I think we have already debated the latitude that the Secretary of State enjoys in interpreting the word “significant” when we debated the previous group of amendments. The noble Lord has asked a very fair question; I perhaps should not have rushed into an answer to the question I was given on Horizon in particular. It might be wise if, rather than go further at the Dispatch Box, I wrote to the noble Lord about the Horizon case specifically.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the IPA’s secretarial and admin support; that was also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. We will be coming to that in the fourth group of amendments, so if they will allow, we can defer the point to that debate, which my noble friend Lord Roborough will be responding to.
6 pm
Moving on, the noble Lord’s Amendments 126A and 126B seek to ensure additional advocates are deployed only if the standing advocate is unavailable or requires support. It is already the Government’s intention that the standing advocate is deployed by default. We acknowledge that the standing advocate will be the most recognisable, and will have developed and accumulated knowledge, experience and relationships with stakeholders over time. However, there are circumstances, such as where a major incident has occurred, that more specialised knowledge or skills may be required, or, as the noble Lord has outlined, where the standing advocate is not available. The Government believe that the Bill as drafted allows the necessary flexibility to ensure that appointments are made in a timely manner following a major incident and that the most appropriate person is appointed. All advocates are subject to the same scrutiny once appointed. Therefore, while I understand and am sympathetic to the aims of the noble Lord’s amendments, the Government believe that the process they will follow in appointing advocates is fair and robust.
Lastly, I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 133ZA, which would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to commission a review of the operation and effectiveness of an advocate appointed in respect of a major incident, to lay the outcome of this review before Parliament within six months of this Act passing, and to implement any recommendations made for improving their effectiveness within six months of the review’s publication. Perhaps at this point I could express my thanks to the noble Lord for his engagement on these issues with my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy and me the week before last. The Government understand and appreciate the intention behind this amendment. This new statutory office that we are creating is novel and the first of its kind. It is completely right that we monitor and evaluate new initiatives to ensure that they achieve their purpose and deliver for the end-user—in this case, victims of major incidents. The noble Lord spoke very powerfully. I believe my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy was clear that the way that we do this is something that the Government are willing to consider further. I know that my noble and learned friend would be happy to work with the noble Lord on the matter, ahead of the next stage in this Bill’s passage, if he would find that helpful.