logo
Southport Inquiry: Can public inquiries lead to real change?

Southport Inquiry: Can public inquiries lead to real change?

ITV News09-07-2025
Speaking ahead of the Southport Inquiry Figen Murrary, the mum of Martyn Hett, says the Manchester Arena Inquiry gave her the answers she needed, but it took an emotional and physical toll.
The government has so far announced three new public inquiries in 2025, bringing the total of ongoing or announced inquiries to 21. But with more public inquiries than ever - are they working as they should?
While public inquiries can be tools for accountability, they are not without challenges. Critics often point to the lengthy durations and substantial costs associated with these investigations and even more crucially the fact they often do not lead to change.
A recent report by the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee warned inquiries were perceived as 'frequently too long and expensive, leading to a loss of public confidence and protracted trauma'.
Figen Murray OBE, the mother of Martyn Hett, one of 22 people killed in the Manchester Arena bombing, knows all too well the emotional and physical toll public inquiries can take on families.
The inquiry into the Manchester Arena Attack lasted more than three years.
She said: "Going through an inquiry as a family member who has been directly affected either by death or injury, it is one of the most traumatic experiences I have ever gone through.
"Once you see something, you can't un-see it. And when you hear things you can't un-hear them. So people need to appreciate that sitting through an inquiry you see things, you hear things, you go through all sorts of emotions and it's brutal."
However Figen maintains the inquiry did give her the answers she needed and helped her campaign for Martyn's Law.
Figen Murray said: They're crucially important because they make people accountable and they actually make sure all the facts are on the table and people can examine them and actually make sense of what happened and it puts all the pieces together that are missing.
"I think inquiries are absolutely crucial to learning from bad catastrophic events and finding out what can be done to avoid that from happening again."
While few will disagree with the need for an inquiry into the Southport tragedy, some remain skeptical as to what it'll achieve.
"It had been hoped Southport would be the first to adhere to the Hillsborough Law which would force public officials to tell the truth at inquiries from the outset or face criminal sanctions but the bill's yet to be passed."
Elkan Abrahamson, Director of Hillsborough Law Now believes the current inquiry process is ineffective.
"There are two big reasons why I think they are ineffective," he said.
"The first-is the lack of a duty of candour so it is easy to mislead a public inquiry - certainly in the early stages before an inquiry kicks off and the second is a lack of any oversight mechanism to see that any recommendations are, if not fully implemented, then at least properly considered.
"Time and again we have a public inquiry where recommendations are made and just ignored and we have to do something about that."
But Professor Lucy Easthope, one of the country's leading emergency planners, believes if done well the Southport Inquiry could bring positive change.
"One of the things about the inquiry is there wasn't a trial which many people were relieved about in some ways but it did mean there were a lot of questions unanswered and the inquiry can go much more broadly into other questions as well," she said.
"There is no doubt that inquiries done well with the right disclosure and with a very focused chair that demands things of the people giving evidence does inevitably and necessarily change practise.
"The sad thing for us is to have to see it being in an inquiry. "
So it seems this public inquiry will itself come in for intense scrutiny. The big question, will be whether it'll be able to provide clarity and a degree of closure to the families of Alice, Bebe and Elsie and all the others affected by the terrible events of last summer.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump vs Murdoch: lawsuit of the century
Trump vs Murdoch: lawsuit of the century

New Statesman​

time30-07-2025

  • New Statesman​

Trump vs Murdoch: lawsuit of the century

Photo by AP Photo/Evan Vucci Donald Trump has asked a federal court to speed up the deposition of Rupert Murdoch in the president's $10bn defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal 's parent company Dow Jones – in case the 94-year-old dies before the case reaches court. In a motion, Trump's lawyers claim that Murdoch 'has suffered from multiple health issues throughout his life' and has 'suffered recent significant health scares'. But Murdoch is not taking it lying down in his bath chair. 'I'm 94 years old and I will not be intimidated,' he told friends. The WSJ stories alleged Trump sent a 'bawdy' drawing to Jeffrey Epstein for his birthday in 2003, and that the US president was told in May that he features in the Epstein files. The White House denies both claims. Insiders at Murdoch's News UK say there is zero chance of Murdoch backing down. 'He may have his faults, but Murdoch always backs his editors and he has huge admiration for [WSJ editor] Emma Tucker – that's why she was hand-picked from the Sunday Times and sent to the US.' At least Trump was able to get away from the furore at his Aberdeen golf course, where he could enjoy stunning views up the coast a mere 15 miles to Cruden Bay, the ancestral home of one Rupert Murdoch. On the subject of News UK, Keir Starmer is bringing in the company's chief operating officer, David Dinsmore, as his 'very own Malcolm Tucker'. Dinsmore, who was the Sun's editor from 2013 to 2015, has been hired into a new role as 'permanent secretary for communications', in which his first task will be to create a strategy for communicating in a digital age, using his contacts at the likes of Meta and Google. His second task will be to get to grips with the government's eye-watering 7,000 comms staff. Dinsmore's appointment has gone down like a lump of lead on Merseyside, where the Sun's coverage of the Hillsborough disaster remains an open wound. Mayor Steve Rotheram called it a 'deeply insensitive choice'. This comes amid fury that the Hillsborough Law to prevent future state cover-ups is being 'watered down to nothing' by Attorney General Richard Hermer. The Liverpool-born Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, who has campaigned tirelessly for the law, is oddly silent about Starmer's new appointment. In the 2015 leadership election Burnham refused to be interviewed by the Sun, then edited by Dinsmore, which led to the retaliatory headline: 'Is two-faced Burnham the most hypocritical politician in Britain?' Still, it's a topic unlikely to come up at Labour's party conference… in Liverpool. Sacked sleazeball Gregg Wallace sat down for an interview with the Sun, in which he bemoaned being bracketed with the likes of Jimmy Savile and Huw Edwards. 'I'm not a groper,' he wailed, while also lending support to his former MasterChef colleague John Torode, saying: 'He's not a racist.' Wallace's loyalty is not being reciprocated by at least one source close to Torode; they grumbled: 'Why doesn't he just shut his mouth? This isn't helping anyone.' Spare a thought for editors of the Daily Mail Weekend magazine, who were so chuffed at landing an exclusive interview with Jack Osbourne that they blasted it across the cover. Inside, Jack revealed: 'Dad's great and his mood's really high.' Unfortunately by the time of publication, the hellraising, bat-eating Ozzy had passed away. Panicked meetings were held to see if the mag could be pulled but alas, as with Ozzy, it was all too late. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Snout line: Got a story? Write to tips@ Related

The Online Safety Act and the Left's ‘ancient' institutions
The Online Safety Act and the Left's ‘ancient' institutions

Spectator

time30-07-2025

  • Spectator

The Online Safety Act and the Left's ‘ancient' institutions

After Reform promised to repeal the Online Safety Act, it didn't take long for Labour to defend internet censorship. 'And get rid of child protections online? Madness,' Labour MP Chris Bryant tweeted. 'Why would anyone want to grant strangers and paedophiles unfettered online access to children?' asked Mike Tapp. Science Minister Peter Kyle went one step further, declaring that anyone opposing the Online Safety Act – including Reform leader Nigel Farage – is 'on the side of Jimmy Savile'. Labour's latest attack ad reads: 'Farage's Reform party would scrap laws keeping children safe online'. The actions of government ministers over the past few days provide a masterclass in left-wing institution shrine-making. Yes, it might seem absurd that the government is treating a week-old policy like a sacred cow, the abolition of which is completely unimaginable. But this is a strategy ripped out of the progressive playbook. The same approach has been taken to the Human Rights Act, Ofcom, the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Supreme Court. We live in a world of Blairite institutions treated as ancient pillars of society. On Sky News, Kyle added that Farage was 'on the side of turning the clock back to the time when strange adults can get in touch via messaging apps with children'. How dare Farage try to turn back the tide of progress like this, returning the UK to the dystopian hellscape of… last week? If Labour are to be believed, the internet before 25 July 2025 – when the act's child safety duties came into force – was a dangerous and terrifying place in which children were constantly at risk of predation. It's completely safe now, though. The fact that the greatest safeguarding scandal of the 21st century – the mass grooming and rape of our children – happened mostly offline seems to have passed the government by. Here's how it works. Step one: diagnose a real problem and propose an institution or law that may do something in a roundabout way to address it. The Online Safety Act latched on to very real fears that children were accessing hardcore pornography and self-harm sites online. Martyn's Law, legislation seeking to improve protective security and organisational preparedness in event venues, responded to the horrors of the Manchester Arena terror attack in 2017. The Human Rights Act of 1998 emerged from a good-natured desire to 'bring rights home'. Nobody could ever object to the prohibition of slavery or torture. It all seemed very reasonable at the time. Step two: give your newly created solution wide-reaching powers that go far beyond the scope of the problem you sought to solve. Consult every 'stakeholder' on the books and add in amendments seeking to cover a whole host of new issues. Quickly, the Online Safety Act became an attempt to age-restrict most of the internet, including 'content relating to': sexual exploitation, illegal immigration and people smuggling, and fraud. Yes, 16-year-olds will soon have the right to vote – but not to watch some speeches in Parliament. Attempts to insulate venues from the threat posed by terrorism left small event organisers with hours of paperwork and online training in order to hold even tiny events unlikely ever to have been the target of an attack. The Human Rights Act became a vehicle for criminals to stay in the country. Finally, once your institution has spiralled completely out of control, object to any and all criticism on the grounds that the world we lived in before was a cruel and dangerous place. Never engage with the realities of the past. Robert Jenrick's campaign for Britain to leave the European Court of Human Rights and abolish the Human Rights Act was met with shock from campaigners. Those who support him are accused of trying to take away human rights – of trying to remove 'the fundamental universal rights we have as all human beings'. Ushering in a world where no one can have a free trial or a family life. Those on the left refuse to engage with the fact that, before 1998 when the act was introduced, Britain was clearly not an authoritarian state. Indeed, freedom of speech was undoubtedly better back then. The same case is made for the Supreme Court, which only came into existence in 2009, and the Equality Act of 2010. Before this, we are meant to believe that the ordinary person was suffering day to day at the hands of evil, woman-hating employers and parliamentary dictators. The same goes for the Office for Budget Responsibility – a creation of Cameron's 2010 government, and one which the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is determined to hand even more power to. Was the Treasury completely out of control before they weighed in with their forecasts? Is a 15-year-old institution that's overseen consistently rising government debt truly beyond reproach? Was the press really much worse before Ipso, the press regulator, was established in 2014? If anything, its existence has made it harder for the press to report on contentious topics, such as the gender debate. There was a world before the turn of the millennium. Britain is held together by the fundamentals of its democratic norms; by its truly ancient institutions: common law, democracy and parliamentary sovereignty have all done great things to protect the individual. The institutions and policies of the last decade have hindered, not helped, this project. Learn from the derangement of the conversation about the Online Safety Act. Don't fall for the progressive guidebook next time they get it out.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store