Victims and Prisoners Bill (Eleventh sitting)

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hosie. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend for her kind words about my long-standing efforts in respect of a public advocate, which arose out of my experience as a constituency MP seeking to represent some of the bereaved families of those who were killed at Hillsborough, and also survivors of Hillsborough—we often forget survivors. Many thousands of people in the ground on that day saw what happened and were subsequently pretty traumatised. Some have been in a terrible state for many years. I still meet people who tell me what happened to them on that day and say that they have never told anybody in the intervening 34 years.

One can imagine the state that some of the people are in in terms of their mental health, particularly when there has been a cover-up that has lasted for so many years seeking to blame fans for what happened, rather than an acceptance of responsibility. We must remember that within four months of the disaster, the first interim report of the first public inquiry placed responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the police, which they never accepted and then chose to campaign to overturn.

When I first met my constituents as an MP in 1997—I had known some of them before as a lawyer—the first thing they said to me was that the police had used the inquest to overturn the Taylor inquiry. Of course, I had the lawyer’s response and said, “No, inquests have a different purpose”, but I quickly understood what they meant when I saw what had happened.

In reality, the cover-up at Hillsborough began on the day and was then pursued at great cost and expense using taxpayers’ money over decades. In fact, at the second inquest, the same points were put by the police lawyers. Even now one hears similar arguments being put: “It was the Liverpool fans; they were ticketless; they were drunk. They pushed their way into the ground and killed their own.” One even hears it in the chants, which, mercifully, the Football Association is now trying to deal with. “Tragedy chanting”, as it is known, is done to Liverpool fans at grounds all over the country. That kind of issue resonates for decades for many thousands of people. That is why I am convinced we as a society must seek to get the aftermath of disasters right.

If we can stop things going wrong—as wrong as they have with Hillsborough—we can save a lot of money and a lot of heartache. We can certainly make sure that the families of those killed in disasters, who suddenly face the worst moments of their lives in the full glare of publicity, do not also have to deal with public authorities’ intent on not getting at the truth and finding out what happened to the families’ loved ones, or not supporting them in every way possible, and in some cases trying to blame them for what happened. In all the cases that I have come across, the authorities try to make sure that they do not get the blame. That defensiveness often drives the behaviour of public authorities in the aftermath of disasters.

That is why I rise to support amendments 20 and 21, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North. Clause 24 gives total discretion to the Secretary of State, and there is no requirement about what he should consider in making the appointment and no requirement that he should consult those affected.

My experience of having to deal with disasters as a constituency MP does not just include the Hillsborough disaster. There have been others: the MV Derbyshire disaster happened long before I became an MP, the Alder Hey organ scandal was another that I had to deal with, and I have constituents affected by the Manchester Arena bombing. A number of other disasters have happened during my time in this House. One issue is always the same: the Secretary of State gaining the trust of those affected is an incredibly important part of ensuring that things do not go wrong.

The Secretary of State should be required to appoint an advocate, thus removing his discretion. We will have an argument—a discussion—later about whether the advocate should be a standing appointment. On balance, I think it should be, but if it is to be an ad hoc appointment, the Secretary of State should not have discretion about whether to appoint when there has been a major incident. There should always be an appointment. I therefore support amendment 20.

There is also an issue about how we define “major incident”. I always think of these things as public disasters in which a number of people have died—that is my definition—but the Government have chosen to define it slightly differently. No doubt the Minister can enlighten us about precisely how the Government see the interpretation of that phrase.

Anything that can give families some comfort that the Secretary of State is acting in their interests, not with unfettered powers and not without having to discuss things with them, would be an advance on the current drafting. For those reasons, I support the amendments.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

At the outset, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for her campaigning on this issue over many years on behalf of not only her constituents, but others whom she has probably never met but who look to her for the leadership that she has shown. They will be grateful for everything that she has done. I also pay tribute to her for the tone that she consistently adopts, which is measured and reasonable.

The right hon. Lady and I had the opportunity to meet, and she introduced me to one of her constituents, whom we subsequently saw before the Committee. The right hon. Lady highlighted the issues of agency and transparency and why the families, having been through all that they have been through, approach these matters in a particular way and have the perspective that they do. We have talked about Hillsborough. Of course, this applies, in recent times, to Grenfell and Manchester Arena, and the survivors and the families of the victims of those horrific events. I also pay tribute to Lord Wills and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her work on this issue.

I hope that there is agreement across this Committee Room today on a determination to get it right. There may be discussion about what getting it right looks like, and there may be differences of opinion on that. However, this is a genuine opportunity for this House, for this Parliament, to do something of huge import, notwithstanding the fact that there may be areas where we disagree or approach the issue from slightly different perspectives. There should be a fair degree of consensus and a determination to get the right outcome.

I preface my remarks on all these amendments and clauses with this: I look forward to our discussions today, but I also look forward to the opportunity, where there are areas where we do not coalesce around a single approach, to use the summer recess and beyond, before the Bill comes back on Report, to work with the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, and others to see whether we can move closer together during those months. I hope that the right hon. Lady will take me up on that offer to engage throughout the coming months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin]

I rise to support my right hon. Friend on these two amendments. The pain of these bereaved families runs deep and the resonance of what happened, particularly at Hillsborough, runs incredibly wide, as we have heard described so brilliantly by my right hon. Friend. But of course the point is widely known and acknowledged across many of the debates and discussions that go on.

These are two core issues, right at the heart of the matter: inclusion of the bereaved families, who are going through that pain, in these decisions, and inclusion of those families when consulting. We need to ensure that they are consulted. They have felt disenfranchised. They have felt left behind. This change would make up for it.

[Edward Argar]

First, I should have said in response to the previous set of amendments that I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her tone on this part of the Bill and the way Opposition Front Benchers are approaching it. We may find that there remain, after Committee stage, some areas where we have differences, but I think it is incumbent on both sides of the House to work together, to the best of our ability, to try to find a way forward that delivers on our shared objectives.

The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood mentioned Jack Straw in 1997. I can remember the Labour party coming to power in 1997—I had just finished my A-levels and left school at the time. I believe that that was when the right hon. Lady entered this House.

[Maria Eagle]

It seems just like yesterday.

[Edward Argar]

Therefore I am always sensitive to the depth of experience and knowledge that the right hon. Lady brings as a parliamentarian to these proceedings. I am very grateful to her for these amendments, which seek to give agency to the families bereaved by a major incident—or public disaster, to use her terminology—provide them with influence over who is appointed as an advocate, and specifically define criteria to which the Secretary of State must have due regard when appointing an advocate.

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the importance of trust and agency. First, on trust, we all know as politicians that it is very easy to very swiftly lose trust. It takes an awfully long time to rebuild it afterwards. That is why—this is my second point—she is absolutely right to highlight the importance of tone and language. In the aftermath of a major public disaster like the one that we have been discussing, particularly when it is many years down the line of—for want of a better way of putting it—having to fight the system to get the truth, people are, understandably, very sensitive to the language and tone, so I am sympathetic to the aims of these amendments. I want to say again that the Government do recognise the need to give families a voice and some sort of agency in decisions about the support that is provided.

My concern is that the practicalities of consulting families in the immediate aftermath of a disaster could be difficult, especially at a time when they are dealing with their immediate grief. At that point, they may not necessarily have coalesced into a support group—a single group or a number of groups—and may still be disparate individuals, with different views, who may not be in a position to compute what they might like to see in the future, because of the immediate consequences.

[Maria Eagle]

Perhaps a standing appointment is the answer, because such a person, who was there anyway, would be able immediately to spring into action and consult the families.

[Edward Argar]

This goes to my slight concern about the amendments. I am concerned that identifying and consulting bereaved families and victims, and trying to avoid missing anyone or people feeling that they did not have agency because they were not identified or engaged at the time, could risk delaying the IPA being appointed and support reaching victims. I take the right hon. Lady’s point, and I suspect that we will return to this when we talk about the nature of the appointment, but there are questions of timing and speed versus engagement, and how we would practically go about this. I know it is not the intention of the right hon. Lady, who wishes to ensure agency for families, and I am happy to continue our conversation to see if there is a way we can strike that balance between agency and engagement, but also avoid delay in practical terms. At present, victims would be able to make their representations to the Secretary of State, use their MPs and, ultimately, challenge a decision in court.

The Government intend to ensure that advocates are on the ground to provide support as swiftly as possible after a major incident. To ensure that support is tailored to a particular incident, our approach, which I suspect we will also debate later today, is to set up a register of advocates from a range of different professions, backgrounds and geographical areas. That will help to ensure that, as far as possible, those appointed have the necessary skills and expertise directly relevant to the incident in question or to the community or geography where it occurred. The views of the victims may well become apparent in the weeks following the appointment of an advocate and may have an important bearing on the appointment of a second or third advocate, or a team. One such advocate could, under the provisions as drafted, be put forward for appointment from the community affected by the major incident.

I recognise and understand the intent behind the amendments. In our conversations, the right hon. Lady has impressed on me just how important the sense of having agency and influence is for victims, survivors and families of victims in the aftermath of an incident. My concern is that there is a risk that the amendments could cause unnecessary delays in support reaching victims, which would run counter to the purpose of the IPA. None the less, given the right hon. Lady’s points about agency and the sense of powerlessness, I am happy to engage with her to see if there is a way that we can square the circle of timeliness, agency and engagement.

[Maria Eagle]

I do not intend to press the amendments to a vote. The Minister is being his usual constructive self, and I am sure that over the summer between all of us we will be able to rewrite the Bill so it looks a lot more like mine. [Laughter.] Sorry, I let that slip. We will be able to improve the Bill significantly so that it will do an appropriate and, hopefully, good job for those caught up in public disasters. On the basis of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff North for tabling the amendment, which would expand the scope of the IPA by giving the Secretary of State the power to appoint an IPA to support victims of an incident that does not meet the definition of a major incident in the Bill, but where the Secretary of State believes there is a significant public interest in doing so.

I understand the intention behind the amendment, particularly when taken alongside amendments 20 and 21, which we just debated. Amendment 22 would give back the Secretary of State some discretion to appoint an IPA following an event if they wanted to. However, it is important to remember that the IPA is intended to respond to exceptional events that present unique challenges. We use the term “major incidents”, but I acknowledge the term “public disaster” and I can understand why the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood uses it. I fear that the amendment may set a potentially unhelpful expectation and precedent that the IPA might be appointed to support victims who have not been caught up in a major incident, thereby increasing the scope and diluting the focus of the IPA. It would, for example, allow the appointment of an IPA where there are no injuries or fatalities. That is not the policy intention in part 2 of the Bill.

We are seeking to keep the focus narrowly on the intention to have the IPA in place for major incidents. We will debate some of the nuances and sub-elements of that, I suspect, but we want to keep that focus. In fact, not all events that involve fatalities or injuries will require the support of the IPA. Any event that results in harm and/or loss of life is a serious, but the intention and focus of the IPA is that it will become involved in only those circumstances where ensuring the effective engagement of the bereaved families and victims is likely to be a particular challenge and the IPA can add value in helping to give them agency.

Clause 24 already provides the Secretary of State with the necessary discretion when declaring a major incident to take account of a broad range of factors, which will probably include the public interest. As I have stated, we will publish a policy statement that sets out the factors to be considered. I note the intention behind the amendment, but I hope the hon. Member for Cardiff North will not press it to a Division.

[Anna McMorrin]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I accept his assurance that where it is in the public interest, declaring major incidents will be within the scope of the Secretary of State’s discretion. If I am wrong in that, perhaps he will intervene. I am grateful to him for putting that on record.

I would us to find a way to keep the focus on where there is a significant public interest—for example, when a relatively small number of people have died or suffered harm but the circumstances suggest serious systemic failings on the part of a public body. In those circumstances it would be in the public interest and lessons can be learned for the future. I hope we can move forward, as the Minister has given the assurance that an incident would be included, if that was in the public interest. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin]

I completely support the probing amendments, and I am intrigued to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for her amendments. I appreciate that she is, both as a parliamentarian and with her legal background, exploring what greater clarity can be provided. I sympathise with her. I take her point about ambiguity occasionally being beneficial to the legal profession but not necessarily to others, and about the desire to be as clear as possible about whom the IPA will support.

Our concern is about placing a definition of “close family members” in the Bill. We are all conscious, from our constituency work and more broadly, that there is no set family structure. A person’s second cousin, aunt or whoever may be much closer to that person than a very close relative is. We have sought create a degree of flexibility, so that the Bill can capture those who need support. Our approach is to use guidance to more clearly define how that would work, while still allowing the IPA a degree of discretion and flexibility. I am happy to work with the right hon. Lady on that guidance. With her legal mind as well as her parliamentary one, we might square that circle.

I would not support removing the ability of the IPA to support a close friend of a victim, because I fear that doing so could have the unintended consequence of excluding some victims from support. There may be some circumstances where someone injured in a major incident cannot receive the support of the IPA directly and does not have any close family ties, but has a close friend, a companion or another person who is deeply affected by what has happened, and who may be the only person they have left. We would wish such people to have the agency to engage with the IPA and receive their support directly. We therefore think that it is appropriate to allow the IPA to provide support to a close friend. I do not imagine that necessarily being the norm, but the provision is a safeguard to avoid being unduly restrictive and inadvertently excluding people.

I am reminded of the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub, when a number of people who were actually partners of victims, but who were not confident enough to be out, therefore described themselves as close friends. I would hope, as I think would all Members, that the world has moved on since then, but there is a risk that if we tighten the definition too much, people like that might not get the support they need. I hope that the world and society have moved on, but I just want to ensure that we have that safeguard in place.

I do understand the right hon. Lady’s intention in tabling the amendments, but I believe that they would narrow the definition of a victim in a such a way as inadvertently to exclude people who needed support. However, I am open to working with her—with her legal brain, as well as her parliamentary one—on the guidance to see whether we could, without being unduly prescriptive and while still being permissive, tighten it up a little more from a legal perspective. I am happy to work with her on that.

[Maria Eagle]

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, these ae probing amendments. The Minister is right that they narrowed the definition, but only to probe. On the basis of the assurances that he has given, I am quite content to withdraw the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Appointment of a standing independent public advocate—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an individual to act as an independent public advocate for victims of major incidents.

(2) The Secretary of State must pay to or in respect of an advocate—

(a) such remuneration as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;

(b) reasonable costs incurred by the advocate in connection with the exercise of their functions, including those incurred in connection with proceedings relating to the exercise (or purported exercise) of those functions;

(c) such other sums by way of allowances or gratuities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for the advocate to have an efficient and effective system of support, including secretarial support, in connection with the exercise of their functions.

(4) The independent public advocate may undertake the functions set out in section [functions and powers of the independent public advocate] for a particular event when—

(a) invited to do so by the Secretary of State, or

(b) for that event both requirements one and two have been met.

(5) Requirement one is that, in the advocate’s opinion, a major incident has occurred.

(6) A major incident is an incident that has caused the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals and involved—

(a) serious health and safety issues,

(b) a failure in regulation, or

(c) other events of serious concern.

(7) For these purposes, ‘harm’ includes physical, mental or emotional harm.

(8) In reaching an opinion under subsection (5), the advocate must have regard to previous decisions of the advocate.

(9) Requirement two is that the advocate has been asked to undertake their functions by fifty per cent plus one or more of the total of—

(a) representatives of those deceased due to the event, and

(b) any injured survivors of the event.”

[Edward Argar]

I will speak to clause 24 now, and to new clause 15 in my concluding remarks, once I have heard what the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood wishes to say about it.

Clause 24 enables the Secretary of State to appoint independent public advocates for victims of a major incident. Thankfully, major incidents—or public disasters—involving significant loss of life and serious injury are relatively rare in this country. However, they do happen, and when they do the processes that follow can be complex and daunting for victims and the bereaved. Despite the progress made in recent years, it is clear, as the right hon. Lady eloquently set out, that significant concerns remain about the extent to which the voices of the victims are heard, the agency that they have, and how fully they are supported in participating in the processes that aim to establish what happened and why. Clause 24 marks an important step forward.

As well as giving the Secretary of State the power to appoint an advocate, the clause defines “major incident” and “harm” for part 2 of the Bill. It is not possible to predict the exact nature of future incidents or disasters where an IPA may be required. The definition of a major incident is therefore intentionally broad to ensure that the Secretary of State has maximum flexibility to appoint an IPA to respond to a wide range of incidents.

The Government’s intention is to appoint an advocate as soon as possible after a major incident. Clause 24 sets out the sorts of things that the Secretary of State may consider when deciding whether an individual is appropriate to be appointed as an advocate. Those include previous qualifications, the individual’s geographical location and the impacted community and its needs. That ensures that decisions are made with a victim-centric approach. In taking a decision to appoint an advocate, the Secretary of State may have regard to the geographical area of the incident and, as previously set out, any particular community directly affected.

The Secretary of State will be able to appoint more than one advocate in respect of the same major incident where that is deemed necessary. Each major incident will be different and likely to require a specific set of skills and experience from the advocate. The clause seeks to ensure that there is enough flexibility to appoint the right people, and we believe that having the ability to appoint multiple advocates will help to provide the necessary resilience and diversity.

The Government believes it is right that the decision to stand up the IPA rests with the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for their decisions and for public expenditure. We do not think that a permanent body is necessary, given the rarity of the events in question. Nor do we believe that it is right to require victims to make such a decision when they are dealing with the immediate impact of their injuries and grief. However, we do recognise the importance of giving victims agency, which is why we are continuing to think about the role that victims can play in the appointment of more than one advocate following the immediate aftermath. I offer to work with the right. hon Lady to see if there is a way we can square that circle.

The clause also enables the Secretary of State to appoint a community leader if representations are made by the community. If an incident occurs and the IPA is not stood up, victims will be able to make representations to the IPA secretariat or their local elected MP to ask for one to be appointed. Those representations will be carefully considered, and a decision on whether to appoint an advocate can always be revisited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is completely correct. She will know from her own constituency experience of representing those caught up in the Birmingham pub bombings how dangerous and awful it is, not only for the families involved. We are talking intergenerational, here. Many of those still active in trying to get more accountability in respect of Hillsborough were barely born—sometimes not even born—at the time it happened. They are daughters, sons and other relatives who were not even alive. And the effect is not just on families intergenerationally; it is felt across communities.

The damage that Hillsborough has done to faith in the police in Liverpool since that time has been enormous, and it is intergenerational. It was not the Merseyside police—it was South Yorkshire police and the West Midlands police. That does not just go away. Some 30,000 people turned up at Anfield on the 20th anniversary of the disaster. That is why the Hillsborough Independent Panel was set up; that is why we were able to get it set up. The rest of the country was amazed that, 20 years on, 30,000 people would turn up to the service. It would have been more, if they had let more in. I was there on that day. I was not surprised to see what we saw on that day.

In two years, the Hillsborough Independent Panel unravelled the lies of ages. By publishing the documents and its account of what had really happened, it was able, incontrovertibly, to lay to rest all those lies and slurs and to elicit a heartfelt apology from the then Prime Minister David Cameron—who I think was a bit shocked when he read the report and saw what had happened.

We must not let this happen again. The issue is about torpedoing cover-ups as well as helping families. It is about stopping things from going wrong. As a lawyer, I know that the only way Hillsborough could have been stopped from getting as bad as it has got would be to have stopped it from going wrong in the first place. I believe that creating a mechanism through which transparency and truth can be focused on at an earlier stage and be told at the beginning is the way to stop things from going wrong. The legal system does not always appear to be able to do it, and I believe that the Hillsborough Independent Panel-type process is the way in which we can do it.

I unequivocally welcome the Government’s commitment, but I urge the Minister and the Government to have more ambition for what can be achieved through the process. It should not just be signposting to get immediate help in the aftermath of a disaster for those caught up in it; it should be about nothing less than us preventing things from going wrong in the aftermath, as a society looking after and supporting those caught up through no fault of their own in such disasters. It should be about ensuring that the organs of the state do not use taxpayers’ money and their capacity to be defensive—that appears to be infinite—to prevent themselves from facing up to the truth of what has happened.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Lady not only for her campaigning on behalf of her constituents and others, but for her ministerial career—the roles she held as Minister for Children, Minister for Northern Ireland and at the Ministry of Justice. What runs through that is her commitment to ensuring that those who are vulnerable, or who do not always have agency or a voice, are heard, and that their interests are respected and reflected in the actions of Government. I pay tribute to her. I also pay tribute to Lord Wills for not only his work but his evidence, as well as the meeting that the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and I had with him previously.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her new clause 15. It would fundamentally alter the structure and operation of the IPA by establishing a permanent independent public advocate. She and I probably fall on opposite sides of the debate about a standing or an ad hoc IPA. She rightly highlighted the pros and cons on both sides of that debate. She falls on one side, and I fall slightly more on the other. I suspect that we may yet return to that debate.

There are many possible models for an IPA. The clauses in part 2 of the Bill introduce an IPA that reflects the model we consulted on in 2018, with the responses we received to it. We have heard from victims that a swift deployment of the IPA to provide support in the immediate aftermath is vital. Our view is that the IPA as proposed in the Bill achieves that, while balancing the need to be mindful of public funds and the right process to be followed after a major incident.

New clause 15 would establish a permanent IPA that could determine independently of Government that an event is a major incident. As has been previously set out, we do not think that a permanent body is necessary, given the rarity of the events in question for which the IPA would be deployed. Furthermore, we believe it is right and proportionate that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, decides what a major incident is and when to appoint an IPA.

Should individuals disagree with the Secretary of State’s decision in respect of a particular incident, I would expect my fellow right hon. and hon. Members to make full use of their positions to hold the Government to account through urgent questions and similar means of bringing Ministers to the Dispatch Box.

[Jess Phillips]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying. I cannot foresee any incident involving even one death, certainly not one involving multiple deaths, after which pressure would not be brought to bear on the Secretary of State to do that. In essence, we are asking victims to do the work in the aftermath—they have to get in touch with their Members of Parliament and immediately start pushing. Their family has just been blown up or their kid has been shot, and we are saying that, first and foremost, they have to become political activists to get their Member of Parliament to represent them to the Secretary of State, rather than providing a place for them to go in that circumstance—which feels kinder.

[Edward Argar]

I do not think that is in any way what is being suggested; the hon. Lady misunderstands. Our view is that the accountability for making that decision should rightly sit with the Secretary of State, not with another party.

The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood takes a different view. I respect her perspective and understand where she is coming from. She rightly acknowledged that there were pros and cons to both approaches. She believes that the pros of a standing advocate outweigh the cons. I find myself on the other side of that argument and I suspect we might return to it. A decision by the Secretary of State could in extremis be challenged through the court system, but we do not envisage that being necessary.

The IPA will be supported by a permanent secretariat; the Ministry of Justice has already allocated funding for that. Clause 25, which we will turn to, provides for an effective system of support for the IPA by making provisions for a secretariat and remuneration. We therefore consider that that aspect is duplicative in the amendment tabled by the right hon. Lady.

I turn to the definition of a major incident and the specific points that the right hon. Lady has included. Again, we do not believe it is necessary to include additional considerations in the Bill. Given the unpredictable nature of the incidents in question, the definition of a major incident is purposefully broad—one might say “permissive” in this context—and further detail can be set out in a policy statement, as I mentioned earlier, while providing a degree of flexibility given what might be a subjective decision and the nature of the circumstances. That will ensure that the Secretary of State has maximum flexibility to appoint an IPA to respond to a wide range of incidents.

Defining a major incident as proposed in the new clause could arguably require a finding of fact or a pre-judgment of cause before the IPA could be deployed, especially regarding proving a failure in health and safety or regulation. Again, there is a risk that that could cause delays in the support of the IPA reaching the victims as well as presenting wider legal issues for the IPA. We believe that the definition in clause 24 as it stands is the right one for primary legislation, but, as I have said, I will provide additional detail through a policy statement and will work with the right hon. Lady on that if she so desires.

I turn finally to requirement two, which the IPA, as the right hon. Lady envisions, would need to meet before supporting victims. That would necessitate the IPA gaining the support of 50% plus one of the bereaved and injured. I sympathise with the intention to involve victims in the process—I take the point about agency and trust. However, I cannot see how that might work in practice without potentially, in the immediate aftermath of an incident, delaying the deployment of the IPA. That would cause concern.

In the immediate aftermath, it is unlikely that all eligible victims could be easily identified and surveyed to ascertain whether they would want an IPA to be deployed. They might not even be in the right place mentally or emotionally to be able to engage with such a question. Furthermore, the number of victims might change over time, and people might withdraw their consent, so the quorum approach is not the best way to address the issue.

Victim engagement, agency and a sense of empowerment are, as the right hon. Lady says, vital. Those are good things, but they will not achieve what we seek: in the aftermath of a major incident, to carry the trust of people that the IPA is on their side. Although I understand its intent, our concern is that the new clause is not the best way to achieve that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Fay Jones.)