Baroness Louise Casey

He's Prime Minister.

And so I basically had to go through the evidence, why I felt that we needed it and why I wanted it and why I was going to say it publicly, come what may.

and we got to a point where he agreed with it, and that's fine.

You know, he didn't want to do one in some way.

I didn't.

I became convinced that it was the right thing to do.

But I think the other thing about it, though, and actually the other thing, of course, is I've decided, and they have all agreed...

that I would stay involved with the statutory inquiry so I could make sure that I felt that we were heading in the right direction with it.

But I also feel that we needed an inquiry that wasn't going to take years, therefore wasn't necessarily judge-led, that would actually be a different way of doing it.

But it had statutory powers.

So it's a statutory inquiry and it will go to the areas where the evidence is so overwhelming that people... It will start there where people can see that justice wasn't done and the system didn't learn from its mistakes.

So it'll be a different type of inquiry, which I think might also help us in public life as well.

It's like the answer can't always be...

there's been a problem, it's pretty awful, let's go and get a judge-led inquiry.

For some, like Southport, oh boy, do you need a judge-led inquiry.

But for others, I think there are different models.

So I think I'm trying to see whether this is a model of how we can do inquiries in a different way.

Well, of course the answer to that is yes, Alex.

But, no, seriously, I think part of the problem has been in the last couple of years is that we've had a lot of reviews and pieces of work.

Now, I understand why that's the case, because when people have been out of power for a long time...