Victims and Prisoners Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Oliver Heald and Maria Eagle

Committee stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle]

Amendment 67 and 68 are probing amendments, which are intended to explore who the Government intend to be the recipient of help from the public advocate that they are establishing under the Bill.

Clause 24(7)(a) defines the victims who are to benefit from the service of the public advocate, once appointed, as

“individuals who have been harmed by the incident (whether or not that harm is serious harm)”.

That seems to mean survivors, who are certainly one group that the public advocate should aim to help, but subsection (7)(b) says that victims also include

“close family members or close friends of individuals who have died or suffered serious harm as a result of the incident.”

The paragraph does not define “close family members”; nor does it define “close friends”, which is a much more uncertain and ambiguous term than “close family members”, although there is uncertainty in both.

Suppose that I am a second cousin. Is that “close family”? What about an aunt who is particularly close to a niece who has unfortunately died. Is that close enough? Or does it depend on the specific relationship in each case? If so, is the close family member supposed to prove that a family relationship that looks, on the face of it, to be a little distant is in fact close? What about a close friend? That could be anyone.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I well remember being in Manchester on the day of the Arena bombing. I was not at the Arena, but the sense of shock in the city was palpable. One of the news items that day was about the sad loss of Nell Jones, a 14-year-old girl from Cheshire. Her teacher said of the class:

“They’ve lost a sister not a classmate”,

and explained that they had been together since reception class. I think there is a bit of scope for a close friend to be included.

[Maria Eagle]

I do not disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about trying to cope with all situations, but it is quite hard—as a lawyer, he knows this—to get the definitions right. Through the probing amendments I am seeking to get the Government to be clear. Like most lawyers, I work on the assumption that uncertainty is undesirable—although it can be lucrative. In this context, wrangles over who might be allowed to get support are certainly not desirable.

The amendments are about trying to get the Government to set out a little more clearly than they do in the Bill precisely what they mean by these unusual phrases. I cannot think of another piece of legislation that refers to “close friends”. Perhaps the Minister will have an example that will show that I have not looked far enough—no doubt he will. That is the point of the probing amendments: simply to get to the bottom of precisely what the Minister is seeking to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I have been closely following the right hon. Lady’s points about consulting victims, but a standing appointment may not be suitable for each set of circumstances or each set of victims. How does she square that circle?

[Maria Eagle]

My own view is that these kinds of public disaster occur infrequently. My main worry is whether a single standing appointment would be able to cope if more than one disaster occurred at the same time. As I envisage it, the independence of the role and the fact that it is a standing appointment would enable that person to act swiftly. It would have to be somebody who is a people person and is able to relate to individuals in trauma. The appointment itself would have to take into account the kind of qualities that the person would need, but I believe a proper person could be found who would be suitable in most circumstances.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Under the Bill’s approach, the Minister appointing a public advocate would be looking at the geography, the communities and the skills necessary for a particular major incident. With a standing appointment, we might end up with somebody who would be good for one incident but not another.

[Maria Eagle]

I acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both approaches. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is pointing out what he sees as the downside of a standing appointment. One could envisage circumstances in which a standing appointment may have downsides, but there are also upsides. In the end, to get their legislation through, the Government must judge which approach they prefer. I simply seek to persuade the Minister and the Government that a standing appointment may have more pros than cons—and more pros than an ad hoc appointment, which has downsides too. My approach has always been that there should be a standing appointment rather than an ad hoc one.

There was extensive support for that approach in this Committee’s evidence sessions. Bishop James Jones said:

“I do not think that that independence is sufficiently guaranteed by the Bill as it stands; I think it can be guaranteed only if it is a standing appointment.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023, col. 87, Q168.]

He made the point that independence is tremendously important, and that that requires a standing appointment. He also said:

“Contrary to the Government’s proposal, I believe that there should be a standing independent public advocate. Why? Because in the immediate aftermath of a public tragedy, people are grief-stricken and traumatised. They are unprepared and disorientated, and they no longer feel in control of their life. It is in that immediate moment that they need an advocate—somebody who will represent them to Government and signpost them to the agencies that are available to support them in that moment of trauma.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023, col. 86, Q166.]

Lord Wills, too, believes that there should be a standing appointment. That is perhaps not surprising, because the Bill he introduced in the Lords, which has just had its Second Reading, includes a standing appointment. He said:

“I believe it should be a standing appointment, for the reasons that the bishop set out extremely well. In the turmoil of the aftermath of a big public disaster, it is important that someone is on the ground immediately to support the families. I do believe that, and I think it is a perfectly achievable position to have. A secretariat could be drawn together at short notice—a standing secretariat, as it were. It would be doing work within the civil service, but when a public disaster happened it could be brought to bear to act as a secretariat for the independent public advocate.

I hate to think of what might happen. If you imagine a big terrorist incident, for example, the Government would be in turmoil anyway, and then they would have to find the time and space to go through all the selection processes, find out people’s availability and negotiate terms of reference. In the meantime, the poor families are left without anyone to support them, as they always have been up until now. It rather defeats the object of this whole exercise. So I am in favour of having a standing appointment.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023, col. 93, Q179.]

We can see that there are pros and cons, whichever way one decides to do that. I just happen to have come down on the side of a standing appointment being preferable on balance. That is the approach that Michael Wills and I took when drafting our own version, which has the advantage of the postholder being able to go into action immediately with no delay required.

My new clause envisages two scenarios in which the advocate is called into action. The first is where the Secretary of State invites him to get involved; I hope the Minister will be pleased to see that I am not entirely excluding action by the Secretary of State. The second is if the advocate thinks a major incident has occurred that meets the requirement under new clause 15(6) and the advocate has been asked to undertake the function by a majority of representatives of the deceased and injured survivors of the incident.

That part of the clause puts into legislation my idea, and Lord Wills’s idea, that there should be agency for the families, that they must have a role in deciding whether the advocate gets involved and that the advocate himself should decide whether the definition of major incident or public disaster is met. Subsection (6) defines a major incident as one

“that has caused the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals and involved—

(a) serious health and safety issues,

(b) a failure in regulation, or

(c) other events of serious concern.”

The key difference from the Bill as drafted by the Government is that the affected families and survivors can get the advocate—who will already be in post—involved, should a majority of them wish to do so, even if the Secretary of State has not asked the advocate to get involved. The advocate can make it clear that he thinks that an incident meets the threshold for his involvement—if, indeed, he thinks that—on the basis of precedent. Obviously there will have to be a few involvements before precedent can come into it.

That would deliver one of the key requirements for a public advocate to succeed, in my view, which is to ensure that the affected families have some agency about whether his services should be called upon in respect of a particular incident. Those families must feel that they can call the advocate in to help them navigate the aftermath and get to the truth.

The trust and confidence of the families of the deceased and survivors is a crucial requirement for the post of public advocate to be introduced successfully. Enabling them to have a meaningful say in whether the advocate should be involved is an important way to establish that trust from an early stage. It also emphasises the independence of the advocate at a very early stage of his involvement: if the families ask him to get involved, and if he can decide that a particular incident falls within the definition of “serious incident” and triggers his possible involvement, it is quite clear that he is independent and is not being told what to do by the Government of the day, about whom there may be some suspicion among those who have been caught up in the incident.

The independence of the advocate from the Government is another vital way in which families and survivors can have trust and confidence, which can be gained at an early stage and reinforced thereafter during the processes that follow a public disaster. That was emphasised in our evidence session, particularly by Jenni Hicks, who is one of the Hillsborough mums. She said that

“as it stands at the moment, the Government’s suggestions for an independent public advocate just would not work. It would just not be independent, because it is too dependent on the Minister. It seems that the supposedly independent public advocate will be answerable to the Secretary of State, which does not sound like independence to me.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 112, Q212.]

Jenni said that she thought it was

“vitally important that we have this facility, but that we have it correctly”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 114, Q220.]

She said that independence is a key part. She also said:

“When you are caught up in disasters, particularly if there is propaganda surrounding it, you need to be able to trust—you would need trust in a public advocate in a team. By having to report to a Minister, you are thinking, ‘Well, who is in charge of this? Is it the public advocate or is it the Minister?’ I do not think that would go down very well.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 115, Q220.]

Jenni speaks with decades of cynicism about what has happened to her in her quest to get to the truth, so one might take the view that she is jaded, but there is nobody more experienced than a Hillsborough mum in understanding what the state does to people after a public disaster. We would do well to listen to her experience and what she has to say.

Lord Wills said:

“In some way, families have to be given effective agency, and that must mean some fettering of the powers on the Secretary of State. I am agnostic about the way to do that, and I have always accepted that my private Member’s Bill was not perfect.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 95, Q183.]

He, too, is willing to change arrangements, and ensuring that the Secretary of State has regard to the wishes of the bereaved and surviving victims would be a good start at making a way forward.

When we come to later amendments, especially those related to the functions of the public advocate, I will talk a bit more about how the Bill is different from what I envisaged. However, I turn now to clause 24. I share one very large perspective with the Minister—that having a public advocate available to help victims in the aftermath of a disaster is entirely desirable—so I welcome the Government’s intention for this part of the Bill, even if I keep saying that I would do things differently. I hope he will not be too offended. My support for the clause arises from my long-standing experience.

For the families of the 97 who died at Hillsborough and the thousands of traumatised survivors who had to fight for a lifetime to be properly acknowledged by our society and to get the correct inquest verdicts of unlawful killing, it was 23 years until they got the truth fully acknowledged and had an apology from the Prime Minister of the day, David Cameron, for what they had to go through. That is despite the fact that the original public inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor laid the blame for the disaster squarely at the door of the South Yorkshire police and admonished them for their lies, within four months of the disaster occurring. They just carried on seeking to deflect the blame elsewhere. This part of the Bill should seek to remedy the problem of public authorities such as the South Yorkshire police using their entire budget, resources and effort over decades to try to avoid being blamed for what they have done wrong.

Decades of litigation resulted in deep trauma for the Hillsborough families and survivors. The lies, slurs and abuse that have been directed at families, victims and survivors over 34 years mean that no one has been held accountable for the unlawful killing—that is what it was—of 97 innocent children, women and men. It was only the Hillsborough Independent Panel, a non-legal process of getting to the truth through transparency and publishing documentation, that led to the full truth being reiterated to a shocked public 23 years after the event. That led to David Cameron’s apology to the families as Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, not only for what had happened to them, but for the lies and slurs that had followed, all perpetrated by public authorities using taxpayers’ money to pay for it. That is how they did it—they did not raise the money themselves, as the families defending the reputations of their loved ones had to.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Oliver Heald and Maria Eagle

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q Lord Wills, do you agree with the idea of having a standing appointment rather than an appointment for a particular incident? Could you also explain how you see the independent public advocate? Is it an impartial person, as described by Ken Sutton, about the panel? What sort of person would it be in terms of qualifications and skills? Do you agree that this person should not be able to take part in legal activity? In other words, if they were at an inquest they would be there as an interested person but represented by a separate lawyer. Do you want to comment on that?

Lord Wills: Yes, I believe it should be a standing appointment, for the reasons that the bishop set out extremely well. In the turmoil of the aftermath of a big public disaster, it is important that someone is on the ground immediately to support the families. I do believe that, and I think it is a perfectly achievable position to have. A secretariat could be drawn together at short notice—a standing secretariat, as it were. It would be doing work within the civil service, but when a public disaster happened it could be brought to bear to act as a secretariat for the independent public advocate.

I hate to think of what might happen. If you imagine a big terrorist incident, for example, the Government would be in turmoil anyway, and then they would have to find the time and space to go through all the selection processes, find out people’s availability and negotiate terms of reference. In the meantime, the poor families are left without anyone to support them, as they always have been up until now. It rather defeats the object of this whole exercise. So I am in favour of having a standing appointment.

As for who the independent public advocate should be, when I originally drafted my private Member’s Bill I had it in mind that it would almost certainly be a lawyer of some sort, and they would function in a similar but not identical way to the reviewer of terrorism legislation. In other words, they would be a distinguished lawyer with a lot of experience in these sorts of areas. Every public disaster is different and it would be very difficult to find someone who had expert knowledge in every possible area, but the broad parameters would be the same.

The main point would be to be able to guide the families through all the various processes that might be taking place, and above all to secure full transparency about what had happened and produce a report on it. As I say, I had it in mind that it would be a lawyer. They are usually extremely useful in these circumstances— I do not speak as a lawyer—but it is not impossible to imagine that it could be someone else with a similar sort of expertise.

Forgive me: there was another part to your question, but I have forgotten it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Q You might not have read the details of the Bill, but if you have, do you have a view about whether the current draft would do that job? If you have concerns about it, do you have any views, given your experience, about what the Bill ought to say in order to make a difference?

Tim Suter: I think the bishop summarised it very well in referring to a standing IPA. In my mind, I have characterised it as a standing office—the office of the IPA—whereby there is almost a chief IPA who is appointed. That would be a process that happens as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. It would be properly resourced; or it may not be resourced, but it should be absolutely firm that the resources for the chief IPA to fulfil their job are available. I think they should have the power to appoint IPAs in the light of a particular disaster. They may or may not be involved themselves; it depends on the nature of the disaster.

There are some issues in the Bill as well about the terms of appointment and the resignation of the IPA. I did not really understand why that is there. It needs to be much more forceful and brought almost into line with how the 2005 Act is framed, which is much clearer about the appointment process and the need for that appointment only to be terminated in very particular circumstances.

I have some questions—perhaps points of granularity—about how an IPA is going to advocate on behalf of those under 18. For the Manchester Arena inquiry, many of those affected were under 18. No one should be excluded just because of age from the vital work that an IPA would do. For me, that came across as needing a little bit more work and analysis. There was an intriguing reference to “no immunity” in the Bill as well, which I thought seemed a little out of kilter—perhaps I just do not know the detail. Why does the Bill refer directly to the IPA having no immunity? Then you go through to the process of reporting; as far as I can see, a report is not necessarily laid before Parliament, where it would get the protection of parliamentary privilege. All of felt that it needed to be reviewed with a little bit more scrutiny.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Having a standing appointment or an office would mean that you could have speedy action. I was asking the previous witnesses whether they thought the role should be an impartial one, as the Hillsborough panel inquiry was. What sort of skills and qualifications should the person have? Do you agree that that person should not be able to undertake legal activity? For example, at an inquest, they would be an interested party and could be represented, but they would not be doing the representation themselves.

Nick Hurd: Oliver, good to see you. I have not thought it about very deeply.

draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Claims Management Complaints) (fees) (amendment) regulations 2017

Debate between Oliver Heald and Maria Eagle

Tuesday 13th December 2016 General Committees

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank the hon. Lady for her speech and will certainly try to answer all her points. I will examine the record, and if I have missed any I will write to her.

The regulations apply to authorised CMCs. Unauthorised CMCs can be tackled in other ways, and there are even criminal sanctions for not being authorised. We are talking today about the authorised ones. Companies left the market last year, so there was an under-recovery of £500,000 in 2015-16. This year, we have made an adjustment that takes account of the under-recovery and therefore in 2016-17 there has been an over-recovery. In essence, each year an adjustment is made to ensure that if there is an under-recovery, it is recovered in the next year, and if there is an over-recovery, the fees go down. That is what we are doing today.

We aim to transfer complaints from the legal ombudsman to the Financial Ombudsman Service because the transfer of the regulation of claims management companies from the claims management regulation unit to the Financial Conduct Authority means it would be better placed there. The transfer will not take place before April 2018, and we are currently working with the legal ombudsman, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority on the detail of the transfer, which may require some legislation.

The hon. Lady asked how the claims management regulation unit has been getting on. Overall, it has done a good job. The unit has made concerted efforts to crack down on rogue behaviour. Some 1,400 licences have been removed. Fines of more than £2 million have been issued since obtaining the power to impose financial penalties at the beginning of 2015. Proposals are being developed to cap the fees that regulated claims management companies providing financial claims services can charge to consumers. All that action is designed to better protect consumers, to deter CMCs from predatory marketing and to help organisations that are on the receiving end of unsubstantiated claims.

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

I am interested to hear those numbers. Is it the Minister’s understanding that that is what has led to the unexpected amount of activity from claims management companies, or does that just that happen year to year anyway?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

It does happen year to year, but there is no doubt that the market is changing and seems to be contracting. That is the overall picture, but there are yearly fluctuations.

It is obvious that regulation should be moved to the FCA. The idea is to have a more effective regime that drives out bad practice. As I mentioned, we have consulted on proposals to cap the level of fees; this is another step to help consumers. The Government aim to establish a tougher regulatory regime by transferring the responsibility to the FCA, re-authorising all the CMCs under the new regime and holding their managers to account for the actions of their businesses. That will mean more individual responsibility in the system, but it will take a little time to work through the issues.

On whiplash reform, which the hon. Member for Neath mentioned, the fee model considered whether the proposed changes to whiplash would have a material impact on the market for 2017. We are still consulting on that and we are not yet entirely clear that we have taken all views on board, but the proposed changes may not be in force for that year and we have gauged that they are likely to have minimal effect. Clearly there is the power every year to go through the exercise of seeing whether there is an over or an under-recovery, so there should be no question of the taxpayer losing out. In fact, that is a very important part of this scheme: the payments should come from the sector, not from the taxpayer.

I hope that I have covered all the hon. Lady’s points, but I will check the record and write to her if I have missed any. I hope that that is acceptable.

Question put and agreed to.