Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Personally, I regret that the Government cannot go any further than I have just explained. But it is important to bear in mind, as I have just said, that the Government will review the situation, and if it turns out that it is feasible, correct and proportionate to extend this office—if it turns out to be a great success—the review, once it is up and running, is an opportunity to re-debate this whole issue. At the moment, the Government’s view is: let us not run before we can walk.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

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

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome the Minister saying that four of the other non-executive members—I have numbers, but the point is the principle—should be people affected or infected by blood contamination or people representing such issues, and they should be from all four home nations. Without that commitment to the inclusion of the community there will be no trust, so I very much welcome that.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl for the way in which he introduced this debate. I will speak briefly to the government amendments. Like others, I was disappointed to see the three-month time limit removed, but I appreciate the practical caveats that my noble friend the Minister has raised. I genuinely do not think this is a delaying tactic. He clearly appreciates why some reassurance on timelines is necessary.

In that same spirit, I would like to raise one further matter on the expert group. It will provide advice to the compensation authority and will help develop the framework for compensation. In his letter before Report, my noble friend the Minister acknowledged the need for greater transparency in relation to this group, and that the Government would therefore publish the terms of reference. They have now done this, and we are very grateful. However, the membership has been redacted, which has quite reasonably upset many of the infected and affected. I am sure my noble friend can see why people are dismayed that the names of the legal and clinical experts have been kept secret. I know that people will be very keen to understand why this has happened.

I can conclude only that this is an incredibly sensitive area; we know that. I appreciate that the group has attracted some controversy, not least because of the chair’s connections with Bayer, although no one doubts his personal integrity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, has just said very powerfully, the infected and affected have been deceived and misled for more than a quarter of a century. As with other national scandals, the cover-up is at least as bad as than the original offence, if not worse, so transparency is obviously key.

To reiterate, it is understandable that people will view this body with distrust if they do not know who is sitting on it. These are people who will be making decisions on their futures and the futures of their families. Given everything that they have been through, I do not think it is fair or acceptable. We all hope that we are reaching the end of a very long road, and it would not be right for all those infected and affected to face another hurdle or to have to fight another fight.

That is the moral point; I have one practical point. My noble friend the Minister has made it very clear that he would like the infected and affected to have a role in the compensation authority and that this will be critical. I completely agree with him, but anyone taking part from that community would expect, and no doubt want, to be accountable to their peers, even if they knew that meant there could be some difficult moments in the future. It would certainly be very hard for them to take on that role in secret. That would mean that we would end up in a position with one rule for the experts and one rule for those affected. That would be a very difficult position to be in. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could tell us why this anonymity has been allowed and whether the Government will consider lifting it, given the circumstances.