Victims and Prisoners Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Maria Eagle and Anna McMorrin

Committee stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 25, page 19, line 31 at end insert

“,but only after consultation with bereaved families and victims”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult with victims before terminating the appointment on such grounds as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

This should not take long because it deals with an issue that we spent quite a lot of time talking about this morning: ensuring that families have some kind of say. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with victims before terminating any appointment of an independent public advocate on such grounds as he might consider appropriate. As we discussed this morning, it is really about him not acting with unfettered discretion, but trying to gain the trust and confidence of families, and taking them with him in the decisions that he makes. It is a probing amendment, but I hope to hear from the Minister that he is not unsympathetic to it.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

I endorse what my right hon. Friend has said.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

It is a pleasure to be back before you this afternoon, Mr Hosie. I thank the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for her amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to consult victims before terminating an advocate’s appointment on such grounds as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. That stands apart from a termination of appointment in accordance with the terms of appointment, which will cover issues such as incapacity, misconduct and a failure to exercise functions.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for highlighting that this is a probing amendment, and I hope that I can give her some reassurances. It would be helpful if I explained the rationale behind including the provision in the Bill, and I hope to reassure her that the power will be used carefully, and that we will consider the needs of victims when doing so. The Secretary of State will not take such a decision lightly, and any decision will be open to challenge through a judicial review in the courts. There are a few scenarios in which we imagine that the Secretary of State may use his or her discretion to terminate the appointment of an advocate using the power.

First, as the Committee may be aware, clause 26 allows the Secretary of State to appoint multiple advocates to support victims after a particular major incident. We will consider the clause in detail later, but briefly we believe that it is necessary to provide the IPA with resilience should major incidents happen concurrently, or should there be a very large number of victims to support. It is in that context that it may be necessary for the IPA to change its composition during its lifetime. We imagine being able to flex the resource required to support victims to allow the IPA to be as agile as possible, and following peaks of activity it may be prudent to reduce the number of advocates actively supporting victims. The power allows the Secretary of State the flexibility to do that.

Secondly, we have always stressed the importance of being able to deploy the IPA as quickly as possible following a major incident. It may be appropriate, following a greater understanding of the developing needs of the victims, to supplement one advocate for another who, on reflection, may turn out to be better suited by virtue of their skills or expertise. I believe that having that flexibility is important, and the amendment would remove that flexibility in the circumstances that I have outlined.

Thirdly, throughout the various debates on this part of the Bill it has been highlighted that victims must have confidence in the advocates in order for them to be effective. I entirely agree. I therefore imagine another use for the power to be removing advocates who may not command the confidence of victims, or standing down the IPA because victims decide that they no longer want the support offered. In all the circumstances that I have described above, let me be clear that the victims will be considered by the Secretary of State, and their needs will be paramount. I believe that victim agency is crucial, as the right hon. Lady set out. That has come through strongly during the debates on this part of the Bill.

Although the amendment serves as an important reminder of that principle, it is not necessary given the sets of circumstances that I outlined previously that require a degree of flexibility. If, in each of the examples that I have described, the Secretary of State were required to hold a formal and legal consultation with the victims, that could severely cut across the ability of the IPA to be flexible and to adapt quickly to changing demands. In the absence of any detail on how such a consultation would be held, it is difficult to see how that could be achieved in reality—especially in the initial aftermath, when the number and identity of the victims will be unknown. I note the intent behind the right hon. Lady’s probing amendment, but urge her not to press it.

[Maria Eagle]

In view of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Anna McMorrin]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 25, page 20, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) During their appointment the independent public advocate shall sit within the Ministry of Justice for administrative purposes, but shall be independent with respect to its functioning and decision-making processes, and discharge of its statutory duties.”

This amendment would clarify the functional and operational independence of the advocate.

I thank Inquest, Hillsborough Law Now and Justice for working with me on the amendment. I also pay tribute to Ken Sutton, secretary to the Hillsborough Independent Panel. He has worked with me through the whole of part 2 of the Bill, on this amendment and others. I pay tribute to his work and support.

As I said earlier, clauses 24 to 26 provide unfettered discretion to the Secretary of State—not only on whether to appoint an advocate following a major disaster, but on who the advocate is and how they will be resourced. That removes any semblance of independence from the advocate, who is instructed by and answers to the Secretary of State and not those most affected.

The issue of independence is a central concern for the many bereaved families and survivors. It is critical that support provided to families is operationally and functionally independent of Government, to allay families’ concerns about cover-ups, collusions and evasive practices, much of which we have heard detailed this morning. If that is not assured, the position is valueless, as it will be perceived as the Government merely extending their control over the investigatory landscape.

In the evidence sessions, we heard the Right Rev. James Jones state how crucial the independence of the advocate is. When asked if he believed whether the Bill provided enough independence, he answered:

“I am afraid I do not.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 87, Q168.]

I welcome the Government’s initiative and determination to continue to listen to various parties as they shape this appointment. However, I do not think that the independence is sufficiently guaranteed by the Bill as it stands. I echo the concerns expressed by the Right Rev. James Jones, and I hope that the Minister will heed them accordingly in his response.

[Anna McMorrin]

I am grateful to the Minister for his words of initial support for the wording in the amendment, and for his willingness to work with us as we move forward on ensuring the independence of the advocate. As the Bill is currently drafted, that independence is by no means assured. I am grateful to hear that the Minister is willing to work with me, and look forward to that. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Maria Eagle]

I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 25, page 20, line 7 at end insert—

“(6) An advocate appointed in respect of a major incident is to be regarded as a data controller under General Data Protection Regulations for the purposes of their role”.

This amendment ensures that the Independent Public Advocate is a data controller for the purposes of General Data Protection Regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Amendment 75 would insert into the clause, which sets out the functions of the advocate, a power to establish an independent panel such as the Hillsborough Independent Panel in consultation with the families affected. Amendment 74 would enable the public advocate to provide support to victims in respect of an independent panel-type process, if such a process is ongoing in respect of a major incident.

It follows from what I said about amendments 70, 72 and 73 that I think the public advocate should that I think the public advocate should have a broader range of functions and powers than the Bill currently sets out. Indeed, it allows only for liaison between families and organs of the state and signposting to support services. That is all helpful, but it is not sufficient to fully learn the lessons from the success of the Hillsborough Independent Panel and apply them when disasters strike. The only other real function for the public advocate in clause 27 is a report-writing one. We will come to that when we debate clause 29, so I will not dwell on it now.

A key lesson from the 23 years it took the Hillsborough families to get to the truth of what happened to their loved ones is that most of the usual processes following disasters failed them. The original inquests did not establish the cause of death for each of the deceased, although their basic function was to uncover the who, what, where and why. The families were prevented from finding the truth by the police cover-up and a coroner who, overwhelmed by the extent of the task—I am being kind—imposed a 3.15 pm cut-off, which led to material facts being ignored. The inquests left more questions than answers, and most of them were taken up by perpetuating the Hillsborough slurs that the police were on a campaign to spread, dealing with things such as blood alcohol levels, even though a third of the victims were children, and the slurs about fans being ticketless.

The families did not find out when and how their loved ones died until the Hillsborough Independent Panel answered those questions for them 23 years after the event. Some mums, such as Anne Williams, simply went and found out herself. She knew precisely what had happened to her son, Kevin—when, where and how he died—long before that truth was acknowledged by the findings of the second inquests. She spent the rest of her life campaigning to get a new inquest for her son. It was repeatedly denied her, despite the fact that it was clear he was alive after 3.15 pm and may well have benefited from medical intervention.

Anne Williams was unwilling to acknowledge that her son’s death had been an accident, and she never collected the death certificate that said so. She was right: he was unlawfully killed, but it took her the rest of her life to be vindicated and have the accidental death verdict overturned. She lived to see the original verdict quashed, but she did not live to see the unlawful killing verdict at the second inquests. That relates to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made this morning about the health consequences of these kinds of disasters on those affected by them. Anne Williams always knew that her son had been unlawfully killed.

When I first met my constituent Jenni Hicks as her MP in 1997, I was struck that she and her ex-husband, Trevor, were discussing a new bit of information that one of them had been passed about the movements of one of their daughters during her last moments. That was what the original inquests should have told them, but they did not even try to do so. As Jenni Hicks told us:

“We basically knew the truth but we could not get hold of the evidence; nobody could. It was not until the Hillsborough Independent Panel that we had that evidence, finally, and we finally—as I say, four years after HIP—had the correct inquest verdicts.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 144, Q219.]

What a failure of our legal system.

For that reason, it would be an omission to legislate for a public advocate without enabling them to establish an independent panel in consultation with the families, to assist them in respect of an independent panel process, and to help if there are inquests or inquiries. As the Minister rightly said, the Bill puts transparency at the heart of proceedings occurring after disasters. Transparency for the families, freedom of information and the capacity for the public advocate to establish an independent panel are essential parts of what should be a successful reform if we get everything right.

[Anna McMorrin]

I rise to support absolutely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood says about the amendments. They are about getting to the truth of what happened, and ensuring there is true transparency and freedom of information. Bereaved families should see justice straightaway; they should not have to go through what many other families have tragically gone through.

[Edward Argar]

Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for tabling amendments 74 and 75, which I will address together. As she set out, the amendments would enable the IPA to establish an independent panel, akin to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, in consultation with victims. As we have said, those affected by the Hillsborough disaster had to wait far, far too long for truth. I again pay tribute to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, which played a crucial role in uncovering the truth and correcting the public narrative after so many years.

I turn to the substance of the amendments. As I mentioned previously, it is worth remembering that the Hillsborough Independent Panel was a non-statutory inquiry set up by the Home Secretary. Non-statutory inquiries are funded by public funds, so it is right that the decision to set one up remains with the Government. As I emphasised earlier, the Hillsborough Independent Panel did not have any data compelling powers. As Ken Sutton, who has been referenced previously and who led the secretariat for the Hillsborough Independent Panel, noted in our oral evidence sessions, the panel was able to access information and documentation without the need for data compelling powers. What is more, it is important to avoid any conflict between different investigatory functions. In my reading of them, the right hon. Lady’s amendments do not clarify what the role of an advocate would be in relation to the panel, how it would work in practice and, crucially, what impact it would have on the support available to victims.

I appreciate that the matter of debate between the right hon. Lady and I is whether the focus should be on support or the investigatory role, and how to draw that line, but if the IPA is primarily focused on supporting victims, signposting and building a relationship of trust with them, could they be considered to be truly impartial in an investigatory role? If they stepped away from their role as an advocate to focus on the work of the panel, would that affect the ability to support victims? I do not posit any direct answers to that, but I pose those questions, to which I suspect we will return subsequently, possibly on the Floor of the House or in discussions outwith this Committee.

I remind Members that the Hillsborough Independent Panel was established many years after the Hillsborough tragedy, which meant that it did not run the risk of undermining or prejudicing any ongoing formal legal proceedings. I note that in the helpful explanatory statement from the right hon. Lady, she states that she believes the panel should be established at an early stage following an incident. I am slightly wary of that and the possible interrelationship with other legal processes. Establishing an independent panel at an early stage—a panel that has the power to require disclosure of all relevant documents and information—could pose a threat to other investigatory processes, particularly criminal trials or other legal proceedings.

No one should suffer the same injustices as those affected by Hillsborough. Their tireless fight for the truth—and the right hon. Lady’s tireless fight for the truth on their behalf—is to be commended, but it should never need to be repeated. Victims and the wider public deserve to know the truth and to get answers to their questions. However, our concern is that the way to achieve this cannot be one that potentially puts a victim’s right to formal legal justice in jeopardy by duplicating or cutting across the work of other investigatory bodies. I recognise that there are questions about independence and the IPA’s power to get to the truth. I am happy to reflect on that further, and to reflect with the right hon. Lady on whether there are other ways that we can seek to achieve what she seeks without the potential legal jeopardy that might exist if it were done in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I am sure hon. Members will be glad to note that this is my last group of amendments on today’s selection list. I do not intend to detain the Committee for too much longer.

Amendments 76 to 79 would ensure that the public advocate reports to Parliament, rather than to the Secretary of State, and that he does so on a regular rather than on an ad hoc basis. There is always a great deal of public interest in the aftermath of disasters, and there are usually MPs who have constituents with a particular interest in getting as much information as possible about what is happening in the months and years following any such disaster. They, and those affected, have an overwhelming interest in getting to the truth and having, as soon as possible, a clear exposition of what has gone wrong.

Clause 29, as currently drafted, requires the advocate to report to the Secretary of State only if he is sent a notice to do so by the Secretary of State. What is in the report is specified by the Secretary of State, although there is an arrangement under clause 29(4) for the advocate to include in his report other matters that he considers relevant. However, although the Secretary of State must publish the report, he must do so only

“as the Secretary of State thinks fit”—

and presumably when he thinks fit. There are also to be redactions for data protection and the catch-all public interest exemption, which means that any report that is published may well have worrying and suspicious omissions or black lines through its text.

I can be very clear with the Committee that publications dealt with in that way—with redactions by the Secretary of State, and published only via the Secretary of State when he gets around to it—will do nothing other than fuel controversy about cover-ups. They are the very antithesis of the kind of reporting and transparency envisaged under the Bill that Lord Wills and I have brought forward. It would inspire more confidence if the public advocate reported on a regular basis to Parliament, so that it was clear that there had been no interference. It would be much better, if at all possible, to ensure there were no redactions.

The Government’s current proposals really will not do the job. I can see any such arrangements being viewed by bereaved families and victims not as something they can rely on and have confidence in, but as yet another part of the state machinery conspiring to keep them from the truth of what has happened to their loved ones, and to protect the state agencies in the line of fire. Whether or not that is true, that is what it will look like to those affected by the disaster.

I urge the Minister to let go of the control freak tendencies that appear to have been prevalent when civil servants were given policy decisions and thereafter gave some instructions to parliamentary counsel. I recognise that he may have inherited them from predecessors or even had them passed down from the predecessor of the current Lord Chancellor, who I hope has more sense than to think of the current drafting as a good idea. I hope he will change the way in which this report-writing clause is legislated for. The Minister cannot go wrong if he arranges for the report—unredacted, please—to be made to Parliament, when there will be significant public interest following any disaster. What could be more transparent than that?

[Anna McMorrin]

I rise to support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response on what seemed to me a straightforward set of amendments that would simply increase transparency. I heard what he said about further work. I am slightly worried that he is saying that there will not be any reports from the IPA until after every possible kind of legal action has ended. That worries me, because we are then talking years. That will not inspire confidence in families affected by disasters. However, given that the Minister has tried to be constructive, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Anna McMorrin]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 29, page 22, line 15, at end insert—

“(5A) An advocate must provide periodic reports, at least annually, to the Secretary of State, regarding relevant events and occurrences.

(5B) In any case where an advocate is of the opinion that the duty under section [major incidents: duty of candour] has not been discharged, and the matter has not been effectively resolved, a report shall be sent to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.

(5C) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any reports received under (1) and (2) within 14 days of receipt, and where appropriate, refer the content to relevant Parliamentary committees.”

This amendment would require a public advocate to provide reports to the Secretary of State about relevant events and to report if, in their opinion, public authorities or public servants have not complied with the duty of candour in NC3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A lack of candour frustrates the fundamental purpose of inquests and inquiries, as we heard in the evidence sessions. Candour is essential if we are to reach the truth and learn from mistakes, so that similar tragedies do not occur in the future.

Public bodies such as the police have consistently approached inquests and inquiries as though they were litigation. They have failed to make admissions, and often failed to fully disclose the extent of their knowledge surrounding fatal events. For example, South Yorkshire police have been repeatedly criticised for their institutional defensiveness in respect of the awful Hillsborough tragedy in 1989. A 1989 briefing to the Prime Minister’s office on the interim Taylor report on the Hillsborough disaster noted that

“senior officers involved sought to duck all responsibility when giving evidence to the Inquiry”.

It went on to say:

“The defensive—and at times close to deceitful—behaviour by the senior officers in South Yorkshire sounds depressingly familiar. Too many senior policemen seem to lack the capacity or character to perceive and admit faults in their organisation.”

A statutory duty of candour would compel co-operation, and so enable major incident inquests and inquiries to fulfil their function of reaching the truth, so that they can make pertinent recommendations that address what went wrong and identify learning for the future.

Failure to make full disclosure and act transparently can lead to lengthy delays as the investigation or inquiry grapples with identifying and resolving the issues in dispute, at a cost to public funds and public safety. A recent example is the Daniel Morgan independent panel, which was refused proper access to HOLMES, the Home Office large major enquiry system, by the Metropolitan Police Service over seven years. The panel needed access to HOLMES to review the investigations of Daniel Morgan’s murder, but the lengthy negotiations on the panel’s access led to major delays to its work. The delays added to the panel’s costs and caused unnecessary distress to Daniel Morgan’s family, and the panel concluded that the MPS was

“determined not to permit access to the HOLMES system”.

A statutory duty of candour would significantly enhance participation in inquiries by bereaved people and survivors, as it would ensure that a public body’s position was clear from the outset, and so limit the possibility of evasiveness. The duty would also direct the investigation to the most important matters at an early stage, which would strengthen the ability of the inquiry or investigation to reach the truth without undue delay. By requiring openness and transparency, a statutory duty of candour would assist in bringing about a culture change in how state bodies approach inquests and inquiries. It would give confidence to members of an organisation who wanted to fully assist proceedings, inquiries and investigations, but who experienced pressure from their colleagues not to do so. It would compel co-operation with proceedings, inquiries and investigations, dismantling the culture of colleague protection—for example, in the police service.

I am sure the Minister is aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has committed a Labour Government to introducing a Hillsborough law. That would place a duty of candour on all public bodies, and those delivering state services, going through inquests or investigations. I am sure the Minister will understand the compelling reason for strengthening the Bill, and will voice his support for the amendment and new clause.

[Maria Eagle]

I rise very briefly to support my hon. Friend’s amendment. A statutory duty of candour is an essential part of giving confidence to families caught up in public disasters. The Hillsborough law, proposed by the Right Rev. James Jones in his 2017 report to the Government, “The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power”, said as much. It is extraordinary that all these years later, we still do not have a Government response to that report, even though the report was delayed while criminal prosecutions were ongoing. They ended two years ago, and we still have not had the final response from the Government. We were promised it in spring this year. It is now summer. I was promised it by December 2021 in a debate on the Floor of the House, and it has not happened.

I really do not see what is holding up the response. I hope it is not that the Government do not want to implement its findings and points of learning, one of which was that the statutory duty of candour ought to be legislated for. I hope that the Minister can tell us when the response to that report will be published, because spring is long gone. The response is long overdue. The Hillsborough Law Now campaign would be pleased to hear from the Minister on whether the statutory duty of candour, the equality of arms at inquest and the other recommendations of Bishop James Jones will be accepted.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Maria Eagle and Anna McMorrin

Committee stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Anna McMorrin]

I thank the organisations Inquest, Hillsborough Law Now and Justice for working with me on these amendments. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, who has shown such steadfast commitment in the fight for justice for the families of Hillsborough through so many years. I am sure that it brings a lot comfort to those families to know that they have a fierce advocate in this place.

My right hon. Friend first introduced her Public Advocate Bill to Parliament in 2016. It has subsequently been blocked 15 times in the past two Sessions—

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Twenty-two!

[Anna McMorrin]

Twenty-two times—I thank my right hon. Friend for the correction. Furthermore, I put on the record my tribute to Lord Wills, who has twice attempted to legislate for an independent advocate, in 2014 and 2015. I hope that the Minister today has come with a different approach, will heed the words of my colleagues and will co-operate with regard to the issues raised by my right hon. Friend.

I also put on the record that Labour stands unequivocally with the Hillsborough families. We have called repeatedly for the Hillsborough law; making it a reality will be a priority of a Labour Government.

I state my bitter disappointment that we have reached the debate on part 2 of the Bill, yet the Government have still not responded to the report of the Right Rev. James Jones, “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, published six years ago in 2017. That is truly intolerable.

Part 2 of the Bill must ensure that lessons are learned and that never again will families bereaved by public disaster have to endure smear campaigns against their loved ones. Families must never again have to spend three decades campaigning to get truth and justice. Unamended, however—this is where my amendments come in—part 2 falls woefully short of that. There will be more public disasters—since Hillsborough, to name but a few, there has been the Westminster terror attack, the Manchester Arena terror attack and the Grenfell Tower fire.

Lord Wills, Minister of State for Justice from 2007 to 2010, stated in evidence that the Bill was fundamentally flawed. The proposals for the independent public advocate fail in the Justice Secretary’s aim. The Justice Secretary said that

“to deliver justice, victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 583.]

However, the proposals do not give the bereaved families effective agency. Instead, as Lord Wills said:

“the Bill gives the Secretary of State unfettered powers to appoint an independent public advocate or not to do so, and unfettered powers to dismiss an independent public advocate.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 91, Q176.]

Lord Wills went even further, stating that the Secretary of State will have “too much unfettered discretion”.

Amendments 20 and 21 are aimed at correcting that issue, ultimately limiting the Secretary of State’s discretion over the appointment of an independent public advocate. It is deeply concerning that the clause does not require the Secretary of State to appoint an advocate; rather, the Secretary of State “may” do so. Without a duty on the Secretary of State always to appoint an advocate, some bereaved families may receive additional support to which other families are not entitled, worsening the inconsistencies that already exist in the post-death investigation system. That was rightly identified in 2021 by the Select Committee on Justice. For the advocate post to be effective, it should be a mandatory appointment with the duties and functions of the advocate arising in the event of a major disaster, rather than at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

It is equally concerning that the responsibility for declaring a major incident again lies with the Secretary of State. That cannot remain in the Bill. Amendment 21 would change the definition of “major incident” to ensure that a major incident is one where it causes the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals, rather than where it simply “appears to the Secretary of State” to have caused the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals. The discretion of the Secretary of State in both those matters is something that Opposition Members and stakeholders are deeply troubled by.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin]

I thank the Minister for his tone in setting out how he is prepared to work with us through the summer to improve the Bill, and specifically on the amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood made heartfelt points about her conversations with constituents and the families impacted. We know that so many families have not had answers for so long, and it has touched many deeply. It goes far and wide across the country.

We tabled the two amendments because, as I set out in my argument, the Secretary of State has far too much discretion at the moment, which is deeply troubling. I therefore want to ensure that we work together to improve the clause and make it more robust, and to ensure that the Secretary of State does not have unfettered discretion. I will not push amendment 20 to a vote, but I appreciate that the Minister will work with us to make improvements. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Maria Eagle]

I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 24, page 18, line 35, at end insert—

“(1A) In doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) the views of bereaved families,

(b) the relative benefits of an Independent Public Advocate, a public inquiry, or an Independent Panel in relation to cost, timeliness, and transparency of the major incident in question,

(c) any wider public interest”

This amendment would ensure that in exercising the Secretary of State’s discretion as to whether an Independent Public Advocate should be appointed, the Secretary of State must consider the views of the bereaved families and the relatives of how best to get the truth of what happened in the major incident concerned in a timely fashion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I accept his assurance that where it is in the public interest, declaring major incidents will be within the scope of the Secretary of State’s discretion. If I am wrong in that, perhaps he will intervene. I am grateful to him for putting that on record.

I would us to find a way to keep the focus on where there is a significant public interest—for example, when a relatively small number of people have died or suffered harm but the circumstances suggest serious systemic failings on the part of a public body. In those circumstances it would be in the public interest and lessons can be learned for the future. I hope we can move forward, as the Minister has given the assurance that an incident would be included, if that was in the public interest. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Maria Eagle]

I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 24, page 19, line 23, leave out “or close friends”.

This amendment would narrow the definition of “victim” to close family members of those who have died or suffered serious harm as a result of the incident and make more certain who falls within the definition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin]

Most of my comments about my amendments still stand. It is incredibly important that we bear in mind the words of Lord Wills, who said that a different approach is needed. He quoted the Justice Secretary’s comment that

“victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 583.]

At present, as Lord Wills says,

“the Bill gives the Secretary of State unfettered powers”.––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 91, Q176.]

I hope that we can work together to improve the clause as the Minister suggests.

[Maria Eagle]

Before I say a few things about clause 24 stand part, I would like to speak to my new clause 15.

At the beginning of our consideration of part 2 of the Bill, I said that my own Public Advocate Bill and the Government’s Bill envisage the role of a public advocate somewhat differently, although there are points of similarity. New clause 15 sets out roles and functions that are closer to what I would like to see in the Bill. It would require the Secretary to State to appoint an individual to act as a public advocate for victims of major incidents, and to ensure an efficient and effective means of support, with appropriate remuneration and reasonable costs, to carry out the functions assigned to the post. It would be a standing appointment, rather than an ad-hoc appointment on a case-by-case basis.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Maria Eagle and Anna McMorrin

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Edward. I hope the Minister will consider accepting these amendments. I can well see that he might have some concerns about what he may see as an open-ended extension of the definition of victims. I can see that, in the position he is in—deciding on policy—he may come to the view that a line has to be drawn somewhere when we define victims.

The Bill’s current definition does extend to a wide range of people, and there are other amendments and concerns that may extend that definition to an even wider range. As somebody who has been in the Minister’s position, making policy decisions about where a line ought to be drawn in the middle of a grey area, I understand that there is a natural tendency to resist. I hope he will resist that natural tendency in this particular instance, because my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham has made a compelling case and the amendments are important.

One of the worst aspects of being subjected to this kind of behaviour is not being able to talk about it afterwards. One understands why an employer would like to obtain a non-disclosure agreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, it has become a standard clause that anybody negotiating such a settlement on behalf of the employer would stick into every agreement in any instance; I imagine they are all drafted on computer systems ready to be simply splurged out at the drop of a hat. But the consequence for the individual who is signing up to the agreement—not always, as my hon. Friend has made clear, with the full information about what the legal implications are, and what they do and do not cover—can be extremely damaging, not only in the immediate aftermath of such an agreement, but possibly for years into the future.

Surely the Minister will accept, as I am sure you would, Sir Edward—although not in this Committee, of course—that the whole point of the victims code is to try to minimise the impact on victims by giving rights and access to provisions that enable them to recover swiftly from whatever it is that they have undergone that ends up causing them an issue. That is surely the very definition of what the victims code is meant to be doing. It would therefore be an omission if the amendments were not accepted.

Although I fully understand the concerns the Minister might have about extending the pool of people who may fall into the definition in the legislation, it would be remiss of the Government to exclude this particular group, who really do need such assistance. I hope that he will have something positive to say to us about these amendments when he gets to his feet.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

I want to speak to these important amendments, which have been brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. Amendment 1 gets to the heart of what the Bill is all about. It would ensure that there is no impediment to providing evidence of behaviour that may be criminal misconduct after signing a non-disclosure agreement.

We have all seen examples of these agreements. Some simply attempt to buy off the victim and halt any prospect of them using knowledge of a person or an organisation which may have been the perpetrator of any kind of criminal misconduct, ranging from financial impropriety to sexual assault. The agreements work by effectively threatening people that if they decide to share their experience or knowledge, they will be subject to costly sanctions.

I hope the Committee will agree that individuals or organisations trying to hide their criminality using non-disclosure agreements is not only wrong, but that it is also a licence to get away with all manner of activity that could lead to large fines and even imprisonment. Why should someone responsible for sexual assault be able to hide away? They should not be. Amendment 3, importantly, would ensure that that protection is enshrined in the victims code, which we will get to later. We want to ensure that there is no wriggle room to allow potential criminals to escape the law because of, in effect, an agreement that is designed to do just that.

Amendment 2 could also be said to sit at the heart of the Bill; we absolutely support the essence of the amendments. Amendment 2 would add to the clause the specific definition of a person who

“has experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced…sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or…bullying or harassment”.

We want to work constructively with the Government, and I hope that we can start now, with the Minister addressing the serious concerns that Committee members have raised, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham who moved the amendment. We need amendments to significantly strengthen the Bill—which we finally have, eight years after it was first proposed.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for raising this important topic and enabling the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran)—and, by extension, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller)—to be debated in Committee.

The amendments recognise that non-disclosure agreements are misused if they prevent someone from speaking about an experience of crime, for example, to relevant professionals. Amendment 1, though not selected for debate, is intended to include those who have signed NDAs that prevent them from speaking about criminal conduct in the definition of a victim. Amendment 2 and 3, which I will turn to shortly, are intended to go a little further—potentially beyond criminal conduct. I will address that point in a second.

Although confidentiality clauses can serve valid purposes—for example, to protect commercially sensitive information—the Government have been clear, as I think is the Opposition’s position, that they should not be used to prevent disclosures to the police, regulated health and care professionals, legal professionals and others. It is illegal for an NDA to be used to conceal a criminal offence, pervert the course of justice or stop someone co-operating with the police. As the hon. Member for Rotherham alluded to, we have already made reforms around the use of NDAs in higher education.

I know that the hon. Members who tabled, signed and spoke to the amendments are particularly interested in ensuring that individuals are aware of their ability to access support, regardless of having signed an NDA. Anybody who has suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct, regardless of whether that crime has been reported or is covered by an NDA, is already covered as a victim under part 1 of the Bill and the victims code. That means that they are entitled to access relevant support services, and, as the Law Society guidance on the matter makes clear, it would not normally be appropriate for non-disclosure agreements to prohibit disclosure to professionals for legal, medical or therapeutic reasons. In most circumstances, those qualified professionals would be bound by a duty of confidentiality to their client.