Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

102: Clause 28, page 29, line 10, at end insert “or has occurred before that date, provided that serious harm to the victims is ongoing after this section comes into force,”

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall combine my remarks on Amendment 102 with those on Amendments 103, 105 and 106.

Amendments 102, 103 and 105 seek to remove an unfair and irrational restriction on the role of the independent public advocate. I spoke in Committee at some length about how my original conception of this position in my Private Member’s Bill was driven by the pressing need for greater support and agency for those have been failed by the state and by public authorities in major incidents. Those who can avail themselves of the services of the advocate must include those for whom harm continues after a major incident, even though the major incident occurred before the passage of the Act.

Can there really be any serious justification for excluding, for example, the victims of contaminated blood transfusions and the postmasters whose lives were wrecked and continue to be wrecked by the Horizon scandal—people still struggling with the consequences of those failures by the state and by public authorities, even though the failures occurred before now?

I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister would address this question directly: what justification is there to restrict the role of the advocate to exclude those such as the victims of contaminated blood transfusions? These amendments would rectify this specific problem in the current draft of the Bill.

In asking the Minister to respond to that question, I should perhaps have preceded my remarks by thanking him for the great generosity of time that he has given me, with his officials—to whom I am also extremely grateful—in discussing all the elements of this part of the Bill. He has gone over and above the call of duty. That I am one of many speakers thanking him for that shows the extent of this House’s debt to him and his officials in the progress of the Bill.

Amendment 106 is a relatively minor amendment but, after two Private Member’s Bills, it occurred to me that we perhaps should be more careful about how we define those who might benefit from the services of the of an independent public advocate. What constitutes a “close family member” in the modern world? Fifty or 100 years ago, the answer would have been common sense, but it is not any more. Living arrangements and relationships are much more various than they ever used to be. “Close” and “family” are, in effects, often disputable terms, and the current draft of the Bill is perhaps purposefully vague. For example, who will decide whether a parent estranged from their partner and who is no longer responsible for the upbringing of a child victim counts as a close family member? What happens if the person in question disputes any exclusion from the services of the advocate? If we at all can, we should try to head off such arguments beforehand, because they would only compound the grief and trauma suffered by many in the aftermath of a major incident.

This amendment seeks to avoid that, although it is, in essence, probing. If the Government have a better formulation, I would be happy to consider it, but it seeks to do so by introducing the specific definitions that have been derived from the intestacy provisions.

Amendment 106A tries to ensure that the post is implemented with proper timeliness. In Committee, I pointed out that it has been nearly seven years since the creation of an independent public advocate featured in the 2017 Queen’s Speech. The amendment seeks to remove any further possibility that the Government will unnecessarily delay the implementation of this post. In his response in Committee, the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly pointed out the need to observe due process in public appointments, so the amendment has been tweaked to take better account of that than my previous one.

In doing so, I had regard to the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Among other things, the code says that appointments should be completed

“within three months of a competition closing”.

In 2019, the Commissioner for Public Appointments found that the Ministry of Justice, where ministerial responsibility for the independent public advocate will reside, completed only 18% of appointments within that three-month target. Only the Home Office and BEIS had worse figures. To show that these figures are achievable, that compares to 100% of appointments by His Majesty’s Treasury and 76.7% by NHSI. Of course, the Ministry of Justice’s performance might have been transformed in the last five years but, in any event, the six-month period stipulated in this amendment should be ample time for the department to appoint the first independent public advocate, if it fulfils its duties in the way that the Commissioner for Public Appointments expects. If the Minister disagrees, I would be grateful if he could explain in detail why. This amendment is simply a lever to ensure compliance with the code of governance.

I now turn briefly to Amendment 110ZA. I spoke to this in Committee; I have tabled it again because, as it stands, the Bill still appears to permit the Secretary of State to appoint the independent public advocate but deprive them of the means to exercise their functions. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend, but in any event this amendment will prevent any such travestying of the position.

Finally in this group, I come to Amendment 119AA; this amendment is intended to replace Amendment 108 in the Marshalled List. I spoke at some length in Committee, again, about the need to provide for some version of the Hillsborough Independent Panel to be accommodated in this Bill. This amendment attempts to do just that. I do not intend to rehearse again all of the arguments I made in Committee, but I remind the Minister of the advantages of such a provision, in terms of saving the taxpayer potentially hundreds of millions of pounds over the lifetime of a Parliament, and helping victims and the bereaved towards a more timely closure of their grief and trauma. The prolonged processes embedded, for example, in public inquiries only increase their suffering. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate in his response whether the Government truly understand the crucial imperative of timeliness in fact-finding after a major incident, and how important that is for victims and the bereaved. How can it be acceptable to make them wait year after year, sometimes decade after decade, to find out what happened to their loved ones, and to understand why they have suffered such loss? Such delays only compound grief and trauma. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I return to speak very briefly to Amendment 109B, to deal with the position of Wales. In Committee, I introduced an amendment to require the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, when appointing an independent advocate, to secure the consent of the Welsh Ministers. This is an area where it is common ground that there is devolution. I am grateful to say that the Government have agreed that there should be consultation, but they refuse to agree consent.

I put this down initially because one of the ways to make a union strong is to have a proper dialogue. Now, there are some areas where consultation has to be required by statute. Normally, one would expect that in areas where there is an overlap in competence, there would be consultation, but it is right we put a statutory duty in to that effect. However, it seems to me wholly extraordinary—and I am pretty certain it has nothing to do with the Ministry of Justice— that they refuse to agree to the consent of the Welsh Ministers.

Now, noble Lords will all know that, when looking for a lawyer, there is normally quite a good choice. In my experience, having been involved on a number of occasions, you can normally have a discussion about A or B, and you agree on C. It seems to me totally extraordinary, if we are to live in a union that works, that the Government in Westminster have to say, “No, those people in Cardiff just have to be consulted; we don’t have to get their consent”. Is this any way to run a union? The answer is obviously not, and I am sure that this does not come from the Ministry of Justice—in this Bill, the Lord Chancellor and the Minister have been most sensible in what they have put forward. But I deplore that bit of the Government that simply cannot understand that going through the courtesy of discussing things and obtaining consent is the better way to run a union.

--- Later in debate ---

On proposed new subsection (2), in the Government’s view it is something of a contradiction in terms to require a non-statutory inquiry to have statutory powers. This is potentially a major change in the structure of public inquiries and, in the Government’s view, it should not slip through by a sidewind. I hope I have covered most things.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful, as always, to the Minister for that thorough response to all my points. We made a little progress in Committee, for which I am grateful, as I am for the little progress we have made today. I am grateful to the Minister for the open way he has engaged with all these serious points. He will not be surprised that I am disappointed that we have not made further progress on some of the key points.

On the question of what the Minister regards as retrospectivity and the linked incidents, I had hoped I had made it clear that this is not a retrospective look at incidents that have finished—historic incidents that have no relevance to the present. The amendment refers specifically to continuing harm, which is what matters. It is not the incident itself that is significant but the consequences of the incident and the examination of the failures of the state and public authorities, which should have protected the victims but, for whatever reason, did not and let down the bereaved, who suffered grievous losses—that is the point. It is not retrospective. I of course understand the points about the sensitivity of retrospective legislation and all the rest of it—but this is not that.

It is really important—and I hope the Government will reflect on this—that we bear in mind that what this whole part addresses is an attempt to redress the deep imbalance of power between victims and the bereaved, on the one hand, and on the other the state and public authorities that failed them so grievously. That is the whole point of this, and we have seen it over and over again.

On the question of timeliness—and that is the point of the fact-finding inquiry—this is absolutely crucial, for so many different reasons. I remind your Lordships’ House of the points made in the very potent report from Bishop James on the lessons from Hillsborough. He made the point that, unless you get to the truth quickly, it creates a period of time in which the authorities that are in the frame can establish a false narrative, which is precisely what the police did at Hillsborough—and that is precisely what the Hillsborough Independent Panel was designed to try to get to the bottom of, as it did. It started the process by which those Hillsborough families finally got some form of justice for their decades- long struggle.

I am really baffled as to why the Government, when they have such a good example of a new process that actually worked for the bereaved, and worked in a way that one public inquiry, a de facto public inquiry, with all the scrutiny and the coroners’ inquests, did not. They all failed, for different reasons, and it was only the fact-finding inquiry that got somewhere towards the truth and got something like justice for those families.

I do not know why the Government want to put to one side a successful example, which was actually delivered under a Conservative Government. This is not a party issue: this was set up by a Labour Government and delivered under a Conservative Government. I am baffled—but I take comfort from the fact that the Minister has accepted the need for a review and left the door open, I hope intentionally, to addressing some of these points in future. I am still worried about the problem of the fact-finding inquiry, and for that reason I am minded to test the opinion of the House, when we reach that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 102.

Amendment 102 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 118 opens this seventh group. It concerns publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests following a major incident. We would have preferred to table an amendment extending publicly funded legal representation to all bereaved people at inquests, but I understand that was not in scope. It has been a long-standing Labour commitment to extend publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people.

The current funding scheme allows state bodies unlimited access to public funds for the best legal teams and experts, while families often face a complex and demanding funding application process. Many are forced to pay large sums of money towards legal costs or represent themselves during this process. Others use crowdfunding. The Bill would represent a tiny opportunity to raise the need to positively shape the inquest system for bereaved people by establishing in law the principle of the equality of arms between families and public authority interested persons.

It is no longer conscionable to continue to deny bereaved families publicly funded legal representation while public bodies are legally represented. Without automatic access to non-means-tested legal aid, bereaved families are denied their voice and any meaningful role. The absence of representation weakens investigations into state action; funded representation of the bereaved can safeguard lives and ensure that mistakes or harmful practices are brought to light. I beg to move.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 119 seeks to establish a code of practice for post-mortem processes. It arises out of a traumatic event suffered by Jenni Hicks, who lost her daughters Vicki and Sarah in the Hillsborough tragedy.

Perhaps the best way for your Lordships to understand the need for this amendment is to hear in Jenni Hicks’s own words what happened. This is how she described it in an email sent on 5 November 2022:

“I was asked if I would like to see 7 post, post mortem photographs of Vicki and 5 post, post mortem photographs of Sarah. I was warned they were both graphic and not pleasant. However, because of the 33yrs of lies, corruption, deception and lack of trust surrounding my daughters’ deaths, I chose to view them. I was shocked these photographs were in the hands of operation resolve. I’m aware the pathologists would have taken photographs to assist with causation of death and also to assist in writing the pathology reports. But, and it’s a huge but, I had assumed such graphic and sensitive photographs of naked bodies, including genitalia, would have been kept in a secure and safe environment. Not on a police computer”.


Moreover, as I understand it, the relevant injuries were to the head, and the genitalia were not pixelated, which they could easily have been. How could this have happened? These images existed for decades and, of all the many people who would have viewed them, not one of them thought, “This is not right”. It shows no respect for the dignity of the victims, who were young teenage girls. Why did not one person think that this was unacceptable? Not one did. If these had been the daughters of the people who had seen these images, year after year, one assumes that they would have been as profoundly upset and outraged as Jenni Hicks was. But they were not their daughters, so apparently no one cared. This unacceptable situation continued for decades.

For the most part, for whatever reason—and there may be many—a process of desensitisation often takes place in public authorities in the wake of major incidents such as this and on other occasions, apparently. This amendment seeks to put this right.

This amendment tries to address what is clearly an urgent need for a statutory code of conduct to preserve the dignity of the deceased and respect for the feelings of the bereaved. This is a probing amendment, as the Minister is aware. I understand that the Home Office is conducting a review to that end, so I assume that the Minister will want to await its outcome before deciding how to proceed. However, I would be grateful if he could confirm that the Government understand that this was unacceptable, that it must never recur and that they will give any new code of conduct the force of statute.

--- Later in debate ---

I can assure the House that this matter is on the Government’s radar and will be examined most carefully and widely, once the findings of the independent forensic pathology review are available.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

119AA: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Power of Secretary of State to establish an inquiry on major incidents(1) Within six months of the declaration of a major incident under section 28(2), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons on whether they intend to establish—(a) an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005,(b) an alternative fact-finding inquiry, or(c) no inquiry at that time.(2) A person or persons appointed to hold an inquiry established under subsection (1)(b) must be granted the powers to see and report on all relevant documentation.(3) A statement under subsection (1) must set out why the Secretary of State believes the decision is in the public interest. (4) In consideration of the public interest, the Secretary of State must demonstrate that they have had regard to timeliness, cost, transparency and the emotional and financial interests of the parties.”

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I heard what the Minister had to say about this amendment, but in view of the seriousness of what is involved here, the timeliness of a resolution for victims and the bereaved, and the cost to the taxpayer, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

123A: Clause 29, page 30, line 8, at beginning insert “Within one month of the passing of this Act,”

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the appointments, functions and processes for the independent public advocate in different ways. They are all designed to secure the greater independence and effectiveness of the advocate.

Given that it has been almost seven years since the creation of an independent public advocate featured in the 2017 Queen’s Speech, Amendment 123A simply removes any further possibility for the Government to unnecessarily delay the implementation of this post. Amendment 123B ensures that Parliament fulfils its function of scrutiny in respect of the appointment of the independent public advocate. Sadly, as many of your Lordships will be well aware, Ministers cannot always be relied upon to act benignly when scrutiny of their Government’s actions is involved. It is therefore crucial that they be held to account by Parliament in these matters and that Parliament retains a role in the appointment of the independent public advocate.

As the Minister will be aware, the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Accounts Select Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee already fulfil this function of approval for some key public appointments, and for good reason. That good reason must surely apply in the case of the independent public advocate. It must be essential that the public and those who need the services of the independent public advocate can have complete faith in the integrity and independence of the advocate, and a parliamentary confirmatory hearing will help to secure that.

Amendment 123C provides an alternative route for the appointment of the independent public advocate and a trigger mechanism for the retrospective appointment of the advocate. Clearly, this would become applicable only in the event that the Secretary of State decided not to appoint an independent public advocate. I am aware of the Government’s concerns about fettering the freedom of the Secretary of State’s action over the appointment of an advocate and the scope of their powers. In that context, I stress that this amendment creates no statutory fetter on the Secretary of State’s freedom of action. However, it does entrench a parliamentary role for the operation of this position and provides an additional safeguard for the interests of victims.

I spoke on the previous day in Committee about the need for retrospection. As I said then, it seems perverse to exclude from the support of the advocate those to whom the original damage was caused before the passage of the Bill but who have still to secure justice for it and who still suffer the consequence of it, such as those postmasters whose lives were wrecked by the Horizon scandal, and those whose lives were devastated by the transfusion of contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s or by nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. This amendment provides a trigger mechanism for such an appointment of the independent public advocate, as it were in retrospection. I envisage that it might come into effect, for example, when the relevant Select Committee had investigated a particular “major incident”, in the language of the Bill, and concluded that victims still suffering the consequences would benefit from the assistance of the independent public advocate. Again, I stress that this would not impose a statutory fetter on the Secretary of State, but it might spur them on to action if they had not already taken it. However, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to justify their decision to Parliament and render them subject to scrutiny of their decision to reject such a recommendation. I hope that the Government might recognise that it is in the interests of victims that any decisions by the Secretary of State in this area should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. After all, we remain a parliamentary democracy—despite some recent attempts to subvert it.

Amendment 124A is perhaps the most important of this group of amendments that I have tabled, because it entrenches the timely achievement of transparency as a key task of the independent public advocate. The amendment avoids being overly prescriptive about what powers the independent public advocate might require to establish an effective fact-finding inquiry to secure timely transparency for the victims, the bereaved and the wider public, because obviously the circumstances of every major incident will be different. However, this might well include placing the advocate in the position of data controllers, so they would be enabled to see all the relevant documentation and report on it without necessarily being able, under data protection regulations, to publish all the data.

In his letter to Peers, the Minister—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy—set out the reasons for the Government resisting such powers, and they are worth quoting, because to me they exemplify many of the problems with the Government’s approach. He said that

“a new and competing investigative body would be disruptive, duplicative and risk undermining or prejudicing other investigations which are seeking to establish the truth or assign liability”.

I am afraid these assertions are not borne out by evidence. The role need not compete with other investigations under the terms of this amendment. If the Secretary of State believes that such power would not be in the public interest, nothing in this amendment would force them to grant it. It remains at the Secretary of State’s discretion. However, this amendment forces the Secretary of State to justify such a decision, in respect of the fact that they made it with regard to timeliness, cost, transparency, and the emotional and financial interests of the victims.

--- Later in debate ---

Lastly, I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 133ZA, which would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to commission a review of the operation and effectiveness of an advocate appointed in respect of a major incident, to lay the outcome of this review before Parliament within six months of this Act passing, and to implement any recommendations made for improving their effectiveness within six months of the review’s publication. Perhaps at this point I could express my thanks to the noble Lord for his engagement on these issues with my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy and me the week before last. The Government understand and appreciate the intention behind this amendment. This new statutory office that we are creating is novel and the first of its kind. It is completely right that we monitor and evaluate new initiatives to ensure that they achieve their purpose and deliver for the end-user—in this case, victims of major incidents. The noble Lord spoke very powerfully. I believe my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy was clear that the way that we do this is something that the Government are willing to consider further. I know that my noble and learned friend would be happy to work with the noble Lord on the matter, ahead of the next stage in this Bill’s passage, if he would find that helpful.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken to this group of amendments. I think everyone, with the exception of the Minister, has spoken broadly in support of them. As always, I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his extremely courteous and open response to quite a weighty volume of amendments which covered quite a lot of ground.

On the basic question of further engagement with Ministers and officials, I would be delighted. I am extremely grateful for the offer, and I hope we can arrange something in the very near future, in good time before Report, to deal with some of these questions. Quite a lot of them are details of drafting, and I may well have misunderstood the intent of the drafting. It may be that some further clarification is needed. These are details in the drafting of the amendments, and I am very grateful to move forward on them. The review question, dealt with in Amendment 133ZA, is similarly complex, and I am glad that, when we spoke a few days ago, the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, seemed to welcome the principle. It would be good if we could clarify that and bolt it down to something practical that will work.

Amendment 124A is on the crucial question of fact-finding and transparency. I think the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to it as a modest amendment. If I had any hope of the Government accepting something more radical, I would have been far less modest, but I do not, I am afraid. The Minister’s response confirmed my worries about this. He repeated what has always been the Government’s position: that the role of the advocate is essentially a pastoral one—that advising the Secretary of State, as the Minister just described, is really only a baby step away from what is essentially a pastoral role. That really is not sufficient. Merely reiterating the Government’s purpose does not justify the purpose; it only shows that, for some reason I really do not understand—I really do not understand it, because I can see no practical benefit of it at all, to anybody—the Government are resistant to giving the public advocate further powers.

It is not a question of defensiveness over a particular issue. As the Minister said, the Bill is not retrospective at the moment, although I welcome his indication that he may be able to introduce that element of retrospection. I am frankly baffled. Timeliness is so important for victims who are suffering unimaginable trauma and grief, and all of whom, in their different ways, are seeking closure, because they fail to understand what has happened to their loved ones, out of a clear blue sky, and are given no explanation for why what happened has happened. As the magisterial report on Hillsborough by Bishop James, the former Bishop of Liverpool, shows, these delays allow those in power to construct false narratives about what happened. We saw that graphically at Hillsborough, when the Sun newspaper and the former Prime Minister told lies about football fans who lost their lives because of the negligence of the police.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I meant to respond to the very pertinent points the noble Lord made on the cost and duration of public inquiries. He is, of course, quite right. This is a matter of concern. It is not for a trivial reason that your Lordships’ House is looking at this very issue in one of its special committees at the moment. However, one of the advantages, as we see it, of the IPA will be that he will be able to recommend to the Secretary of State a non-statutory route to inquiring or looking into incidents. I am sure that his or her voice in making such a recommendation will, for entirely the reasons that the noble Lord cites, be a very powerful lever in the process.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister; he pre-empted me, as he could see where I was going to go next with this. He is quite right that the Inquiries Act 2005 is increasingly widely recognised as clunky and in need of revision, but that is not for now. That is inevitably going to be a lengthy process, and certainly for another Parliament, but we have this Bill in front of us.

Giving the public advocate power to advise the Secretary of State has no teeth at all. We know how Ministers take advice: sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. In the meantime, the victims, for whom this Bill is intended, go on suffering. While the Secretary of State decides and deliberates and moves on, is sacked, reshuffled and all the rest of it, the victims go on suffering the agony of not knowing what has happened to their loved ones, while over and again those in power use taxpayers’ money to construct false narratives. There is no end in sight to that in this Bill.

We have the opportunity to give real power to the independent public advocate, speaking on behalf of victims who have been left abandoned, over and again, for years and decades. The person who is meant to represent them “may” be given the power to advise the Secretary of State, who can then do what he or she likes, with no accountability—nothing. I urge the Government to look again at this.

Notwithstanding the obvious problems with public inquiries, here is a chance to do something. We have the model. The Hillsborough Independent Panel, which was set up by a Labour Government and championed by a Conservative Home Secretary and Prime Minister in the right honourable Theresa May MP, with cross-party support, is universally accepted as a model of how these things can operate. Yet the Government persist in rejecting the possibility for the independent public advocate to set up something like that in future.

Why? We know that it can save money. We know that it can produce a timely explanation of what happened, which is of incalculable benefit to victims. Yet the Government go on resisting it. Timeliness, cost benefits and transparency; what is not to love about those virtues? Yet the Government resist it. As I say, I am baffled. We will return to these issues on Report. I am grateful to everyone, and particularly to the Minister, for his approach to all this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 123A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, I have been happy to sit and listen as we went through the rest of the Bill, but I totally support these amendments. To not have to listen to the victim’s voice beggars belief. The whole point of having an advocate for a major incident is so that the views can be heard. I agree that, by not asking the victim’s point of view, this feels very much like lip service and an insult to the victims who are going through a horrific trauma. Are we not going to learn anything from Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester Arena? This will even add fuel to the fire. I totally agree with everything that has been said. It is very important that the voices of victims are heard, right through this, when reporting to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly—the Minister will be relieved to hear—to support these amendments. What is important about them is that they would put on a statutory basis that the views of the victims will be communicated to the Secretary of State. As I have already said at some length, we need to do more and give more teeth to the powers of the independent public advocate, but this is a good step forward. I hope that the Government can accept these amendments, which really are not contentious.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, this group concerns the obtaining of the views of victims by the standing advocate and their being taken into account, or relayed to the Secretary of State so that they can be taken into account. The central point was that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. If victims of major incidents are to be given a voice and that voice is to be heard, they need, under this scheme, the standing advocate to be that voice—a voice that co-ordinates and articulates the victims’ response. It will often be a joint or combined voice and the stronger for that.

Under Amendment 124, the type of review or inquiry held would be the subject of the views that must be obtained and relayed. It is a matter on which the views of victims are strongly held. They are often views that are in conflict with the views of the Government. That is a central point about independence.

The next point under this amendment is their views on

“their treatment by public authorities in response to the major incident”.

Again, this is an area of not invariable but regular conflict between victims and government. The questions that arise are, “Was enough done to avoid the incident?”, “Was what was done done in time?”, and “Were sufficient resources devoted to relief and recovery after the incident?”. All those are crucial issues on which the voice of victims needs to be independently heard and taken into account.

Amendment 125 concerns the appointment of additional advocates and says the Secretary of State must seek victims’ views on whether to appoint additional advocates and whom to appoint. Again, that is a requirement that is plainly right, because the identity of the advocate and the appointment of additional advocates matter to victims, who are extremely concerned to know that the investigation and any inquiries are going to be properly carried out.

Finally, the views of the victims to be taken into account include the views that they express before the termination of an appointment of an advocate. Again, that is self-evidently right. We have in a later group an amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, removing the right of the Secretary of State to remove the standing advocate on such grounds as he thinks appropriate. I put my name to that. That is an important amendment that we will address when it comes, but it goes hand in hand with this amendment because the purpose of both reflects the reality that inquiries into major incidents may cast light on failings of government or organs of government that may cause the Government embarrassment.

One of the chief virtues of the independent public advocate system proposed in this Bill is precisely its independence of government. It is therefore essential that an advocate appointed to represent victims’ interests should be clear and free to carry out those functions fearlessly. If that involves criticism of government or individual Ministers, those criticisms should be made and investigated. The views of victims on the termination of an advocate’s appointment will therefore be central to that process. They should be central to any consideration of the termination of an advocate’s employment. That should not be left to the Secretary of State without regard to the views of victims.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

119A: Clause 28, page 29, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) occurs or occurred in England and Wales,”

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 119A to 119C in my name have been drafted to allow the independent public advocate to act for the victims of incidents, or series of events, that might have occurred before the passage of the Bill. As currently drafted, the Bill does not permit this.

Underpinning my original conception of the independent public advocate in my two Private Members’ Bills that were the genesis of this part of the Bill was the belief in the need for greater support and agency for those who had been failed by the state—which is meant to serve them—in what the Bill describes as “major incidents”. This is particularly the case when the full extent of such an incident may be revealed only over a period of time. In these circumstances, it is perverse to exclude from such support, which is outlined in the Bill the sub-postmasters whose lives were wrecked by the Horizon scandal, for example, or those whose lives were devastated by contaminated blood transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s, or by nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. These are all catastrophic events that have, in some cases, become apparent only over quite a long period of time.

The victims need the support of the independent public advocate as they continue to search for justice and to right the wrongs that were done to them. These amendments will rectify this problem with the Bill’s current drafting. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I have a very short amendment—wholly unrelated to what has just been put forward—and I thank those in the Whips’ Office for suggesting that it remain in this group, and not, as I had proposed, move to a later group, which would be reached much later this evening. It does not really matter which group it is in, because it does not really affect anything else. It is a simple, short point in relation to the co-operation between Governments within the union and, therefore, has to do with devolution.

Clause 33 sets out the functions of the advocate who is to be appointed in respect of a major incident. None of the functions in this clause is a reserved matter, so under the Government of Wales Act, the Senedd has the powers to appoint. Therefore, in any particular incident, the Senedd could make provision so that it could appoint its own advocates. I do not believe a different view is taken by the Government in London.

It may also be the case that Welsh Ministers can appoint a non-statutory inquiry following a major incident in Wales, but that is not the kind of point to go into at this hour. The only power that the Senedd could not make provision for is for an advocate appointed under the Act to automatically secure interested person status in a statutory inquiry—those powers are reserved as they are part of the justice powers. Of course, a public advocate appointed by the Welsh Ministers would be free to apply for interested person status, and would probably get it—so I do not think it makes any practical difference. As I understand it, this point has caused the Senedd’s consent to the legislative consent memorandum to be qualified and reserved until this matter is resolved.

There are four short points to make. First, it seems sensible that the Welsh Government are involved as part of the scheme if there is a major incident in Wales. That would avoid any possibility of duplication. Secondly, it is important that the Welsh Government have a say in the person appointed. The advocate must have knowledge of Wales as well as the necessary ability to do everything in Welsh as well as English, since in Wales, English and Welsh have equal status.

Thirdly, significantly, it would be a further step in underpinning by statute co-operation between the Governments as part of the normal exercise of shared functions within a union. Fourthly, the Minister provided the greatest possible help in achieving something similar in relation to mission statements in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, as provided for now in Section 2 of that Act. This seems to be yet another step that can be taken to put in place a strong statutory framework for co-operation to ensure that there is no duplication and there is good working co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing forward the amendments in this group. All but one relate to the important issue of the definition of a major incident and its scope. I will address them in turn.

First, I will respond to Amendments 119A, 119B and 119C from the noble Lord, Lord Wills. These amendments seek to expand the scope of the independent public advocate scheme to include an event or series of linked events which have occurred prior to this section coming into force. In practical terms, as he has made clear, they would introduce a retrospective element to the scheme, allowing the Secretary of State to declare historic events as major incidents and to appoint an advocate accordingly. The noble Lord has brought this important issue to the Government’s attention. It is right that we should debate it.

At the outset, I need to state the Government’s position. Incidents which occur wholly—I emphasise “wholly”—before this part is commenced are not in the scope of this scheme. I recognise that the tragic events of the past and the experiences of those impacted by them have clearly highlighted the need for the independent public advocate. I do not mean to suggest otherwise. However, the IPA is designed as a forward-looking initiative to assist victims in the immediate aftermath of a major incident when there are investigations, inquests and inquiries into what happened. The scheme is intended as a way of providing support at an early stage. Given this, the Government believe that there would be limited additional benefit in appointing an advocate to support victims of incidents where the official processes are at an advanced stage or may have already concluded.

As the Bill stands, I can confirm that the definition of a major incident already covers either a single-time incident, or a series of linked incidents. It does not allow for the advocate to support the families of those who died or individuals who were seriously harmed by any linked incidents which occurred prior to the Bill’s commencement. Having said that, I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that recent events have shown that it can take time for events and their circumstances to become clear. There may be instances where these events do not occur during the same time period. I was grateful for the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on that theme.

I understand the importance of getting right the definition of a major incident. I have therefore asked my officials to consider it further. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to continue engaging with the noble Lord about this so that we can return to it on Report.

I turn to Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which seeks to expand the definition of a major incident and therefore the IPA scheme. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to declare a major incident in circumstances that do not meet the threshold of a significant number of deaths or those suffering serious harm but attract a significant public interest.

It is important for me to make it clear that the impetus for establishing a public advocate has been the experience of victims following past disasters that were exceptional, presented unique challenges and involved multiple organs of the state, which victims found difficult to navigate or have their voices heard by. The Government believe that it is important that the scope of this scheme is controlled and is clearly focused on assisting victims of major incidents which are, by their nature, rare. This amendment would set a possible expectation that the IPA might be appointed to support victims who have been involved in smaller-scale incidents, especially those where there are very few injuries or fatalities, which is not the policy intention.

There is a further and possibly helpful point that I can make. Arguably, the Secretary of State already has a broad discretion in the Bill to declare a major incident and to interpret the term “significant”. For those reasons, the Government, at this time, do not believe that this change is necessary. The public interest will also be one of the considerations that the Secretary of State will have in mind when making their decision, and more detail on this will be included in the policy statement.

Lastly, proposed new subsection (2B)(a) of this amendment seems to imply that blame or liability must have been found prior to this power being exercised. If the Secretary of State were to act quickly, they may risk prejudicing any subsequent investigation, which would not serve the interests of victims.

I am afraid that the amendment runs counter to the Government’s policy intention, but I hope that it is helpful that I have pointed out that potential element of discretion that is built into the wording in the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will understand why we cannot support the amendment.

Lastly, I turn to Amendment 126 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, which would require the Secretary of State to obtain the concurrence, or in other words the agreement, of Welsh Ministers before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident occurring in Wales. The purpose of the independent public advocate scheme is to support victims of major incidents. This Government agree that these functions fall within the devolved competence of the Welsh Senedd, with the exception of the amendments to the Coroners and Justice Act, which Clause 34 provides for.

The Ministry of Justice has engaged with officials in the Welsh Government during the development of this policy. It is clear that there is great benefit to having a single scheme that covers England and Wales to provide consistency of service. Our discussions with the Welsh Government are ongoing, as we seek a legislative consent Motion for these measures. Ministers in the UK Government will write to Welsh Ministers shortly, setting out a proposal for their role with regard to declaring a major incident which occurs wholly in Wales, and the subsequent appointment of an advocate in respect of that major incident.

I hope that that reassures the noble and learned Lord that this is a live issue that is very much on the radar of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. He is very much aware of the devolution implications, and we are actively working to find a solution. The Government will bring forward any necessary amendments on Report, and I am happy to return to this topic at that time.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this short discussion and to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his remarks, and particularly for his cogent justifications for these amendments in terms of retrospection, which were an extremely valuable contribution to the debate. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, for their support too.

I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for his open mind on this issue, if I may take it that far—or at least a willingness to continue discussion on what is quite a crucial question. I am very happy to do that, and I shall withdraw the amendment shortly.

I just want to say a few words about the Minister’s comments. He stressed the word “wholly”—major incidents that happened wholly in the past. That is a very important word, because it means when the incident no longer has any impact on the victim. In most cases—to think of the bereaved or those who suffered, not necessarily directly but indirectly, as in the examples from both the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby—such incidents are by definition not wholly in the past. The postmasters’ suffering is not wholly in past, even though the damage was done in the past. Similarly, for the victims of blood transfusions and their relatives, and the victims of nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s, these are ongoing traumas. They are the people who need the support of the independent public advocate.

I am, as I say, very happy to carry on this discussion in the hope that we can find some sort of resolution. A large number of people are still grievously affected by these major incidents, and I hope that this rare legislative opportunity to help them can be seized. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 119A withdrawn.

Proposed Changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons

Lord Wills Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Reid, but I have read the Motion, which proposes that the committee should,

“consider and report on the constitutional implications of the Government’s … revised proposals to change the Standing Orders of the House of Commons … and that the committee should report on the proposals”,

not on the constitutional implications. It is a specific invitation to report on the Standing Orders of another place. I do not think that is wise; I do not think that we should invite the House of Commons to interfere in our affairs and our Standing Orders. We can make clear the concerns and feelings that we may have about these proposals in many other ways, but I urge your Lordships not to trench into the privilege of the Commons and to hold back. Whatever we may think, if the noble Lord, Lord Butler, were to put this Motion to a Division—I hope he will not—it would be construed as a challenge not just to the policy but to the right of the House of Commons to direct its own affairs. I do not think that would be a sensible procedure for this House.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has done Parliament a great service by bringing forward this Motion. As he and many others have said, the Government’s proposals are of profound constitutional significance and, as such, they deserve the kind of deliberative scrutiny that this Motion envisages and which the Government are so far refusing to allow.

The arguments in favour of the Motion have been made so extensively and so well that I do not intend to repeat them except to say that I agree with all of them. But several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord True, who has just spoken, have rightly been wary about intervening in the proper concerns of the House of Commons. As a former Member of the other place, I understand that and I think they are right to be wary. But in pursuing his proposal, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is doing no more than seeking to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords so ably presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. That said that one of the key functions of your Lordships’ House is to act as a constitutional longstop. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, may recall the words of his royal commission, which stated that the key purpose of your Lordships’ House is to act as a constitutional longstop to ensure that,

“changes are not made to the Constitution without full and open debate and an awareness of the consequences”.

That seems, purely and simply, what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, seeks to do with this proposal. I hope this House will support him in pursuing it.

[Baroness Boothroyd (CB)]

My Lords, I do not wish to trouble the House with the comments that I made last Thursday: they stand in Hansard for all to see. However, my name has been mentioned very kindly by two noble Lords here this afternoon. This Motion is very practical and constructive in proposing a joint approach with the Commons on an issue of fundamental importance to a bicameral Parliament, which is what we are. It is also of fundamental importance to our entire country, and I hope it very soon receives the blessing of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

Some noble Lords have indicated that they would favour alternative approaches to tackling this, but we have a mandate for this in our manifesto. Of course, it is open to those who advocate alternatives to amend our proposals when they are put to the House of Commons for decision. We are not wary of scrutiny but we want to see proposals tested in action, not in the abstract. That is why we are proposing a review when the first Bills subject to the new procedures reach Royal Assent.

[Lord Wills]

If anyone tables an amendment in the House of Commons to the Government’s proposals, would the Minister expect SNP Members of Parliament to vote on that proposed amendment?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Is the noble Lord talking about amendments to the Standing Orders or amendments to legislation?

[Lord Wills]

On any proposed changes to the Standing Orders, or indeed to legislation that anyone brings forward, would the Minister expect Members of the Scottish National Party to abstain voluntarily from voting on such measures, or to take part in them?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The whole House of Commons will consider amendments to its Standing Orders, and all Members of that place will contribute to that decision at that time. On the impact of what we are proposing and how legislation is considered in the other place, I would rather not get into a detailed debate now because I have offered time for that kind of discussion in September.

We want to hear noble Lords’ concerns on the risks they consider are attached to our proposals. As I say, I am not suggesting that none exist.

House of Lords: Questions and Correspondence

Lord Wills Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wills]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what importance they attach to providing prompt, full and direct Answers to Questions for Written Answer and correspondence from Members of the House of Lords.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government attach great importance to providing Members of this House with prompt and accurate replies to their Questions for Written Answer and their correspondence.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I of course welcome the noble Lord’s response because prompt, full and direct answers to all kinds of correspondence and questions are crucial if Parliament is to do its duty in holding the Executive to account. So will he join me in deploring the systemic delays and evasions that I have encountered over the past year in trying to find out how much money the Government have allocated for the purposes of electoral registration and whether they believe that the way in which they have introduced the new system of individual registration poses any risk at all to levels of registration? Despite a whole lorry- load of Questions for Written Answer, correspondence and Oral Questions, I still am no clearer about whether the Government even know how much money they have allocated for electoral registration, let alone what the figure actually is. Will the noble Lord agree to take immediate steps to provide me with the answers that I have sought for more than a year now? In the spirit of what I take to be our freshly minted agreement on the importance of prompt, full and direct Answers, a simple yes or no will suffice.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, if I had a simple yes or no answer, it would be a lot shorter than the question, if I may say so. The substance of the policy issue is clearly for departments to determine. So far as promptness and so on is concerned, I very much agree with the noble Lord that we need to have prompt and accurate replies. One of the ways in which we can help with the promptness of correspondence is with the figures that are published every year. The next set is due shortly—I think next week—and will show the performance of individual departments: how good they are at responding within the deadlines they set. I have a particular responsibility to try to make sure that Questions for Written Answer are answered promptly and I have tightened up the way in which we are doing that. I have decided that from the next Session I will follow the practice of the other place and publish, again annually, the performance of departments on their promptness in dealing with QWAs.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and Philippines

Lord Wills Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I fear that I have not seen any other coverage of how it was reported in Sri Lanka. Obviously my friends at the Foreign Office and so on will have done. I am sure that they spend their days doing that and other productive things. Oh dear, I can feel that my briefing is now going to dry up on me.

On the point that some of the world’s press were able to go there, I saw the transcript of the press conference that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave on, I think, the Saturday morning, which had representatives of the press from both Sri Lanka and the rest of the world. That gave the opportunity for a wide range of people to report honestly and openly on what went on.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to be a little clearer about what the Government are going to do to persuade the Commonwealth to take action to mitigate the very real damage that will be done to the credibility of the Commonwealth and the charter signed only this year, with all its emphasis on human rights, if the Government of Sri Lanka are to carry on representing the Commonwealth in international forums for the next two years. The Prime Minister did a good job, and I congratulate him on all his work on behalf of human rights in Sri Lanka on his visit, but it is clear that the regime has ignored him, just as it has ignored all representations in the past and clearly intends to ignore all such representations in the future. It is crucial that the Commonwealth takes such action to mitigate the damage that this regime will do to the credibility of the Commonwealth. What will the Government do about that?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I will be brief because I think the essence of that question was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. It is something that the whole Commonwealth is going to have to do. The noble Lord asks what the British Government are going to do. We are only one of 53 members and the institution operates by consensus.

My earlier answer was that we will seek to work through that body by emphasising at every possible opportunity, as we did again in Colombo, through the Commonwealth charter, that these values are important and need to be upheld. I do not have a magic wand to wave, much as I would like to, because I share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I cannot say that we can simply do A, B and C and that it will all work in the way that we would like.

Procedure of the House

Lord Wills Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, my arguments against the current procedures have been well rehearsed, and the case for change has been well made. I do not intend to repeat any of them now. If this is put to a vote I shall vote in support of the proposal.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, stressed repeatedly, this is an experiment. It seems to me that the success of the experiment depends crucially on the criteria that the committee will apply, and how it will apply them. That is crucial. What exactly are the criteria going to be? What weight will be given to each of them? Will the committee have a remit, for example, to ensure that all the criteria are met over the period of the experiment, or only some of them? How many of the separate criteria will have to be met at any given time? If a topic meets more than one criteria, how will one topic be favoured over another? What weight will be given to each of the criteria? All these issues go towards whether this experiment will be perceived as fair and objective, and as an improvement on the current process. I very much hope that if this moves forward, as I hope it will, these questions will be addressed as we make progress on this issue.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, as I said when I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for me the crucial thing is that this committee should be elected. If people are standing for election to this committee whom we do not think would take a balanced view on the quirky topic and the large topic, then do not vote for them. Surely within this House we are grown-up enough and experienced enough to realise the importance of maintaining a balance in what we do, and can trust our colleagues. The alternative is a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory situation, where you have to wait to get the golden ticket to have your chance to put forward your debates. It has been said that colleagues are going to be lobbying—of course they are, but we lobby our Front-Benchers all the time. Surely all of us are grown-up enough to be able to survive the experience of a bit of lobbying. I support this proposal because it is about strengthening Parliament, and it is by strengthening Parliament that we will increase the respect and standing of Parliament outside.

I think it was my noble friend Lord Higgins who talked about us having tenure. I do not think we have tenure in this House. This House has to prove itself every day in the eyes of the public; I think it does a brilliant job. This measure is at least worth trying, because it could strengthen Parliament, increase our ability to hold the Executive to account, and be seen to be relevant to the interests of those outside who, after all, pay the bills.

Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust Inquiry

Lord Wills Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords—

[Lord Wills]

My Lords—

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think we should hear from the Labour Benches.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s emphasis on the importance of involving patients and their relatives more centrally in decisions about their own care. Does the Minister think that principle should be extended throughout the NHS, including the new policy on value-based pricing for new medicines?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I certainly take the point that that principle is one we need to apply in our response. As regards the specific question, my noble friend Lord Howe will follow up with the noble Lord.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Wills Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, unlike some other speakers, I think that constitutional affairs merit parliamentary time, even in a recession. Constitutional arrangements matter because, in the end, they reflect the distribution of power in our society and that perhaps matters even more in a recession. I welcome the Government's commitment to maintaining the impetus for reforming the arrangements for royal succession. That is very desirable, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House said. I had hoped that I could welcome the other constitutional measures proposed in this Queen’s Speech. I was the Minister responsible for the legislation which introduced individual voter registration in the last Government and I still support it, and I have long been in favour of a democratically accountable House of Lords. Yet I fear that the approach the Government are taking to both these measures not only weakens the case for them but is in danger of sacrificing the health of our constitution in the interests of short-term political manoeuvring.

I suspect that electoral registration will not feature much in the discussions over the next two days. It is a technical issue of interest to few voters but it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has already said, a matter of real significance because eligible voters cannot exercise that precious right to vote unless they are on the register. Individual registration is a desirable principle—citizens should be responsible for their own eligibility to vote—and can help tackle fraud, although the extent of electoral fraud should not be overstated. I note that the noble Lord the Leader of the House did not mention any judgment on the extent of fraud. He said that it had to be tackled, as of course it should be, but, as I will say later, it is not prevalent as he was suggesting. Nor, even when it exists, can electoral fraud be tackled entirely by individual registration. That is not a panacea.

Whatever the merits of individual registration, it carries with it the severe risk that significant numbers of people who are eligible to vote will disappear from the register and so be unable to vote. That was the experience in Northern Ireland when it moved to this new system of registration. More recently, the Electoral Commission has said that the introduction of individual registration, under the measure proposed by the Government, could mean that,

“the register could go from around a 90% completeness that we currently have to around … a 60% completeness”.

The fall-off in registration is likely to be particularly marked among young people and students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities more generally and those living in areas of high social deprivation. There is already a serious problem with the electoral register in the United Kingdom. The latest estimate from the Electoral Commission suggests that at least 6 million people who were eligible to vote were not registered to do so in December 2010. The introduction of individual registration risks making a bad situation significantly worse.

The previous Government tried to tackle that problem by tying individual registration to the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate register by 2015. In the last Parliament, the Front-Bench spokespersons in the other place for both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats approved and supported this approach. This Government could have continued with that approach but have chosen not to, for reasons that they have never adequately explained. They are rushing forward individual registration while removing the key safeguard of linking it to the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate register.

Why might they have done that? Why might they abandon the careful non-partisan approach of the previous Government to this issue? The Leader of the House suggested today that threats to the integrity of the register were the reason for their haste, but the independent bodies that we have tasked with safeguarding the integrity of our electoral system do not share that assessment. Analysis carried out regularly by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Electoral Commission found,

“no evidence of widespread systematic attempts to undermine or interfere with the May 2010 elections through electoral fraud”.

So why the rush? It is hard to avoid concluding that it is being driven by the pursuit of party political advantage. Most people agree—this is not really a matter of dispute—that those eligible voters who are not registered to vote are most likely to vote Labour when they do vote. The evidence suggests that the party that will suffer least, if at all, from any fall-off in registration is the Conservative Party. Electoral registration is only 90% complete in Labour seats; it is 94% complete in Conservative seats. That partisan effect will be amplified considerably by the boundary reviews in 2015. If conducted on the basis of such a flawed register, they will have the effect of increasing the number of Conservative seats and decreasing the number of Labour ones.

I ask your Lordships again to consider carefully the impact on our democracy if it turns out that the outcome of a general election has been determined by the fact that millions of eligible voters could not vote because they were not registered to do so and that this was the result of a government policy, deliberately pursued despite all the evidence that it would have precisely this consequence. I hope that the Government will think again about their approach and might be prepared to accept any amendments that might come forward to once again tie the desirable introduction of individual registration to the achievement of a comprehensive register.

Then we come to the proposal for House of Lords reform. This proposal is not being driven by partisan self-interest—it has become a prisoner of it. I do not want to say very much about this; I am sure other noble Lords will have a lot to say about it. In my view, though, and I speak as someone who supports reform, many of the arguments against it—the cost, the assumed excellence of the current arrangements, the paramount importance of achieving consensus as opposed to simply striving for one—could all have been produced to resist every advance in the democratic accountability of Parliament over the past 200 years, and often have been. In the complaints about there being too many politicians, I sometimes hear antidemocratic undertones that I personally find disquieting.

For all that I wish to see your Lordships’ House elected, though, there is one criticism of the Government’s proposed legislation with which I agree, and it is fundamental. When the White Paper was published, I and many others criticised it for its inadequate approach to the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament that would result from reform. Clause 2 of the draft Bill is clearly inadequate to achieve its objective of preserving the primacy of the House of Commons. Such criticisms have been powerfully reiterated by the Joint Committee report and the alternative report.

An elected House of Lords does not inevitably mean gridlock in our constitutional arrangements, but work has to be done to find solutions to this potential problem and the Government have failed to do it. There is no shortage of proposals—a concordat between the two Houses, for example, or some form of codification of the functions—and you cannot reform the composition of the House without also looking at the functions. Why have the Government rejected this approach and refused to look at it up until now? I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House said that the forthcoming legislation would take account of the criticisms of Clause 2, but the flaws in that clause have been manifest at least since the publication of the White Paper, and should have been foreseen before it was even published. Why have the Government left it so late? All the solutions to this problem, and there are several of them, have advantages and disadvantages. They need to be debated and the public need to be engaged in a discussion on this, but the Government have done absolutely none of this.

This Bill is recognised as coming from the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition. Why are they pushing forward with such a flawed proposal? I am afraid that it is hard to avoid the suspicion that they want to use what might be only a temporary position in Government to engineer a constitutional reform that, with proportional representation, would be likely to secure for them an influential position in Parliament for the foreseeable future.

Such a partisan approach would be bad enough but in the past few days, if we are to believe the heavily briefed stories in the press, the electoral problems of the Government and the need to appease Conservative Back-Benchers are going to cause reform of the Second Chamber of our Parliament, something to which all three main parties are committed by their manifestos, to be delayed, abandoned or, as I saw in one report, made subject to a post-legislative referendum—incidentally, a process hostile to the representative democracy that participants on all sides of this debate profess to support. That is all being brought into play by the short-term political difficulties of this Government.

It is disappointing that the Government’s proposed legislation on an issue of such profound constitutional importance should be so inadequately prepared. It would be shameful if such a lack of preparation were the result of the self-interested haste of the Liberal Democrats. It is an indictment of the Government that the future of this important constitutional reform now appears to be held hostage by the short-term political manoeuvrings of an unpopular Government.

Something could still be salvaged from this mess if the Government would only think again about their approach, accept that they need to do more work on securing the primacy of the House of Commons, use independent experts to advise them on this—something, as far as I am aware, that they have not yet done; certainly not in public—and then of course consult the public on possible solutions in a properly deliberative process, as I have talked about many times before in this House. Then, and only then, should the legislation be finalised before it is returned to Parliament with an adequately worked-through proposal. I hope that they will do that and ensure that Parliament does not once again turn its back on this long overdue advance in democratic accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I think there is a need to recognise that all the constituent nations and, for that matter, regions of the United Kingdom need to rearrange their relationships whether or not independence is achieved. A step in that direction has been taken by the Scotland Act, but the fallout from that is considerable and we ought to be looking at the coherence of our constitution and the ways in which we can involve the public in influencing the direction in which that coherent constitution ought to go.

I am conscious that consensus may be difficult—indeed, impossible—to achieve, but public understanding of and assent to the rationality of what is proposed is vital. Consequently, I want this House to look more widely at the challenges that we face at this time. In his opening speech for the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recognised the impact that certain changes might have on other aspects of the constitution. What is quite wrong is to seek to bounce the citizens of this country into fundamental changes. The citizenry may reject such opportunities or challenges if they are offered a referendum, and in any event the example of the referendum on AV seems a classic case of how not to proceed with constitutional reform: there was no extensive publicity for what was involved; there was no consideration of what the alternatives were; and there was only about two weeks’ notice in some media and even less in the press. A referendum is not necessarily the answer for dealing with the complexity of the structure of government in this country.

We have been too complacent about the structure over a long time. I think that many of the reforms that were achieved at the beginning of the Labour Government’s period of office—which had been discussed with other political parties, including my own, and which, to some extent, were a result of cross-party agreement—were valuable. It was possible to achieve the introduction of the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act and, later, the establishment of the Supreme Court, although it had to be delayed, as it should properly have been, to enable full discussion to be held about its structure and contents, without affecting the whole structure of governance in this country. I can support that kind of incrementalism, but I find it very difficult to support a proposal that one House of the legislature should be reformed—and by that I mean re-formed, not necessarily improved—without looking at the relationship with the other House, considering whether it should be more representative of the nations and regions and without providing for the proper accountability of its Members. The notion of electing people once for 15 years seems to be remote from the idea of accountability. The proposal that the House of Lords should be in some way secondary to the House of Commons is neither secured not justified. There is a case for recognising that in the modern age in which we live, with the huge volume of legislation that is normally brought before Parliament, there could be some spreading of the load across two democratic Chambers, but that apparently does not form any part of the Government’s thinking.

I consider this House of Lords reform Bill to be ill-conceived, and I am not persuaded that the attitude that I am taking is letting the best be the enemy of the good. I do not regard it as good to have a hotchpotch of a Chamber that serious politicians would be very unlikely to want to be elected to when their careers would be cut back after one term at whatever age they chose to go in. I do not think that the position of the appointed people would be strong in such a situation, and the debate that followed would seem to be likely to be not whether the House should be further reformed but whether a second Chamber was necessary at all. We have seen that in other Commonwealth countries, including New Zealand, and in other European countries, including Sweden. I want a second Chamber. I have always advocated 100% elected, and I have always wanted to see it have much greater power over the Executive than the current Chamber has. That would consequently be a very considerable rewriting of the constitution, but none of that is appropriately achieved in this kind of step-by-step way which has none of these objectives in mind.

My view is that the country needs to have a much more extensive national debate involving the citizenry. The Scottish Constitutional Convention worked to unite the Scottish people. Unfortunately—we can see this with the benefit of hindsight—it did not include the impact on the rest of the United Kingdom as part of its mandate, and that impact has been real and is evident. Consequently, I would favour the establishment, in due course, of a convention that enabled the restructuring of our constitution to be deliberately conceived and involved not just articulate and already determined politicians.

[Lord Wills]

I think the noble Lord was just about to come on to my question. There has already been quite a lot of discussion about a constitutional convention—I have been in favour of one for many years—but there is a key question about its composition. The Scottish Constitutional Convention was largely constituted of the great and the good. I notice that the alternative report of the Select Committee also suggested already established figures in our society. Does the noble Lord see any merit in broadening it to include a demographically representative swathe of the British people to participate in discussions about the future of their own constitution?

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I certainly want to see the convention being fully representative. Maybe it would operate differently in different parts of the country. Different public discussions should take place before any decision-making. This is immensely serious because the British public are so disengaged from politics and so disenchanted with their politicians. The convention should not necessarily be dominated by politicians. Representatives of all the civic organisations and different interests of our country ought to be considered in that context.

The convention in Scotland was not particularly dominated by politicians; representatives of the CBI, the church and the trade unions were involved. However, we cannot allow this simple debate between unionists and those who support Scottish independence to go forward without giving a clear indication that there are alternative opportunities to bring our system of government more into tune with the needs and dispassionate desires of the different parts of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, having listened to the debate so far, and thinking back over the discussions about this Chamber over the past 14 or 15 years, I cannot help feeling—I am sure noble friends will feel the same—slightly giddy. I have fortified myself with some water to keep me going.

I start by saying that I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Maclennan, and my noble friend Lord Laming that there is a serious gap between the electorate—the public—on the one hand and Parliament and governmental institutions on the other. There is no excuse whatever for complacency on our part in this Chamber, let alone in the House of Commons. However, knowing what the coalition Government’s proposals are, I find myself strongly in favour of a substantially reformed appointed House. Therefore, I do not support the coalition’s proposal.

The coalition has stated that it wants the role and function of the House of Lords to remain unchanged as a revising Chamber, which persuades Governments and the House of Commons to think again. Since that is the coalition’s objective, the task would be far more effectively performed if we were a substantially reformed appointed Chamber. On the other hand, had the coalition said that it proposed a second Chamber that was commensurate, or possibly even equal, in powers to the Commons, we would of course need to consider an elected Chamber, whether directly or indirectly elected. However, the evidence is absolutely clear that, although the Government want no change in the role of the Lords, the effect of their current proposals would be to undermine that very objective.

The arguments are borne out not only by the Joint Committee but by the alternative report, which make it plain that the Chamber, if elected, would be bound to be more assertive, and that the natural restraint that this House normally exercises would be unleashed. We can add to that the fact that the conventions of the two Houses would have to be reviewed along with a whole range of issues such as the level of expertise; the partisanship of the House; whether elections would produce a B team; whether there would be more constituency rivalry; whether there would be gridlock, as there so often is in the United States, and finding ways to deal with it; cost; hybridity; and many others. All those could be overcome if we were rightly going for an elected House, but I do not believe that that is the right way forward.

I have two reflections to make. First, we all know that our constitution has evolved over centuries. As has been said by other noble Lords, in our experience of how we do things, the best way forward is the pragmatic one and incremental reform. Looking at the Lords over the past 100 years, there was change in 1911, 1949, 1958, 1963 and 1999. More recently, there was further change with the introduction of the Supreme Court. In the words of Lampedusa in The Leopard, if we want to stay the same, things have to change. I hate the word “change”. “Things have to improve” would be a better way of putting it. That is the British way of tackling these issues.

Secondly, in recent years—certainly over the past 14 years—successive Governments have not been sensible in how they have proposed radical, big changes. That started in 1998 with the plan to abolish hereditary Peers without producing any coherent plan or cohesive approach to replace them in the Chamber. It was almost a flippant approach to the role of the House of Lords, with little sense of history. Since then, we have debated this issue until the cows come home. The Wakeham report and many other reports have stimulated that debate. However, in my view, which I think goes along with some of the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Wills, we have not debated these issues in a sufficiently coherent context. That seems to be the heart of the problem. We cannot look at one arm of the constitution without considering the effects on its other parts. The interrelationship is of great importance.

I am glad that the coalition has reiterated that its overwhelming priority is to put the economy of this country straight. However, if that is, rightly, its priority, I submit that it is very dangerous to divert and dissipate its efforts on issues such as an elected House of Lords, for which there is no consensus. I propose a way forward to the Leader of the House and I put it in two categories. First, to give more coherence and consideration to the substantial constitutional issues, we should pick up the recommendations in the alternative report on the case for establishing a constitutional convention, but I suggest it as a permanent framework for the consideration of major constitutional issues, in which constitutional developments of major importance in either Chamber would be considered. The future proposed referendum in Scotland would be a major factor; the level of devolution would have a major impact on the constitution. Any changes to EU treaties and any referendums that flow from them would also be relevant, as well as whether there should in the longer term be an elected Chamber. All that should be embraced within a permanent framework of a constitutional convention.

[Lord Wills]

I hesitate to keep intervening, as I have had my say already, but I am very interested in what the noble Lord has just said. When I was the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, I was very attracted to exactly that idea of a constitutional council. It is desperately needed, and I very much welcome his suggestion today, but as soon as I raised the idea officials got extremely anxious and worried about the threats to Parliament, and the pre-emption of the Government of the day and Parliament in proposing these measures. Has the noble Lord given any thought to those sorts of concerns, which will inevitably be brought forward in response to the invaluable suggestion that he has just made?

[Lord Luce]

My suggestion is that we approach this in two ways. The big issues on constitutional aspects should be embraced in the constitutional convention, which should be a permanent framework. Secondly, having said that there is no room for complacency, I think that we should now get on with the pragmatic incremental changes that command a large degree of support—or many of them do, at least, and many were put forward by the Wakeham commission—while the broader constitutional issues are being looked at in order to improve the effectiveness of this House. As noble Lords know, there is no shortage of sensible recommendations, from the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to the proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, on working practices. On many of those I believe that there could be common ground. There is already common ground that the appointments commission should be on a statutory basis and there are already discussions on the need to reduce the size of the House. There are plans and thoughts emerging on the retirement scheme for noble Lords and policies on disqualification and expulsion. We should look at fixed terms. The recommendations from the Goodlad committee have not been properly considered, but the proposals for improving the scrutiny of legislation and strengthening topical debate procedures, for example, would undoubtedly improve the strength of this House.

I believe that we have a forum in the Chamber, through the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which could act as a forum for these pragmatic views to be drawn ahead and to try to achieve a consensus. That is the constructive way forward and an alternative way forward. When I last spoke on this subject last year, I said that, if the House did something like this, I would offer to resign as an incentive for the House to get on with it. If the House is prepared to do that, I am prepared to retire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I am saying that the legislation needs to have a reason behind it. It is all very well to legislate, and I know that from time to time we see legislation which some of us think does not have much reason behind it, but on the whole we regard it as rather important that legislation which reaches our statute book should be grounded in reason. If the democratic mandate is the same for both Houses, it is difficult to see a reason for distinguishing between their democratic authority.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Is it not possible to conceive of a democratic mandate for a revising and scrutinising Chamber? That is precisely the reason for it. It is not necessarily an inferior role, just a different role. That is what needs to be placed in the legislation. I think that most noble Lords who have spoken so far agree with that.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

That is tantamount to asking that the second Chamber be elected not to exercise full democratic authority but to have the authority only to do certain restricted things. That is not exactly an issue although it is certainly a possibility. I have never stood for election on the basis that we are discussing so I do not speak from great experience. However, I think that it must be a little difficult to stand for election if your election would result in your having very restricted authority. One could say, “My policies will not matter tuppence because the policies will be determined by the other electorate”. Such an outcome is possible in theory but would be difficult in practice. This issue has to be faced at some point and dealt with either by restricting the authority of those elected to the second Chamber in some way or by some other method. The other method one could use is that of introducing arbitration between the two Chambers, which has been hinted at in previous speeches. This is the absolutely fundamental and central point and has to be dealt with before we seek consensus when we are not sure what the consensus is supposed to be about.

News Corporation: Conduct of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Lord Wills Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords.

[Lord Wills]

Can the Minister explain what he understands by the extent of the responsibility of a Minister for his special advisers?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, how can I possibly answer that at this stage? I have not seen any of the evidence any more than the noble Lord has.

[Lord Wills]

I was not asking specifically in relation to this case; I was asking generally. What does the Minister understand by the extent of a Minister’s responsibility for his special advisers?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is clearly set out in the Ministerial Code. In this instance, one would expect a special adviser to stick to the agreements and instructions they had been given by their Secretary of State.