Public Office (Accountability) Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Justice

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Baroness Goudie Excerpts
Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. There are a number of issues that we agree on, and I will not repeat them. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lemos on the work he is doing on the Bill and look forward to working with him on some of the issues that I have been working on. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Levitt, who is a very good friend, on the work she has done on the Bill and thank her very much for the time that she given to so many people. She has gone over and above. I thank the Hillsborough families and the families of victims of other awful incidents that have happened where people have not been able to find the truth, who I had the pleasure to work with and meet. I thank the organisations that arranged all the meetings that we were able to have, including our one-to-one meetings on Zoom and so on with families. It is so important, and they all welcome the Bill very much.

I welcome this Second Reading of the Hillsborough law Bill. I start by paying my respects to the victims of the 1989 disaster and the bereaved families who have campaigned tirelessly for nearly four decades to receive their most basic need: the truth about what happened to their loved ones. I welcome the Bill and believe that it will significantly strengthen our judicial system and the processes that affect survivors, families and victims. The Bill embodies what the duty of candour is: to supplement and strengthen data and its disclosure.

First, I will take a moment to discuss the role of the survivor and the bereaved family—who quite often are ignored and pushed aside—within the new process due to be established. The Hillsborough families, devastated by the loss of their loved ones, spent decades in pursuit of information on what happened that tragic day. Without help from others they would not have got there. I thank all those who helped to give them the strength to continue with their fight, while all the while state institutions actively acted in what was a cover-up. This compounded the tragedy of their loss, with their journey for the truth taking decades of pain and anger at the systems that should have protected them. What these families experienced reflected a wider culture where candour had become a rare exception.

I therefore welcome the

“duty of candour and assistance”

that forms the heart of the Bill. During the process of designing ethical codes of practice and conduct, I hope that the Government take heed of the advice of families who have witnessed the system at first hand and work in close consultation with those who have lived through the process, so that the changes reflect the needs of those affected most deeply in practice. A survivor-centred approach is crucial to make this work for those families and for future families and individuals who may have to go through these situations, as we have seen in the health service recently and in other incidents that have been mentioned tonight, so that the delivery is both appropriate and sensitive to their needs and care, and so that they are not pushed aside.

Secondly, I turn to the Bill’s provisions for legal aid and parity of representation. Extending non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is an interested person is a significant and welcome step that corrects the imbalance that has long left grieving families representing themselves or with a friend, quite often without legal help, against a well-resourced state body. We know from Inquest how it has had to work with families to try to get the truth. It is absolutely important that the legal aid budget should be increased. It is not about moving money from one place to another. The legal aid budget must be increased to take care of these issues, not move them about. We have had too many cuts in legal aid over the past 10 years; it is important that that is taken into account. It is key to making the Bill work. We have support from the Law Society, the Bar Council and from other legal entities.

The number of cases could be even more than thought. I think that the figure that I know people are quite worried about is right. I have asked various people about it and it could go up to 11,000, which shows how great the need has been.

Also, we really have to ensure that families do not have to go to other people to raise money. It should be a natural way of life that legal aid should be available. They should be represented properly and to know what happened at that time. The legal profession must ensure that providers’ capacity and funding keep pace with this welcomed expansion.

The Bill gives the bereaved families and survivors, many of whom are women who have carried this campaign for years, a firmer foundation on which they can seek the truth. Although the Bill cannot change the culture overnight, it marks significant progress in our protection of those who have been harmed by the state’s institutions and will dissuade future cover-ups—we do not know what has happened in these recent railway incidents and other ones that have happened just recently. It is important that the Bill is passed and that it works. How it is going to work is what matters after we get the Bill through. We all then have to work on the next stage of how it is implemented.