House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, in his devastating book How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t, the noted commentator Ian Dunt describes this House as,

“one of the only aspects of our constitutional arrangements that actually works”.

The words that he, as a neutral observer, uses to describe this House include diligence, expertise, consensus, seriousness, independence and a willingness to stand up to the Government. Mr Dunt draws no distinction between hereditary Peers and others, and neither could he. Those qualities are daily exhibited by our hereditary colleagues.

To summarily remove such Members damages not only this House but the constitution by removing many able, experienced and effective Members of the Legislature with no accompanying plan for reform or constitutional safeguard against future Executive abuse. As many others have said, we must distinguish between the end of the hereditary principle on one hand and managing the transition on the other, particularly to minimise the sudden loss of expertise and to guard against future risks.

To manage that transition means two things: retaining the wisdom and experience of our valued colleagues for a defined period, and actively introducing safeguards and reforms to address the points made by many in this House, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns. These are regarding, notably, the appointments process; strengthening the role of HOLAC; addressing the questions of the size of the House; attendance; retirement; and, above all, the risk of excessive prime ministerial patronage, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, so clearly demonstrated, among others. That risk of excessive patronage applies whatever Government is in power. Without safeguards, the Bill standing alone will simply not do, constitutionally speaking.

I will make four quick points. First, without the checks and balances of a written constitution, our unwritten constitution depends on the Government of the day, however large their majority in the Commons, showing restraint on constitutional matters and moving forward with consensus. The Bill’s “fell swoop” approach, if I may so describe it, is contrary to that deep constitutional tradition.

Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook has just pointed out, the words of the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in 1999 were expressed as a guarantee. If I may respectfully disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Grocott, yes, no Parliament can bind its successors, but a guarantee given in Parliament by a senior Minister of the Crown at the Dispatch Box—technically, at the time, at the side of the Woolsack—is binding in honour and by constitutional convention, unless good reason is shown. Without very convincing reasons, the right honourable Prime Minister and his Government cannot, in honour, break such a solemn guarantee.

Thirdly, the consensus approach does not contradict the manifesto and may indeed strengthen it. I can find no document that says that the Salisbury convention applies to constitutional matters.

Fourthly—no one so far has mentioned this—surely a great strength of this House is that no one has a majority. That is what drives the consensus and our working arrangements. Let us not put that at risk through the Bill.

Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, this does not need to be a rancorous debate. I say “Step forward now” to the bridge builders—those whose only motive is to safeguard the constitution—to find decent and honourable solutions. I hope and trust that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, we all so much admire and respect—will forgo the steamroller and bludgeon and will work for consensus in the best traditions of her office.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am only going to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I think she has shown huge patience and persistence. I am not surprised, because my honourable friend Stella Creasy has those qualities too. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, should the Minister not satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, we on these Benches are ready to support her in a Division.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that any message could have been conveyed more loudly and more convincingly than the one I have just received. I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for this amendment and thank the other speakers on this topic.

As your Lordships have heard, the amendment seeks to revise current data protection legislation so that victims of malicious complaints involving third parties can prevent the processing—and subsequently request the deletion—of personal data from that complaint. The issue has been raised previously in the other place and discussed in your Lordships’ House in Committee. As my noble friend Lady Morgan has just said, the Government indeed recognise that complaints of this kind can be used to perpetuate harassment and that victims should be better supported.

In addition, as my noble friend also pointed out, we have to strike a balance between the processes for erasure and removal of all traces of such complaints and harassment on the one hand and the need to have regard to safeguarding concerns on the other. The issue is how we strike the balance. The Government’s present view is that the amendment as drafted is not one that we can accept because it is too wide and poses some operational and safeguarding issues. However, we have heard the concerns and, although we cannot accept the amendment today, I commit the Government to bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading to address these concerns.

To explain a little, if I may, we have to triangulate several different aspects: the nature of the harassment concerned, the provisions and procedures of the GDPR, the child safeguarding issues that are the concern of the Department for Education, the different procedures for various criminal and civil orders, the relevant police procedures and a number of other considerations, so it is not entirely straightforward. However, although it is not ideal to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, this is a complex area and we should take the time to find an appropriate solution.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

97: Clause 27, page 28, line 36, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27 and Clause 18, page 17, line 17.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the scope and role of the independent advocate. I open by paying tribute to the work that my noble friend Lord Wills has done on this role for many years now through a number of Private Members’ Bills. If he chooses to test the opinion of the House on his Amendment 119AA, we will support it.

I shall speak briefly to the amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 104 would enable the Secretary of State to designate incidents causing serious harm or death to a small number of individuals as major incidents where there was a significant public interest in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave the example of Fishmongers’ Hall, where there were few fatalities but nevertheless it was a serious incident that had a national impact. The noble Lord and I will listen with interest to the Government’s response to Amendment 104.

Amendment 107 would require the standing advocate to communicate the views of the victims of a major incident to the Secretary of State. Amendment 109 would require the Secretary of State to consider the views of victims of a major incident on whether to appoint an additional advocate and who to appoint. Amendment 110 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider the views of the victims of a major incident before terminating the appointment of an advocate appointed in relation to that major incident.

Amendment 111 would require the Secretary of State to make guidance under Clause 38 publicly available. Amendment 112 would require the Secretary of State to consult the standing advocate before issuing, revising or withdrawing guidance in relation to matters to which advocates appointed in respect of major incidents must have regard. I look forward to the Minister’s response to all those amendments, none of which I intend to press—they are essentially probing amendments.

I shall comment briefly on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about the situation in Wales. I listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said on the matter. I am not a lawyer, as I have said many times in this House, but the word used in the amendment is “concurrence”, not “consent”. I do not know whether that is a substantial difference but the whole of that mini-debate referred to the word “consent”, not the word used in the amendment. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord made an interesting and substantial point, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

In conclusion, if my noble friend chooses to press Amendment 119AA, we will support him.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, first I shall speak to the amendments tabled in my name, on behalf of the Government, which address the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government. Government Amendments 103A and 109A will require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before declaring a major incident that occurs in Wales and before appointing an advocate in respect of that incident. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has tabled Amendment 109B, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other noble Lords have supported it.

The scheme here is being administered and funded by the UK Government. The Government’s position is therefore that the right level of involvement for Welsh Ministers is to be consulted by the Secretary of State before decisions are made, rather than requiring consent or concurrence, as Amendment 109B suggests. The Government believe it would not be proportionate for the UK Government to require the consent of Welsh Ministers, thereby in effect giving them a veto over those decisions. The Government must be able to act quickly following a disaster. I believe these amendments prioritise both speed and operability while respecting aspects of this policy that cover devolved areas.

For the avoidance of doubt, I add that, as far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned, we have perfectly good relations with the Counsel General for Wales, and we are in regular touch with Welsh Ministers on matters of mutual interest. For myself, I do not anticipate any difficulties arising from the sensible amendments proposed by the Government. Given that the Government have tabled these amendments, and having regard to the points I have just outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I shall be moving the amendments in my name in this regard.

Government Amendment 110A is a technical amendment, clarifying the grounds on which the Secretary of State may omit from reports material that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would prejudice an investigation, inquest or inquiry. This is an important amendment to ensure that materials relating to national security or those that might prejudice a subsequent investigation or criminal trial, for example, are protected. In the Government’s view, the amendments preserve the necessary balance between protecting that integrity and giving reassurance that the independent public advocate’s reports will not be unduly affected. It is a sensible precaution to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for the review. My own view is that while I would also like there to be some of the powers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, it is a position that will evolve over time. It is really important to have that review and right to recognise where the Government have moved, and I thank them for it.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. That is the Government’s position on Amendments 102 and 105.

Amendment 103, which is in the same group, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the emotional and financial interests of victims when deciding whether to declare a major incident. The Government’s view is that the definition of harm in the Bill already includes emotional harm, as in Clause 28(3). It is unlikely that financial harm would occur in isolation, without the other kinds of harms mentioned in the Bill. Certainly, harm is a major factor when the Secretary of State considers whether to declare a major incident, so the Government’s position is that Amendment 103 is not necessary.

Amendment 106 touches on the close family member point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. The question is how these days you define a close family member. The Government do not believe that the face of the Bill is the appropriate place to address that concern. In modern society, there is effectively no set structure for a family and the Government need flexibility to capture those who need support. In the Government’s view, the approach is best left to guidance and the discretion of the IPA concerned to provide that flexibility. Of course, the input of the noble Lord and others when we draft the guidance on what kind of indications should be given in it will be very valuable, rather than having it set out in advance in the technical structure of the Bill.

We then come to Amendments 107, 109 and 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and Amendments 106A and 110ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. These require the appointment of a standing advocate within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State to consider the views of victims and the provision of support so that the independent advocate will have all the support necessary.

As far as the period of six months to appoint is concerned, of course the Government share the noble Lord’s desire for the standing advocate to be in place as soon as possible once the Bill becomes law. But there has to be a fair and open competition for the office. As I hope the noble Lord will appreciate, the Government will want to carry out all relevant due diligence prior to the appointment. That process will take some time. In addition, I can confirm that the standing advocate will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Justice Select Committee to ensure that the most appropriate candidate is appointed to the post. For those reasons, the Government do not feel that any change to the process is required at this time. In particular, the six-month period would be unduly restricting considering the importance of the decision and the processes that have to be gone through, including parliamentary scrutiny. It would be far too tight.

As far as taking into account the views of victims as part of the appointment-making process is concerned, the Government certainly share this goal. When the functions of the standing advocate come to be undertaken, as outlined in Clause 29, the advocate will advise the Secretary of State on the interests of victims, whether additional advocates are needed and whether to terminate et cetera. The Government are quite satisfied that the views of victims will, in the normal course, be gathered and fully considered on this topic.

It does not seem right to the Government that a formal consultation with the victims would be correct before these steps are taken, because that would have the potential to unduly delay matters. The general scheme of this part of the Bill is that the ground is already covered. There is no reason to suppose that victims will not be fully included in the various decisions that come to be made. The Secretary of State has committed to publishing a policy statement and I will ensure that this covers the factors the Secretary of State will consider when making these decisions. This includes the participation of victims.

As far as secretarial and other support is concerned, the advocates will be supported by a permanent secretariat. The Ministry of Justice has already allocated funding for this. Clause 31 provides an effective system of support for the IPA by making provision for a secretariat and remuneration. Work is already under way to provide for this secretariat and provide for the appropriate separation between the day-to-day functions of the ministry and this independent operation.

That essentially leaves Amendment 119AA, on which it has been indicated that the House’s opinion may be tested. It requires that, “within six months” of a major incident, the Secretary of State must announce whether he intends to establish an inquiry or similar fact-finding review and provide the reasons for his decision to Parliament. If he decides to establish a non-statutory inquiry, the person appointed must be given data-compelling powers.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

103A: Clause 28, page 29, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) Before declaring an incident that occurs in Wales to be a major incident, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before declaring an incident that occurs in Wales to be a major incident.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

109A: Clause 30, page 30, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) Before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident that occurs in Wales, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident that occurs in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

110A: Clause 36, page 34, line 37, at end insert “, or
(g) prejudice—(i) the investigation or prosecution of an offence,(ii) an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005,(iii) an inquest under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, or (iv) any other investigation or inquiry by a person exercising functions of a public nature.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to omit material from a report to be published under Clause 36 where the Secretary of State considers that publication of that material would prejudice certain investigations, inquiries or inquests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, the amendment on the way that bodies are dealt with following a disaster is incredibly important. I remind the House of the “Marchioness” disaster back in 1989; there was an absolute outcry from the relatives about the way that some of those bodies were dealt with. The problem is that their grief is complicated when they hit different barriers and when they feel that the investigation and the post-mortem have been conducted inappropriately, particularly if they feel that things are being withheld from them.

To ensure that we provide support for these relatives, we need to make sure that there is a proper code of conduct and to improve the way that things are dealt with. I therefore think that this is an important probing amendment. I am glad that it is probing, because there are lots of things that could be altered and improved, but this work needs to be done and I hope the Minister will provide us with that assurance.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for Amendment 118, which extends legal aid to inquests. I completely understand the point that is being made, but the Government’s position is that the effect of the amendment is extremely broad and would give all interested persons the entitlement to free legal support and representation in any inquest, regardless of whether or not it follows a major incident, provided that at least one public authority was also an interested person. So, because of its width, the Government are unable to support the amendment.

In addition, the Government are already considering access to legal aid at inquests following major incidents. That is notably in response to Bishop James’s 2017 Hillsborough report. The MoJ is consulting on expanding free legal aid that is available for bereaved families at inquests following a major incident under this legislation and following terrorist attacks. In the Government’s view, the amendment goes beyond its stated purpose and the Government are already acting to deal with the issue of legal aid at inquests, so I respectfully urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 119, a probing amendment. I am sure that everyone was moved by the description of the experience of Jenni Hicks, which was recounted by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I was very sorry to hear about that experience. We very much appreciate the effect this must have had on Mrs Hicks and other families affected. In the Government’s view, Jenni Hicks and others are entirely right to have raised the issue in this Chamber. It is an issue that requires proper consideration. I know that Operation Resolve itself very much regrets the anguish and distress caused by the incident, and has offered its apologies. The officer in overall command has written to them setting out the actions taken to address their concerns, and last year I think the Policing Minister met with the families affected. The Home Office has been assured that appropriate procedures are now in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

Can I just clarify this? I think the Minister accepts how serious an incident this was; I think it is accepted that this sort of contempt for the victims and the bereaved is probably pretty widespread, and that something has to be done to make sure it never happens again. Will he confirm that whatever code of conduct emerges from the processes he describes will be given the force of statute?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am not at this moment in a position to give that confirmation at the Dispatch Box. I will give further thought to it, and write to the noble Lord in due course as to whether the Government are in a position to give that assurance. I see the force of the point.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I acknowledge the points that the Minister made on my Amendment 118, about the existing consultation that the Government are doing and the broadness of the amendment. What was contained in the amendment was an aspiration, I suppose.

My noble friend spoke to Amendment 119 and gave the very moving example of Jenni Hicks. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also reminded us of the “Marchioness” disaster in 1989. Here again, the Minister said that the independent pathology review will look at processes. We look forward to what may come out of that, and to the Minister’s answer to my noble friend’s question about whether it will have the force of statute. For now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 118.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

119A: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of Part 2(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the review period—(a) prepare and publish a report about the operation in the review period of this Part, and(b) lay the report before Parliament.(2) The “review period” is the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the power in section 30(1) (appointment of advocate in respect of major incident) is first exercised.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of Part 2 in the period of 18 months following the first time an advocate is appointed under Clause 30.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have signed the amendment and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.

The 2013 Francis report set out the failings of the Mid Staffordshire hospital trust, explaining exactly why there needed to be a duty of candour. It said:

“This was primarily caused by a serious failure on the part of a provider Trust Board. It did not listen sufficiently to its patients and staff or ensure the correction of deficiencies brought to the Trust’s attention. Above all, it failed to tackle an insidious negative culture involving a tolerance of poor standards and a disengagement from managerial and leadership responsibilities. This failure was in part the consequence of allowing a focus on reaching national access targets, achieving financial balance and seeking foundation trust status to be at the cost of delivering acceptable standards of care”.


That could apply to many of the issues that we have debated in this part of the Bill on major incidents. Regulation 20—the duty of candour brought in across the NHS in 2015—was defined as

“the volunteering of all relevant information to persons who have, or may have, been harmed by the provision of services, whether or not the information has been requested, and whether or not a complaint or a report about that provision has been made”.

I will refer to that duty of candour in today’s debate on a later amendment.

The CQC points out that we must remember that there are two types of duty of candour—the statutory and the professional—both of which

“have similar aims—to make sure that those providing care are open and transparent with the people using their services, whether or not something has gone wrong”.

The implementation of the duty of candour covering the NHS applies to all healthcare providers, registered medical practitioners, nurses and other registered health professionals where there is a “belief or suspicion” that any treatment or care provided by them or their trust

“has caused death or serious injury”.

It is important for the NHS that it is for people who are registered, as it is with the police. If we ask to broaden it, and we do, we need to think carefully about who it should cover, because these people must be accountable—probably through registration.

Although it is a decade since the duty of candour was introduced, serious incidents, including death and injury, have continued in the NHS. Responsible hospital trusts and providers, as well as the individual regulated healthcare professionals, all know that they will be held accountable to this standard. As was described by the two previous speakers, it is a no-fault system which overcomes the old problem that saying sorry implies legal responsibility. It sets out a standard for declaring that there is a problem as soon as someone—anyone—is aware, and, where used correctly, it reduces the agony of victims and their families facing the block of institutional silence. Where it is not used, the CQC will inspect and consider why.

I support the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that the duty of candour should cover public authorities, public servants and officials at major incidents, and they should follow it. Just think if the NHS had used the duty of candour for victims and families of the infected blood scandal, or if the police had used it in relation to Hillsborough instead of blaming the fans, or if it had been used by the council and other bodies involved in the fire at Grenfell Tower. However, just as importantly, the duty of candour changes organisations so that, where possible, they think before the event, which can also prevent major incidents. Staff put the safety of people first in all that they do. It will not prevent all major incidents, but it can either reduce or stop the consequences of a potential disaster and make the aftermath much easier to live with.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, which would place a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities, public servants and officials in relation to a major incident. This is, if I may say so, a modified version of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill that was previously put forward, which is known as the Hillsborough law, so the underlying question here is: should we have in statute, in one form or another, a Hillsborough law?

There is much common ground between us. At no point are transparency and candour more important than in the aftermath of a major incident. As the Government said in their Statement of 6 December in response to Bishop James’s 2017 report, it is of the highest importance to combat

“unforgivable forms of institutional obstruction and obfuscation”

and the “inexcusable … defensiveness” of public bodies in “their own self-interest”. We agree with Bishop James, and indeed with the speakers today, that what is needed is a change of culture. The question is: what is the best and most effective route to bring about that change?

In essence, for the reasons already set out in the Government’s Hillsborough Statement on 6 December and the debate that day in your Lordships’ House, the Government do not believe that this amendment, applying to officials across the whole public sector, would be an appropriate or effective way to prevent a repeat of the failings that occurred in the aftermath of Hillsborough. First, as a general point, a central feature of a case such as Hillsborough, and other similar cases, is the imbalance of power between the authorities on the one hand and the bereaved on the other. The creation of the independent public advocate for a major incident—who will no doubt pursue the victims’ interests with terrier-like determination, I hope—will go a long way towards rebalancing that previous imbalance of power and securing equality of arms. I suggest that the institution of the IPA is in itself a lasting tribute to the Hillsborough families who have campaigned to ensure that no other families ever have to suffer in the same way.

In addition, still on the equality of arms point, the Government have removed the legal aid means test for exceptional case funding for inquests and will consult on expanding legal aid for inquests where an IPA is appointed or terrorist offences are involved. Cabinet Office guidance will reaffirm the expectation that legal expenditure by public authorities should not be excessive and should be published. Again, those matters should go a long way towards rebalancing the position between the various parties.

The second point, which I think the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester was, in a sense, already making, is that the Government have already tackled directly the central failure in the aftermath of Hillsborough, which was a failure by the police. As noble Lords will be aware, in 2020 the Government introduced a statutory duty of co-operation for individual police officers to ensure that they participate openly and professionally with investigations, inquiries and other formal proceedings. A failure to co-operate is a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and could result in disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal.

In the Criminal Justice Bill that was introduced in November 2023, which I hope will be before your Lordships’ House before too long, the Government are placing a statutory duty on the College of Policing to issue a code of practice relating to ethical policing. In advance of that, as has been mentioned, the Code of Practice for Ethical Policing, was laid in Parliament on 6 December under existing powers alongside the Government’s response to Bishop James’s report. That code, directed at chief constables, includes a duty to ensure candour and openness in the forces that they lead, to ensure that everyone in policing is clear what is expected of them and to provide confidence to the public that the highest standards will be met. That will be monitored, and chief constables will be monitored, by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and by local police and crime commissioners.

A further area of concern, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to, relates to the NHS. One notes the Francis report of some years ago, and there are continuing concerns, for example, around events at the Countess of Chester Hospital that are the subject of a statutory inquiry by Lady Justice Thirlwall. There is already a duty of candour on the NHS under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 that covers everybody who is registered with the Care Quality Commission. The Government are reviewing that provision to see whether it is working properly. There may be details to discuss around exactly who it should cover and collaboration with the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council to ensure that the professional standards march in line with the statutory standards—that may be a matter for investigation—but, in principle, in the NHS, those duties already exist.

The same is also true, in effect, for statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005, backed by criminal penalties. It refers to court proceedings, where full disclosure is required of all litigants under well-established principles, and a duty of candour is expected by public authorities, notably in judicial review. For inquests, coroners have powers under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to obtain documents, administer oaths and question witnesses. There is a Ministry of Justice protocol that was specifically revised following Bishop James’s report, which requires government departments and lawyers to approach inquests with openness, honesty and full disclosure. A range of matters is already covered, so that leaves non-statutory inquiries, which the chairperson can request are converted into statutory inquiries in the event of obfuscation or non-cooperation. The Government feel that, in effect, the ground is already sufficiently covered in a very targeted way.

As for public servants working in central government, the Government have already reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring openness and transparency, as set out by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister when signing the Hillsborough Charter on 6 December 2023. The commitments in the charter are reflected in the existing framework of obligations and codes that apply to all those who work in government, such as the Civil Service Code, the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and the Ministerial Code, to which we can add that public appointees to the boards of UK public bodies are subject to the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies, which, in turn, incorporates the Nolan principles. Those matters, in the Government’s view, reveal a quite comprehensive coverage of the issue that we are discussing.

The Government also consider that the amendment in its present form would be practically unworkable, applying as it does directly to all public officials who may be involved in the context of a major incident. It would apparently require maybe dozens of officials, junior as well as senior, to come to individual and autonomous views on whether, for example, a particular document was in scope, or irrelevant, or privileged or covered by national security or whatever. That could easily give rise to many difficult and conflicting views, making the whole process almost impossible to manage and drawing civil servants into conflict with each other and their employers.

For those essential reasons, the Government do not feel that this is an appropriate way forward. The speakers in this debate did not raise the Post Office, which in some ways colours a lot of the background to this. On that point, I can say that the proposed legislation on the Post Office is clearly being driven by some very serious incidents of prosecutorial misconduct in breach of existing rules. We do not need new rules; they did not follow the old rules.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

It is good to see the Minister back in his place; we are pleased to have him back and I am very grateful for his comments. He mentioned the Post Office. I spoke about the importance of culture and making sure that things do not happen. While he is absolutely right on the legal side, there is an issue about the personal duty of candour that changes behaviour. Does he recognise that?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Yes, the Government recognise that up to a point. What we are discussing is the right way to get there. The Government are not convinced that this statutory amendment is the right way, but there are other ways of doing it, through our codes and the provisions that we have for the NHS, the police and now the Hillsborough charter—the matters that have been mentioned.

I cannot go into specific detail on the Post Office, because we do not know what has happened, but the duty on a prosecutor to follow the codes that they must follow is a duty on that individual. I will not go any further than to make that comment.

Finally, in the spring, the Government hope to publish their response to a report by the Law Commission on reforming the common-law criminal offence of misconduct in a public office. We have to await that response to see whether it bears on the issues that we are discussing. With those points made, the Government recognise the sensitivity of and differing views on this matter. The Lord Chancellor’s Oral Statement on 6 December said, very explicitly, that we will keep it under review. While legislation alone and the Government’s view cannot ensure a culture of openness, honesty and candour, we do not rule out bringing forward legislation at some future point if we are persuaded that it is needed. The matter is still under reflection, from that point of view.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, summed it up, really: while this is a probing amendment, it is about changing the culture and behaviour of organisations. I was talking to my noble friend Lady Thornton during this debate. She sits on an NHS trust and was saying that a culture is embedded in the way that the NHS practises its procedures now, which has come from it having a duty of candour for the last 10 or 11 years. The Minister made other points about addressing the same issues, so it is not as though one set of responses precludes another, such as the duty of candour.

Of course, I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor has said that he will keep an open mind on this and keep the matter under review. I acknowledge the Minister’s points about creating the independent advocate role, the review of legal aid and individual professional standards, which are being looked at, but none of them precludes also having a duty of candour. That was the point made by all who spoke in support of the amendment. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 133.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we also support this group of amendments. I want to reiterate the points made by my noble friend Lord Bach. You could not have had two more eminent Members of this Committee to table these amendments. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas, are familiar with these types of decisions. I do not think I can add to the weight of the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett.

The only point I will make is about process. If the Minister says that he wants to think about this—I do not know what he is going to say—then it would be very helpful to know his thoughts before Report. From what I have heard of the argument, it seems that the Government have an uphill battle trying to defend the current position. If the Government are minded to think about this again, we really need to know what that is before Report.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, would mean that parole referrals under the new power in the Bill would be sent to the Divisional Court of the King’s Bench Division, which is part of the High Court, instead of the Upper Tribunal, which is currently used for most cases—although not for national security cases.

Noble Lords know that the Bill introduces a new power to allow the Secretary of State to refer a top-tier case—that is a case where the index offence was murder, rape, causing or allowing the death of a child, or serious terrorism—for a second check by an independent court if the Parole Board has directed release. The question is which court that should be. Noble Lords may recall that at one stage it was suggested—I think by a Select Committee—that it should be the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. The Government consulted the Judicial Office in June 2023. The result of that consultation was that a preference was expressed for the Upper Tribunal to hear those cases. The Upper Tribunal has wide-ranging powers under Section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, facilitated by the Upper Tribunal rules, which essentially gives it the same powers as the High Court. It has experience of hearing oral evidence. The Government’s view, in the light of the consultation with the Judicial Office, was that the Upper Tribunal was the appropriate court.

None the less, the Government feel that it is obviously desirable to sort this issue out in a sensible way and I am very happy to consider it further. I am even happier to say that the Government’s reflections will be shared before Report, so that everybody can consider their position. There should not be any particular controversy on this kind of point; it is a rather specialised point, if I may put it like that.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and spoken to on her behalf by noble Lord, Lord Marks. The Government entirely agree with her that the processes ahead of us and how we are going to manage it should be very fully understood by all actors. I will briefly explain how the Government see things at the moment. First, the procedural elements of the new process may require amendments to the Parole Board rules and the tribunal rules—or the rules of whatever court we determine. That must be scrutinised by Parliament and go through a period of consultation. There will have to be a period of training of judges. We know that the referral process will need to be transparent and speedy. Work is currently in train as to how far this will be operationalised from the point of view, first, of maintaining public confidence and, secondly, on what basis the Secretary of State refers things to the relevant court—to use a neutral phrase for the time being.

Currently, the Government are working through exactly how the relevant tests would be applied. The Government propose to publish their policy on how the legislation will be applied, outlining how cases will be selected for referral and ensuring that prisoners, and importantly victims, are fully informed of who will be in scope. I envisage a transparent and open process by which the details of the new regime are sorted out.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Could I follow that up before the Minister goes on to the next point? Does he anticipate that there will be consultation with the sector—it is a very big sector of course—on the various points that he has quite rightly referred to? That would go down rather better and be much more useful than producing a policy in its final form and saying, “Here we are”. A draft policy or ideas for consultation would be welcomed.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says, and it sounds entirely reasonable. I cannot, at the Dispatch Box, go any further than I have already gone, but the point is well made.

On that basis, I hope the Committee will be satisfied that the Government intend to be fully transparent and work co-operatively with the development of this new process.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 36, which is in my noble friend Lord Bach’s name, as well as my own. This is a probing amendment. It does not set out to challenge the Government’s position on delivering their commitment regarding local criminal justice boards, within the scope of the clauses on code compliance. It seeks to set out the benefits of putting LCJBs and police and crime commissioners together.

First, it will drive consistency of approach to code compliance, which can be monitored through LCJBs. Secondly, it will deliver effective collaboration and shared accountability of code compliance and encourage attendance from criminal justice boards. Thirdly, it will ensure that statutory guidance is reflective of the LCJB approach. Fourthly, it will recognise the LCJB role in victims’ code compliance, given the policy intent to place the boards on a statutory footing.

This amendment does not state that LCJBs are the only forum in which to comply with the current regulations. However, LCJBs are important forums that need to be bolstered in order to deliver on the Bill’s ambitions, drive consistency and ensure local shared accountability for code compliance across criminal justice bodies and the elected policing bodies. This amendment will deliver that aim through enshrining them in this Bill.

The Ministry of Justice published guidance for LCJBs in March 2023. This guidance reiterated the commitment to placing LCJBs on a statutory footing:

“In line with recommendations made by the Review, a suitable legislative vehicle is being sought to place LCJBs on a statutory footing and mandate that the PCC act as Chair”.


By giving local criminal justice boards their own place in the legislation, this amendment would remind local partners of their shared accountability for and commitment to supporting victims of crime and to delivering the new responsibilities set out in this Bill. We would also provide PCCs, who chair the majority of these boards, with the levers they need to ensure that the boards are effective and set clear expectations of their members.

Turning to the other amendments in this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, spoke to Amendments 30 and 31, and I agree, of course, with the points she made. She spoke very powerfully on the importance of independent scrutiny and transparency, and she proposed a “framework, not a straitjacket”. She believes, as do I, that what she is proposing is a better way of holding agencies to account. She also quoted the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on the Government currently marking their own homework; he wants to deliver a better system through these amendments.

I also want to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about recognising both domestically related and non-domestically related stalking. I have dealt with stalking matters quite a few times in magistrates’ courts, and even though, from an outsider’s point of view, they can seem less important, I am absolutely convinced that, for the people being stalked, it is an extremely alarming and frightening position to find themselves in. In fact, I dealt with that sort of case very recently. It also reinforces the point in Amendment 51 about the training needed for justice agencies in order to recognise stalking and its importance.

In conclusion, I noted with interest the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, about multiple inspectors and inspections and the need for this to be carefully thought through. They were very fair questions, but I do not think they add up to an argument against. Their points were well made, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions to this group. I first apologise for my heavy cold and thank my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Howe for stepping into the breach and dealing with subsequent groups today.

The amendments in this group essentially seek stronger compliance mechanisms, credibility, as has been said, more specific obligations on training and a wider role for the Victims’ Commissioner—in other words, we are in the field of awareness and accountability, to use two of my four “A’s”. The Government would not be proceeding with this structure if they did not believe that they were delivering a credible structure. The whole purpose of Clauses 6 to 10, combined with guidance under Clause 11, is very much to improve awareness and compliance. Under Clause 6, criminal justice bodies must promote awareness and review their compliance, and, in particular, under Clause 7 the PCCs for each area must supervise the criminal justice bodies in their area and provide reports for the Secretary of State. That is all combined with the collection and sharing of information about how they are functioning, together with the publication of compliance information under Clause 10.

In that latter regard, I ask noble Lords not to underestimate the importance and strength of shining light in dark corners. We have seen it in other parts of the criminal justice system, such as the family justice system. Once you have the information and it is in the public domain, that is a huge contributor to raising standards generally. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, some police forces are doing extremely well; I think Cheshire was the example he gave. So it can be done under the existing system. The question is, how we bring everybody up to the same standard. Clauses 6 to 10, coupled with the duty to collaborate under Clause 12, and the preparation of the strategy and the needs assessment under Clause 13, all involve everybody collaborating, working together, learning from each other and generally arriving at best practice. In the Government’s view, that is a perfectly sensible and entirely efficient and fruitful way to go. So in general terms, at least at this stage, the Government are not persuaded of the need for the further amendments in this group.

I turn for a moment to the rights of individual victims under the statutory code. Without reopening exchanges from the previous occasion, I would like to state categorically on behalf of the Government, at the Dispatch Box, that Clause 5 is not and is not intended to be an ouster of judicial review. The code, its operation and the bodies responsible for this operation are, in the Government’s view, subject to judicial review. From the point of view of the individual victim, that may be something of a technicality but, given the modern prevalence of public interest litigation by groups of various kinds, it is not insignificant that the relevant bodies and the code itself are subject to judicial review.

As for the individual victim, the Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that giving victims the right to sue directly in the courts—for example, for damages—is not the best approach. In the case of the individual victim, the route is a complaint to the ombudsman, who may give such redress, including compensation, as it is within their power to give. Noble Lords will note that another improvement in the Bill, in Clause 23, enables the victim complainant to go direct to the ombudsman rather than through one’s MP. That is an important reform.

What are the enforcement mechanisms if this system does not work as envisaged? What are we going to do about it? I shall give noble Lords a little bit of colour from the additional document about compliance oversight, published on the MoJ website last month and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. At national level, there will be a new cross-criminal justice system governance system, with a programme board and a ministerial taskforce to monitor compliance nationally. The Victims’ Commissioner will be fully involved; we are putting the Victims’ Commissioner at the heart, administratively speaking, of the way in which this is developing—as will the various inspectorates and other important stakeholders.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, one weapon with which to address non-compliance will be the use of non-statutory non-compliance notifications similar to those used in the Prison Service to drive change. Also very potent, if I may say so, are the inspections themselves. Clauses 19 to 22 give the relevant powers to the inspectors of constabulary and probation and so forth to have inspections. Another aspect that adds to the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner is to build the commissioner into those structures and to require those bodies, when developing inspections, to fully consult the commissioner. There is also the possibility of joint inspections, which is another tool. So when you need to do something on a targeted basis, in this Bill you have the powers, in the end, to do it. That is the Government’s general position.

I now turn to the specific amendments. Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seeks to create a duty on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations minimal thresholds for the code of compliance and to instigate inspections when these are breached in two consecutive years. The Government’s position is that we fully agree that clear indicators are needed to identify severe and persistent non-compliance. However, it is almost certain that what the Government propose to adopt will be a range of indicators, rather than a specific minimum threshold, to consider not just when entitlements are being delivered but how they are received by victims. Those indicators should be decided by the bodies that are responsible for delivering the code, which is why it will be a matter for the ministerial task force. As I have said, the task force will include the inspectorates, the Victims’ Commissioner, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Perhaps the Minister can drink a bit more water at this point, though that is not the sole reason for my intervention.

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification, but my own clarification is that no one suggested, at any point, that Clause 5 is an ouster of judicial review. Last time, I was trying to make it clear that, in Clause 5, the code does not give any right to civil proceedings, and so no individual can sue on the code. In the creative scheme that we devised, we were not suggesting that individuals should be able to sue either. We certainly agree with not wanting more litigation for people who have already had a terrible time with litigation and probably have no civil legal aid anyway.

The point was that the Victims’ Commissioner should be more than a toothless tiger. Whether or not it is through force of personality, as with the current commissioner, future commissioners should have something in their back pocket for recalcitrant public authorities which, year after year, do not respect the victims’ code. Even in the scheme that we developed, litigation should not be the first resort for a Victims’ Commissioner either today or in future. They should have to jump through hoops first—the issue of private notices followed up by the issue of public notices. Only in extremis should the Victims’ Commissioner alone—in relation not even to particular a criminal case but to systemic failure—be able, as a last resort, to sue on the code. I understand the Minister’s position, but I hope he will at least take the opportunity to reflect on what noble Lords have suggested before the next stage.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I will continue to reflect on all the points made, including this one. The Government’s present position is that this “slap on the wrist” power for the Victims’ Commissioner probably does not take matters much further forward, but I may reflect on that further.

I turn to Amendments 37 to 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and other related amendments, which, as I understand it, require the Secretary of State, rather than the police and crime commissioner, to monitor code compliance for a local police area. For transparency, the Government are committed to national oversight via the ministerial task force, but there is an essential role for local accountability. There is a hierarchy here, and the police and crime commissioner is the right person to be responsible for ensuring compliance in that local area as they already play a vital role in improving and championing services for victims through commissioning support services and chairing local criminal justice courts. The Government attach importance to that local activity.

This brings me to Amendment 36, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Bach, which seeks to specify that criminal justice boards and PCCs may use local criminal justice boards for the purposes of local review. We entirely agree. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said—I completely recognise this—we need a wider debate about placing local criminal justice boards on a statutory footing. The Government have expressed support for that happening in a way that reflects the full remit of the work they do. Once we find a legislative opportunity to do so, it should be taken forward. The Government are very much of the view that their often vital work should be supported.

I return to awareness and training in Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 83 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on training in support for victims of stalking. The noble Lords are quite right that there is an obvious need for more training. The Government hesitate to have a national training framework because so much will depend on the local situation. These amendments apply to a vast range of organisations and a one-size-fits-all approach will not appropriately support staff to meet the diverse needs of victims in the wide range of settings in which they operate.

However, it is very difficult to imagine guidance on Clause 11 which does not include a reference to the kind of training that should be done. If you are placing a duty on the agencies to work with victims day in, day out to promote awareness of the code, it seems implicit that the relevant persons have to be properly trained. The Government agree with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I could have put it better than the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. It is a good idea, but there are lots of complexities. I am sure that noble Lords agree that, in many ways, joining the dots and handling data is one of the most critical challenges any Government face—whether it is between departments or within the NHS, within the justice system, within or across police forces, et cetera. We still have 43 different police forces with computers that do not even necessarily talk to each other.

I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, which would introduce a consistent victim identifier for the collecting and sharing of code compliance information. This is extremely important so that we can better understand and meet victims’ needs. As I understand it, there is a Ministry of Justice pilot called the Better Outcomes through Linked Data—or BOLD—programme, which is already exploring how to link victims’ data to improve our understanding of their experiences. It is right that we should have a much better knowledge of the victim’s journey through the system and, in particular—to pick up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—better understand why people drop out of the system at a certain stage. Although I do not have a more precise date, I gather that the results of that pilot will be available in 2024.

Whether it is something that is either sufficiently developed or should be in the Bill as a matter of principle is perhaps another question. At this stage at least, the Government are not persuaded that it that should be in the Bill, but they are persuaded that it is something we should continue to work on to understand the complexities and arrive at practical solutions.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this fairly short yet important debate. I thank the Minister for answering the question so positively. Whether or not it is for this Bill is a matter for discussion between now and Report, but it seems that while there are, of course, considerable issues around this in practice, the idea that the victim should be treated in the same way, being known about and followed, as it were, in this area seems an important principle, and would raise the position of the victim—as the Bill says it intends to do. I hope we will come back to this issue. It is worthy of discussion and has had a good outing today in Committee. I do not think it will go away—if we do not take advantage of digital advances in this area, as in every other, we are not doing our duty. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.