Victims and Prisoners Bill (Third sitting)

Janet Daby Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

Thank you very much.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Q Good morning. Do you think that the duty of candour should be extended to include public servants, so that they have to proactively tell the truth? Shall we start with you, Bishop?

Rt Rev James Jones: Yes, I think that there should be a duty of candour on all public officials. Anybody who accepts public office should bind themselves according to their own conscience to speak with candour and not to dissemble when called upon to give the truth and an account of what has happened. But I do not think that that is part of this Bill.

[Janet Daby]

It is not, but it could be included, so it is important to get your perspective. Ken?

Ken Sutton: The bishop referred to how the independent public advocate could urge the public authorities not only to adopt the charter, but to live by it. I think the influence of the independent public advocate would be to bring about more candour in the terrible circumstances that we are imagining, beyond what would otherwise be the default. Unfortunately, we have seen many examples where candour has not been apparent in those kinds of circumstances. The IPA could help to hold public authorities to a position of candour.

[Janet Daby]

Thank you very much.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Q This may be my misunderstanding, but I want to ask about the argument for having a standing independent public advocate rather than somebody brought in to respond to a specific incident. I understand why you would want a standing IPA—if they are primed and ready, they can respond with more speed—but there is merit in having somebody dedicated to a particular incident, especially in awful circumstances where there are a number of different national incidents all at once.

Is it the proposal that a standing IPA would basically step aside once the specific IPA got involved? How do you see it all working in practice? That is what I cannot get my head around.

Ken Sutton: I certainly have not seen them standing completely aside. The independent public advocate would have an authority through that office that would be beneficial going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Thank you very much.

[Janet Daby]

Q Good afternoon, Lord Wills. We last met when you spoke to the Justice Committee, of which I am a member. Do you believe that the independent public advocate should have the ability to access all data, communications, documents and other information to avoid future cover-ups? If so, do you think that the Bill achieves that?

Lord Wills: The prevention of a cover-up is essential in the wider interests of our democracy. People are losing faith in our democratic institutions. When they feel that Governments are covering up things that are crucial to them, they lose faith. In my view, that is worrying and dangerous. We have to do everything we can to protect against that, so anything we can do to raise the barriers against those sorts of cover-ups is crucial. That is why I would also support the introduction of a duty of candour.

We have to accept that a cover-up is part of the pathology of a big public disaster. It is human nature. When something happens like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing or Grenfell Tower, it is a huge story for the nation, and obviously those in power at the time, who feel they might be blamed for it, will feel that they have to cover up in some way. We saw what the police did with Hillsborough: they created a false narrative as part of that cloud of unknowing that they wanted to create, to cover up. What they feared, rightly in the end, was that they would be blamed for it.

That is true of pretty much every public disaster: obviously the details are different, but there is that essential pathology. There is always a risk of cover-up. I hope this Bill, suitably amended, will raise the barriers against that, but it does not mean that we can drop our vigilance against the potential.

[Janet Daby]

Q You mentioned this point, and want to press you a little further. The Bill would require the Secretary of State to publish a copy of the report made by the independent public advocate in whatever manner they considered appropriate. What do you think about that measure, specifically the part about what they consider appropriate?

Lord Wills: Again, the Secretary of State has too much unfettered discretion. I am not opposed to them having the ultimate responsibility, but you have identified there a very good example of giving the Secretary of State what, in my view, they should not have.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have three more people. We have Janet Daby, then Sarah Champion, then Jess Phillips.

[Janet Daby]

Q Good afternoon. My questions are about legal aid, and whether it should be extended as non means-tested legal aid to all cases where there are mass fatalities and where public bodies are potentially at fault. I am interested in your opinion on that. Can we start with you, Tim?

Tim Suter: I do not know all the ins and outs of the legal aid regime. For a public inquiry, section 40 allows the chair to make the provision for lawyers—for legal representation—at public expense. In that sense, there is already the ability to grant funding. For inquests, I absolutely agree that it goes to equality of arms, and that there must be the ability for bereaved families to be properly legally represented. It makes my job harder, sometimes, but that is a thoroughly good thing—that I can be asked, “Why are you advising the chair or the coroner to take this view? Have you taken this into account?” Having that makes it a proper inquisitorial process—a search for the truth—so yes, I agree.

[Janet Daby]

Q Thank you, Tim. Would you agree on that, Nick, in terms of equality of arms and as a matter of right?

Nick Hurd: Yes, I do. It came up in the Grenfell context. You will understand that what I call the system tends to try to stay rational in these situations and try to respect their processes and structures, but in my experience in these seismic moments it is better to be decisive, up front and generous and just show that you are on their side with a decisive offer such as that.

[Janet Daby]

Q I have a further question on the area of duty of candour. Do you believe that should be extended to public servants so that they must proactively tell the truth? Can I start with you, Nick?

Nick Hurd: I have discussed this with the bishop. I am, again, in favour in principle of the duty of candour.

[Janet Daby]

Wonderful. Tim?

Tim Suter: The duty of candour obviously makes sense. I would just urge some caution in terms of the process of, the role of, the IPA for getting access to material, if that is a duty that is brought in. I think there is a risk of duplication of effort and added complexity if the IPA is to have the role of gathering and holding material. I think it should have the ability to direct public authorities to retain material, but I do not think it should go further. I think there might also need to be a check in the Bill about the role of FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, because for the 2005 Act, an inquiry is not a public authority that is subject to FOIA. Here, I think that does not necessarily carry across, so that probably needs to be looked at.

[Janet Daby]

Q So you are saying that the independent advocate should have the right to have access to the information, but the information should be held within the public body. Is that what you are saying?

Tim Suter: I think the organisation should retain it, because there will be materials that are subject to legal professional privilege and materials that are subject or potentially subject to public interest immunity; there will be other confidences attaching to materials. Embarking on a process of redaction of that material by the IPA—when, gosh, you are in the foothills of what is going to be a very long process, I suspect—will take the IPA away from its key job of advocating on behalf of the families to make sure they get access to services. So I would urge caution.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Very short answer.

Ruth Davison: The default should be non-disclosure, but a judge decision, yes—not an outright ban. Hopefully that was quick enough.

[Janet Daby]

Q Ruth, you mentioned a culturally-specific disadvantage there already. What would you like to see in the Bill regarding cultural sensitivity and culturally-specific—

[The Chair]

Very quick answer.

Ruth Davison: Very briefly, at the moment women who have no recourse to public funds are completely locked out of any provision. We would like to see that change, and that has been costed by Imkaan. We would also like to see that there is more funding and more support for the “by and for” services, which is where our slight concern around definitions of IDVA and ISVA would come in—