25 July 2023: Quin - C

Questions from core participants:

On the process of the small ministerial group (SMG) not seeing the minutes of the Permanent Secretaries meeting, is there a better way of achieving a joined-up process? He though the SMG and his officials did see the minutes, but he did not. He did agree there could be better ways of coordinating the work.

Have any extra resources been added to the Cabinet Office team so it can work “at pace”, and what are these? He said there were extra personnel, including at a senior level.

Sue Gray has moved on, is it Alex Chisholm the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, who has taken on her Inquiry related role? He confirmed this.

The King’s Speech will not happen until November, which is quite a way away and will hold things up further. Can legislation happen sooner? He confirmed that Penny Mordaunt was the expert on this. With the time in between being so short and crowded, it would be difficult to push anything more into the timetable. (What happened to “political will”?)

The aim to give updates on a “rolling basis” had previously been stated by the witness, but the position more recently is one of waiting until everything is done. What is the position?  He referred to certain “practicalities”. Some of the things he might have wanted to have said could not be said until after the Cabinet processes have completed their parts, and some of these are “quite significant”. (At least the significance is not lost on them, but this writer rather thinks he simply meant, “very expensive”)

While the position is to hold back until the practicalities are worked out, it inevitably impacts on the principles. Can the Government not allow for the principles which appear to have been accepted to be made public so as to give some comfort to people. He basically conflated the two in such a way that it sounded like the principles are not set out solidly (as in, “first principles” or principles first), but that these may have to shift until the nuts and bolts are figured out. Basically, principles are secondary to budget lines. (What happened to “substance over form”?)

The answers seem to assume the possible difficulties of getting decisions through Cabinet then Parliament. Is it really the case that it is likely for anyone to oppose the Recommendations? He said it was not completely certain that primary legislation would be required, and he also expected both Houses to be fully supportive of something the Government were putting to them (assuming what is being put forward is what is recommended, because if not then Parliament becomes the battleground we enter into once again).

Why can the Government not commit to setting up a registration for those who are very likely to be eligible for compensation? He said it could be the case, but that’s just theoretical. He prefers to move when there is certainty, (i.e. no, we’re not going there).

The Chair asked about the way Government deals with Recommendations, perhaps by appearing to make promises but not in the long run seeing through on these. How can there be a better way to hold the Government’s feet to the fire? The witness said there had been some internal Government discussions on this. He saw Parliament having the main role in holding the Government to account regarding, for example, the implementations of Inquiry Recommendations.

The Chair pursued this in terms of a requirement for the public to be involved in this process. He said that was a very interesting constitutional question. He still stressed the role of Parliament, but hypothetically there might be an Inquiry Recommendation to implement a reporting requirement and timetable for Parliament and the public. Sir Brian seized on this possibility, suggesting therefore that this should be his first Recommendation (… cue spontaneous applause). The witness said he would never seek to tell the Chair what to put in his report.

The witness restated his recognition of the huge level of suffering people have faced and his absolute determination that this be resolved. His colleagues were also likewise committed.

The Chair thanked the witness for giving “as much an insight as you can into the working of Government around this particular issue”, and for his expressions of “commitment”. (This writer wonders if “… as you can …” might equally be expressed as, “… as you are allowed …”)

Without meaning any disrespect to Mr Quin (he’s a nice guy, after all), it seems like his desire to do the right thing is being stymied by a greater power who may say they agree that all this “should never have happened” but are more motivated by not paying for what they see as someone else’s mess to be cleared up. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are about as close as we can expect to get to the heart of the Establishment and whatever other puppet-masters there may be. Will Wednesday and Friday throw any further light on the matter? We can hope.