Public Office (Accountability) Bill — Written evidence submitted by the Independent Public Advocate (POAB13)

Written evidence submitted by Independent Public Advocate for the Public Office
(Accountability) Bill Committee (POAB13)

IPA Background
1. The Independent Public Advocate is a statutory role established under the Victims
and Prisoners Act 2024 to support victims, survivors and bereaved families following
major incidents across England and Wales. The IPA provides independent advocacy
throughout complex investigative, legal and administrative processes; steps in where
families’ needs are not being met; and ensures they receive the information, access
and coordinated support they require. The role is proactive and system-facing —
identifying barriers, raising concerns with public bodies, and promoting transparency,
timely progress and accountability. Ultimately, the IPA ensures that those affected
can engage meaningfully with post-incident processes and secure truth and justice.
Introduction
2. We set out eight proposals to strengthen the Public Office (Accountability) Bill,
commonly referred to as the Hillsborough Law. Together, they aim to ensure that
candour, accountability, legal parity and humanity are firmly embedded across the
public institutions and processes that shape how the state responds to harm, loss
and accountability. These proposals are practical, proportionate measures to improve
transparency, coherence and public confidence.
Summary
1 Recognising the Independent Public
Advocate within the Accountability
and Candour Framework
Make a targeted, proportionate reference to
the Independent Public Advocate within the
Bill, confirming its role within the broader
accountability and candour landscape
2 Coherence of Moral Language
Across the Framework
Ensuring the Bill, the Victims & Prisoners Act
2024, and the Hillsborough Charter speak in a
coherent moral and legal register.
3 Monitoring the Duty of Candour
During Deployed Incidents
Giving the IPA a statutory power to monitor
candour during deployment
4 Victim and Survivor Voice in
Implementation and Oversight
Establish a Victims and Survivors Partnership
Forum, linked to the Ethics & Integrity
Commission, to shape guidance, training, and
reporting under the Duty of Candour and
advise on funding parity.
5 Transparency on Legal
Representation Spend (“Equality of
Arms”)
Require relevant public authorities involved in
inquests, inquiries or investigations after
major incidents to publish aggregate,
anonymised data on legal representation
costs, alongside equivalent information for
bereaved families.

6 Statutory Review Clause

Introduce a statutory requirement for
Parliament to conduct a review of the
operation and effectiveness of the Act within
three to five years of commencement, taking
evidence from victims, survivors, bereaved
families and relevant public authorities
7 Duty to Consult Before Declaring a
Major Incident

A statutory duty requiring the Secretary of
State to consult the IPA before determining
whether to declare a major incident, consider
formal representations from the IPA and
publish a short, proportionate rationale where
the decision is not to deploy.
8 Exceptional Circumstances
Provision
Extending the IPA’s remit to a small number of
tightly defined, exceptional cases, allowing
action in rare cases of significant trauma,
complexity or public interest, even where
statutory thresholds are not met.

1.Recognising the Independent Public Advocate within the Accountability and Candour
Framework
Focus:
3. Ensuring the Independent Public Advocate is clearly located within the national
accountability architecture.

Context4. The Independent Public Advocate was established by Parliament to help ensure
openness, accountability, and transparency in the aftermath of major incidents.
However, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill currently contains no explicit
reference to the IPA, despite it being a statutory office created directly in response to
the failures of candour at Hillsborough, and the relevance of its work to public trust
and victims’ experience. Omitting the IPA risks creating an artificial separation
between the candour duty and the office designed to support those most affected by
its breach.
Why this matters:
5. Without explicit reference, agencies may be unsure how the IPA fits into the candour
and accountability ecosystem.
6. This risks fragmentation, especially during major incidents when clarity of roles is
essential.
7. A modest clarification would support consistency, avoid duplication, and reinforce
Parliament’s original intent in establishing the IPA.

What should change8. Make a targeted, proportionate reference to the Independent Public Advocate within
the Bill, confirming its role within the broader accountability and candour landscape.
This does not expand the IPA’s remit but strengthens clarity and coherence.
Impact:
9. A small, technical insertion that improves system alignment, supports clarity for
public bodies, and maintains public trust.
Practical note:
10. This proposal would likely need to be reflected in a modest, tightly drawn statutory
amendment. It does not expand the IPA’s functions or powers but situates the office
clearly within the candour ecosystem.

2. Coherence of Moral Language Across the Framework
Focus:
11. Ensuring the Bill, the Victims & Prisoners Act 2024, and the Hillsborough Charter
speak in a coherent moral and legal register.
Context:
12. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 and the
Hillsborough Charter all seek to enshrine the same moral principles - truth,
transparency, accountability and humanity, yet these three texts inspired by the
same tragedy now speak in different moral registers. This risk creating mixed signals
about the standards and culture Parliament intends to embed.
Why this matters:
13. Statutory coherence: Differences in tone and framing can invite argument that
Parliament intended different thresholds or duties across the two Acts.
14. Institutional behaviour: Under pressure, public bodies often default to the least
demanding text, undermining cultural change.
15. Legal defensiveness: Counsel may argue the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is
“principled” while the Bill is “operational”, or that the Charter is merely aspirational,
creating unnecessary interpretative ambiguity.
16. Cultural fragmentation: Three instruments speaking differently make consistent
delivery harder.

What should change:

17. Light-touch alignment between the instruments, for example through the preamble
or explanatory notes, to signal that the Victims and Prisoners Act, this Bill and the

Charter sit within one coherent legislative and moral framework. This reinforces that
the Bill is not a technical amendment but part of a long moral arc flowing from
Hillsborough and other tragedies.
Impact:
18. Strengthens purposive interpretation, reduces ambiguity, and supports the candour
culture this legislation is intended to create.
Practical note:
19. This does not necessarily require amendment. Alignment could be achieved through
the Bill’s preamble, explanatory notes or ministerial statements during passage.

3. Monitoring the Duty of Candour During Deployed Incidents
Focus:
20. Independent oversight of candour in real time, when it matters most.
Context:
21. The new Duty of Candour is a landmark reform, responding to decades of
institutional defensiveness exposed by tragedies such as Hillsborough, Grenfell,
Manchester Arena and others. Yet under the current proposals, no independent
body is responsible for monitoring candour during a major incident. The Ethics &
Integrity Commission will set the national framework and monitor compliance, but it
is not designed, resourced or positioned to observe behaviour on the ground during
a major incident.

22. This leaves a significant gap: a legal duty with no mechanism for independent
oversight at the moment when candour is most fragile. The Hillsborough Charter
provides an essential moral foundation for candour, but it remains voluntary, with no
statutory mechanism for enforcement or monitoring. Giving the IPA a statutory
power to monitor candour during deployment closes the gap between voluntary
commitments and legal obligations.
23. Why this matters:
• Families must be able to trust that candour is being lived, not simply legislated.
• Without independent scrutiny, the state effectively marks its own homework.
• Real-time oversight strengthens the duty by highlighting good practice as well as
emerging concerns.
• Oversight supports cultural change, shifting candour from obligation to
expectation.
• It ensures lessons can be learned during incidents, not long afterwards.

24. How this could work:
• The IPA could publish a Candour Compliance Report after each deployment,
drawing on evidence from families, statutory agencies and partners.
• Where appropriate, the IPA could issue interim observations during a live
incident to highlight good practice or early concerns.
• Victims’ and families’ perspectives would be embedded throughout the
monitoring process, ensuring findings reflect lived experience as well as
institutional behaviour.
• Reports should be laid before Parliament to support transparency and scrutiny.
Practical note:
25. This would need to be reflected in primary legislation to give the IPA an explicit
power to monitor and report on candour during deployed incidents.

4. Victim and Survivor Voice in Implementation and Oversight
Focus:
26. Embedding lived experience at the heart of the system so that reform is never
something done to victims but always shaped with them.
Context:
27. It has taken 36 years since Hillsborough for Parliament even to stand on the verge of
legislating for honesty, accountability and equality of arms. These reforms exist
because families, survivors and campaigners refused to give up. Yet as currently
drafted, victims and bereaved families have no formal role in shaping guidance,
oversight or implementation of the Duty of Candour or the broader accountability
framework. They must be hard-wired into the Act itself, so that reform is never
something done to them but always with them.
28. Why this matters:
• Legitimacy flows from partnership: the people whose struggle created this Bill
must not be written out of its implementation.
• Practical scrutiny prevents drift into defensiveness or box-ticking.
• Lived experience exposes real-world impact in a way that internal process
cannot.
• Involving victims and survivors ensures the system stays grounded in humanity,
not bureaucracy.
What should change:
29. Establish a Victims and Survivors Partnership Forum, linked to the Ethics & Integrity
Commission to:
• Shape and review guidance, training and reporting frameworks issued under the
Duty of Candour.
• Advise on how parity of funding is assessed and improved.
• Support organisations to embed trauma-informed, victim-centred practice.

• Provide Parliament with insight into whether candour and equality of arms are
being modelled consistently.
30. How this could work:
• The Ethics & Integrity Commission should show in its annual report how
victims’ input has informed candour and parity work.
• Public bodies could publish short statements demonstrating how
engagement has shaped their approach to openness and fairness.
• Participation would be supported through trauma-informed facilitation,
accessible formats and fair resourcing.
Impact:
31. Creates a living partnership between victims and the state, ensuring candour and
equality of arms are co-created from lived experience. Strengthens public trust and
helps ensure the reforms honour the people who fought for them.
Practical note:
32. This could be delivered administratively through the Ethics & Integrity Commission
or ministerial direction, but a statutory duty to consult victims and survivors would
give it permanence and authority across administrations.

5. Transparency on Legal Representation Spend (“Equality of Arms”)
Focus:
33. Fairness, parity and transparency in legal representation after major incident.
Context:
34. Parity of legal funding is fundamental to restoring confidence after public tragedy.
But parity cannot be assessed without consistent, comparable data on what public
bodies spend on legal representation versus what is made available to families. At
present, no such data is collected or published, creating a significant evidence gap
that prevents effective scrutiny and oversight.

35. Why this matters:
• Parity is about capability, not cost; families need access to expertise to
participate on equal terms. Parity does not mean identical expenditure; it means
ensuring families can participate effectively, with access to the legal capability
required to match the state’s institutional advantage.
• Transparency drives accountability: without data, neither Parliament nor the
public can understand whether reforms are narrowing or widening the gap.
• Evidence supports proportionate intervention where imbalance persists.
• Regular publication reinforces public trust in the fairness of the process.

What should change36. Require relevant public authorities involved in inquests, inquiries or investigations
after major incidents to publish aggregate, anonymised data on legal representation
costs, alongside equivalent information for bereaved families.
37. How this could work:
• Data should cover direct fees and associated support, presented in comparable
terms.
• Parliament, ideally through the Justice Committee, could analyse trends and
make recommendations.
• Annual publication would enable transparency without imposing undue burden.
Impact:
38. Creates an evidence base to test whether equality of arms is being delivered in
practice rather than asserted in principle. Reinforces accountability and fiscal
responsibility across the system.
Practical note:
39. This could be delivered through secondary legislation or ministerial commitment or
reflected in the Bill if Parliament considers it appropriate.

6. Statutory Review Clause
Focus:
40. Ensuring Parliament can test whether candour, accountability and equality of arms
are being realised in practice.
Context:
41. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill seeks to deliver cultural and behavioural
change across public bodies. Given the scale of this ambition, it is important that
Parliament has a structured mechanism to assess whether the reforms are working
as intended, and to identify gaps or unintended consequences. Without a review
duty, the system risks drifting back into defensive patterns despite legislative
change.
42. Why this matters:
• Embeds reflection and accountability at the heart of the framework.
• Allows Parliament to test whether candour and equality of arms are being
realised in practice, not simply stated in law.
• Ensures that victims, survivors and bereaved families have a direct voice in
evaluating how reforms are operating.
• Enables timely, proportionate adjustments if the system falls short.

What should change43. Introduce a statutory requirement for Parliament to conduct a review of the
operation and effectiveness of the Act within three to five years of commencement,
taking evidence from victims, survivors, bereaved families and relevant public
authorities.
44. How this could work:
• The review could be led by the Justice Select Committee.
• Evidence would combine data, lived experience, written submissions and
hearings across the UK.
• Findings and recommendations would be published and debated publicly.
This approach supports transparency and models the candour the legislation
seeks to embed.
Impact
45. Creates a credible, transparent mechanism for evaluating progress and sustaining
trust. Ensures the system remains responsive and aligned with Parliament’s intent.
Practical note:
46. This could be provided through a proportionate amendment establishing a time-
limited review duty.

7. Duty to Consult Before Declaring a Major Incident
Focus:
47. Transparency and independence in deployment decisions.
Context:
48. Under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, the Secretary of State holds the sole
authority to declare a “major incident”, triggering IPA deployment. There is currently
no statutory mechanism for the Secretary of State to consult the IPA before making
this decision, nor a requirement to publish reasons for choosing not to deploy. This
can lead to perceptions of opacity or inconsistency, especially when similar incidents
are treated differently.
Illustration:
49. In the early days of the office, I was deployed to the Heaton Park Synagogue attack in
Manchester. Shortly afterwards, a serious stabbing on a train in Huntingdon
prompted extensive community and stakeholder questions about why the IPA had
been deployed in one incident but not the other. These enquiries were not criticisms
of the decision, but they highlighted how unclear the threshold can appear without a
transparent and consultative mechanism.

50. Why this matters:
• Without consultation, decisions can appear opaque or inconsistent, undermining
confidence in both Government and the IPA.
• Transparent, consultative decision-making strengthens public trust and ensures
choices are guided by evidence, independence and need.
• It protects the integrity of the threshold, demonstrating that decisions are based
on objective criteria, not perception or political considerations.
• The early contrast between the Heaton Park Synagogue attack and the serious
stabbing on a passenger train in Huntingdon shows how quickly uncertainty can
arise without a clear statutory process for seeking and considering the IPA’s view.
What should change:
51. A statutory duty requiring the Secretary of State to:
• Consult the IPA before determining whether to declare a major incident.
• Consider formal representations from the IPA; and
• Publish a short, proportionate rationale where the decision is not to deploy.
How this could work:
52. Consultation could occur within 24–48 hours without delaying operational response.
Publication of reasons would be concise and would not compromise sensitive or
ongoing investigations.
Impact:
53. Strengthens transparency, protects ministerial authority, and provides clarity for the
public, Parliament and victims.
Practical note:
54. This proposal could be taken forward through a statutory amendment to:
• Reflect a duty to consult the IPA.
• Reflect a statutory ability for the IPA to make representations that must be
considered.

8. Exceptional Circumstances Provision
Focus:
55. Flexibility and fairness – ensuring no family is left behind.
Context:
56. Under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, a “major incident” involves significant loss
of life or numbers of people suffering serious harm. This threshold is appropriate for
large-scale emergencies but leaves a narrow space beneath it: cases where there
may be few victims, yet the trauma, complexity and public interest are immense.
Trauma doesn’t follow numbers. Certain cases, such as the deaths of Harry Dunn or
Stephen Lawrence, demonstrate how smaller-scale incidents can still generate

profound trauma, public concern and complex legal or diplomatic issues. Were
these cases to occur now, they would fall outside the IPA’s remit despite the depth
of family trauma and the wider national significance.
57. Why this matters:
• Some of the most complex cases involve few victims but carry deep trauma and
national resonance.
• Prevents families in exceptional circumstances from being left without support or
a trusted route into the system – including investigative, legal and inquiry
processes.
• Anchors discretion in need and public interest rather than scale alone.
• Reinforces the founding principle that the burden of seeking truth and justice
must rest with the system, not with families.
What should change:
58. A tightly drawn Exceptional Circumstances Provision allowing action in rare cases of
significant trauma, complexity or public interest, even where statutory thresholds
are not met. This should operate in both directions:
• Where the IPA identifies exceptional circumstances, the IPA may make
representations to the Secretary of State.
• Where the Secretary of State believes exceptional circumstances may exist, they
must consult the IPA before deciding whether to declare an incident and deploy
the IPA.
59. How this could work:
• Clear criteria would ensure the provision remains tightly governed and avoids
mission creep.
• Use of the power would be reported annually to Parliament for transparency.
• The decision to deploy the IPA would remain with the Secretary of State,
protecting ministerial accountability while ensuring the IPA can formally flag
when exceptional circumstances may justify deployment.
Impact:
60. Provides a proportionate, humane mechanism for addressing rare but significant
cases. Ensures the system can respond to the significance of impact, not just scale,
and prevents families from falling between statutory gaps.
Practical note:
61. This proposal would likely need to be reflected in a targeted amendment extending
the IPA’s remit to a small number of tightly defined, exceptional cases.

Conclusion
62. For over three decades, families bereaved by public tragedy have carried a weight
the state should never have placed upon them. Hillsborough showed, with
devastating clarity, what happens when candour is absent, and accountability is
resisted.

63. The IPA’s guiding principle is therefore clear: the burden of seeking truth and justice
must rest with the system, never on the shoulders of victims and families who have
already endured unimaginable pain.
64. The proposals set out in this paper give practical expression to that principle. They
are limited, proportionate refinements that reinforce Parliament’s objectives,
strengthen coherence across the legislative framework, and help ensure that the
duties established by this Bill are realised in practice.
65. Each proposal is designed to reduce avoidable harm, close gaps in transparency, and
ensure the system takes responsibility for the honesty, openness and fairness victims
should be able to expect as of right. In doing so, they help ensure that the lessons of
Hillsborough, and of tragedies since, are carried forward not just in words, but in
action.

November 2025