suggest that there are lessons from that on how not to conduct an inquiry from a victim’s or survivor’s perspective. The Government ordered a UK inquiry in 2017, and from the outset the tone that was established for that inquiry was very different. The tone that is set not just by the chair but, prior to that, by the sponsoring Minister is very important for victims feeling that they are being recognised. We had the experience of coming down to London and meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss matters such as terms of reference and the procedures. We felt that this time perhaps we were being heard. After that, the chair of the UK inquiry came to Edinburgh to meet with us to start the journey of how on earth the whole process should be conducted.

Stephanie Needleman: Bill has picked up on the disparate practices. There is a lot of flexibility under the Inquiries Act as to how inquiries are conducted. There are some examples of good practice with involvement of the bereaved and survivors and some examples of not so good practice. A lot of the work of the working party looked at how to get better consistency in doing that through better guidance and training and—something I am sure we will come on to—the setting up of a central inquiries unit, which you previously recommended.

The Chair: Thank you. You have both indicated that you have lists, but I suspect we will tease out quite a few of those in answer to questions. If there is anything that does not come out in the questioning that you would like to follow up on, please write subsequent to this meeting to let us know.

Q50 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Mr Wright, I understood from your introduction that you have been involved in both statutory and non-statutory inquiries. Was there a difference in experience between statutory and non-statutory from the perspective of a victim, or did it not make much difference?

Bill Wright: An internal review was conducted in the other three inquiries I am thinking of. When we sought a statutory inquiry in Scotland in 1999, the Minister instead ordered an internal inquiry that was conducted by a senior medical officer. The report was put together by a senior medical officer who had been involved during the time when we were infected and who was a haematologist at one point. That was highly unsatisfactory, because the conclusion of that internal inquiry was that the whole situation had been unavoidable. That was incorrect, because the current UK inquiry has revealed that there was a lot that could have been avoided.

The second inquiry was ordered by the then Health Minister, Malcolm Chisholm. He appointed Lord Ross to conduct a review. That was a very quick review, but it led to some improvements. He set out a long list of recommendations for government. That was for government in Scotland, but a lot of the recommendations could equally have been followed across the UK. The Skipton Fund, a support fund, was set up UK wide and the then Health Minister in the UK, John Reid, became involved in it. Frankly, if Lord Reid’s recommendations had been followed, I probably would not be sitting here speaking to you today. That was in 2004.

The third inquiry was led by the Scottish Parliament’s health committee, but given its resources and its ability for disclosures and so on, all it could do at the end of its inquiry was recommend a statutory inquiry.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I think you said they were Lord Reid’s recommendations, but I think they were Lord Ross’s recommendations.

Bill Wright: Sorry, Lord Ross’s recommendations, yes.

Q51 Lord Aberdare: My question goes right back to the Inquiries Act 2005 itself. Which of the provisions of that Act are most or least helpful in ensuring that a statutory inquiry properly involves victims and survivors? Ms Needleman, do you want to start on that? Then we can go on to some of the developments since then.

Stephanie Needleman: The first provision I will point to is Section 40, on the funding for legal representation. It is obviously important for victims and survivors to be properly involved in the inquiries to help them navigate what can be an overwhelming inquiry process and to ensure that they are generally not subject to unrestrained questioning by counsel. However—we might come to this again later—we also have concerns about the limitations of the questioning of witnesses other than through counsel to the inquiry under Rule 10 of the Inquiry Rules.

The transparency duty is helpful in ensuring public access and justice being seen to be done. As I referred to earlier, the flexibility under Section 17 for the chair to direct the procedure as they wish is helpful and, of course, an acknowledgement that inquiries differ greatly from inquiry to inquiry and that flexibility is required. It also provides the flexibility to allow for different ways in which victims and the bereaved can be involved in the process. However, there needs to be a bit more consistency in how that is done properly.

Bill Wright: Potentially controversially, I suggest a need for a review of Section 1 right at the outset. Section 1 refers to the sponsoring Minister. If, in inquiries, there is a health matter or an education matter, for example, very often the sponsoring department will be the health department or the education department. There is potentially a very serious conflict of interest there, in that the Minister is being briefed by civil servants who are being briefed by agencies that may well have an interest in an inquiry not taking place. I gave the example earlier of a senior official from the health department advising the Scottish Health Minister.

So not only might there be a question about which department is the sponsoring department and who the sponsoring Minister is, but the Government may well find themselves in the spotlight on occasions. Inevitably, there may be costs involved, and the Treasury may want to look at the implications for itself. Unfortunately, one of the pieces of evidence that came to light during my first inquiry and which I found difficult to live with was that the former First Minister of Scotland had sent a note to the then Health Minister saying, “Just remember in relation to this issue that, when we are calling for an inquiry, a question asked is a penny spent”, the implication being that it could have been costly for the Scottish Government to conduct an inquiry.

So, for me, there are serious questions about Section 1, which enables Ministers to call an inquiry. I urge you to consider that there should be more of a duty or compulsion in certain cases, and there may be various routes for that. The Cabinet Office guidance of 2014 talks about this issue, and I can expand on that later if we cover that.

Lord Aberdare: I do not think that I have a follow-up to that. It seems to me that the Act gives greater flexibility than there was before, in the sense that it does not require both Houses of Parliament to consent. It also gives the flexibility as to whether to go for a statutory or non-statutory inquiry. I understand the issue. Do you have a solution?

Bill Wright: I think the draft guidance from 2014 talks about very important bodies. In other words, a very important body could lead to a Minister being caught in a corner and having to have an inquiry. As I mentioned, the problem in 2006-07 was that the health committee made a recommendation, but the Minister failed to act on it. It strikes me that if you have committees of Parliament saying that an inquiry should be held—the Minister in question gave little explanation at the time as to why he decided against holding an inquiry—perhaps the route into this might be listed in the guidance, for example, which is referred to in the Inquiry Rules. The wording would need to be changed in Section 1, but I see a case, as you go guidance/rules/Act, for stricter conditions, stricter limitations, on Ministers not ordering inquiries.

Lord Aberdare: We should probably move on, but thank you for giving us something to think about there.

Q52 Lord Faulks: I have one question arising out of this. Stephanie, in your position with Justice, to deal with the issue that Mr Wright describes, do you think there is a role for the courts in any way supervising whether Ministers agree to a public inquiry, and which government department is involved or not?

Stephanie Needleman: It is not a specific issue that Justice has looked at. We focused specifically on the procedure of inquests and inquiries rather than that specific issue. I believe there may have been challenges in the past.

Lord Faulks: There have.

Stephanie Needleman: Yes. We do not have a particular view on that as an organisation.

Baroness Berridge: I think there was a recommendation previously that certain statutory bodies should be able to ask for an inquiry, and somebody like the Victims Commissioner might also be an obvious one. Do you think that would be a good recommendation to follow through? Does Justice have a view on that?

Stephanie Needleman: It sounds like it would be a sensible recommendation to make. I can see the benefits of that.

Q53 Baroness Berridge: Mr Wright, I am impressed by your tenacity in carrying on with this. Can you give us some insight on the first two phases that you talked about? How can we make the phase 1 process better, from the perspective of victims and survivors? I think you said that it was traumatic.

Bill Wright: Yes.

Baroness Berridge: In phase 1 and in phase 2, how could it be made less traumatic for the victims and survivors? Might you need, for instance, access not just to a lawyer but to a realm of support people for victims and survivors? I am keen to understand from your perspective what we can do to make it less traumatic.

Bill Wright: If what you are referring to as stage 1 is getting the inquiry—

Baroness Berridge: Yes.

Bill Wright: —basically, we spent a lot of time lobbying MSPs in Scotland. The other benefit we had was that a particular legal firm in Scotland took a close interest. It had sought a judicial review trying to establish a fatal accident inquiry for a couple of families who fitted the story. Eventually, those FAIs were attached to the Scottish infected blood inquiry. The combination of political lobbying and the legal action—I think the judicial review ended up in the Supreme Court—succeeded in getting us the inquiry.

I hasten to add that we had Back-Bench cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament. One of the advantages we had was that there were members of the health committee who had been in Opposition and who then became Ministers and, with the change of political Administration, ordered an inquiry. The current UK inquiry involved a lot of lobbying, and it required members of the Government Back Benches in sufficient numbers to get the current inquiry we are involved in.

Q54 Baroness Berridge: When you got to the inquiry, there was probably good practice as well as poor practice. Could you give us some insight into what helps victims and survivors?

Bill Wright: Setting the tone and the leadership of inquiries is really important right at the outset. As I mentioned, we had the advantage of meeting with the chair of the current inquiry beforehand. He came to Scotland with his inquiry team. In fact, one of the witnesses you have already had in this room was there that day. That contrasted with the experience we had at the beginning of the Scottish inquiry, when the tone that the chair at the preliminary hearing set was to say that every penny that was being spent on this inquiry was being taken out of the health budget, the health department being the sponsoring department, which is why I am concerned about sponsoring departments’ involvement in all this. That, of course, made us feel very alienated at the outset of the inquiry.

I could give you a whole list of the problems we had. There was little counselling support in the first inquiry. The Red Cross was involved every day in the second inquiry. There was no involvement with the secretariat of the first inquiry, who speak English, if that is fair. In the second inquiry the secretariat made a point of touring Britain to try to explain face to face, for anyone who wanted, what was happening. When we sat at the first inquiry, there were banks of lawyers between us and the chair. There were lawyers in front of us and lawyers to the side. There was no space for the media, and we were behind. Indeed, at the first inquiry the chair picked up on the days the media attended, and he was not particularly welcoming to the media.

In 2008, when the world wide web was fully in operation, we asked for the proceedings to be placed on the web. Even though it was Scotland and in Edinburgh, Scotland is a big place. I live on the edge of the Highlands, and I had to travel an hour and a half every day to see the proceedings. In this inquiry, everything has been placed on the web, and I would observe that during Covid the proceedings could continue for that very reason.

You asked me earlier about one of the changes that I would make to the Inquiries Act. I would urge consideration of repealing and revoking Section 18(2), which potentially discourages chairs from broadcasting proceedings. Section 19 would cover it in cases of security.

Baroness Berridge: Ms Needleman, do you think there is merit in putting the good practice that there is on a statutory basis?

Stephanie Needleman: I am not sure I would necessarily recommend a statutory basis. I think guidance is probably the more appropriate route. It means that there can be flexibility in adapting the procedures to particular inquiries. Also, as our knowledge and learning develops, the guidance can reflect the most current best practice for engaging with victims and bereaved families.

Q55 Lord Hendy: Can I ask about Rule 10? Mr Wright, were you and the other victims able to ask questions of witnesses through your counsel in the first or the second statutory inquiry?

Bill Wright: All the victims and survivors in the first inquiry were represented by a single legal firm. That can have advantages and disadvantages. I asked whether I could represent myself in the first inquiry. I got a phone call from the solicitor to the inquiry to tell me that, despite the written guidance, that was completely out of the question.

The advantage of a single firm—I hasten to add that the vast majority of Scots have been represented in Scotland, in the first inquiry and in the UK inquiry, by the same legal firm, which has experience of the first inquiry—is that it is very well versed in the whole story. Clearly, there are cost savings, but it is able to gain a full picture.

In the current inquiry, because people have had different experiences and have come from different places, there are about six different main legal firms representing victims and survivors. That is obviously pretty costly, but it is important for victims and survivors to feel that they trust the people who are representing them. It is a real issue, because for those of us who give up thousands of hours of our time voluntarily, we see the legal profession being paid, and often it can cost us money to be involved in these inquiries. It is difficult, if we are to maintain the trust of victims and survivors, to get around that point.

Lord Hendy: My question was slightly different. I was asking whether the victims, whoever they were represented by, had the opportunity to question witnesses themselves or whether all questions came from counsel to the inquiry.

Bill Wright: My apologies. In the first inquiry, yes. That is something of a double-sided sword. I remember being worried as a potential witness that I might be cross-examined by a hostile QC at that time on behalf of health services or the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service. On the other hand, our QC was able to ask limited questions, but that was very much under the control of the chair. The questioning in the current inquiry we are involved in has been us putting questions to our solicitors, to our counsel, who then passes on those questions to the inquiry counsel.

Q56 Lord Hendy: Ms Needleman, I think the Justice report was unhappy about Rule 10 blocking victims and bereaved from asking questions. I have represented the bereaved and injured in a number of inquiries and I am a bit unhappy about that as well. Can you explain what the issue is and what your view is?

Stephanie Needleman: Absolutely. This is another example of, in some instances, the rule being applied without much controversy, so counsel for the bereaved and the survivors are allowed by the chair to ask questions directly. In other instances, Rule 10 is applied very strictly and they are unable to do so. Families in the Grenfell inquiry, for example, felt that Rule 10 was applied incredibly strictly, and it gave them the sense of being one step removed from the process. There were also practical issues. They had to lodge questions with counsel to the inquiry five days in advance, I think, of counsel putting those questions to the witness. That raises practical issues about having sufficient time to digest evidence and then provide the questions that far in advance.

We recommended a compromise position where Rule 10 would be amended so that legal representatives of core participants could ask questions of a witness where Articles 2, 3 or 4 were engaged, but the chair would also retain discretion to, within reason, control a line of questioning and to impose time limits.

Lord Hendy: Do you think that there is scope for a slight modification to Rule 10 to indicate to a chair that more flexibility is appropriate, particularly for questioning from the bereaved and injured?

Stephanie Needleman: Yes, we would support that. Our recommendation goes slightly further than a suggestion to the suggestion to make it a right, within the bounds that I just discussed, that core participants can question witnesses directly through their legal representative.

Q57 Lord Addington: We have heard how a newly established inquiry often relies on the collective experience of its secretariat, particularly in the earliest stages. In your experience, are the chair and secretariat of an inquiry sufficiently knowledgeable—I think you have already touched on this—about the proper involvement of victims and survivors? Indeed, how open are they to the experience there?

Stephanie Needleman: Not necessarily. They may not have been involved in an inquiry before. There is obviously a lot of knowledge and lesson learning out there, but the reliance at the moment is essentially on word of mouth. I think there have been some developments in that area. It is not only an issue for victims and survivors and their participation that that knowledge is not being carried over from one inquiry to the next. It is also a waste of time and money for inquiries essentially to have to reinvent the wheel every time.

We understand that there have been some developments in this area, which I am sure you are aware of. An inquiries hub has been set up in the Cabinet Office that collates information on inquiries, but only that which is in the public domain, and encourages inquiry secretaries to produce lessons learned reports.

We agree with your 2014 recommendation that a dedicated central inquiries unit should be established. Where we slightly differ from you is that you recommended that it should sit within HMCTS. We recommended that it should sit within the Cabinet Office, because we felt that the Cabinet Office was less vulnerable to changes and potential dissolution. Given its inward-looking role, it is also perhaps less likely to be subject to an inquiry itself.

We also recommended that the central inquiries unit be supported by an independent advisory board to enhance the involvement of victims and survivors. The board would include a wider range of representatives than victims and survivors, but it would include representatives of that group to give them a voice about how best inquiries can be run.

Q58 Lord Addington: The individual groups in the inquiries will vary. Mr Wright, are they taking enough account of the particular groups they are dealing with and learning quickly enough the commonality in those groups? In your experience, have they have cottoned on to that?

Bill Wright: It goes back to tone, as I mentioned. Can I make an observation on an inquiries unit? There may be a jurisdictional issue with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service, so I am not quite sure where it would sit, certainly with Scottish law. No doubt better heads than mine around this table will understand that point. Having said that, I am obviously aware that UK-wide experience of inquiries can be of benefit. Given that we have devolved Parliaments, we may need to look at a different model to that that was suggested in recommendations 12 to 14 for an inquiries unit. In other words, I am raising the question as to whether we also need inquiries units, if they are to be established, for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Q59 Lord Faulks: Of course, not everybody who is bereaved or a survivor has exactly the same approach as everybody else. It is not an entirely homogenous group. Speaking from my experience, I once represented about 75 people. Some of them wanted me to be tremendously aggressive and some wanted me to adopt a completely different approach. I am not saying that either was right or wrong. Do either of you, from your practical experience, have any suggestions as to how the rules could accommodate this potential diversity of approach?

Stephanie Needleman: One of the things that may help and that we looked at, which I guess is not strictly within the boundaries of the Inquiries Act, was a suggestion that inquiries should incorporate a non-evidential forum to allow people who have been affected to give evidence in a manner that is less formal. They do not have the constraints of giving evidence, nor the formal situation of being cross-examined and so on, and they are in a more relaxed environment. It would also allow a wider group of people to share their experiences. IICSA’s Truth Project is an example of this. We heard that it was well received. I think it had a 98% satisfaction rate, by whatever means of evaluation it was given. People reported that it was the first time they had felt heard after suffering years of abuse.

Lord Faulks: I think that is being done in the Grenfell fire inquiry so that people are able to discuss what happened without necessarily being in the formal constraints of a cross-examination as witnesses.

Stephanie Needleman: Yes.

Lord Faulks: What do you think, Mr Wright?

Bill Wright: I agree. Inquiries can be highly traumatic, but they can also be cathartic. Some of the people coming into inquiries will be completely broken; some will be highly resilient. They may be less resilient during the course of an inquiry. I do think that the current inquiry is a pretty good model for dealing with that. Evidence was given by a group of social workers who had met in a different place to the inquiry, in complete privacy, anonymously, with a group of individuals who in a sense wanted to say something but were not necessarily seeking their day in court. It is about a degree of flexibility, particularly when it comes to key evidence. If witnesses want to appear anonymously, they are given that choice.

The problem we had in the first inquiry was that there were relatively few oral witnesses, and they were all forced to appear anonymously and adopt pseudonyms or aliases. Some people would have preferred to say, “I want you to see my work here and the experience I have”. Victims have to be given choice as to the different routes by which they can be involved, and that needs to be flexible.

It is also very important that you have some support psychologically, not only on the day but afterwards. I remember the opening day of the first inquiry I attended. The very first witness was from the east end of Glasgow and had no experience of administrative procedures like this or an inquiry. She just wanted to do justice by her husband who had died. She was in floods of tears that night, and I was the only person on the end of a telephone. Pastoral care is important in getting the best evidence out of witnesses.

Stephanie Needleman: I completely agree. Signposting to appropriate sources of support is definitely something that we picked up on, and there should be specialist trauma-informed training for the evidence-gathering teams for the same reasons that Bill has just given.

Q60 Lord Addington: Would you say that is universal? My supplementary was about that. You have a group who will have a certain commonality of experience. Should you not automatically look at this when you are going through an inquiry?

Stephanie Needleman: Do you mean specialist support and trauma-informed support?

Lord Addington: Yes, and they will vary from group to group. There are limits to the commonality of experience, but it is usually there in these groups.

Stephanie Needleman: Yes. The exact sources of support may differ from inquiry to inquiry, but people who are involved in it have, by the very fact that an inquiry has been set up, been through a very traumatic event. So, absolutely, it should be provided as standard in inquiries, and the training for evidence-gathering teams should be done regardless.

Lord Addington: A little look every time at the changes to that structure and trying to make it fit to that inquiry every time.

Stephanie Needleman: Yes.

Q61 Baroness Berridge: I have a supplementary on the more legal point. You mentioned the inquiries unit. I think the thinking behind it being brought within the purview of HMCTS is about trying to get it more into the judicial space and away from the executive function. Subject to the devolution points that you mentioned, is there not merit in having a proper arm’s-length body or something, like Ofsted, that is established and is funded directly by Treasury? That would enhance the process of independence for an inquiries unit.

Stephanie Needleman: Yes. The main thing is that one is set up. We decided that the Cabinet Office was the most appropriate place, but wherever it sits we would want it to have those features of independence regardless. There is the broader issue that inquests and inquiries have a slightly odd place in the justice system; they do not fit neatly into a particular area of the justice system. It is not civil, not criminal, not administrative. So perhaps bringing inquiries into the purview of HMCTS touches on some broader issues.

Q62 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: In some respects this question follows on from what we have just been talking about. Which of the recommendations in the House’s 2014 report, if followed through, would help victims and survivors better?

Stephanie Needleman: Obviously the recommendations on a central inquiries unit, which I think were 12 to 18. On the recommendation about consultation on the terms of reference, to be fair it is happening more and more often now. It seems more or less standard these days to have consultation, but we want to stress that it is important to consult with victims and survivors on the terms of reference. Again, there have been varying examples. A number of people involved in Grenfell felt that there was not proper enough consultation on the terms of reference versus, for example, the Covid inquiry. Baroness Hallett went around the country seeking people’s views on the terms of reference, and they had about 20,000 responses to that consultation.

In ensuring that responses are elicited, there is something to be said about the time period in which a consultation is open and the proactive seeking of people’s input. It is not enough to just put a consultation up on the website. You may not get people responding. You may not get the people responding whose views are really important. The outreach that was done for the Covid-19 inquiry terms of reference is important.

Bill Wright: I looked through the recommendations from 2014 and I made a note on quite a number of them. I have already referred to Section 1 and the importance of a mechanism that inquiries would normally be held under the 2005 Act. The Government rejected that particular recommendation. I hope they might reconsider that and that there is greater compulsion in certain situations to hold an inquiry.

The second recommendation was not against holding a public inquiry. My question is: what are the very important public bodies there that the Government referred to? The definition might need to be rather wider than perhaps the Government consider. For example, each nation is appointing a patient safety commissioner. If a patient safety commissioner were to recommend on a health matter, I would regard that as a potentially very important body. However, there could be something of a list there.

In Recommendation 10, the Act should be amended so that when the Minister announces an inquiry they set only draft terms of reference. I do not understand why on earth the Government rejected that particular recommendation. Terms of reference are, hopefully, a matter for agreement between all the parties involved if we want to get to a sensible output from an inquiry. The final terms of reference, when agreed with a statement, should be widely accepted.

Recommendations 30 to 32 are, for us, largely a really important element, because we may have very good output from an inquiry, but the outcome can be very poor. It is well known in our circles that, in Canada, the inquiry into infected blood was a very useful inquiry that came up with some very valuable output, but the outcome beyond that was pretty poor. In Ireland, there was a statutory inquiry that was felt perhaps to be not as thorough as it could have been, but the outcome for victims and survivors was pretty positive.

This comes down to recommendations. One observation I would make about recommendations is that, when a chair of an inquiry makes an interim recommendation, there is a question of time. They will be making an interim recommendation for a very good reason, largely because there is an urgency to act and not wait until the end of an inquiry. We need to give much more of a platform to the importance of interim recommendations. You referred to Grenfell. If something was found in evidence during the course of that inquiry, and action needed to be taken and the chair recommended greater fire safety measures, clearly the Government or government agencies, whoever is responsible, would need to act on that.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Do you want to say something about recommendations and follow-through, Ms Needleman?

Stephanie Needleman: Yes. To pick up on Bill’s points on Recommendations 30 to 32 on implementation post an inquiry, I completely agree with what Bill said about the importance of following up on recommendations coming out of the inquiry. The whole point of inquiries, or at least one of the main points, is that they are lessons-learning exercises. Victims and survivors also want to ensure that nobody else has to suffer what they have suffered.

Our preferred mechanism for doing that would be through an independent body, a national oversight mechanism, something which the group Inquest has long been campaigning for. That would cover inquiry recommendations and things coming out of prevention of future death reports from inquests. However, in lieu of that happening, we support the recommendations that you made back in 2014 to that effect.

It could perhaps be put on to a statutory footing that the Minister responsible for implementing the recommendations has to report to Parliament with an implementation plan.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: That is helpful. Thank you.

Q63 Lord Davidson of Glen Clova: Good afternoon. There are varying perceptions and experiences of public inquiries. Mr Wright, you have given a number of examples of how outcomes can differ. The committee is interested in finding a way to improve this. In a sense, everything you have said has been answers as to how one can improve this. If you were to choose one or two highlights of improvements, what would they be?

Bill Wright: There are two, and I basically referred to them earlier. It is the beginning and the end. As I said earlier, to get an inquiry, Section 1 is the biggest challenge. I certainly question whether departments or the Ministers in those that might be implicated are the right places to seek inquiries. So, as I said earlier, I would urge that it is not just an enabling power for Ministers, but that there is more of a duty to act when the agencies we have talked about, those very important bodies, recommend it.

At the end of an inquiry, we need to review Section 26, which basically asks the sponsoring Minister to report to Parliament. There may be a case for the chair of the inquiry to report directly to Parliament. That could help. Certainly, on the follow-up, I fully agree that we need a review afterwards and for government to be called to account by Parliaments, plural, as to what action they have taken on inquiries.

Stephanie Needleman: One of the key ones is a national oversight mechanism, as I mentioned. Another issue that came up a lot during our working party was institutional defensiveness. It was consistently raised as a real source of pain and suffering for victims and survivors. There are obviously lots of other issues associated with institutional defensiveness, not least undue delay and the undermining of public trust, of confidence and of the fundamental purpose: to establish what has gone on. In light of that, one of the key things that we would like to see is a statutory duty of candour to be introduced. Admittedly, we would like to see it for investigations more broadly than just inquiries. I am not sure from our perspective whether the Inquiries Act is necessarily the right place for it, but that is certainly something we would like to see.

Lord Davidson of Glen Clova: If I could just come back on the duty of candour, in a sense every inquiry should place a duty of candour on all the participants. However, if one makes it statutory, is there not a tendency for departments, particularly if they are being defensive, simply to roll up all the material and say, “This is candour. Here are the millions of documents that we have to give”?

Stephanie Needleman: You have to word the duty carefully to ensure that that does not happen. It would have to be an effective duty, not just handing over everything you have. There are ways in which you could word that that would, at least on paper, prevent that happening.

Q64 Lord Davidson of Glen Clova: Thank you. Mr Wright, if you could throw your memory back to Lord Ross, did any particular one of his recommendations strike you as compelling?

Bill Wright: I think we saw the light with it. The problem was that it was such a long list, and there is an issue there about how many recommendations of any review that takes place or any inquiry. It is pretty easy for a Government to act on a single recommendation. It is very difficult when there are more; in the Mid Staffordshire inquiry, which was a statutory inquiry, there were 280-odd.

That led to greater financial support. He recommended compensation equivalent to damages, although that did not happen at the time. A support scheme was established that was financially very limited and has subsequently been reviewed. He made quite a number of other recommendations in relation to things like psychological support that were important. As Stephanie said, people who have been through these experiences have very often been deeply traumatised. I know from our own experience that we have psychological support in Scotland, and it happens in Wales and Northern Ireland, but it has not happened until very recently. In England, there is a psychological support scheme being established now, 40 years on.

Q65 Baroness Berridge: Ms Needleman, can I ask you about the recommendations you have outlined? They are often about the Government or the department, but some of these reports make recommendations that need to be enforced for third-party institutions. In IICSA, for example, there were other institutions, particularly religious institutions. Enforcement there would be a different beast. Do you have any comments on how we would help with monitoring, implementation and enforcement for third-party institutions?

Stephanie Needleman: Obviously enforcement is a different beast, but monitoring is not necessarily so. I appreciate that there may be difficulties in understanding. It may be easier to understand what has gone on in public authorities and government departments since the inquiry, but there is still the ability to look and ask of third parties what changes have been made in response to recommendations, even if enforcement around that might be trickier.

Q66 Lord Hendy: Mr Wright, you recounted problems in getting the inquiry off the ground altogether. What steps do you think might be possible for us to recommend, were we to pursue that line? For example, have you thought about some right of appeal, perhaps to Parliament or to the courts, should a Minister refuse to hold an inquiry?

Bill Wright: I am not a legal professional, so I hesitate to recommend that particular route.

Lord Hendy: This is off the cuff.

Bill Wright: Concurrent to all these efforts to get a statutory inquiry, various efforts have been made to pursue our cause through the courts, which by and large have been pretty unsatisfactory. I think the route is to have arm’s-length bodies with power that can place Ministers in a position where it is extremely difficult for them to avoid an inquiry. That list of bodies may change and may be dealt with in guidance, but if one of those bodies in a list were to be powerful and were to recommend an inquiry, that is probably the route to go.

Lord Hendy: Ms Needleman, has Justice considered these possibilities?

Stephanie Needleman: This probably relates similarly to Lord Faulks’s question earlier. We have not expressly considered whether there should be a right of appeal over the decision not to hold a statutory inquiry. Obviously, judicial review proceedings are available in any event in respect of that decision.

The Chair: Thank you both very much for your evidence this afternoon. It has been extremely helpful from our point of view. I am conscious that there may be aspects that we have not covered that you would like to put information to us about, so please feel free subsequent to this to send us more information and material that you think might be helpful. Questions may occur to us and, if we may, we will follow up on those as well. For the moment, thank you for being with us this afternoon.