Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an important Bill. The Government deserve credit for seeking to address many of the ways that victims of crimes and public disasters have been let down by the state over the years. I pay tribute to the Victims’ Commissioner, as many others have tonight. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, deserves credit for the way in which she has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of victims for over a decade.

However, it is disappointing that, in many areas, the Government have not gone as far as they could have done, and should have done, to provide better protection for victims. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that his door was always open, and he has certainly proved that to me personally. I hope that he has taken careful note of the number of speakers who tonight have said that this Bill just does not go far enough.

Why, for example, have the Government not introduced a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, to ensure that children who have been forced into committing crimes are recognised as victims, not as perpetrators? Why, for example, are victims and survivors of rape who have had the courage to report appalling acts of sexual violence still being denied adequate legislation and guidance to prevent intrusive and inappropriate requests for survivors’ personal records? That forces them often to choose between vitally needed therapy and the pursuit of justice. Furthermore, there is no adequate means of enforcement of the victims’ code.

I want to focus my remarks on Part 2 of the Bill, relating to victims of major incidents. This derives from my two Private Member’s Bills, which endeavoured to set up an independent public advocate to act on behalf of the victims of large-scale public disasters and those bereaved by them. It has been a long journey to get to this stage. I introduced my first Private Member’s Bill nearly a decade ago. Since then, I have campaigned to get it adopted by the Government, as has my colleague and friend in the other place, the right honourable Maria Eagle MP, who has campaigned to get a similar Bill adopted there. The proposal went into the Conservative manifesto in 2017, and into the subsequent Queen’s Speech. And so finally here we are.

Throughout this process, successive Ministers and their officials have been generous with their time in consulting me. I place on record my thanks to all of them, including most recently the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I am particularly grateful to the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May MP, who immediately saw the merits of this proposal when she was Prime Minister and has campaigned for it ever since. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for her kind remarks about this; she was a very important member of that team that first brought the independent public advocate into seeing a serious possibility of legislation. She also deserves tribute for her part in this long journey to where we are tonight.

The Government have shown themselves willing to listen, and the version of Part 2 that is now before your Lordships’ House is a significant improvement on the original, profoundly flawed draft. However, it still will not deliver what victims of public disasters and those bereaved by such disasters want and need. The extraordinary persistence, dignity and solidarity of the Hillsborough families’ campaign that generated the momentum that led to the development of the concept of the independent public advocate really deserve better.

The challenge—and it is a challenge—is to strike a balance between the impartial discharge of justice and good government on the one hand and protecting the interests and feelings of the bereaved and injured survivors on the other. My Bill sought to establish two fundamental pillars of a new system, based around the institution of an independent public advocate, both of which this Bill fails to deliver.

The first pillar was transparency. Without it, the bereaved will never achieve anything approaching closure, and, without it, it is difficult and often impossible for the public policy lessons to be learned and necessary reforms made. The second pillar—and this is important in everything that we have heard tonight about what the state should be doing better for victims—was ensuring that victims and the bereaved have some agency in the process. No longer must they be left on the sidelines, dealing with unimaginable grief and loss while the state proceeds, apparently on their behalf, but without giving them any agency in the process. The Government’s proposals do not provide any guaranteed mechanism for securing full transparency, such as the Hillsborough independent panel achieved, and they deny victims and the bereaved any effective agency.

The Government’s view appears to be that, as His Majesty’s Government are democratically accountable, they must be able to wield the executive power for which they will be held to account by Parliament and the electorate. This is not an unreasonable approach, but it does not mean that they should deny bereaved families any effective agency at all in these matters, which is the current position, and nor can it justify any failure to maximise transparency. Again, that appears to be the current position of the Government.

As I have suggested before in your Lordship’s House, one way forward might be to specify that the Secretary of State, in proceeding with an independent public advocate, must act with regard to the dues of bereaved families, the benefits of an independent public advocate and/or an inquiry and/or a Hillsborough-type panel, including in relation to cost, timeliness and transparency, and any wider public interest. Crucially, I have suggested that the Secretary of State must—not may—produce a debatable report to Parliament justifying why they have proceeded as they have done and why, if they have not exercised this power, they have not done so, and that this debatable report should be produced as soon as possible after the public disaster. James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, in his masterful report, to which the Government have only just responded, points out that any delay allows these public organisations to protect themselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, has just said, and produce a false narrative. We saw that demonstrated graphically in the case of the Hillsborough disaster.

As the Bill progresses though your Lordships’ House, I will bring forward amendments to try to achieve greater transparency and greater agency for the families. I hope the Government are really listening and will find it in themselves to adopt them—I cannot see any reason why they should not.

Finally, I take this opportunity to urge the Government to reconsider their long-delayed and half-hearted response to Bishop James Jones’s report on the Hillsborough disaster, aptly titled The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power, and to use the legislative opportunity of the Criminal Justice Bill, or indeed this Bill, to introduce a statutory duty of candour for those operating across public services, such as policing, health, social care and housing. By requiring openness and transparency, a statutory duty of candour would assist in creating much-needed cultural change in how state bodies approach inquests and inquiries. It would give confidence to individual members of those organisations who want to assist such inquiries and investigations but may be experiencing quite intolerable pressure, in many circumstances, not to do so. We must see an end to these sorts of evasive and obstructive practices by state bodies following deaths in these circumstances. We have seen, all too often, the damage that this causes, not least following the Hillsborough disaster. A statutory duty of candour would help end this.

The families bereaved at Hillsborough fought a dignified, indomitable campaign for decades to secure truth and justice for those they lost. By ensuring that those similarly bereaved in future never have to endure what they endured, the institution of the independent public advocate will be a legacy for their struggle and for their loved ones. I ask the Government to make it a meaningful legacy and give all the Hillsborough families hope that the Government will be prepared to amend the Bill in the ways I have described.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

119A: Clause 28, page 29, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) occurs or occurred in England and Wales,”

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 119A to 119C in my name have been drafted to allow the independent public advocate to act for the victims of incidents, or series of events, that might have occurred before the passage of the Bill. As currently drafted, the Bill does not permit this.

Underpinning my original conception of the independent public advocate in my two Private Members’ Bills that were the genesis of this part of the Bill was the belief in the need for greater support and agency for those who had been failed by the state—which is meant to serve them—in what the Bill describes as “major incidents”. This is particularly the case when the full extent of such an incident may be revealed only over a period of time. In these circumstances, it is perverse to exclude from such support, which is outlined in the Bill the sub-postmasters whose lives were wrecked by the Horizon scandal, for example, or those whose lives were devastated by contaminated blood transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s, or by nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. These are all catastrophic events that have, in some cases, become apparent only over quite a long period of time.

The victims need the support of the independent public advocate as they continue to search for justice and to right the wrongs that were done to them. These amendments will rectify this problem with the Bill’s current drafting. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I have a very short amendment—wholly unrelated to what has just been put forward—and I thank those in the Whips’ Office for suggesting that it remain in this group, and not, as I had proposed, move to a later group, which would be reached much later this evening. It does not really matter which group it is in, because it does not really affect anything else. It is a simple, short point in relation to the co-operation between Governments within the union and, therefore, has to do with devolution.

Clause 33 sets out the functions of the advocate who is to be appointed in respect of a major incident. None of the functions in this clause is a reserved matter, so under the Government of Wales Act, the Senedd has the powers to appoint. Therefore, in any particular incident, the Senedd could make provision so that it could appoint its own advocates. I do not believe a different view is taken by the Government in London.

It may also be the case that Welsh Ministers can appoint a non-statutory inquiry following a major incident in Wales, but that is not the kind of point to go into at this hour. The only power that the Senedd could not make provision for is for an advocate appointed under the Act to automatically secure interested person status in a statutory inquiry—those powers are reserved as they are part of the justice powers. Of course, a public advocate appointed by the Welsh Ministers would be free to apply for interested person status, and would probably get it—so I do not think it makes any practical difference. As I understand it, this point has caused the Senedd’s consent to the legislative consent memorandum to be qualified and reserved until this matter is resolved.

There are four short points to make. First, it seems sensible that the Welsh Government are involved as part of the scheme if there is a major incident in Wales. That would avoid any possibility of duplication. Secondly, it is important that the Welsh Government have a say in the person appointed. The advocate must have knowledge of Wales as well as the necessary ability to do everything in Welsh as well as English, since in Wales, English and Welsh have equal status.

Thirdly, significantly, it would be a further step in underpinning by statute co-operation between the Governments as part of the normal exercise of shared functions within a union. Fourthly, the Minister provided the greatest possible help in achieving something similar in relation to mission statements in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, as provided for now in Section 2 of that Act. This seems to be yet another step that can be taken to put in place a strong statutory framework for co-operation to ensure that there is no duplication and there is good working co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing forward the amendments in this group. All but one relate to the important issue of the definition of a major incident and its scope. I will address them in turn.

First, I will respond to Amendments 119A, 119B and 119C from the noble Lord, Lord Wills. These amendments seek to expand the scope of the independent public advocate scheme to include an event or series of linked events which have occurred prior to this section coming into force. In practical terms, as he has made clear, they would introduce a retrospective element to the scheme, allowing the Secretary of State to declare historic events as major incidents and to appoint an advocate accordingly. The noble Lord has brought this important issue to the Government’s attention. It is right that we should debate it.

At the outset, I need to state the Government’s position. Incidents which occur wholly—I emphasise “wholly”—before this part is commenced are not in the scope of this scheme. I recognise that the tragic events of the past and the experiences of those impacted by them have clearly highlighted the need for the independent public advocate. I do not mean to suggest otherwise. However, the IPA is designed as a forward-looking initiative to assist victims in the immediate aftermath of a major incident when there are investigations, inquests and inquiries into what happened. The scheme is intended as a way of providing support at an early stage. Given this, the Government believe that there would be limited additional benefit in appointing an advocate to support victims of incidents where the official processes are at an advanced stage or may have already concluded.

As the Bill stands, I can confirm that the definition of a major incident already covers either a single-time incident, or a series of linked incidents. It does not allow for the advocate to support the families of those who died or individuals who were seriously harmed by any linked incidents which occurred prior to the Bill’s commencement. Having said that, I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that recent events have shown that it can take time for events and their circumstances to become clear. There may be instances where these events do not occur during the same time period. I was grateful for the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on that theme.

I understand the importance of getting right the definition of a major incident. I have therefore asked my officials to consider it further. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to continue engaging with the noble Lord about this so that we can return to it on Report.

I turn to Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which seeks to expand the definition of a major incident and therefore the IPA scheme. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to declare a major incident in circumstances that do not meet the threshold of a significant number of deaths or those suffering serious harm but attract a significant public interest.

It is important for me to make it clear that the impetus for establishing a public advocate has been the experience of victims following past disasters that were exceptional, presented unique challenges and involved multiple organs of the state, which victims found difficult to navigate or have their voices heard by. The Government believe that it is important that the scope of this scheme is controlled and is clearly focused on assisting victims of major incidents which are, by their nature, rare. This amendment would set a possible expectation that the IPA might be appointed to support victims who have been involved in smaller-scale incidents, especially those where there are very few injuries or fatalities, which is not the policy intention.

There is a further and possibly helpful point that I can make. Arguably, the Secretary of State already has a broad discretion in the Bill to declare a major incident and to interpret the term “significant”. For those reasons, the Government, at this time, do not believe that this change is necessary. The public interest will also be one of the considerations that the Secretary of State will have in mind when making their decision, and more detail on this will be included in the policy statement.

Lastly, proposed new subsection (2B)(a) of this amendment seems to imply that blame or liability must have been found prior to this power being exercised. If the Secretary of State were to act quickly, they may risk prejudicing any subsequent investigation, which would not serve the interests of victims.

I am afraid that the amendment runs counter to the Government’s policy intention, but I hope that it is helpful that I have pointed out that potential element of discretion that is built into the wording in the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will understand why we cannot support the amendment.

Lastly, I turn to Amendment 126 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, which would require the Secretary of State to obtain the concurrence, or in other words the agreement, of Welsh Ministers before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident occurring in Wales. The purpose of the independent public advocate scheme is to support victims of major incidents. This Government agree that these functions fall within the devolved competence of the Welsh Senedd, with the exception of the amendments to the Coroners and Justice Act, which Clause 34 provides for.

The Ministry of Justice has engaged with officials in the Welsh Government during the development of this policy. It is clear that there is great benefit to having a single scheme that covers England and Wales to provide consistency of service. Our discussions with the Welsh Government are ongoing, as we seek a legislative consent Motion for these measures. Ministers in the UK Government will write to Welsh Ministers shortly, setting out a proposal for their role with regard to declaring a major incident which occurs wholly in Wales, and the subsequent appointment of an advocate in respect of that major incident.

I hope that that reassures the noble and learned Lord that this is a live issue that is very much on the radar of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. He is very much aware of the devolution implications, and we are actively working to find a solution. The Government will bring forward any necessary amendments on Report, and I am happy to return to this topic at that time.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this short discussion and to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his remarks, and particularly for his cogent justifications for these amendments in terms of retrospection, which were an extremely valuable contribution to the debate. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, for their support too.

I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for his open mind on this issue, if I may take it that far—or at least a willingness to continue discussion on what is quite a crucial question. I am very happy to do that, and I shall withdraw the amendment shortly.

I just want to say a few words about the Minister’s comments. He stressed the word “wholly”—major incidents that happened wholly in the past. That is a very important word, because it means when the incident no longer has any impact on the victim. In most cases—to think of the bereaved or those who suffered, not necessarily directly but indirectly, as in the examples from both the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby—such incidents are by definition not wholly in the past. The postmasters’ suffering is not wholly in past, even though the damage was done in the past. Similarly, for the victims of blood transfusions and their relatives, and the victims of nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s, these are ongoing traumas. They are the people who need the support of the independent public advocate.

I am, as I say, very happy to carry on this discussion in the hope that we can find some sort of resolution. A large number of people are still grievously affected by these major incidents, and I hope that this rare legislative opportunity to help them can be seized. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 119A withdrawn.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

123A: Clause 29, page 30, line 8, at beginning insert “Within one month of the passing of this Act,”

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the appointments, functions and processes for the independent public advocate in different ways. They are all designed to secure the greater independence and effectiveness of the advocate.

Given that it has been almost seven years since the creation of an independent public advocate featured in the 2017 Queen’s Speech, Amendment 123A simply removes any further possibility for the Government to unnecessarily delay the implementation of this post. Amendment 123B ensures that Parliament fulfils its function of scrutiny in respect of the appointment of the independent public advocate. Sadly, as many of your Lordships will be well aware, Ministers cannot always be relied upon to act benignly when scrutiny of their Government’s actions is involved. It is therefore crucial that they be held to account by Parliament in these matters and that Parliament retains a role in the appointment of the independent public advocate.

As the Minister will be aware, the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Accounts Select Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee already fulfil this function of approval for some key public appointments, and for good reason. That good reason must surely apply in the case of the independent public advocate. It must be essential that the public and those who need the services of the independent public advocate can have complete faith in the integrity and independence of the advocate, and a parliamentary confirmatory hearing will help to secure that.

Amendment 123C provides an alternative route for the appointment of the independent public advocate and a trigger mechanism for the retrospective appointment of the advocate. Clearly, this would become applicable only in the event that the Secretary of State decided not to appoint an independent public advocate. I am aware of the Government’s concerns about fettering the freedom of the Secretary of State’s action over the appointment of an advocate and the scope of their powers. In that context, I stress that this amendment creates no statutory fetter on the Secretary of State’s freedom of action. However, it does entrench a parliamentary role for the operation of this position and provides an additional safeguard for the interests of victims.

I spoke on the previous day in Committee about the need for retrospection. As I said then, it seems perverse to exclude from the support of the advocate those to whom the original damage was caused before the passage of the Bill but who have still to secure justice for it and who still suffer the consequence of it, such as those postmasters whose lives were wrecked by the Horizon scandal, and those whose lives were devastated by the transfusion of contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s or by nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. This amendment provides a trigger mechanism for such an appointment of the independent public advocate, as it were in retrospection. I envisage that it might come into effect, for example, when the relevant Select Committee had investigated a particular “major incident”, in the language of the Bill, and concluded that victims still suffering the consequences would benefit from the assistance of the independent public advocate. Again, I stress that this would not impose a statutory fetter on the Secretary of State, but it might spur them on to action if they had not already taken it. However, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to justify their decision to Parliament and render them subject to scrutiny of their decision to reject such a recommendation. I hope that the Government might recognise that it is in the interests of victims that any decisions by the Secretary of State in this area should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. After all, we remain a parliamentary democracy—despite some recent attempts to subvert it.

Amendment 124A is perhaps the most important of this group of amendments that I have tabled, because it entrenches the timely achievement of transparency as a key task of the independent public advocate. The amendment avoids being overly prescriptive about what powers the independent public advocate might require to establish an effective fact-finding inquiry to secure timely transparency for the victims, the bereaved and the wider public, because obviously the circumstances of every major incident will be different. However, this might well include placing the advocate in the position of data controllers, so they would be enabled to see all the relevant documentation and report on it without necessarily being able, under data protection regulations, to publish all the data.

In his letter to Peers, the Minister—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy—set out the reasons for the Government resisting such powers, and they are worth quoting, because to me they exemplify many of the problems with the Government’s approach. He said that

“a new and competing investigative body would be disruptive, duplicative and risk undermining or prejudicing other investigations which are seeking to establish the truth or assign liability”.

I am afraid these assertions are not borne out by evidence. The role need not compete with other investigations under the terms of this amendment. If the Secretary of State believes that such power would not be in the public interest, nothing in this amendment would force them to grant it. It remains at the Secretary of State’s discretion. However, this amendment forces the Secretary of State to justify such a decision, in respect of the fact that they made it with regard to timeliness, cost, transparency, and the emotional and financial interests of the victims.

--- Later in debate ---

Lastly, I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 133ZA, which would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to commission a review of the operation and effectiveness of an advocate appointed in respect of a major incident, to lay the outcome of this review before Parliament within six months of this Act passing, and to implement any recommendations made for improving their effectiveness within six months of the review’s publication. Perhaps at this point I could express my thanks to the noble Lord for his engagement on these issues with my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy and me the week before last. The Government understand and appreciate the intention behind this amendment. This new statutory office that we are creating is novel and the first of its kind. It is completely right that we monitor and evaluate new initiatives to ensure that they achieve their purpose and deliver for the end-user—in this case, victims of major incidents. The noble Lord spoke very powerfully. I believe my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy was clear that the way that we do this is something that the Government are willing to consider further. I know that my noble and learned friend would be happy to work with the noble Lord on the matter, ahead of the next stage in this Bill’s passage, if he would find that helpful.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken to this group of amendments. I think everyone, with the exception of the Minister, has spoken broadly in support of them. As always, I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his extremely courteous and open response to quite a weighty volume of amendments which covered quite a lot of ground.

On the basic question of further engagement with Ministers and officials, I would be delighted. I am extremely grateful for the offer, and I hope we can arrange something in the very near future, in good time before Report, to deal with some of these questions. Quite a lot of them are details of drafting, and I may well have misunderstood the intent of the drafting. It may be that some further clarification is needed. These are details in the drafting of the amendments, and I am very grateful to move forward on them. The review question, dealt with in Amendment 133ZA, is similarly complex, and I am glad that, when we spoke a few days ago, the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, seemed to welcome the principle. It would be good if we could clarify that and bolt it down to something practical that will work.

Amendment 124A is on the crucial question of fact-finding and transparency. I think the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to it as a modest amendment. If I had any hope of the Government accepting something more radical, I would have been far less modest, but I do not, I am afraid. The Minister’s response confirmed my worries about this. He repeated what has always been the Government’s position: that the role of the advocate is essentially a pastoral one—that advising the Secretary of State, as the Minister just described, is really only a baby step away from what is essentially a pastoral role. That really is not sufficient. Merely reiterating the Government’s purpose does not justify the purpose; it only shows that, for some reason I really do not understand—I really do not understand it, because I can see no practical benefit of it at all, to anybody—the Government are resistant to giving the public advocate further powers.

It is not a question of defensiveness over a particular issue. As the Minister said, the Bill is not retrospective at the moment, although I welcome his indication that he may be able to introduce that element of retrospection. I am frankly baffled. Timeliness is so important for victims who are suffering unimaginable trauma and grief, and all of whom, in their different ways, are seeking closure, because they fail to understand what has happened to their loved ones, out of a clear blue sky, and are given no explanation for why what happened has happened. As the magisterial report on Hillsborough by Bishop James, the former Bishop of Liverpool, shows, these delays allow those in power to construct false narratives about what happened. We saw that graphically at Hillsborough, when the Sun newspaper and the former Prime Minister told lies about football fans who lost their lives because of the negligence of the police.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I meant to respond to the very pertinent points the noble Lord made on the cost and duration of public inquiries. He is, of course, quite right. This is a matter of concern. It is not for a trivial reason that your Lordships’ House is looking at this very issue in one of its special committees at the moment. However, one of the advantages, as we see it, of the IPA will be that he will be able to recommend to the Secretary of State a non-statutory route to inquiring or looking into incidents. I am sure that his or her voice in making such a recommendation will, for entirely the reasons that the noble Lord cites, be a very powerful lever in the process.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister; he pre-empted me, as he could see where I was going to go next with this. He is quite right that the Inquiries Act 2005 is increasingly widely recognised as clunky and in need of revision, but that is not for now. That is inevitably going to be a lengthy process, and certainly for another Parliament, but we have this Bill in front of us.

Giving the public advocate power to advise the Secretary of State has no teeth at all. We know how Ministers take advice: sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. In the meantime, the victims, for whom this Bill is intended, go on suffering. While the Secretary of State decides and deliberates and moves on, is sacked, reshuffled and all the rest of it, the victims go on suffering the agony of not knowing what has happened to their loved ones, while over and again those in power use taxpayers’ money to construct false narratives. There is no end in sight to that in this Bill.

We have the opportunity to give real power to the independent public advocate, speaking on behalf of victims who have been left abandoned, over and again, for years and decades. The person who is meant to represent them “may” be given the power to advise the Secretary of State, who can then do what he or she likes, with no accountability—nothing. I urge the Government to look again at this.

Notwithstanding the obvious problems with public inquiries, here is a chance to do something. We have the model. The Hillsborough Independent Panel, which was set up by a Labour Government and championed by a Conservative Home Secretary and Prime Minister in the right honourable Theresa May MP, with cross-party support, is universally accepted as a model of how these things can operate. Yet the Government persist in rejecting the possibility for the independent public advocate to set up something like that in future.

Why? We know that it can save money. We know that it can produce a timely explanation of what happened, which is of incalculable benefit to victims. Yet the Government go on resisting it. Timeliness, cost benefits and transparency; what is not to love about those virtues? Yet the Government resist it. As I say, I am baffled. We will return to these issues on Report. I am grateful to everyone, and particularly to the Minister, for his approach to all this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 123A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, I have been happy to sit and listen as we went through the rest of the Bill, but I totally support these amendments. To not have to listen to the victim’s voice beggars belief. The whole point of having an advocate for a major incident is so that the views can be heard. I agree that, by not asking the victim’s point of view, this feels very much like lip service and an insult to the victims who are going through a horrific trauma. Are we not going to learn anything from Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester Arena? This will even add fuel to the fire. I totally agree with everything that has been said. It is very important that the voices of victims are heard, right through this, when reporting to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly—the Minister will be relieved to hear—to support these amendments. What is important about them is that they would put on a statutory basis that the views of the victims will be communicated to the Secretary of State. As I have already said at some length, we need to do more and give more teeth to the powers of the independent public advocate, but this is a good step forward. I hope that the Government can accept these amendments, which really are not contentious.

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

My Lords, this group concerns the obtaining of the views of victims by the standing advocate and their being taken into account, or relayed to the Secretary of State so that they can be taken into account. The central point was that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. If victims of major incidents are to be given a voice and that voice is to be heard, they need, under this scheme, the standing advocate to be that voice—a voice that co-ordinates and articulates the victims’ response. It will often be a joint or combined voice and the stronger for that.

Under Amendment 124, the type of review or inquiry held would be the subject of the views that must be obtained and relayed. It is a matter on which the views of victims are strongly held. They are often views that are in conflict with the views of the Government. That is a central point about independence.

The next point under this amendment is their views on

“their treatment by public authorities in response to the major incident”.

Again, this is an area of not invariable but regular conflict between victims and government. The questions that arise are, “Was enough done to avoid the incident?”, “Was what was done done in time?”, and “Were sufficient resources devoted to relief and recovery after the incident?”. All those are crucial issues on which the voice of victims needs to be independently heard and taken into account.

Amendment 125 concerns the appointment of additional advocates and says the Secretary of State must seek victims’ views on whether to appoint additional advocates and whom to appoint. Again, that is a requirement that is plainly right, because the identity of the advocate and the appointment of additional advocates matter to victims, who are extremely concerned to know that the investigation and any inquiries are going to be properly carried out.

Finally, the views of the victims to be taken into account include the views that they express before the termination of an appointment of an advocate. Again, that is self-evidently right. We have in a later group an amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, removing the right of the Secretary of State to remove the standing advocate on such grounds as he thinks appropriate. I put my name to that. That is an important amendment that we will address when it comes, but it goes hand in hand with this amendment because the purpose of both reflects the reality that inquiries into major incidents may cast light on failings of government or organs of government that may cause the Government embarrassment.

One of the chief virtues of the independent public advocate system proposed in this Bill is precisely its independence of government. It is therefore essential that an advocate appointed to represent victims’ interests should be clear and free to carry out those functions fearlessly. If that involves criticism of government or individual Ministers, those criticisms should be made and investigated. The views of victims on the termination of an advocate’s appointment will therefore be central to that process. They should be central to any consideration of the termination of an advocate’s employment. That should not be left to the Secretary of State without regard to the views of victims.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

102: Clause 28, page 29, line 10, at end insert “or has occurred before that date, provided that serious harm to the victims is ongoing after this section comes into force,”

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall combine my remarks on Amendment 102 with those on Amendments 103, 105 and 106.

Amendments 102, 103 and 105 seek to remove an unfair and irrational restriction on the role of the independent public advocate. I spoke in Committee at some length about how my original conception of this position in my Private Member’s Bill was driven by the pressing need for greater support and agency for those have been failed by the state and by public authorities in major incidents. Those who can avail themselves of the services of the advocate must include those for whom harm continues after a major incident, even though the major incident occurred before the passage of the Act.

Can there really be any serious justification for excluding, for example, the victims of contaminated blood transfusions and the postmasters whose lives were wrecked and continue to be wrecked by the Horizon scandal—people still struggling with the consequences of those failures by the state and by public authorities, even though the failures occurred before now?

I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister would address this question directly: what justification is there to restrict the role of the advocate to exclude those such as the victims of contaminated blood transfusions? These amendments would rectify this specific problem in the current draft of the Bill.

In asking the Minister to respond to that question, I should perhaps have preceded my remarks by thanking him for the great generosity of time that he has given me, with his officials—to whom I am also extremely grateful—in discussing all the elements of this part of the Bill. He has gone over and above the call of duty. That I am one of many speakers thanking him for that shows the extent of this House’s debt to him and his officials in the progress of the Bill.

Amendment 106 is a relatively minor amendment but, after two Private Member’s Bills, it occurred to me that we perhaps should be more careful about how we define those who might benefit from the services of the of an independent public advocate. What constitutes a “close family member” in the modern world? Fifty or 100 years ago, the answer would have been common sense, but it is not any more. Living arrangements and relationships are much more various than they ever used to be. “Close” and “family” are, in effects, often disputable terms, and the current draft of the Bill is perhaps purposefully vague. For example, who will decide whether a parent estranged from their partner and who is no longer responsible for the upbringing of a child victim counts as a close family member? What happens if the person in question disputes any exclusion from the services of the advocate? If we at all can, we should try to head off such arguments beforehand, because they would only compound the grief and trauma suffered by many in the aftermath of a major incident.

This amendment seeks to avoid that, although it is, in essence, probing. If the Government have a better formulation, I would be happy to consider it, but it seeks to do so by introducing the specific definitions that have been derived from the intestacy provisions.

Amendment 106A tries to ensure that the post is implemented with proper timeliness. In Committee, I pointed out that it has been nearly seven years since the creation of an independent public advocate featured in the 2017 Queen’s Speech. The amendment seeks to remove any further possibility that the Government will unnecessarily delay the implementation of this post. In his response in Committee, the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly pointed out the need to observe due process in public appointments, so the amendment has been tweaked to take better account of that than my previous one.

In doing so, I had regard to the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Among other things, the code says that appointments should be completed

“within three months of a competition closing”.

In 2019, the Commissioner for Public Appointments found that the Ministry of Justice, where ministerial responsibility for the independent public advocate will reside, completed only 18% of appointments within that three-month target. Only the Home Office and BEIS had worse figures. To show that these figures are achievable, that compares to 100% of appointments by His Majesty’s Treasury and 76.7% by NHSI. Of course, the Ministry of Justice’s performance might have been transformed in the last five years but, in any event, the six-month period stipulated in this amendment should be ample time for the department to appoint the first independent public advocate, if it fulfils its duties in the way that the Commissioner for Public Appointments expects. If the Minister disagrees, I would be grateful if he could explain in detail why. This amendment is simply a lever to ensure compliance with the code of governance.

I now turn briefly to Amendment 110ZA. I spoke to this in Committee; I have tabled it again because, as it stands, the Bill still appears to permit the Secretary of State to appoint the independent public advocate but deprive them of the means to exercise their functions. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend, but in any event this amendment will prevent any such travestying of the position.

Finally in this group, I come to Amendment 119AA; this amendment is intended to replace Amendment 108 in the Marshalled List. I spoke at some length in Committee, again, about the need to provide for some version of the Hillsborough Independent Panel to be accommodated in this Bill. This amendment attempts to do just that. I do not intend to rehearse again all of the arguments I made in Committee, but I remind the Minister of the advantages of such a provision, in terms of saving the taxpayer potentially hundreds of millions of pounds over the lifetime of a Parliament, and helping victims and the bereaved towards a more timely closure of their grief and trauma. The prolonged processes embedded, for example, in public inquiries only increase their suffering. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate in his response whether the Government truly understand the crucial imperative of timeliness in fact-finding after a major incident, and how important that is for victims and the bereaved. How can it be acceptable to make them wait year after year, sometimes decade after decade, to find out what happened to their loved ones, and to understand why they have suffered such loss? Such delays only compound grief and trauma. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I return to speak very briefly to Amendment 109B, to deal with the position of Wales. In Committee, I introduced an amendment to require the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, when appointing an independent advocate, to secure the consent of the Welsh Ministers. This is an area where it is common ground that there is devolution. I am grateful to say that the Government have agreed that there should be consultation, but they refuse to agree consent.

I put this down initially because one of the ways to make a union strong is to have a proper dialogue. Now, there are some areas where consultation has to be required by statute. Normally, one would expect that in areas where there is an overlap in competence, there would be consultation, but it is right we put a statutory duty in to that effect. However, it seems to me wholly extraordinary—and I am pretty certain it has nothing to do with the Ministry of Justice— that they refuse to agree to the consent of the Welsh Ministers.

Now, noble Lords will all know that, when looking for a lawyer, there is normally quite a good choice. In my experience, having been involved on a number of occasions, you can normally have a discussion about A or B, and you agree on C. It seems to me totally extraordinary, if we are to live in a union that works, that the Government in Westminster have to say, “No, those people in Cardiff just have to be consulted; we don’t have to get their consent”. Is this any way to run a union? The answer is obviously not, and I am sure that this does not come from the Ministry of Justice—in this Bill, the Lord Chancellor and the Minister have been most sensible in what they have put forward. But I deplore that bit of the Government that simply cannot understand that going through the courtesy of discussing things and obtaining consent is the better way to run a union.

--- Later in debate ---

On proposed new subsection (2), in the Government’s view it is something of a contradiction in terms to require a non-statutory inquiry to have statutory powers. This is potentially a major change in the structure of public inquiries and, in the Government’s view, it should not slip through by a sidewind. I hope I have covered most things.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful, as always, to the Minister for that thorough response to all my points. We made a little progress in Committee, for which I am grateful, as I am for the little progress we have made today. I am grateful to the Minister for the open way he has engaged with all these serious points. He will not be surprised that I am disappointed that we have not made further progress on some of the key points.

On the question of what the Minister regards as retrospectivity and the linked incidents, I had hoped I had made it clear that this is not a retrospective look at incidents that have finished—historic incidents that have no relevance to the present. The amendment refers specifically to continuing harm, which is what matters. It is not the incident itself that is significant but the consequences of the incident and the examination of the failures of the state and public authorities, which should have protected the victims but, for whatever reason, did not and let down the bereaved, who suffered grievous losses—that is the point. It is not retrospective. I of course understand the points about the sensitivity of retrospective legislation and all the rest of it—but this is not that.

It is really important—and I hope the Government will reflect on this—that we bear in mind that what this whole part addresses is an attempt to redress the deep imbalance of power between victims and the bereaved, on the one hand, and on the other the state and public authorities that failed them so grievously. That is the whole point of this, and we have seen it over and over again.

On the question of timeliness—and that is the point of the fact-finding inquiry—this is absolutely crucial, for so many different reasons. I remind your Lordships’ House of the points made in the very potent report from Bishop James on the lessons from Hillsborough. He made the point that, unless you get to the truth quickly, it creates a period of time in which the authorities that are in the frame can establish a false narrative, which is precisely what the police did at Hillsborough—and that is precisely what the Hillsborough Independent Panel was designed to try to get to the bottom of, as it did. It started the process by which those Hillsborough families finally got some form of justice for their decades- long struggle.

I am really baffled as to why the Government, when they have such a good example of a new process that actually worked for the bereaved, and worked in a way that one public inquiry, a de facto public inquiry, with all the scrutiny and the coroners’ inquests, did not. They all failed, for different reasons, and it was only the fact-finding inquiry that got somewhere towards the truth and got something like justice for those families.

I do not know why the Government want to put to one side a successful example, which was actually delivered under a Conservative Government. This is not a party issue: this was set up by a Labour Government and delivered under a Conservative Government. I am baffled—but I take comfort from the fact that the Minister has accepted the need for a review and left the door open, I hope intentionally, to addressing some of these points in future. I am still worried about the problem of the fact-finding inquiry, and for that reason I am minded to test the opinion of the House, when we reach that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 102.

Amendment 102 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 118 opens this seventh group. It concerns publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests following a major incident. We would have preferred to table an amendment extending publicly funded legal representation to all bereaved people at inquests, but I understand that was not in scope. It has been a long-standing Labour commitment to extend publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people.

The current funding scheme allows state bodies unlimited access to public funds for the best legal teams and experts, while families often face a complex and demanding funding application process. Many are forced to pay large sums of money towards legal costs or represent themselves during this process. Others use crowdfunding. The Bill would represent a tiny opportunity to raise the need to positively shape the inquest system for bereaved people by establishing in law the principle of the equality of arms between families and public authority interested persons.

It is no longer conscionable to continue to deny bereaved families publicly funded legal representation while public bodies are legally represented. Without automatic access to non-means-tested legal aid, bereaved families are denied their voice and any meaningful role. The absence of representation weakens investigations into state action; funded representation of the bereaved can safeguard lives and ensure that mistakes or harmful practices are brought to light. I beg to move.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 119 seeks to establish a code of practice for post-mortem processes. It arises out of a traumatic event suffered by Jenni Hicks, who lost her daughters Vicki and Sarah in the Hillsborough tragedy.

Perhaps the best way for your Lordships to understand the need for this amendment is to hear in Jenni Hicks’s own words what happened. This is how she described it in an email sent on 5 November 2022:

“I was asked if I would like to see 7 post, post mortem photographs of Vicki and 5 post, post mortem photographs of Sarah. I was warned they were both graphic and not pleasant. However, because of the 33yrs of lies, corruption, deception and lack of trust surrounding my daughters’ deaths, I chose to view them. I was shocked these photographs were in the hands of operation resolve. I’m aware the pathologists would have taken photographs to assist with causation of death and also to assist in writing the pathology reports. But, and it’s a huge but, I had assumed such graphic and sensitive photographs of naked bodies, including genitalia, would have been kept in a secure and safe environment. Not on a police computer”.


Moreover, as I understand it, the relevant injuries were to the head, and the genitalia were not pixelated, which they could easily have been. How could this have happened? These images existed for decades and, of all the many people who would have viewed them, not one of them thought, “This is not right”. It shows no respect for the dignity of the victims, who were young teenage girls. Why did not one person think that this was unacceptable? Not one did. If these had been the daughters of the people who had seen these images, year after year, one assumes that they would have been as profoundly upset and outraged as Jenni Hicks was. But they were not their daughters, so apparently no one cared. This unacceptable situation continued for decades.

For the most part, for whatever reason—and there may be many—a process of desensitisation often takes place in public authorities in the wake of major incidents such as this and on other occasions, apparently. This amendment seeks to put this right.

This amendment tries to address what is clearly an urgent need for a statutory code of conduct to preserve the dignity of the deceased and respect for the feelings of the bereaved. This is a probing amendment, as the Minister is aware. I understand that the Home Office is conducting a review to that end, so I assume that the Minister will want to await its outcome before deciding how to proceed. However, I would be grateful if he could confirm that the Government understand that this was unacceptable, that it must never recur and that they will give any new code of conduct the force of statute.

--- Later in debate ---

I can assure the House that this matter is on the Government’s radar and will be examined most carefully and widely, once the findings of the independent forensic pathology review are available.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

Can I just clarify this? I think the Minister accepts how serious an incident this was; I think it is accepted that this sort of contempt for the victims and the bereaved is probably pretty widespread, and that something has to be done to make sure it never happens again. Will he confirm that whatever code of conduct emerges from the processes he describes will be given the force of statute?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am not at this moment in a position to give that confirmation at the Dispatch Box. I will give further thought to it, and write to the noble Lord in due course as to whether the Government are in a position to give that assurance. I see the force of the point.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

119AA: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Power of Secretary of State to establish an inquiry on major incidents(1) Within six months of the declaration of a major incident under section 28(2), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons on whether they intend to establish—(a) an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005,(b) an alternative fact-finding inquiry, or(c) no inquiry at that time.(2) A person or persons appointed to hold an inquiry established under subsection (1)(b) must be granted the powers to see and report on all relevant documentation.(3) A statement under subsection (1) must set out why the Secretary of State believes the decision is in the public interest. (4) In consideration of the public interest, the Secretary of State must demonstrate that they have had regard to timeliness, cost, transparency and the emotional and financial interests of the parties.”

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I heard what the Minister had to say about this amendment, but in view of the seriousness of what is involved here, the timeliness of a resolution for victims and the bereaved, and the cost to the taxpayer, I would like to test the opinion of the House.