Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Lords Chamber

15:56

Division 2

Ayes: 222

---

Labour: 120
Liberal Democrat: 58
Crossbench: 32
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Bishops: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Conservative: 1

Noes: 222

---

Conservative: 199
Crossbench: 16
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Non-affiliated: 2
Labour: 1

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.

Amendment 101 disagreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as someone who lives in Wales. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd for the way he introduced this amendment, which, as I understand it, actually reflects the proper constitutional provision. This is, by common ground, a devolved area. The Senedd has competence to legislate for the creation and appointment of an independent advocate for victims of major incidents in Wales. The UK and Welsh Governments agree that is the case, so the Senedd could make provision for Wales. I note the Welsh Government also believe that their Ministers would be able to appoint a non-statutory advocate following an incident in Wales under general executive powers.

As it stands, therefore, we are legislating for a situation in which rival advocates could possibly be appointed at the same time. This may not seem a likely eventuality, but it would be easily prevented by this amendment. The only element of this part of the Bill in which the Senedd could not make provision with regard to Wales is that an advocate for victims appointed under the Bill would automatically secure interested person status in a relevant inquest under Clause 34, but an advocate for victims appointed by Welsh Ministers could still be given interested person status by a senior coroner if they consider them to have sufficient interest.

Clearly, it seems sensible for this legislation to cover both England and Wales, and so for the Welsh Government to be part of the scheme, but it is similarly sensible that the legislation reflects devolution, and enables Welsh Ministers to ensure that the advocate has knowledge in Wales and the necessary ability to do everything in Welsh. I remind the House that there is equal status between the two languages—in Wales, both English and Welsh are spoken—and the systems in Wales sometimes operate quite differently from systems in England.

The Secretary of State acting unilaterally in an area of devolved competence would not seem appropriate, and we need to avoid friction to strengthen the union. This is an opinion only and I am not speaking on behalf of Welsh Government at all, but the Counsel General expressed in the Senedd on 13 December that

“there needs to be specific account in terms of the role of Welsh Government and what would happen within Welsh situations were there to be a tragic event”.

I therefore hope that the amendment will be accepted and will require the consent of Welsh Ministers to be agreed, not simply a consultation. The problem with the consultation is that there is a real risk it could be tokenistic.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, Clause 28 does not apply to Scotland, which can have its own legislation to deal with this matter, but I am very much in favour of the amendment. I have gone over the ground of seeking consent many times in different situations, but in this one, where we are dealing with the choice of advocates, the choice matters very much indeed. I would have thought that there is great sense in the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that this is an area where the consent of Welsh Ministers is not only appropriate but required.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. On Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, it is accepted that the whole question of publicly funded representation at inquests has been a grave injustice for many years. Amendment 118 seeks to correct that injustice, which involves a huge imbalance between the families of victims, public bodies and companies that are liable to be blamed for deaths. All those have representation that they can afford, whereas the families and bereaved do not. That injustice should be put right and this amendment seeks to achieve that.

For all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I support his amendment on the post-mortem process and the code of practice designed to preserve the dignity of the deceased. But I would go a little further: the code of practice needs to look at the whole process that precedes the public part of the inquest.

In recent months, in two separate cases, I have helped the parents and the widow of victims of medical accidents. They have had real difficulties in getting at the truth and securing pathologists’ reports and post-mortem reports from the coroner’s office. Swift availability of such reports and swift disclosure to bereaved parents and families are of great importance. If this amendment were to see the light of day—I understand that it is only probing—I would suggest that the code of practice should go wider than simply preserving the dignity of the bodies to ensuring that bereaved families are not further hurt by avoidable delay, making that history.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

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

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

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the extremely sensitive way in which he has been open to discussions at all times. I know that he has met with many of us individually.

As noble Lords have heard, there was an error with the clerical system, so my name was added to a government amendment; I think the Public Bill Office was overloaded. There is much to commend in the government amendment, but I am not supporting it because I have put my name to amendments to it. I put my name to a lot of the amendments. Others have spoken very clearly to all those amendments.

There seems to be a problem with the government amendments, which is the word “may”. Reading through, one sometime feels that word should become “must”. It would be helpful to have clarification from the Minister on why some of the “mays” are not becoming “musts”. The “must” really makes things happen.

Compensation is long overdue. I remind the House that it was in May 1975, nearly 50 years ago, that the WHO expressed serious concern at the international plasma trade. There has been an enormous erosion of trust, grief and anguish. I even worry when people talk about rebuilding trust, because I think we have to stop it being eroded. From the explanations that I have heard outside this Chamber from the noble Earl, I can see how the Government are really hoping to stop the ongoing erosion of trust. That has to happen before you can start to rebuild it.

The inquiry led by Sir Brian Langstaff made clear recommendations about interim payments and the way a compensation scheme should be managed in the future. I am glad the Government accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, which requires a stated time of implementation within three months of the Bill passing. It is essential that the details of all these processes are looked at very carefully so that they do not leave anyone feeling that anything has been kicked into the long grass yet again. Support and assistance will be essential. That seems like a time when “may” should be changed into “must”, as in Amendment 119T. The interim payments must be made within one month of the Bill passing.

On a High Court judge being the appointed chair, I know the Government have said that they want to keep the options open and somebody excellent may come forward. Somebody may, and they could certainly serve on the board, but, of all the skills that a High Court judge has, they need to be seen to be there to oversee the infected blood compensation authority.

On that authority having among its executive members those infected—involving the infected blood community —I simply reiterate the point that those people will need great support, because it will be extremely difficult for them on that board with some of the decisions that they will have to take and some of the difficulties lying ahead. On the selection process, I hope that the support is adequately available and that not too much falls on the shoulders of any one person.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Perhaps I may add something about High Court judges, having been one myself. It may not be necessary to have a sitting High Court judge, because there are a number of recently retired High Court judges who would be entirely suitable. However, it needs to be a High Court judge who has tried medical cases. I add the fact that many family judges try medical cases quite as much as civil judges. Let us not necessarily be tied to an existing High Court judge.