Hillsborough Law
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who raises many salient points. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for tabling the debate and for his, as ever, eloquent and very moving introduction to it.
In terms of the development of the Hillsborough law, it is clearly well advanced, and we have the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which is good news. The duty of candour and the proposed new offences are a good step forward, and I think we all hope that they will bring about the change in culture that is so desperately needed. As has been mentioned, campaigners have fought long and hard for this Bill, and that means that expectations around it are riding extremely high.
If you are from Hillsborough or Grenfell, if you are one of those infected or affected by infected blood, or if you are one of the sub-postmasters, you understand only too well the barriers, frustrations and failures along the way. When you have faced, at best, a never-ending barrage of obfuscation, the duty of candour is a very appealing thing, even if it is the least you should expect from those in a position of responsibility.
However, I do think we need to sound a note of caution. The duty of candour does provide part of the answer, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, highlighted, it is not a cure-all and, if we place too much emphasis on what it can realistically achieve, we risk creating further disappointments for people who have already endured enough setbacks to last a lifetime.
As we all know, a duty of candour has existed in the NHS for over a decade, but we have not seen the desired culture change there. The new Bill provides a more robust framework: the reach is wider and there is a requirement for codes of ethical conduct. But, if we are to truly transform the response to those who have been failed by the state in all its various forms, there are other things that we should pay equal attention to. I think the Minister might see some themes emerging from this, because I would also like to talk about the Independent Public Advocate. This was created in the last Government’s Victims and Prisoners Act, and that was in no small part due to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, the right honourable Maria Eagle and my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead.
One of the most appalling features of all the scandals that we have mentioned and continue to mention in this House is the way in which those affected butt up against a system that seems to work against them, thereby inflicting further harm. The Independent Public Advocate is the only part of this intimidating wall of bureaucracy that people face that speaks solely for the victims and survivors, and that they know will be entirely on their side.
The new Bill has provision for parity of arms in terms of legal aid, but this is about more than legal representation; it is about the relationship between the public and the state. It is about building trust when trust in the system has been smashed to pieces. I just do not think the value of this can be overestimated, so I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wills: I think many of us would have preferred to see a much stronger role for the IPA than that which we ended up with.
As it was originally conceived, the IPA would have had the power to compel evidence, which could potentially solve problems earlier down the line and could also, in some instances, avoid the need for costly public inquiries. As it stands, the IPA has not been given the remit or resources to do this. The last Government agreed to a review once we have seen how the role is evolving. Will the Minister’s Government champion the first IPA, Cindy Butts, giving her the necessary support to develop the role and allow it to reach its full potential?
An example that I mentioned previously was that of the sub-postmasters. When they asked whether anyone else was experiencing problems with Horizon, they were told that no, they were the only ones. Had we had a duty of candour back then, you would hope that maybe it might have prevented that—but then, had that group of sub-postmasters also had the backing and, importantly, the clout of the IPA, the situation might have been very different. Those lives might not have been ruined, and we might not have ended up with another costly public inquiry.
If we can get the duty of candour and the IPA working in tandem and to full effect, it is just possible that, in future, when an inquiry is necessary, it may not need to be statutory. In the current climate, the calls from victims and campaigners for an inquiry to be statutory are absolutely unavoidable, because only a statutory inquiry can compel evidence. The moment that happens under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005, it is inevitable that the process will be long and expensive. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has mentioned, there are other options, such as independent panels, which can be more agile and sometimes more effective, depending on the circumstances. The recent Select Committee established to look into the Inquiries Act, which I was on, also recommended that other models of inquiry be considered if possible.
We need to look at ways in which to achieve this because, as the number of statutory inquiries has proliferated, we now have this enormous backlog of recommendations, all of which tend to be accepted by the Government of the day—any Government—and many of which are not then delivered. I work with many of the groups involved in a number of recent public inquiries and they are all, without exception, deeply frustrated. They have all asked what the point is, if the recommendations are not going to be delivered. Inquiries are there partly to rebuild trust and, in that sense, I am afraid that they are no longer doing their job.
In fact, as I speak, the group Act on IICSA is holding an event right now to highlight the fact that so many of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse have not been implemented. Just to demonstrate how ridiculous it has all become, we are now heading into another related inquiry on grooming gangs, on the back of a report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which repeated many of the recommendations made by Professor Alexis Jay in her original IICSA report. This is the situation in which we increasingly find ourselves, not helped by the fact that there is no formal monitoring for inquiries or inquests.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
I am going just as long as everybody else did, and I have one more paragraph and one important question.
Can the Minister say whether the Government are actively looking at this issue? Does she agree that the Hillsborough law needs to sit in a wider suite of initiatives if we are going to deliver that long-lasting change?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to be insensitive or difficult, but this is a time-limited debate, and the time limit for speeches is seven minutes. The effect of going over that time will be to curtail the time available to the Minister.
Public Libraries
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sanderson of Welton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publish a new strategy for public libraries.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to open today’s debate, first proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. It really is a pleasure to see so many noble Lords, which shows how valued libraries are by so many of us and it does mean contributions will be frustratingly short. As a first question, I wonder: given the clear interest, might the usual channels discuss making time available during this Session for a longer debate on libraries?
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
On to the main business and, even with today’s time limitations, I am sure that we will hear about the many different ways in which libraries can alter the course of people’s lives so, rather than mention that here, I shall just mention the thing that I find so magical about libraries. And that is the fact that, no matter who you are or where you are from, you can walk into any library in the country and ask for help. In return, you will be asked for precisely nothing. There will be no charge and you will never be asked to justify yourself; you will simply be welcomed in. There is no other institution today, be it public or private, which can say the same.
That is something worth preserving so I was delighted, at the request of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, to carry out an independent review of public libraries which would inform a new strategy. The review made eight recommendations, designed to address four clear challenges. I am afraid that I cannot claim any great discoveries here, for they are the exact same challenges that libraries have faced for decades.
I will list them briefly. First, there is a lack of recognition across government—national and local—of the extent of the work that libraries do. Secondly, there is a lack of awareness among the wider public of what the library offers, which partly explains the inconsistency whereby libraries are viewed with great affection—as we can see—and there is a fierce desire to protect them, but this does not always translate into people making proper use of them. Thirdly, there is a lack of comprehensive data on our libraries which has worsened over time. Finally, we need a better sense of what the Government want to see from our libraries. On that final point, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether they are still planning to go ahead with the strategy and, if so, in what timeframe. In the hope that she says yes, I shall highlight some of the recommendations from the review.
The first was the creation of a Libraries Minister, which was enacted by the previous Government. This sent an important signal not just to the sector but to other government departments, where the work of libraries is not always recognised despite it contributing so much to so many different departmental priorities.
Secondly, and crucially, is the creation of a national data hub, similar to that created for the leisure industry, which would capture all the data held by library services. Currently, some data is provided manually, but by only some local authorities. This means that we are lacking even the most basic national overview on library provision—and I do mean basic: opening hours, books borrowed, services used et cetera. This is not helpful to libraries nor, frankly, to government. As I said, we are talking about the most basic data. With a data hub, the dataset would be richer and, if built in the right way, could be used alongside the local government and British Library platforms to provide a more targeted, modern and agile service. In time, it could also help evaluate how libraries contribute to national agendas, which is essential if we want our libraries to thrive.
This will depend on local authorities sharing their data. Crucially, the Local Government Association supports the initiative, and Arts Council England has begun work, with input from DCMS, Libraries Connected, the British Library and CILIP. However, it can be realised only with the support of national government, so can the Minister confirm, either today or in writing, that her department is looking seriously at this? If it is considering other ways of addressing the data black hole, I ask that it plan to consult the sector on the different options, and that these options include a data hub, as this could be as transformative as the national rollout of library wifi a decade ago.
Thirdly, I wish to highlight the ambition to make every child a library member. This has been looked at before but has always run into problems with data protection. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Reading Agency, but that is not why I mention the results of their three-year, cross-authority summer reading challenge pilot, which included the trialling of universal membership to schoolchildren.
Working with libraries and other local authority services, including schools and HAF programmes, the pilot delivered automatic membership in many areas of the country, which was GDPR compliant and reached many disadvantaged children. It created tens of thousands of new library members; the children with automatic membership read more books than in comparator groups; and book issues remained consistently higher across the year for children provided with a library card. Because of the nature of the challenge, it also introduced many new parents and caregivers to the library. This is a significant step forward, with the potential to provide huge benefits to the children and families in most need, so I ask the Minister to look at this, too.
Finally, I wish to mention the creation of a “front door” for those wishing to engage with public libraries. The governance of libraries is like spaghetti junction. DCMS is the policy lead; MHCLG has responsibility for funding; ACE is the development agency; and Libraries Connected, CILIP and ASCEL all support the sector and, alongside the LGA, provide co-ordination and partnership working. It is ferociously complicated.
Although those involved do a fantastic job, it can be difficult for outside organisations to know where to go in the first instance. Many people agree that libraries need more national, big-scale programmes delivered locally, but this will rely on building new, ambitious partnerships across the public and private sectors. The British Library could play a really important convening role in this, as happens in some European countries, since it has stature and reach across the whole of the UK and internationally; indeed, it has already successfully delivered such a programme with its Business & IP Centre network, which provides start-up support and has helped to create more than 18,000 businesses.
When talking about the British Library, we should bear in mind the recent cyberattack—this rightly remains its foremost priority—but the Government could still provide some small, proportionate, extra resource for the British Library to take on the work of building a consensus about what a future front door could look like. Will the Minister look at this and, perhaps, the other recommendations in the review, which reflect the views of the sector after many months of consultation? I take just a moment to thank the officials behind the Minister, who were incredibly helpful in that work.
Finally, I was delighted to see that, in 2011, the current Secretary of State initiated a Westminster Hall debate on the future of libraries. She spoke passionately about the value of libraries in her own constituency and, more generally, she raised the financial pressures that libraries were then under. It is true to say that the pressure is severe—it would be wrong to open this debate without acknowledging that—but I would also say that, during the course of the review and despite the difficult circumstances, it was notable that, where councils valued their libraries and placed them firmly on the assets side, rather than the liability side, of the balance sheet, library services had been protected and improved.
The recommendations in the review purposely did not place further burdens on local authorities. Instead, they focused on improving the infrastructure in ways that could help our libraries to flourish now and into the future. So I hope that the Government are planning to continue with the new strategy and, if so, that the Minister will find at least some of these suggestions useful.
That gives us back a minute and a half.