Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest, I think. I am the unremunerated non-executive chair of the trustees of the Leicester law centre. That is perhaps relevant to something I will say in a moment. Like everyone else I have listened to, I warmly welcome the Bill and would like to see it in force as soon as possible. My main regret is that it has just taken so long to legislate changes that should have been law years and years ago.

The yawning gap between the parties at inquiries and inquests has been obvious for a long time to anyone who wanted to notice. That these changes are at last to become embedded in statute is—I know I am repeating what many have said—due to the strength, patience and courage of all those who have fought so long and against so many obstacles set in their path. First and foremost, obviously, I mean those who lost family and friends nearly 40 years ago now at Hillsborough. Then of course there are those, whoever they are, and there are many, who realised the monstrosity of what had happened at Hillsborough and the monstrosity of the ensuing cover-up, and who remained determined to see justice for those killed and for future generations.

I congratulate the Government on putting these changes into their manifesto and on bringing it to Parliament as a government Bill. However, to praise and support a Bill is not the same thing as saying it is perfect in its present form. I really want this to work as an Act of Parliament but I have to confess that, for me at the moment, the proposed legal aid scheme for inquests seems far from satisfactory, and if persevered with it might seriously affect how well it works in practice. It is how it works in practice that matters.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I obviously welcome the wide increase in the future availability of legal aid at inquests for victims of disasters or state-related deaths. The obligation which means that victims can effectively participate in inquests and the abolition of the means and merits tests are long overdue. It has been argued for years that the present position is deeply unfair, not least by the outstanding Deborah Coles of the organisation Inquest.

Many reports over the years, including that of the commission that I was privileged to chair nine years ago, The Right to Justice, have argued that such changes should happen as soon as possible. Now, at long last, it is happening

“to address any imbalance of power and promote transparency and fairness”,

as the rather excellent Explanatory Notes to the Bill claim.

However, there is some concern that the proposed legal aid fee scheme will, frankly, not be fit to meet the expected increase in relevant inquest cases. The estimate is that they will grow from around 200 to 400 to over 11,000. I personally find that extraordinary and would like to find out what it is based on, but there can be little doubt that there will be an increase. Will there be enough lawyers to do these important cases? Will there be training for those who want to do this work?

A crucial part of this potential problem is the question of whether the proposed legal aid scheme is generous enough to attract the skilled lawyers necessary to make the changes work. This issue arose last year at a meeting held in this building by the All-Party Group on Access to Justice, at which the then Secretary of State, David Lammy, was a speaker. It is a position that has been argued for in documents and briefings that we have received from both the Law Society and the Bar Council.

Another issue to be settled—and which has been raised already—is at what stage legal aid for victims arises. Often, it is fairly obvious early on that there will be interested parties involved many months before the inquest commences, even though their involvement is not formally announced for a long time. For how long should victims have to pay for their lawyers, who they need at an early stage, before the legal aid scheme comes into force?

My last point is that legal aid resources are, of course, limited. There is a concern, shared by a number of people who work in this area, that these changes may result in some of the other legal aid spend being decreased unless the Government take action and ensure this does not happen. I am referring to vital spend on early advice, housing law, benefits, debt and other crucial areas. This Government have taken some desperately needed action in the last two years, but there is no doubt that the ravages caused by the outrageous and ill thought-through Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act have been and continue to be disastrous for this vital sector.

I end my remarks by asking the Minister whether he would be good enough to meet me and others who are concerned about this important aspect of the Bill for a discussion concerning these issues. I am grateful to him. I repeat my support for the Bill and hope for its implementation soon.