Lords Chamber

Wednesday 21st October 2026

(began 1 day, 4 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Discussion with the USA regarding reducing international tension Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
-

My. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Portrait Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)
-
-
tragedy above a van when I was also a small child at school. But remember my parents talking about it with disbelief and horror, I would just like to repeat a short thing that the Prime Minister said thing that the Prime Minister said earlier today in the other place, which is that the thought, I'm sure the thought of the whole house will the thought of the whole house will be with the community today and the people of Wales, and I am sure that this House would want to join me in this House would want to join me in associating our remarks with his.





























 On Wales. I'm afraid to say to my noble Lady, although I know she knows well that Wales does not have a direct equivalent to. To UTCs. And as education is entirely devolved, funding for utcs in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lawrence, can the noble Lady give the House that universities will recognise the new V levels or will recognise the new V levels or vocational levels, to the same extent that they recognise BTECs, extent that they recognise BTECs, given how many young people from disadvantaged areas enter disadvantaged areas enter university through the BTec route?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

university through the BTec route? The process for agreeing an implementing and delivery of these proposals, I'd say to the noble Lady, is under discussion. The. There is including the kinds of questions that she's acting as asked and. There is an indicative timeline to launch the government's public consultation and we will be doing that before the end of the year. And that question, along with others, will be will be looked at in co-design with all stakeholders, no doubt including universities.
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:54
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
We move. >> On to part three of the Bill, and I rise to move the first four amendments in this group, which concerns misconduct in public office. I am once again grateful to the Minister for discussing them with me, as he promised to do. This government is to be commended for accepting the recommendations of the Law Commission in its report of 2020 that the common law offence be abolished and replaced by the statutory offences in clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. The common law offence is an ancient one, but fell largely into disuse during the 20th century.























































































































Attempts to use it again more recently, for example, against journalists and purported whistleblowers as part of Operation Elveden have demonstrated its defects. As the Law Commission put it, at 3.41 of its report. The unifying concern is that the is that the offence fails to provide the certainty and clarity that the criminal law demands, and is therefore prone to error, misuse and abuse by law enforcement agencies. My amendments focus on clause 13, which creates what the Law Commission described as an offence of corruption in public office. The offence is intended to catch acts performed by public office holders for a corrupt purpose, including financial gain and the facilitation of a sexual relationship.





































































































An offence will be committed only if the office holder knows, or ought to know, that the use of their office for such a corrupt purpose is a seriously improper act. A question to be decided by the jury with regard to the matters listed in clause 133, the recommendations of the Law Commission have been watered down in two crucial respects. The purpose of my amendments is to strengthen the offence in the Bill so that it regains the clarity, precision and efficacy that the Law Commission recommended that it needed. Amendments 81, 83 and 84 addressed the fact that the clause 13 offence is committed only if the person uses their office and, I quote, to obtain a benefit or to cause another person to suffer detriment, interpreted with the caution appropriate to all criminal statutes.



















































































This appears to mean that the offence can only be committed if a benefit is actually obtained, or a detriment actually suffered. That may not be what the government intends. The Minister stated in Commons Bill committee last December that the offence can be committed where public office is used with the intent, or to use the Law Commission's preferred word, the purpose of obtaining a benefit or causing detriment that would match the position under the Bribery Act 2010. Section two. And indeed, I noticed that the noble Lord, the Minister, used the same formulation when summarising clause 13 in his response on Monday to amendments 31 and 82.





































































Hansard, column 479. But this is not a case where an assurance from the Dispatch Box will suffice. Our courts, increasingly and not unreasonably, tend to focus on the words of the statute that we ask them to apply. It is hard enough to explain the law to juries, and harder still when the law is not clear on its face. My amendments would put beyond doubt the interpretation that the government itself appears to favour. My amendment is 85, which seeks to narrow the defence provided for in clause 135 of the Bill. The Law Commission recommended what it described at 5.104 of its report as, and I quote, a statutory public interest defence that will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

available in certain limited Circumstances, most likely. In the context. Of unauthorised use or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of unauthorised use or disclosure of official information. It went on to explain, by reference to principle and precedent, why it was appropriate to impose the legal burden of establishing this defence burden of establishing this defence on the defendant. This narrow whistleblower's defence has been replaced in the Bill with a far broader defence of reasonable excuse that could be rather significant in practice. It would open the way for defendants charged with seriously improper corrupt conduct to avoid penalisation by relying on such matters as short staffing or lack of training. Matters which are obviously not in the public interest, but which a jury might be persuaded to constitute a reasonable excuse.



































The impact assessment rightly makes the point that honest mistakes or finely balanced operational decisions should not be caught by this offence. But the combined requirements of corrupt purpose and seriously improper behaviour present a high bar to conviction. Rather, in contrast to the position under clause 12, some of whose foibles we discussed on Monday. So the case for a narrower defence to clause 13 is, if anything, stronger than the case for a narrower defence to clause 12, which was so ably made in that debate by the noble Lady Baroness Levitt. Amendment 86, in the name of Baroness Levitt, would place the legal burden of establishing this defence on the defendant, as recommended by the Law Commission on Orthodox grounds.

















At 5.112 to 5.122 of its report, I entirely support that amendment. The noble Lady Baroness Levitt also raises by her amendments 88 and 89, the issue of what, if any, defence is appropriate to the clause 14 offence breach of duty to prevent death or injury. So far as I can see, the Law Commission did not see the need for any statutory defence to a charge under section 14, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's position on why a defence, particularly such a broad one as provided by clause 142 and 143, is necessary.





I beg to move. Proposed clause 13, page 14. Line 28. Insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
16:00
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
My name to the four amendments in the name of Lord Hanson Anderson in the name of Lord Hanson Anderson of Ipswich, and I'd like to support the points that he made. Words really do matter, and I think, really do matter, and I think, particularly when one is seeking to put our common law offence into put our common law offence into statute, as we're doing here, great care needs to be taken. That one is actually reproducing as closely as possible. What this rather loosely worded common law offence was talking about. There can be no better guide, really, to what we should be saying than the Law Commission itself and those given their overall responsibilities that they have for the general shape of the law which we have to administer.













And I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Law Commission for the work they've done, in view of the importance of the issue, and I hope that the noble Lords Minister will pay very careful attention to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Anderson's words, with which I entirely agree. My Lords. I entirely. Agree with what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I entirely. Agree with what noble Lord Anderson. And noble Lord Hope have said,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and just endorse the. The reasons that they've given. I have a. Number of amendments in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Number of amendments in this group, and I begin with my amendment 93. It's a modest amendment, but it addresses what I
16:01
16:01
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt (Labour)
-
-
straightforward to ensure that the new offences are seriously improper. Conduct and breaches of duty apply Conduct and breaches of duty apply to paramedics responding to emergency calls in the same way as they apply to other public they apply to other public officials. My concerns about this issue go back many years to a case that came before the Court of that came before the Court of Appeal, in which I appeared for the prosecution. The court was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, who I'm sorry to see, is not in his place today.



























































































































































The issue was whether a paramedic responding to an emergency was a public officer for the purposes of the common law offence of misconduct in public office. The court concluded that a paramedic did not come within that definition, and as a consequence, the conviction could not be upheld. I don't criticise that decision. The court applied the common law as it was bound to do. But this bill abolishes the common law offence and replaces it with a statutory scheme, and in doing so, Parliament has the opportunity to reconsider whether that outcome remains the right one. The deeply troubling facts of that case illustrate why it matters.













































































































































CCTV footage from the back of an ambulance showed a paramedic engaging in serious sexual misconduct towards a vulnerable female patient whilst transporting her to hospital. Because of evidential difficulties, the Crown Prosecution Service did not consider that it could prosecute under the Sexual Offences Act. But I do not know anyone who thinks that that kind of behaviour is OK, or that it should fall outside the criminal law altogether. And the reason, my Lords, is obvious when a paramedic responds to an emergency. Members of the public are often at their most vulnerable. They may be injured, unconscious, frightened or otherwise incapable of protecting themselves.





























































































































And just as significantly, they have no meaningful choice over who attends to them. And that is what distinguishes a paramedic from many other healthcare professionals. A patient can change their GP, but when an ambulance arrives at the scene of a serious road accident, the patient cannot simply just choose another paramedic. They must place their trust in whoever has arrived to help them. And it is precisely because the public has no choice that the duty owed by a paramedic responding to an emergency is such a profound one. And yet, paramedics are not included within schedule four.

















































































































The consequence is not merely theoretical. If behaviour of the sort I've described were to occur again, a prosecution under clause 13 for seriously improper conduct would still not be possible. And nor is that the only difficulty. It also affects the new offence created by clause 14, namely breaches of duty to prevent, prevent death or serious injury. If there is one category of professional whose daily work involves preventing death or serious injury, it's a paramedic responding to an emergency call. Let us suppose that a paramedic deliberately withheld appropriate treatment because of prejudice towards a patient on grounds of race.



































































































As matters presently stand, they could not be prosecuted. Now, as I understand it, and again, I'm grateful to my noble friend, the Minister, for meeting me to discuss this. The government's explanation for not including paramedics is that they were not covered by the old common law offence, and therefore they haven't. This hasn't been carried over into the new offences. But with respect to my noble friend, that approach misses a valuable opportunity. The purpose of this legislation should not be simply to replicate what has happened under the old law. The whole reason for replacing the common law offence is to create a modern framework of public accountability.





















































































The need for modernisation is the very reason that the common law offence is being abolished, and we in Parliament are deciding whom the law should hold accountable now and for the future. If one were to ask an ordinary member of the public whether a paramedic responding to a 999 call exercises public power and occupies a position of public trust, I suspect that the answer would be unequivocal. When a uniformed paramedic enters a stranger's home in the middle of the night, when a patient is unconscious, terrified or incapable of making decisions themselves, when intimate physical contact has to take place because a medical emergency requires it.







































































When the decisions taken may determine whether somebody lives or dies, it is difficult to imagine a clearer example of public trust being placed in an individual. There's also a wider point about vulnerability. This bill is not concerned simply with the exercise of authority, but with the abuse of position. Few relationships involve a greater imbalance of power than that between an emergency responder and a patient in acute distress. A paramedic who arrives enjoys immediate and unquestioned trust, and we expect that trust to be respected. And we also expect accountability if it's abused. Now, of course, paramedics are subject to professional regulation, but professional discipline and criminal liability serve different purposes.























































Professional regulations about fitness to practice the criminal law is concerned with the protection of the public and society's condemnation of serious wrongdoing. They are complementary. They are not alternatives. Most paramedics perform an extraordinarily difficult role with skill, compassion and professionalism, and I pay tribute to them. This amendment is not directed at the many. It's directed at that rare bad apple whose conduct brings the profession into disrepute and places vulnerable members of the public at risk. I therefore hope that before report, the government might be willing to look again at this issue. If having done so, my noble friend remains unpersuaded, I'd be grateful to hear more about the reasoning behind that position, but I hope there may yet be an opportunity to reach a common view that reflects both the realities of modern public service and the expectations of those whom those public servants exist to protect.



































I turn now, very briefly, My Lords, to amendments 86, 88 and 89 in my name and amendment 85, in the name of noble Lord Anderson, to which I have added my name. They all concern, as the noble Lord Anderson has said, the defence is available to these new offences. I do not intend to repeat what I said on Monday. I suggest that there are strong arguments for the approach suggested by the Law Commission, and it would be neither unfair or unusual to adopt them. I listened carefully to my noble friend the Minister's response to what I said in the previous group, and I say very gently to him.























He for whom I have the greatest of respect, that in relation to clauses 13 and 14, his answer cannot be the same as. These are not new offences. After all, they replaced the common law offence of misconduct in public office, and that is why the government really ought to explain more fully why it has chosen to depart from the considered recommendations of the Law Commission. If the government now proposes a different course, Parliament is entitled to know why it matters, because the approach adopted by the Bill will make it more difficult to prosecute public officials who have behaved in.











It behaved in a criminally bad way. Victims and survivors whose confidence in public institutions has too often already been shaken, deserve a clear and convincing explanation for that change of approach. If the government considers that a different approach is justified, it would be helpful to understand the basis of that conclusion. But if not, I hope the government will reflect further and think again.
16:09
16:10
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. >> All the amendments in this group to clause 13 tidy up, rationalise to clause 13 tidy up, rationalise and clarify the important new misconduct in public office offence. misconduct in public office offence. As the noble Lord Lord Anderson has explained, amendment 81, 83 and 84 make it clear that the intent that that it is the intent that matters and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that a benefit is actually obtained by the defendant, or that anyone else has actually suffered a detriment. And also, as Lord Anderson has explained, that represents the conclusion of the Law Commission and is powerfully endorsed by the briefing that we have received from Spotlight on Corruption, to whom I am grateful, and amendments 83 and 84 are effectively to the same effect.























































































































































































































Amendment 85 replaces the reasonableness excuse defence with a public interest defence. Again, the Law Commission supported that and Baroness Levitt has spoken to it. My Lords, I say only this to the noble Lord. The Minister, when he responded to the amendments proposed by Baroness Levitt on Monday, which would substitute a public interest defence for the reasonable excuse defence in the Bill. In respect, in that case of the offence of misleading the public. The noble Lord said this while acting in the public interest could be the basis for a defence. We think that for a new offence of this kind covering as it does, all statements made by Ministers and officials on a wide range of matters, it is important to retain the breadth of a reasonable excuse.



































































































































































































Defence. Lord Sewell. I have no wish to criticise the reasoning of the noble Lord or his brief, but I simply did not understand that answer as justifying a catch all defence of reasonable excuse to an offence which has as its minimum ingredients, both an intention to mislead the public, or recklessness as to whether will be misled, and knowledge on the part of the defendant that that defendant's act is seriously improper. And I repeat the point that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made that that those requirements together represent a high bar, a high threshold for guilt.



















































































































































































Now we can argue, and indeed we did on Monday, that the definition of seriously improper needs tidying up. But it seems to me, as it seemed to the Law Commission, that a public interest defence is much more appropriate than a reasonable excuse defence for this offence as it was for the offence of misleading the public. My Lords, this is Committee stage of an important Bill on which the Law Commission has expressed a relatively strong view, which is supported by the noble Lords immediate predecessor as Minister. I accept that he may find that a little unusual, but I would suggest that in the circumstances it might be best for the government simply to accept amendment 85.

































































































































































I would also suggest, for the reasons again given by the noble Lady Baroness Levitt, that it would be sensible to accept amendment 86, which raises the hurdle for a defendant against whom the principal ingredients of defence of the offence are proved, and who wishes to raise a defence with a public interest, as we suggest, or of reasonable excuse as per the unamended Bill. I contend that exactly the same reasoning applies to amendments 88 and 89 relating to the clause 14 offence of breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. Again, for the reasons that the noble Lady raised, I say at this stage that I also support, while on Baroness Levitt amendments.















































































































































Amendment 93, moved by her to include paramedics within the category of public office holders. Her points were all persuasive, but I endorse along with others. I believe her argument that when we replace an outdated common law offence that is generally thought to be no longer appropriate or to meet the requirements of justice, we should make sure that the new law is clear, comprehensive and with anomalies and omissions addressed. I suggest that the omission of paramedics from the list of public office holders is just the sort of anomaly and omission that it is incumbent upon us to eliminate.





























































































































I turn to amendment 92 in my name and the name of my noble friend Baroness Brinton. That amendment would add a new clause after clause 16 to the effect that corporations, in a contractual relationship with the public office holder, should be liable for offences under clauses 13 and 14. The Law Commission recommended that private contractors providing a public service should be covered by the offence of misconduct in public office, but without this amendment, that recommendation would not be given effect. I suggest that the argument for it is overwhelming. Spotlight on corruption again dealt in their briefing with this point, they pointed out that privately contracted goods and services account for no less than 30% of public spending.











































































































There is, my Lords, no sustainable argument that private contractors providing a public service under contract to a government department, for example, managing a prison for the Ministry of Justice should escape liability for the offence merely on account of their private sector status. The justification for the offence lies in the nature of the public service, provided not in the precise identity of the provider. Schedule four of the Bill, which deals with those who are, to use the words of the act of the Bill, work for various public bodies is not presently sufficient to make it clear that private contractors are covered by that phrase, and the government's impact assessment is wrong to state, as it does, and state baldly, that public office holders, for the purpose of the misconduct offence do include private contractors providing public services for any of the public bodies listed.





















































































The bill simply doesn't say that. On amendment 94, our amendment 94 would amend schedule four to make it clear that private contractors to a public body are covered by the bill, and I suggest that that ought to be accepted. And if that's what the government's impact assessment says, then they ought to take it as to be reflected in the Bill. I would argue, although my opinion is that the reading of the bill, that the reading of the bill and the impact assessment is unsupportable, that if there is agreement that public that private contractors should be covered, they should accept our amendment clarifying that.





































































My Lords, I come back to my amendments 87 and 90 in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Brinton. These amendments provide for a fine as an alternative or additional penalty in the case of offences by corporate bodies, and are predicated on the proposition that offences by corporate bodies are within the Bill as envisaged by our amendment 92. In such a case, these amendments would permit a fine to be imposed on corporate bodies, and amendment 90 would do the same for the clause 14. Offence of breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury if corporate bodies are to be included, and I suggest it's plainly sensible that they are, then a fine is the obvious penalty which is not provided for.



















































Although in normal cases a fine is an alternative to imprisonment. Imprisonment is only appropriate for an individual, and it's difficult to see that a fine is covered. And that's the point that spotlight on corruption have made. My Lords, amendment 91 and amendment 144 in the names of the noble Lady, Lady Baroness Brinton and Lady Hamwee, would ensure that resignation or retirement would not enable public officials to escape liability for misconduct during their service and their accountability for their duties and liabilities while in office would continue after their service ended. One would have thought that was perfectly obvious, my Lords, the noble Lady, my noble friend Baroness Hamwee mentioned this point in response to a passage in the noble Lady Baroness Falkner speech a little earlier on Monday.































The noble Lord. The Minister, in response sought to assure the House that the government already took this to be the position. But that again is not stated in the Bill, and I agree with the point made by the noble Lord Lord Anderson, that courts tend to prefer the actual words of a statute to ministerial understanding, and indeed, I'd add that they're bound to do so in the absence of ambiguity, in the words of the statute. But if the government does believe and intend that this is the position that liability for default in service should continue after retirement or resignation, then they will no doubt accept amendments 91 and 94, as we believe they should.















And I repeat, this is Committee stage of an important bill introducing a substantial new offence of great importance, and we need to get it right. And if the Bill is not clear, then I suggest that amendments to make it clear should simply be accepted rather than resisted. My Lords, I've spoken on these fairly technical amendments at some length, but they are important and I do repeat how we do actually or must treat it as a requirement that we get this new statutory offence clear and right.
16:22
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Amen. >> Amen. >> The Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for opening this debate. A number of very detailed but significant amendments have been proposed to clause 13. Now, in general, the official opposition may not have proposed this bill in the first place, and it is, of course, for the noble Lord, the Minister, to respond to the detailed points that have been raised about the draft drafting, of course. 13 but that said, I would like to reflect briefly on some of the amendments in the group. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson's amendments seek to widen the scope of the offence under clause 13 to include actions where the intention was to gain a benefit or cause someone to suffer a detriment.















































And it would appear to us that that is a sensible proposal in the context of clause 13. After all, is there any reason why a party should not be answerable for seriously improper conduct simply because they were incompetent in their attempt to break the law? So I would welcome the views of the noble Lord, the Minister, upon that simple proposition. Now, of course, several of the amendments in this group relate to the issue of reasonable excuse as a defence under clause 13, and this has been touched upon already, and I would add my voice to the point that in the context of the clause 13 offence, it's perhaps difficult to see what reasonable excuse other than public interest would actually arise here.































And again, I would welcome the views of the noble Lord, the Minister, and ask him to elaborate upon what those reasonable excuses would be in the face of seriously improper conduct. The noble Lady, Lady Levitt, refers to an amendment that would shift the burden for proving reasonable excuse or public interest defence. And again, I would acknowledge that that would appear to be a more orthodox approach to the issue of such a defence in the context of such a statutory offence, and I would welcome the noble Lord the Minister's views on that with regard to the amendment 91 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brunton.















I would acknowledge that it is at least a very sensible, probing amendment to ensure that those who have resigned or left public office are still going to be held accountable for their actions while in public office. And I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will at least take the opportunity to read into the record an assurance that that is what is intended by the provisions, and that that is what will be the effect of these provisions if passed into law. Thank you, my Lords. My Lord, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, I think.

I think it is good that we're discussing this in
16:25
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
prime time rather than at 11:30 or whatever it was on Monday. It's whatever it was on Monday. It's made it more spirited. And my Lord, I just I want to make 1 or 2 preliminary remarks before I. Respond in detail to the amendments. My Lords, we've discussed many disasters as well as Hillsborough, which has given rise to the need for this bill. But can I open my comments with my sincere, heartfelt sorrow for the families of the Aberfan disaster? 60 years has passed, but sadly, the lessons of that day are still being debated here today.





















































































































































































































































































And now, justice for families is at the forefront of our minds today. And for the rest of our discussions on this bill, my Lord, can I, just before responding to the to the amendments in this group, can. I wanted to return to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and followed up by noble Lords Lord Anderson and Alton, which was raised in committee on Monday. She asked about the prosecution of the potential prosecution of a Chief Constable who deliberately doctored the crime statistics to boost his or her own success. Of course, behaviour as such as this could currently be court under the common law.







































































































































































































































































Misconduct in public office offence and will continue to be something that could be caught within the new seriously Improper Acts offence, which is one of the replacements for the misconduct in public office offences inserted by part three of the Bill. All the elements of the offence must, of course, be met, but if the misleading behaviour that the thought that the noble Lady refers to involves the office holder using or fail to use their office to obtain a benefit, or to cause another to suffer a detriment, and they know or ought to know that their action is seriously improper.

























































































































































































































































In the circumstances, she suggests, certainly seem to indicate that then the serious, improper, seriously improper acts offence could apply. I want to clarify that. Turning to the amendments in this group, I will begin by. I will begin with amendments 81, 83 and 84, tabled by the. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and supported by. By a number of noble Lords around the house, including Lord Hope and Baroness Butler-sloss. The noble Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss. I hope he'll be reassured to know that our policy intentions align absolutely with his. The new misconduct in public office offences should continue to be conduct based offences.











































































































































































































































That means it should not matter whether a benefit is actually obtained or a detriment suffered. However, I agree that it is essential that there is no ambiguity in how this part of clause 13 might be read and interpreted by the courts. And I also accept this should carry through into the directions given to the jury. I therefore commit to work with the noble Lord ahead of Report stage on how we may best achieve this. I see some nodding from from various noble Lords. So that's gone down well. Could, could could go either way from here.



























































































































































































































I now turn to amendments 85, 86, 88 and 89, tabled by the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. I understand the main concerns raised include that a reasonable excuse defence model is too broad and could lead to defendants raising unmeritorious or far fetched, far fetched excuses. That was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, stressed. These could, at best, place an undue burden on prosecutors to disprove the defences and, at worst, prevent convictions. That's clearly something that we as the government would want to avoid. But I must not. I must be clear that we don't share these concerns about the reasonable excuse defence as a model.













































































































































































































This is a common and well used defence throughout the criminal law. So the courts are well accustomed to assessing whether any excuse offered is relevant and genuinely reasonable in the circumstances. Equally, this would be reflected in any direction the court needed to give to the jury. After further detailed consideration. While it is difficult to identify any circumstances where a public interest consideration would not also form part of a reasonable excuse defence, I think the point that the noble and learned Lord keen was making. Conversely, we do have concerns that the much narrower public interest defence could potentially exclude legitimate circumstances that would otherwise fall within a reasonable excuse defence.



























































































































































































We can't foresee every scenario and would not want to limit the courts ability to assess what would constitute a reasonable excuse by altering the defence in this way. The excuse given has to be reasonable. It cannot just be any excuse. The examples that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, gave are ones that we we should think about. As I've said, the. The government believes the courts are well versed in understanding the limits of a defence. Finally, the current common law offence requires the prosecution to establish the absence of a reasonable excuse or justification. So retaining this approach supports one of our main policy objectives of clarifying the law rather than changing it.













































































































































































Can I turn now to the second issue of placing the legal burden of establishing the defence upon the defendant? The current draft follows a common approach to these defences, factoring in the need for adherence to the presumption of innocence in accordance with article 62 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is what we call a partial reverse burden. As the noble Lords know, that noble Ladies amendments would place the burden on the defendant. Instead, a full reverse burden is not uncommon for offences with low maximum maximum penalties in circumstances where the relevant information is all within the defendant's knowledge.































































































































































However, such defences are rare where the maximum penalty for an offence is as long as it is for both the offences in clauses 13 and 14, which stand at ten and 14 years respectively. This will therefore be an unusual approach, which I don't think has quite come out in the debate so far. In the circumstances, however, we do recognise the concern about the effect of introducing a heavy evidential burden on prosecutors. As I've said, we we obviously don't want to make it more difficult than it needs to be in some offences, so the government will reflect carefully on these points.

















































































































































And for the moment, however, the government considers the current approach to be appropriate. I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord Lord Marks and 87, 1992 and 94. I think in rather sensitive observations about me as well in his comments, a central requirement of both new offences is that the person accused is a public office holder. For the first time, schedule four clearly sets out who is in scope of the new offence in part three acting in adding an additional additional corporate liability provision with the intention of expanding scope of the current common law would be inconsistent with the intention that these offences replicate rather than widen the common law offence of misconduct in public office, where corporate wrongdoing is alleged.































































































































A range of other offences may also already be available depending on the circumstances, including bribery, corporate manslaughter, gross negligence, manslaughter, gross negligence, manslaughter and health and safety offences. It is for independent prosecutors to determine the appropriate charges, based on the facts and evidence of based on the facts and evidence of an individual case. Where corporate entities carry out functions on behalf of government. And this goes to the point that the noble Lord Lord Marks was stressing, such as operating private prisons, an example he gave, or prisoner transport services. Individuals working for those organisations can already fall within scope under schedule four, where the relevant requirements are met.













































































































Relevant where the relevant requirements requirements are met. Amendment 94 seeks to bring private contractors and subcontractors working for government within the definition of a public officer holder in schedule four. However, the amendments as drafted would bring contractors into scope regardless of whether the services they are providing are of a public nature. The government has sought to provide as much clarity as possible on who will be in scope of the new offences, by setting out who is a public office holder on the face of legislation. Therefore, those who quote work for unquote certain public office holders and who meet the other elements of the offences are caught, but only where the services, as I've said, are being provided, are being provided, are of a public nature.



























































































The additional catch all provision in paragraph 27 of schedule four was added to ensure those not specific specifically listed can still be caught where appropriate, by virtue of the public nature of the services they provide. I hope this has provided assurance to the noble Lord Lord Marks that he that he seeks around provisions of private contractors and subcontractors, and he and therefore he may feel willing to withdraw his amendment. Turning now to amendment 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. As the noble Lady is aware, following their extensive review of the common law offence, the Law Commission concluded that frontline healthcare which could would include ambulance workers, should remain outside the scope of the new offences unless they are providing services to those in state detention.







































































This position reflected the existing case law. In the case of Cosford, where the court held that nurses providing healthcare services within a prison were public office holders, the Cosford case was decided in this way, and this is a key point, because it held that front held the frontline. Healthcare responsibilities and duties are primarily owed to the individual they are treating rather than rather than to the public in general. The noble Lady gently challenged me to offer some more arguments than the ones that when we met previously, that is one. Frontline healthcare roles were excluded because healthcare services are delivered across both the public and private sectors, and therefore cannot be regarded solely as a core function of government, including public healthcare.





















































Public sector healthcare workers would create an arbitrary distinction between individuals performing the same role in the private and public sectors. This would add complexity contrary to the policy objective of improving clarity on who the new offences apply to. In addition, existing offences including fraud, bribery, false accounting and theft already addressed this conduct, as does the full. As the noble Lady knows, the full range of sexual offences which I understand that she's referred to. That was the particular wrongdoing in the case of Mitchell. The government's position is that it is preferable to maintain the existing common law position.





































Position, which is consistent with the policy objective of clarification and codification rather than the rather than extending the offence. As I think I mentioned, when the noble Lady and I met. However, I would like to remind the noble Lady of the government's stated commitments to reviewing the new misconduct offences. 12 months after commencement. Any review could therefore, of course, consider whether additional categories of public officers public office holder should be brought within the scope. And finally, I turn to amendments 91 and 144, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can reassure her that the Bill achieves the result the noble Lady is concerned about.





















The noble and learned Lord Keen asked me to be clear from. For the record, part two of schedule two makes clear that the definition of a public official includes an individual who was, but is no longer such an official. In the case of the two new misconduct in public office offences, these offences will be committed where a public office holder carries out the relevant conduct elements while they hold the relevant role. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in support of these debate in support of these amendments, all of whom are highly experienced in the realities of experienced in the realities of conducting a trial. Now, I understand that massed ranks of lawyers are not to everyone's taste. lawyers are not to everyone's taste. But in this case, given the technical nature of these amendments, I hope that might be
16:39
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
considered a point in their favour. I am grateful also to the noble Lord Leveson, who has, Baroness Levitt pointed out, is unavoidably not in his place, but who authorises me to say that he, too, supports these amendments, a view I believe he has discussed already with the Minister on Amendments 81, 83 and 84. I am grateful both for the Minister's confirmation of the government's position and for his undertaking, as I understood it, to put that position clearly on the face of the legislation. He has an impressive battery of lawyers and judges on which to draw, should he wish any assistance in achieving this.



































































































Many of them, I would add, of rather higher calibre than me on amendment 85. Ironic cheers will be noted by Hansard on Amendment 85 regarding the scope of the defence. I am grateful again to the noble Lord for his explanation. Nevertheless, I remain uncertain as to exactly why the government felt it necessary to depart from the considered and closely reasoned recommendations of the Law Commission, which in fact was only barely convinced of the need for the. For the narrower defence, let alone a broader one, and why it considers, if it does, consider that such alleged excuses as Under-staffing and Under-resourcing are really should be.



















































































Potential defences open to the jury to consider in relation to the corruption offence. I noticed that the noble Lord. The Minister, considers that legitimate excuses might be excluded by the narrower defence. I don't think I detected any examples of such legitimate excuses, but perhaps it might be possible in discussion to identify the sort of case that the Minister had in mind. So I am grateful to the noble Lord, but it may be we shall have to come back to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue on report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw these amendments. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 82 Lord Keen not moved. Amendment 83. Lord Anderson not Amendment 83. Lord Anderson not moved. Amendment 84. Lord Anderson not moved. Amendment 85 Lord not moved. Amendment 85 Lord Anderson not moved. Amendment 86 Baroness Levitt not move. Amendment 87 Lord Marks not move. The question is that clause 13 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Clause 14 Baroness Levitt amendment 88 not moved.























































Amendment 89 not moved. Amendment 90 Lord Marks not moved. The question is that clauses 14 and 15 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 91 Baroness Brinton not moved. The question is that clause 16 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment after clause 16. Amendment 92 Lord Marks not moved. Amendment 93 Baroness Levitt not moved. Amendment 94 Lord Marks not moved. The question is that schedule four be the fourth schedule to the bill, as many of that opinion will say, content to contrary, not content.



































The contents have it. The question is that clauses 17, 18 and 19 stand part of the Bill, as many of that opinion will say content. Content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. Schedule five. Amendment 95. Baroness Kramer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this. Group of amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Contains a whole variety of different ish aspects of legal aid, and there is such expertise in this and there is such expertise in this House that I'm going to confine my remarks essentially to my own amendment, because others will speak far more effectively to the other amendments that are in the other amendments that are in the group. Amendment 95 will provide a route to exceptional legal aid for proceedings arising, arising from whistleblowing or the exercise of duties under this act, where the wider public interest justifies it. And as such, it's rather a modest proposal. When I spoke on the first day of committee, I explained that the existing whistleblower framework, the Public Interest Disclosure Act, does not protect any whistleblower from retaliation or detriment for a recognised group of workers.









It does allow for access to some redress for retaliation or detriment through an employment tribunal, and I explain that to get legal representation, even at a preliminary hearing, costs something like £30,000. And as cases progress, the bill increases rapidly. Nearly half of claimants end up representing
16:44
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
themselves. Others turn to unregulated for profit legal services, which may not be services, which may not be qualified. And on the broader issue of a proliferation of such services that is happening in the current that is happening in the current legal aid context, I just would refer the Minister. He may wish to look at the Legal Services Board, mapping that of a pool of businesses. It's now in excess of businesses. It's now in excess of 200,000 that may be doing this work without really the right expertise or qualification to provide the best support for those bringing cases, though it's a but the outcomes typically are poor, so the cost of getting sensible quality legal representation is at a level that essentially discourages many people from speaking up.





















































































And as they progress through their case and the bill mounts, they find themselves that are signing NDAs, coming to a settlement that, or simply walking away. And, my Lords, it essentially means that the wrongdoing is no longer the focus of attention. In fact, it frequently is ignored and set aside, and the issue becomes the whistleblower. And that isn't justice for whistleblowers. But even more importantly, it's not in the public interest. Now, when I raised these issues that on committee day one, Baroness Sanderson suggested that the way around legal costs is for everyone to join a union.





































































And I'm a strong supporter of unions. But it's important that your Lordships understand that that really isn't a satisfactory answer. Unions can access insurance to provide legal support to a whistleblower. That is commendable, but such insurance arrangements under those arrangements, typically an insurer can refuse to continue to pay if the insurer believes that the likelihood of success is less than 50%. Now, over 95% of whistleblowing cases fail at tribunal. I've got the number for 2025 to 26 2189 whistleblowing cases before tribunal were disposed of in that year, and only 19 succeeded at a hearing answer.

















































So in these instances, it is very easy to see that it's in the interest of the insurance company to lean on that legal counsel, to encourage even the union members that to agree to a settlement or to withdraw. And when anyone does an analysis of the kind of level of settlement, it is actually quite unusual to find a settlement that even matches the lost salary of the whistleblower for the period of time when they've been pursuing their case, never mind offsetting any future informal blacklisting. My Lords legal aid, and I am asking only in cases where the wider public interest justifies, it would tackle a big part of this problem.































It would encourage speaking up and that, in its turn, would protect the public interest to a significant degree. Now, as I am sup amendments in this group, but I know that there are some specialism than I have. But I did want to address amendment one, two, four in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti because she, as I read it, is seeking to achieve equality of legal funding between families and public authorities around interests. And it's the principle that underlies that, that interests me, that the public authority should not have the advantage of Goliath with deep pockets to obtain high cost and expert legal counsel, and to keep a process of seeking delays and appeals while the family or and sometimes the whistleblower, on the other hand, is David, even without a slingshot and equality of arms really does matter.











I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed schedule five, page 62. Line 23. Insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 62. Line 23. Insert the words as printed on the partial list. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments one, one seven and 120 in my name. But before I do so, I'd very much like to associate myself very much like to associate myself and say how strongly I support what the noble Lady Baroness Kramer has just said, and I am quite sure that just said, and I am quite sure that we will be returning to these issues of whistleblowing at some
16:49
Lord Wills Portrait Lord Wills (Labour)
-
-
length at Report stage. My Lords, amendment 117 is born out of the experiences of the Hillsborough families. When finally, the Hillsborough Independent panel established the truth of what established the truth of what happened on that tragic day and eventually criminal prosecutions followed, the families believed followed, the families believed that after decades, some measure of justice might finally be done. But in the event, many felt let down by the way the prosecution presented their case once again, they were excluded from the processes of the state, addressing failures by the state. Yet the central provisions in this bill, the so-called parity of arms and legal representation, would not have secured those families legal representation, which could, for example, have advised them on what was going on, communicated with the CPS and advocated for them outside the court proceedings.





























































And this amendment seeks to rectify that omission. Now, finally, on this amendment on a linked issue, I'd be grateful if my noble friend the Minister, could explain why the bill contains no provision for legal aid, for support, a legal aid, support for victims of state, failure to bring criminal prosecutions against those responsible for such failures. Now, I should stress this need only be available when there was a reasonable chance of success and when it might be reasonably thought to be in the public interest. Now, of course, those are the tests that the CPS apply in deciding whether to bring a prosecution.















































But the CPS is not infallible, and in particular, their assessment of the public interest might be different from members of the public who have been most grievously affected by the state failure in question. And so the question must arise why victims of state failure and those bereaved by it should be denied support to take action in the event of a CPS for whatever reason, taking a different view of the public interest, my Lords, I now turn to amendment 120 and this amendment seeks to address the widespread concerns that, however admirable, the Bill's intention to secure parity of arms in legal representation when state failure occurs.





























The legal profession at the moment is not sufficiently funded and equipped to deliver those admirable intentions. Now, amendments tabled by other noble and learned Lord Sikka to address in different ways these fundamental problems directly. Amendment 120 has a more modest aim. It simply asks the government to recognise that there might be might be problems in this respect that the Bill does not envisage, and then, at an appropriate time to review what is happening in practice to determine whether there is in fact a problem or problems, and then if that review determines that there are such problems, then to take action to address them so that the admirable intentions of this bill do not turn out to be paper promises.











Now, if the Minister is minded to resist, what I'm afraid I do feel is a modest and constructive amendment, I should be grateful if he could explain why to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your Lordships House. My Lords, as we heard from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as we heard from Baroness Kramer, I have I have one, two, four in this group. Arguably it might have been better placed in the next group. If so, I apologise to the Committee for for not being more on the on the ball. I'm very more on the on the ball. I'm very grateful for Lady Cramer's support
16:53
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
and in fact, she's introduced my amendment admirably. It is the amendment that is about parity. It is really about parity. It is about equality of funding, of of legal representation in these proceedings. As we know, the bill seeks to effect cultural change through the general duty of candour, which applies at all times. It introduces a proactive duty of candour and assistance to require cooperation with inquiries and investigations when things go wrong, and to rebalance representation for state bodies and those affected by state failures and wrongdoing. Now, clause 20 is about that third pillar, but the success of the first two will have a profound effect on the cost of it.



































































































































What do I mean by that? Well, if the general duty truly creates the intended cultural change and it narrows the opportunity for obfuscation and cover up, then it will substantially reduce the need. I think we would all like this for the lengthy and controversial inquiry and investigatory processes of which we are all aware. If the duty of candour and assistance works as intended, where there is need for investigation and inquiry, those processes will be much swifter, more efficient because all involved will be required to provide the key information at the outset, and chairs, coroners and investigators will no longer spend months seeking things they do not know exist.

















































































































Chasing evidence which turns out not to be disputed and frankly, looking for needles in haystacks when a snowstorm of paper is eventually produced to them. So that's the context in which the new provisions on parity of representation in clause 26, although there is an extension of the legal aid scheme to the benefit of bereaved families in cases where the state is a participant and any increased cost should be far outweighed by the savings that I've just attempted to outline the need for less investigatory processes and the vastly improved efficiency brought about by the proactive assistance required by the duty of candour.

































































































So no one should fear that this bill will necessarily increase public spending if it's properly implemented, if it's properly implemented, my Lords, it will do precisely the opposite. However, there are two important elements I suggest missing from clause 20. Now. Firstly, the matter sought to be rectified by amendment 102. In the name of my noble friends, Baroness Goudie and Lord bath, regard when and how early. Importantly, representation for bereaved families should kick in. And secondly, there is the historic incongruity whereby lawyers acting for public bodies are paid a much higher rate than those who act for bereaved families.













































































To make this point clear, this means that lawyers in the same case, at the same level of experience doing the same work, each paid by the taxpayer, are paid a premium simply if they act for the state rather than for the bereaved citizen. Surely, my Lord, that is wholly indefensible and easily and appropriately rectified by my simple, straightforward amendment here. Now, at the government's request, the Hillsborough Law Now campaign. And we have some friends from the campaign, I think, with us in the chamber today, including their including their their counsel, Weatherby KC, and have assisted in the in the crafting of the bill and continue to meet with with, with colleagues in government.

























































The only arguments advanced against proper parity have been sort of vague references, as I understand, to market forces and the issue of the bill applying across a wide range of public bodies. Quite why market forces should apply to one side and not the other has not yet been explained. Lawyers frequently appear for one side or the other, dependent only on where their instructions come from. Allowing taxpayer funded representation to be set at different lower rates for families is about the easiest way of improperly interfering with the market. Margaret Aspinall, whose son was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, famously said that without parity, the state gets Rolls Royce lawyers and their families get the Morris Minor.







































No disrespect to to Morris minor owners in the committee, if there are any. And to the argument that higher rates are justified just because there are a range of state bodies who instruct lawyers is also nonsensical. This is primary legislation. If it requires proper parity of rates, state bodies will know they are only able to instruct lawyers at the legal aid rates set for families. This is fair, simple to operate and principled. There'll be no need to investigate the current legal spending rates of every NHS trust, police force, etc. in the country. Instead, they will have to cap their spending at the prescribed and published legal aid rates.























So that's equality of arms. It is not a lawyers charter. If the expensive lawyers who normally represent the state rather than victims of state abuse, don't like it, they'll be able to to lobby their paymasters to. To bump up the legal aid rates to the to, to the rate that they think is appropriate. That's the that's the point of this amendment, my Lords and I and I really hope that my colleagues in government, my noble friends in government, will will get behind this key principle of of the campaign and accept amendment one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

two, four. My Lords, I rise to speak in this group because there's a growing outcry for funded legal support for Windrush victims and support for Windrush victims and survivors to create a level playing field with other state scandals. My field with other state scandals. My Lords, for several years now, I have stood in this chamber and call on this government and the previous government for legal aid for Windrush victims, but my pleas and
17:00
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
those of others have fallen on deaf ears. My Lords, Windrush victims ears. My Lords, Windrush victims and survivors continue to be desperate for help. They've had to face the hostile environment, gone face the hostile environment, gone through hardship, insecurities and yet are still being treated unfairly by Lords. Windrush, victims of the Post Office and the infected blood scandals can receive infected blood scandals can receive funded legal representation. Their schemes provide greater institutional independence, access to legal and expert evidence and routes to independent panels and tribunals capable of making binding decisions. Some Post Office claimants may choose substantial fixed sum awards, reducing the burden of proving every element of historic loss.

















































































My Lords, Windrush victims and Windrush claimants receive none of these safeguards. The Compensation Scheme Windrush Compensation Scheme provides no funded legal advice. Claimants must rely on scarce pro-bono help, represent themselves or surrender part of their compensation. Private fees. My Lords research found average offers of compensation were 11,400, where people applied without legal advice, compared with 83,200 for some claims. Following legal represented review. In one case, a claimant initially received nothing, but with pro bono, legal help was ultimately rewarded £295,000 my Lords, the Home Office told the Public Affairs Committee that the Windrush scheme was designed not to have funded legal support to avoid confrontational and retraumatising processes.



























































Yet they contradicted this in explaining why some claims take longer, explaining that this was because claimants find the process distressing and retraumatising, and the department only progressed claims at the pace the victims want. My Lords, this is the blatant disregard of survivors voices, as summarised by the government's own independent Windrush commissioner, Reverend Clive Foster, M.B.E. who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reporting in the same committee, Explained that the Windrush compensation scheme is confusing, overwhelming and retraumatising with limited proactive communication from the Home Office, both in terms of update cases and a clear explanation of being eligible clear explanation of being eligible and have entitlement to. My Lords, he has now begun a campaign for he has now begun a campaign for legal support for Windrush victims and survivors. This is most telling. Surely if the government owned Windrush Commissioner says there is a need for legal aid, then there must be a case to answer. My Lords. Written evidence submitted by age UK to the Public Affairs Committee stated that documents and evidence requirements should be realistic and should be designed to minimise further trauma and distress, and should recognise the barriers faced by older people to supply historic documents without legal aid and expert evidence.



























These requirements present enormous difficulties, hurdles and adversity for the victims who have had to endure huge stress and trauma and continue to do so. My Lords support is available through the Advocacy Fund for victims, but advocates cannot provide specialist legal advice and challenge decisions on what is legal. My Lords, legal aid or funded legal support is necessary for those Windrush victims and survivors who desperately need it because they are expected to navigate a 44 page claim form, 52 pages of compensation scheme rules and over 100 pages of case worker guidance. And as I said, many are elderly and living with poor health.











 My Lords, how can this be justified? The Home Office needs to repent and change this policy and requirements. So I ask the government to consider this plea and show empathy and compassion for these desperate British citizens who have been treated disgracefully and surely have suffered enough.
17:05
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> My Lords. >> Clearly, there is concern across the House about the issue of legal the House about the issue of legal aid, and equally, there is concern about the treatment of whistleblowers in the context of representation. We are not convinced at this stage that it is necessary to establish a separate root legal aid in these cases. But turning to the amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord wills, and also his amendment 120 we would be interested to hear the noble Lord the Minister's response to the question about review of Non-means tested legal aid in the context of inquests.



























I would also notice that the government have set down and tabled their own amendments in this area. We do not oppose those amendments, but we do hope that the issue of legal aid can be clarified before we reach a Report stage, because otherwise, no doubt it will be returned to. Finally, could I just mention the amendment one, two, four in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which seeks to impose a cap on the funding for a public authorities legal representation that the level of legal aid rates. Now, we are sympathetic to the aim that lies behind this amendment, namely parity of representation, which is so important.









But we would be inclined to pull people up, not pull people down. And it's in these circumstances that I suggest that we are more likely to make progress on this issue when we come to the next group of amendments. Thank you. My Lords, this has been an important and interesting debate. And of course, it's the first of two groups on legal aid. But before
17:07
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
I speak to the specific amendments, I wish to turn first to a modest collection of government amendments collection of government amendments tabled in my name. Government amendments 136 A, 136 B, and 137. These amendments clarify changes to the regulations governing the the regulations governing the provision of Non-means-tested legal aid in relation to inquests. aid in relation to inquests. Amendment G 137 serves to tidy up the regulations on the provision of Non-means tested legal aid for legal help work, which includes preparatory work ahead of an inquest hearing. The amendment removes a subparagraph of the civil, legal aid, financial Resources and Payments for Services Regulations 2013.























































































































































































































































































































































































This sub paragraph currently ensures that where an applicant is receiving legal aid for, quote, other legal services, unquote. At an inquest through exceptional case funding. Legal help in relation to that inquest will be non-means tested. Exceptional case funding is available for inquest without a means test, where a failure to provide legal aid would breach or likely risk a breach of an individual's human rights. We previously amended the Bill to expand the definition of what work is covered by other legal services, and this now includes legal help work. Therefore, in cases where an applicant is receiving exceptional case funding for other legal services, at an inquest, they would also receive Non-means-tested legal help services.





































































































































































































































































































































































The subparagraph of the regulation, which removes the requirement for a means test for legal help in these cases, is therefore no longer required, and amendment G137 removes this amendment G one three, six A and G136B. Clarify the circumstances in which legal aid in relation to an inquest is available without a means test. Amendment G136A replaces the provision that Non-means tested. Legal help is available at an inquest with the provision that it is available in relation to an inquest. This ensures that Non-means tested legal help is available to support a bereaved family member's preparation for an inquest, as well as the inquest hearing itself.





















































































































































































































































































































































 Amendment G136B ensures that Non-means-tested legal help will be available where either a public authority or a relevant public official who represents that public authority is an interested person. The relevant officials are listed in paragraph 43 of part four of schedule six to the bill. This ensures that both legal help and advocacy services brought in scope to the of the bill will be provided where either a public authority or the specified public official who represents a public authority at an inquest is an interested person. Together, these amendments ensure that the legislation clearly and consistently describes the circumstances in which Non-means-tested legal aid is available and removes provision which is no longer required.



































































































































































































































































































































Can I now turn to the amendments that are the other non-government amendments that are in this group? Can I just say firstly to the noble Lady, noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, there's a number of points about Windrush coming up in the next group, and my noble friend Baroness Anderson will be responding to those, and she'll respond to your points on legal aid as part of her as part of her response to that. Can I turn, however, to the amendment 95, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cramer? The government recognises the important role that whistleblowers can play in bringing wrongdoing to light and promoting accountability, and I obviously know it's a long standing concern and interest of the noble Baroness, Lady Cramer, and we we've discussed it.

















































































































































































































































































































The statutory framework for civil legal aid is set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The availability of legal aid depends on whether a matter falls within the scope set by Parliament. Eligibility depends on the underlying legal issue and the nature of the proceedings, together with the applicable means and merits requirements. Some whistleblowing related matters may already qualify for legal aid under existing provisions. For example, legal aid may be available in cases involving an alleged deliberate or dishonest abuse of a position of power by a public authority. In addition, legal aid is available for certain discrimination matters falling within the existing scope of the scheme.

































































































































































































































































































Where a matter falls outside the normal scope of legal aid. Individuals may also apply for exceptional case funding. Exceptional case funding may be granted where a failure to provide legal aid would create a risk of a breach of the applicant's human rights, or assimilated rights. Applicants are. Applications are considered on a case by case basis. Separate to legal aid. Wider issues relating to whistleblowing protections are being considered by the Department for business, innovation, Science and Trade, which has the noble Lady nos. And we previously discussed it in this in in Committee on this bill has published a consultation.

















































































































































































































































































Additionally, most of the employees covered by this amendment would have access to trade Union, a point referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cramer, through which legal support could also be obtained. The government, therefore, does not consider that a bespoke legal aid package for whistleblowers is necessary, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. Turning now to the amendments discussed during this debate, the other amendments discussed amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lord Wills and my noble friend Lord Wills, I recognise that criminal proceedings can be very difficult for victims. Of course, the government is aware of that, and the government is keen to ensure that, as far as possible, the court experience is as smooth as possible for victims and that if they wish to receive it, they can access emotional and practical support throughout.































































































































































































































































However, we do not believe that introducing legal representation for victims would be the right way forward. Criminal proceedings are between the state

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the defendant with. Sorry to interrupt him. But he says.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But he says. The government's intention is to give support to victims through what can be very stressful criminal. Cases in the court. Does he recognise that that job could well recognise that that job could well be done by the independent Public Advocate, that it can only be done if she receives sufficient funding if she receives sufficient funding to do it, which at the moment she does not do?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm smiling because the. If I. But the greatest respect, the noble Lord never misses an opportunity to Lord never misses an opportunity to make that point about the IPA to me. And we did. We. We. Yes, I'm sure, And we did. We. We. Yes, I'm sure, and we discussed it at the previous committee day, and I gave a range of assurances which I'm sure he of assurances which I'm sure he won't forget and will hold me to. Of course, we take the IPA role Of course, we take the IPA role very seriously in this. And he also knows that I shan't be able to count among the Treasury on resources.





































































































































































































































But we will consider the business cases she has put forward, as we already are indeed, in the Ministry of Justice and Criminal Proceedings. Let me return to the question of legal aid for victims. Criminal proceedings are between the state and the defendant, with legal aid being used to fund an eligible defendant's legal team to help ensure a fair trial. Even if legal aid was only made available to victims for a small number of offences, this would mark a move away from a fundamental and long standing principle that criminal legal aid is to fund a defendant's defence.























































































































































































































Prosecution work will be handled by the Crown Prosecution Service, so victims of any breach of duties under this act would not require their own legal representation. Legal aid will be available to defendants involved in breaches of duty under the act, as it usually is in all criminal proceedings. We understand, of course, we understand the criminal justice process is can be extremely difficult to navigate and can produce a great deal of stress and distress for individuals, particularly for those who have been a victim of a crime. To mitigate these challenges and provide assistance, there are a range of support services already in place to help victims, including locally, support local support services.







































































































































































































This support can include advocacy, emotional support and advice while navigating the the court process. I now turn to amendment 120, also tabled by the my noble friend Lord Wills.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lords Minister. What about withdrawing the support services for the court support teams were for the court support teams were talking about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

talking about. I'm not quite sure what the noble Lady is driving at in relation to that and legal aid, but relation to that and legal aid, but I'm very happy to pick up the point later and think about it further. later and think about it further. I'm now turning to amendment 2120, also tabled by the noble Lord Wills. Sorry, my noble friend Lord wills, we are committed to ensuring the effectiveness of legal aid arrangements for inquests under the Bill. However, we do not consider that the creation of an independent review to be conducted within six months of implementation is the most effective way of achieving this.

















































































































































































The Lord Chancellor has a legal duty under section one of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Prosecution of Offenders Act 2012 to secure the availability of legal aid to those who are eligible, and these arrangements are monitored on a regular basis. We recognise that the implementation of this Bill will significantly expand the scope of legal aid for inquests, where a public authority is an interested person, and in order to ensure the effectiveness of these arrangements, which, as I say, are a considerable expansion, the government will keep these arrangements under review. From day one of implementation, and this approach would allow us more flexibility in taking into account factors which may impact inquests, legal aid, but also apply across or have implications for other key areas of civil legal aid, where there is evidence of issues of access or adequacy in relation to inquest legal aid.





























































































































































This approach would also allow the government to consider this evidence as and when it arises, rather than within an inflexible set time period and, where appropriate, to formulate next steps and actions in policy and practice. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti for tabling amendment one, two, four, which seeks to achieve equality of funding between families and public authorities. Are inquests by placing the onus on the latter not to spend more than the prevailing rates for legal aid for too long? My Lords, some families have had to fund their own legal representation or support for inquests when the state has had access to taxpayer funds.













































































































































At the point that the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti made taxpayer funded services. This is not right, and that is why we have sought to level the playing field. I'm adding to the David and Goliath and Morris minor metaphors used earlier with my own level. The playing field cliché, I suppose. So the measures in this bill, for the first time, Non-means-tested legal aid will be available for an inquest where the state is an interested person. We think this goes a significant way in itself to ensuring a parity of arms at inquest, and I was pleased to note the comments of the noble and learned Lord Keen supporting the principle, which I think is now shared by everybody.





























































































































We therefore share the same intention, as I've said, as the noble Lady. There are some practicalities that have to be considered when exploring limits on the spend of public authorities at inquests, and I'd like to take a few moments to just set those out. Firstly, we must recognise the role public authorities play at inquests. Public authorities rightly have significant responsibilities for evidence gathering, disclosure and participation, and inflexible limits on legal representation could inadvertently impede their ability to assist coroners in establishing the full circumstances of a death. Secondly, rates paid by public authorities have developed through a range of diverse funding and contracting models and seeking to apply to a level of rates developed through the legal aid model would be complex and likely have unintended consequences.









































































































Without careful application, it could risk impacting the effective participation of public authorities in the inquest process, which is essential to establishing what happened. I have set that out. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm so grateful to my noble friend for the seriousness with which he's engaging with this with which he's engaging with this with this discussion. Could I just ask him on this, on this issue of there's a range of authorities and it would be difficult to work out it would be difficult to work out what the what the rate is if they were bound to the legal aid rate, then they wouldn't be around then they wouldn't be around anymore, which is the point that I perhaps made badly you know, I probably didn't do myself justice or do my amendment justice in in what I said earlier.

























































































And on his point, which I think is a really good one about a public authority that's engaged in inquiry, having to do so much more work sometimes because they have to make all this disclosure. That's not about the rate, that's about the overall cost, which would be unaffected by either my amendment or the one that I also support. That's coming in a bit from my noble friend Lord Balfe. That's about the overall cost. That's not about the rate per hour. And therefore that that whatever it was, the second point seems to be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

little redundant. With respect, I don't think it's redundant. I think the point I was redundant. I think the point I was trying to make, and I'm very happy to seek to clarify it, and I'm going on to talk in a minute about what we're going to do next. But what we're going to do next. But the point I was trying to make is that the way in which the rates. She's right to draw that She's right to draw that distinction have been set for. These various activities have come about through different means. And I think what what the government is I think what what the government is concerned about is that there may be unintended consequences of, of using the metric that she is suggesting.



































































But I do as I say, we do accept the principle. We just don't want to be getting into a situation where we're we're unpicking lots of consequences, which we haven't quite thought through. So if the lady noble Lady will allow me, I'll just press on and talk a little bit more about where we go from here. We do understand these concerns, as I hope I've made clear, and have sought to go further with the bill requiring public authorities to engage legal representatives to act for them as necessary and proportionate. This is an important phase, and I do want to set this out very clearly for the record, what the provisions are in the Bill currently to seek to address the Paris Iran's ambition, including.



















































 We. We public authorities, must engage legal representatives to act for them as necessary and proportionate way, as I've said, including with regard to the comparable position of affected persons in respect of their means to engage legal representatives. So the principle that the noble Lady is enunciating the nature and extent of the obligations of public authorities to assist in respect of disclosure and other matters, and the importance of the issues under investigation and the need for those issues to be investigated fairly, proportionately, expeditiously and cost effectively, unquote. In doing so, they will need to have regard, and this is also an important point for the future to.

































Statutory guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor, setting out the principles that should guide their conduct at inquests, in addition to ensuring the cost of legal aid expansion is met by public authorities or their central government department, where they are an interested person at an inquest, we expect to help this to help strengthen incentives for more proportionate participation, and I stress the word as I have already proportionate and spending behaviours among interested public authorities to address the David and Goliath and Morris minor problem, including in the use of their own legal representation at inquests. We do nevertheless acknowledge the strength of feeling on this issue, and I have set out what what the current provisions in the Bill are fully and carefully as a basis for continuing the conversation.













We all share the aim of ensuring fairness in inquests and equally, we must ensure that this is done in a way that has no unintended consequences. As I refer to earlier in response to the intervention from my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, that could undermine the effective operation of the coronial system. The government is continuing to explore ways to help achieve this, and I will certainly meet with the noble Lady and other peers before Report stage to discuss this and the various ways forward.

I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
17:26
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I will. >> I will withdraw my amendment. But just saying that I think the Minister has a lot to chew on here, Minister has a lot to chew on here, that on the link between the public interest and legal aid is quite a powerful one. And if we put the powerful one. And if we put the public interest first, then we have to reconsider the way in which we regard public legal aid as a mechanism to achieve the outcomes we're looking for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn. The question is that schedule five be question is that schedule five be the fifth schedule to the bill. As many as of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendments 96 to 101. Lord Lemos moved formally. to 101. Lord Lemos moved formally. En bloc. The question is that amendments 96 to 101 be agreed to. amendments 96 to 101 be agreed to. En bloc as many are as of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it in clause 20.

















Amendment 102. Baroness Goudie.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I wish to move the amendment in the name, in my name and in the name of Lord Bach. And I and in the name of Lord Bach. And I would like to thank the Law Society and Bar Council, justice inquest, and Bar Council, justice inquest, inquest and amnesty for all the support they have given to us in this House in briefings. This is a vital piece of of of of, of this is vital piece of of of of, of this is a vital part of this bill. It is most important that people are represented properly, that they do have legal representation from the time an accident happens, and that they should have it for advice.



They should have it for the solicitor, they should have proper counsel representing them when they go to all these inquests from the
17:27
Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
very beginning, not halfway through, and not that it has to be got on various websites trying to get various websites trying to get money and friends having to pay for them. This should be coming part of this bill, and that people should this bill, and that people should have legal aid from the very, very beginning. As I've said already, I'm not moving money about it I'm not moving money about it should come from on one place or another. It should come from the legal aid fund, and the budget must legal aid fund, and the budget must be increased to take care of these issues.



































And it there has been too many cuts in legal aid over the past ten years, and it is important that this is taken into account, and that is key in the bill's work, and we support. With the support I've already mentioned, we've had the number of cases that could even be got through. I think the figure that I know people are quite worried about, and that is right, is I've asked various people and it could go up to 11,000, and I've checked this with the Law Society and with the House of Lords library here, which shows how great the need has been.























We've also have to ensure that families do not have, as I've said, other to go to other places to raise money. This is just not done. This is for us as a government and as a Labour government to represent all who need representation. So I would hope that the Minister and the government would look unfavourably onto this and this be included in the bill, not just included in the bill, but included in statute, because it is most important that this cannot be taken away, as we've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seen in other cases. Thank you. Proposed clause 20, page 19.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed clause 20, page 19. Line four at end. Insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise to warmly support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to warmly support amendment 102. My name is to it so amendment 102. My name is to it so well ably moved by my noble friend Lady Goudie, and to speak. And the Committee will be pleased to hear this very shortly. On amendment 114, for the obvious reason that it links so closely to that move by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, just
17:29
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-
a few minutes ago, sometimes using precisely the same words as I would precisely the same words as I would have used if I had been more lengthy. Hopefully I. Can I accept the apology. I remind the committee the apology. I remind the committee of my registered declared interest, and I want to warmly thank the three noble Lords who have put their name to my amendment, and the noble Lord Lord Carlile of Berriew. Noble Lord Lord Marks of Henley, and my noble friend Lord Willis. Well, as I say, so much has been taken. I'll come to my amendment 114 in.















































































































































In due course. I just want to add just a couple of things to what Lady Gaga has said. Noble friend Lady Gaga has said it's an easily stated problem that she refers to. I mean, state bodies have lawyers in house. They can instruct lawyers as soon as disaster or scandal happens, and of course they do. The affected families are only able to instruct lawyers on the current wording of clause 20 months or years down the line. Not even with the inquest has been opened. But when the coroner designates interested person status, a current case that I has come to my attention about interested person designation hasn't been finalised for two years.



























































































































After the deaths. In cases where there may be Iopc or Prison Ombudsman reports or other serious incidents reports, long, long delays may and do occur. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, the ultimate position will not be in doubt. But still funding will not be available. The police force will be an interested person in in every controversial custody death. Similarly for the Prison Service, the probation service, the health care service is in respect of deaths in their domains. Therefore, surely the answer common sense answer is to provide funding to families where it is likely.











































































































And this is what Lady Goldie's amendment says that a state body will be designated, and to have provisions to ensure that the position is clarified at the earliest possible moment. The importance of this amendment is that families may need legal advice immediately, at once, as quickly as possible, for example with respect to post-mortems, and to assist them in navigating the following post-death process and inquest proceedings at a time when they are at their most traumatised and vulnerable. It is just unfair if the families of those who are those who have died cannot get legal aid at an early moment, leaving the interested persons, those who will clearly become interested persons in an advantageous position.



















































































And I very much hope the government will consider that amendment with with care. And it does leave them some scope to decide on it without. It's not an absolute one, but it does say as. As soon as possible, when it's likely and it's pretty clear normally when it's likely, if not just obvious. So what's left for me to say on the on the amendment raised by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I mean the interesting position of the Minister having answered her amendment and gives me the chance, just to say that I don't think the government themselves feel in a very comfortable position about this amendment.



































































And I'm very grateful to the noble Lord who. I'm sure that the Minister, who has been trying hard in order to make sure that some justice can be done in this particular area, if there is a difference between the noble Baroness Chakrabarti amendment and mine. 124 and 114, it's perhaps that mine does allow slightly wider scope for the government to come to a view. And doesn't link it necessarily always with legal aid. It has to be a minimal legal aid, obviously, but not with always be legal aid. And I think and I don't always agree with the noble and noble Lord, Lord Lord Keen of Elie, who I think made, whose support or modest support for this very much noted by by myself and other noble Lords that this should be question of moving up rather than moving down.











































And I think that's a principle. We want to want to establish. But I can't emphasise enough. I don't think that if this doesn't happen, if this if the position remains as it is now, there will really not be parity between the parties. And if this bill isn't about parity, among so many other things, but about parity in particular, then it would be a huge lacuna in this bill and might be so serious as to make sure that this bill that the government supports so much that I think the House supports very largely this bill, might fail.



























It would just be utterly unfair if it's this particular issue is not is not sorted, is not sorted out. It is about rates. It's not about actual costs. It's about rates. That's all that's being asked. And it seems, I think in the field of equality and equity generally, it would be really absurd, if I may say so, if the government sticks to its position and doesn't allow that this is a proper and sensible amendment, which actually fits in with the philosophy and the thinking behind this bill. So I'm very grateful to the Minister for seeing me, and also for all the work that he's done.









But I think there's lots more work to be done on this before we reach a satisfactory conclusion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. My Lords, inquests are mostly very straightforward and don't very straightforward and don't raise many contentious issues, but from time to time, inquests can be from time to time, inquests can be incredibly complicated and can raise large numbers of very serious raise large numbers of very serious issues arising from the conduct or misconduct of those who work for
17:37
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
misconduct of those who work for public authorities. And for me, the principle of these proposed amendments to section two, clause 20 and schedule six are that when the state is represented at public expense, bereaved families should not be placed at a disadvantage because of their means. I'm going to give you a Lordships two examples of real cases, if I may. So some of your Lordships may be old enough to remember a character in Coronation Street called Jerry Booth, who died in his bed at home in his 30s. My noble kinsman woman was but a child at the time.

































































































































I see her shaking her head. Jerry Booth's Jerry Booth's death was from a not very well explained cause and the local health board, whatever it was in those days, relied upon the evidence of a particular pathologist counsel who was instructed at private expense on behalf of Jerry Booth's wife, smelled a rat and had another pathologist, a carry out, a post-mortem, and it was discovered that the way in which the post-mortem of the body originally had been carried out was extremely dubious, not least because when the second pathologist opened the body, he found the sternum, the chest bone, not only of Jerry Booth but of another person inside the body.















































































































 That is an absolute fact from the case. To take a much more recent case, a distinguished consultant medical specialist, Doctor Kim Harrison, had died recently in South Wales as a result of being killed by his own son, who suffered from a serious medical condition, mental health condition. Eventually, after a terrible inquiry by the local health authority, from which large quantities of documentation were concealed, there was an inquest before deputy Coroner heaven, and among the things that were found by the deputy coroner, it was found that the son had been wrongly removed from specialist mental health care when a consultant had left proper follow up arrangements in place.



























































































The family's repeated warnings about their son's health condition were ignored. Security at the psychiatric unit was so inadequate that the son was able to just walk out, and a series of care failings contributed to the circumstances leading to his father's death. None of that would have been revealed without careful analysis carried out for the family at their expense. A family which, by the way, still loves and has contact with the boy who killed his father. The son being in a mental health institution. Now those two cases come from one council. There are 18,491 barristers, never mind the number of solicitors in this country.







































































The council in those two cases was me. There are two cases from a much larger experience that I've had in my career as a barrister, and it indicates to me how important it is to be not necessarily precise equality of arms. We're not talking about equal fees, but equality of opportunity to be represented properly at the cost of the state where there might otherwise be a disadvantage because of means against the public authority. For my Lords, justice demands equality of arms, or at least of opportunity. An inquest is a search for truth, not a contest of resources.























































Funding disparities distort that search. Public confidence depends on visible, accountable fairness. The appearance of institutional advantage undermines trust in the outcome. Families, my Lords, are not ordinary litigants. They are grieving citizens seeking answers following a death for which the state might be bearing responsibility. And they want to know there should be a level playing field on rights. Rights are of little value if they cannot be exercised in practice, including in an inquest. Proper scrutiny improves public service for the future. The particular Harrison inquest, which I referred to, the second case I referred to, has left lessons, certainly in South Wales, for eternity, as to how mental health services should be run and not neglected.

































Competent representation for families guarantees transparency and candour, and no public authority should fear equality. Now in this House as we speak, I haven't done an exact count, but there are about ten members of the bar, at least three in this row, and we have the pleasure of having below the gallery Pete Weatherby KC, who's played such a significant part in the in the in the in the in the case that gave rise to the Hillsborough case, which gave rise to this this legislation. But I do urge your Lordships to take into account that a glib answer that.

















We'll see what we can do about inquests will not be persuasive. We will come back and we will win at Report stage if we have to. If we do not have clear answers to the questions so ably raised by my noble, by my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, and by my noble friend Lord Bach, because it is essential that there should be fairness in this crucial sector.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In sports. I just. Wish to speak in support, particularly of amendment 102, and I thank noble Lord Lord Bach and Baroness Goudie very much for putting it forward. And I would putting it forward. And I would also like to thank the NGOs. Hillsborough Law now inquest and Hillsborough Law now inquest and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group for their helpful briefing,
17:44
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
including on this particular point, because at the moment, clause 20 E means that funding is only triggered when a public body is designated an interesting person, a process obviously done by the coroner at the inquest. But often that designation takes place a long time after the individual's death, and if they have to wait until the inquest, they're being denied early access to representation and there could be complex investigations. There could be a criminal investigation by the police, there could be local independent reviews, particularly for the NHS or local authority is in is involved. And they, they they they make a striking point here that inquest law is frequently report working on cases in which interested persons are designated a year, 18 months, two years, or even four years after death.





































































And all that time the the the the families of the of the of the person who who has died are, are going to obviously struggle to, to understand and to wade through the process. And they might need advice on, on, on how to secure post-mortem, as has been mentioned on data preservation notices, making sure there's meaningful participation from the family in all the respective investigations, in securing evidence, helping to review disclosure and lots of other processes, which I'm sure any lawyers who gone through inquests would know all about. And if the families do not get non-means-tested funding, legal aid funding for this work, they are going to, to, to, to really be at a disadvantage.













































So, you know, the word priority, which I think everybody is focusing on, is going to be devoid of real meaning in that context. And I, I hope the noble Lord, the Minister in in reply, will really give evidence of, of, of the government understanding this point and how legal aid at an inquest is all very well, but it can be preceded by a long period, months, even years when a family are going to struggle to really understand what's going on. My I only mention I because inquests sort of strike a chord with me, not in a similar circumstance, but at.



























My late husband died suddenly and an inquest was ordered, which is, I understand, routine. For a sudden a sudden death. I played no role. I was the spouse was not consulted, not not asked. And it was six months before it took place. And even in that scenario, I, you know, you you're facing a, a process in, in a situation of grieving and, you know, without everything else that would be envisaged in the scenario of, of this bill. So I just have a very faint slight echo of what bereaved families would be going through, facing the lack of legal funding for legal representation in the run up, which could be the long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

run up to an inquest. It's very hard to to talk about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's very hard to to talk about things like that. So enormous credit to to the Baroness Ludford credit to to the Baroness Ludford speaking personally in a way that really does add something to to our deliberations. I was briefly to support expressly support 10104 and
17:48
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
support expressly support 10104 and 114 in, in, in the names of I beg your pardon 102 and 114 in the names of my noble friends on 102. As my noble friend Lord Bach put so eloquently, parity is about rights, but it's also about the timing, because for the reasons that have been echoed again by the noble Lady Baroness Ludford, you know, if the public authority that may be responsible for scandalous behaviour, negligence, whatever it is, you know, gets a head start on top of its higher rates and in-house lawyers and all the other things mentioned by Lord Balfe.























































































































































































































































You know, the bereaved family are really, really, even further reduced and even further behind. And and he put that so well. And that's why my noble friend Baroness Goudie was so right to hone in on that issue of timing and early timing for advice and, and legal advice. So it's incredibly important on 114, and I'm just a couple of words about 114, because I should have put my, my amendment should have been in this group. ET cetera. ET cetera. I went for the, I went for the ceiling and not the floor for two. By the way, we agreed what we're trying to achieve equality for funding for legal representation.









































































































































































































































I picked the ceiling and not the floor for two reasons. And 1st May make me an idiot in a moment, but others can decide that. The first reason was that I was wary of the argument that we have now had from the government, but there's a range of public authorities. There's police forces and NHS trusts and quangos and the list goes on. And how will we know exactly what that rate is? That was the first reason. And of course, I was right to predict that argument because it's you know, it was it was in my noble friend, the Minister speaking note from his from his colleagues.





























































































































































































































The second reason was I was courting conservative support. That's where my idiocy kicks in. I thought that conservative colleagues in the committee would prefer the cap. We would prefer that we're not bumping up spending. And it's not a lawyers charter. You know, all the rhetoric we hear about the Human Rights Act and the ECHR and all these terrible things, and it's lawyers chartered. That's what I was predicting. Instead, I got the inspirational comment from the noble and learned Lord Keen of Elie that he would rather lift the rates than reduce them, in which case all the more reason to be supportive of my noble friend Lord Bach, which only leaves this difficulty.















































































































































































































And I'm only saying this because my noble friend Lord Lemos, the Minister, has said he's open to engaging with this and getting it right before report. How are we going to deal with all these different potential rates and every police force in the country, NHS trust, as well as the easier and to predict government legal department Treasury Solicitor rates? I'm sure we can come up with a mechanism it. And there are any number of possible approaches to this. I am convinced that with advice from government lawyers, we can come. It could be a rate. That's.

































































































































































































It could be a negotiation between the. Between the legal. What's the legal aid board? Yeah. What's it called? LA between the Legal Aid Services Agency and the the public authority. In an individual case it could be with the negotiation fails, it could be that the adjudicator, the coroner or whoever's doing the inquiry makes a decision on it. But it is possible to achieve this. It is really not that difficult to achieve this. You know, A there are pre-emptive costs, orders that are that are made in other cases. It's a it's a different regime. But things can be done by agreement or order, or they can be prescribed.



















































































































































































 But we can do this to achieve a. The noble Lord, the noble and learned Lord Keen of Elie wish for parity, but raising and not and not capping. So I really hope that this can be considered. I put this on the record now so that in response to the noble Lord, the Minister's invitation for further detailed engagement before. Report, his colleagues in the Department can do some thinking about this and come up with a range of mechanisms for achieving the understanding of what the public authority rate is likely to be and ensuring that we have real parity, not the nudge towards not the wink and the nudge towards parity that we currently have in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 20, but an absolute parity on both timing and on funding levels. Michael.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Michael. It's always a pleasure to join forces with the noble Baroness Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness Baroness Ludford, but especially to thank Baroness Goudie and the noble Lord Lord Bach for the way in which Lord Lord Bach for the way in which they introduced amendments 102 and 114 and the Noble Law Lord Bach will recall that we joined forces will recall that we joined forces back in 2012 on the Legal Aid Sentencing Punishment of Offenders Bill known as LASPO, then challenging the levels of legal aid that were being made available.























































































































































And I was thinking of the sardonic analogy that was drawn during those debates about how justice is open to all, just like the Ritz Hotel. In other words, there are people, because of their resources who get far greater justice than others. So yes, I associate myself very much with the remarks that have been made about those who will be subject to the constraints and the opportunities that will be opened as a result of this new bill, which I reiterate, I totally support and I'm glad that the government have brought forward. But I want to raise a slightly different question, and that is about resources.









































































































































But these are the resources to the coroner's service itself. And in this respect, I want to follow up the letter which I sent to the noble Lord Lord Lemos, the Minister on October the 6th, concerning the impact that the Bill will have on coroners and the implications of funding arrangements to which these amendments and others that we discussed in the previous group will refer to. And first of all, I want to thank Lord Lemos again for his customary diligence in responding very rapidly to that letter. He replied on October the 12th. But in a way, in essence, everything that is in the letter, and I'd be very happy if the correspondence was placed in the library of the House.

























































































































But his reply is summed up in these words that he used. It is not currently possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the impacts on the coroner's service. So that is asking us to give a green light to this legislation without knowing whether or not the resources will be there to do the sorts of things that have been referred to during these debates. I asked in that letter that I sent to him, what port are being given to the direct impacts which will arise from the provisions, creating a power for the coroner or inquiry chair to raise concerns about the conduct of a public authority or their legal representatives during proceedings, and the requirement for those conducting or participating in a statutory inquiry or inquest to have regard to an overriding objective to ensure that affected persons are able to fully and effectively participate in the proceedings.





































































































So the key question that I posed there, and I pose again this evening is around resources. There's an old saying that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Well, this is a silk purse of a bill. It's an excellent bill, but we've got to do better than giving Sauzier resources to making it work. The key question, as I say, is about resources. I'm told that the financial impact assessment for the new legislative burdens makes provision based on assumptions. For an average legal aid cost of around 65 million to £180 million per annum.

























































































However, my Lords, at paragraphs 43 to 46 of the same impact statement, it says this. These measures may give rise to direct and indirect impacts on the overall resource burden on local authority funded coroner services. The potential resource burden identified will largely be driven by those cases which proceed to the inquest. Now, the government has said that it anticipates that these impacts can be broadly, broadly absorbed into existing provision. But given the extraordinary range of figures that I've just cited, I don't know how on earth that statement can really justifiably be made. Contrast it with the report that appeared on July the 29th in the Law Society Gazette, and indeed, one of the figures that the noble Baroness Goudie gave is referred to in that report.







































































It says this firms will shortly be invited to bid for brand new legal aid contracts to do inquest work ahead of an expected surge, once the so-called Hillsborough law comes into force. The government estimates that the Public Office Accountability Bill will increase the number of legally aided inquests from the current 200 to 400 to as many as 11,400. Now, my Lords, if that is correct, it will create a significant financial burden on funding to the relevant authorities. And that burden, my Lord, is not simply financial. I note that according to the Judicial Attitude Survey, I quote salary judges and coroners had the highest stress levels.























































Only 1% of salary judges, 6% of fee paid judicial public holders, and 0.6% of coroners reported no work related stress. This is on the basis of the current caseload. Now, given the new burdens, from where are the additional coroners to come from and how are they to be funded? I particularly was taken, as always, by what my noble friend Lord Carl Lord Carlile of Berriew, said to the committee a little earlier on that inquests are a search for truth, not a contest of resources. So we've got to get this right. The Minister may suggest a post-implementation review.









































I don't want to steal his thunder, but I suspect that may be one of the things he will say to the committee, that they'll look at the new burdens on the coroners service, but bearing in mind the experience of the implementation of the Coroners and Justice Act, which I quoted to him in my letter, and in his response, he said, well, I wasn't the Minister at the time, and we weren't the government at the time. Well, that's fair enough, but we can surely learn from the lessons that arose out of that legislation. And this time, my Lords, it will be families who suffer and for whom this bill is supposed to offer remedies, not least.





























And remember, let's go to the core of what this bill is supposed to do. It's supposed to be a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness, to make provisions for the enforcement of that duty in their dealings with inquiries and investigations to make provision. Are we going to make provision or not? We've got to go to the heart of that, because if we're not there, actually we will be held to account later on for raising hopes and aspirations and then not delivering. If there isn't to be candour and frankness about how the coroners are to implement the promises of the Bill, we will risk undermining its efficacy and indeed trust in Parliament if the Bill includes no new demands.













And of course it does. It would beg the question, well, what was the point of the legislation at all? So it's got new demands in it. Clearly they must be met with resources. And I hope that the Minister, who's doing such an excellent job in this committee, and I think all of us admire him for his patience and for the granular way he's gone into the detail of this with members of the committee and listened to our concerns. I hope that he will address some of these questions and allay some of our fears when he comes to respond later.



I put my name to amendment 114 because I agree with every word that has been spoken by noble Lords and ladies in support of these amendments, and I
18:01
18:02
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
schedule six on legal aid, at inquests and inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths in Scotland. Now these provisions have been principally discussed outside this House and the other place as impacting on parity and as being about equality of arms at inquests. But they are also about timing. That was a point well made by the noble Lady Baroness Goudie and by Lord Bach, and movingly brought to life additionally by my noble friend Baroness Ludford. She highlighted the obvious reality that the early stages of the coronial procedure are the closest to the deaths involved. When the pain and the confusion for the bereaved and the challenges of unfamiliarity with the process are at their highest.





































































































































So this is not only about early access, about representation. It is importantly, as Baroness Ludford said, about investigations, it's also a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question of evidence. Late representation Means that any evidence gathered,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Means that any evidence gathered, evidence gathering by the families, which needs to be professionally undertaken, may be badly delayed and so stale and often less and so stale and often less effective. And that applies to expert evidence as much as, and indeed often more than it applies to lay evidence. Expert evidence can be contradictory on really important issues, and those relating to deaths may be issues very much in point. Late instruction gives one of the interested parties a very significant and utterly unfair head start. So it is of crucial importance that representation and advice are evidence are available from a very early stage, from all those points of view.











































































































My Lords, on the question of representation at hearings, one of the really shaming features of inquests, and I would add of inquiries particularly, but not exclusively after major tragedies, has been the ability of public authorities or contractors and suppliers to to public authorities who are in the frame, if I may use that expression, at risk of being blamed for what has gone wrong, are able to hire teams of very expensive lawyers and investigators and experts to deploy detailed and complex evidence and arguments to deflect blame from their clients. But at the same time, on the other side, the victims have frequently been unable to afford either any legal representation or any comparable legal representation, so as to ensure that the victims get a proper hearing of their side of the case, and to ensure that the evidence on behalf of those putatively responsible is properly examined by the teams available to the bereaved, examined, interrogated and, where necessary, contradicted or undermined during the coronial or, I would add, inquiry process.













































































My Lords, is very similar to the point made in relation to whistleblowers by my noble friend Baroness Kramer, which is of alarmingly wide application. Clauses 2120 subclause one, D and D are directed at redressing the imbalance between victims, bereaved families and public authorities who risk being held responsible for fatal disasters. And they do so by imposing an overriding objective that victims and others are able to participate fully and effectively in any inquiry or inquest. Subclause one e will provide for legal aid without a means test for bereaved family members where a public authority, or we would say it's private contractors, is involved.



























































I would add, in relation to the position of private contractors providing public services to public authorities and the noble Lord. The minister's response on this point in the last group, that I hope we will be able to discuss the position of private contractors within the various provisions of this bill, because I still find the government's position on this particular issue a little obscure. But while welcome, those subclauses that I've outlined are not enough to redress the imbalance that is inherent in the bill, even as it now stands, or provide anything like equality of arms or parity.













































The importance of amendment 114 is that it would ensure that legal aid rates for inquests rates comparable to those paid for the public authorities, legal teams and Baroness Chakrabarti explained that in her speech. The amendment may require fleshing out. But the inequity in this context of unacceptably low rates for legal aid work has to be addressed. The growth of legal aid deserts, the unavailability of competent lawyers, qualified and willing to undertake any any civil work, heavy civil work at current legal aid rates has been a scandal on which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and many of us have frequently spoken in this House, and that applies particularly for what we all agree is the complex work which often falls to be tackled in the wake of disasters which have impacted so heavily on the lives and on the plane, ability to cope of those needing fair, skilled and sympathetic expert representation.





















 It is a particularly egregious failure of our system that the failure to ensure such representation has such a serious effect on the victims of disasters for which our public authorities bear, or may bear prime responsibility.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'll begin by addressing the amendment. 102 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and then turn to the amendment. In the name of the noble amendment. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Although for reasons that I'll come on to, there is a link between the two, beginning with the First Amendment. beginning with the First Amendment. The government drafting is clear in the bill. The legal aid duty applies where a public authority is an interested party, and the noble
18:09
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Lady Gowdy's amendment would extend that to where a public authority is that to where a public authority is likely to be an interested party. The danger there is the potential The danger there is the potential uncertainty and vagueness about that designation. I appreciate the that designation. I appreciate the point that has been made about delay with regard to the matter of delay with regard to the matter of interest, but I do wonder whether it has to be addressed by means of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. It does strike me that in the vast majority of cases it should be possible administratively by reference to the coronial procedure, to allow a bereaved family to apply to the coronial jurisdiction for a determination at a very early point that a public authority is an interested party.



































































And, as I say, in the vast majority of cases, that will not be terribly difficult, whether it be a death in custody, a death in hospital or a death elsewhere. But what is actually required is a fairly straightforward administrative change to allow that sort of incidental application to be made to the coroner at a very early point in time, and that, I hope, would address the point that has been raised and spoken to by a number of noble Lords. Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. He refers in his amendment to a relevant public authority, and a relevant public authority is an interested public authority.



















































So we have to bear in mind that point. I'm not trying to pick up on a drafting issue, it's just to underline the importance of identifying the interested public authority at an early stage. I quite understand the desire to secure parity of representation. I'm not sure I went quite as far as some might have believed I'd gone when suggesting that all fee should be raised, although I believe it's a popular mantra is, so far as the legal profession is concerned, and one with not a little justification. Let us be clear not only in the context of these procedures, but more broadly.



































But that brings me on to a wider concern, which is not just the timing of inquiries, but the cost expanding legal aid support in the case of small, targeted and potentially fast moving inquests may not have a significant effect upon the legal aid budget. But in broader inquiries or inquests, it could be very considerable indeed. One's only got to take as an example, the Covid inquiries, where, if legal aid was proposed to be covered for those inquiries at what are referred to as commercial rates, the impact on the legal aid budget would be enormous. Now there is a balance to strike here and it is a very difficult balance, and I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will address the way in which this government is going to determine that balance going forward, and it may require a more detailed impact assessment before this sort of amendment could actually be processed.











So I express my sympathy with the need for parity of representation, but the mechanism for achieving it is perhaps more complex than we are at present prepared to accept. My Lords, Amendment 102, tabled by my noble friend Lady Goudie, would widen the circumstances where legal aid is available for an inquest and introduce funding at an earlier point than currently envisaged by
18:13
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
the Bill. The government does understand the concern which has understand the concern which has been endorsed and restated by a number of noble Lords that underpins Lady Goudie, my noble friend Lady Gowdy's amendment bereaved families can face an extremely difficult period extremely difficult period following a death and whilst welcoming the expansion of legal aid, stakeholders have consistently highlighted concerns to the government about the support available during the period between a bereavement and a formal inquest, particularly where families may be unfamiliar with coronial processes and uncertain about how they can or should participate in these proceedings.































































































































So I hope my noble friend would agree that the government is is mindful of the problem when we're not at all seeking to deny it or minimise it. Under this bill, for the first time on means tested, legal help and advocacy will be available for all inquests. Where a public authority is an interested person, the Bill deliberately uses interested persons status as the trigger for eligibility and the reasoning behind that, as I think the noble and learned Lord Keen suggested, was that it provides a clear, objective and recognised point at which legal aid becomes available.















































































































This amendment would replace that approach with a test based on whether an inquest is likely to take place, and whether a public authority is likely to become an interested person in that inquest. We are concerned, to be candid, that replacing the bill's objective legal aid trigger with a more subjective assessment based on whether a public authority is likely to become an interested person at an inquest, could cause operational complexity and uncertainty about when legal aid should be granted. This would create a risk that funding is provided in cases where it's possible that a public authority is never ultimately designated as an interested person, or indeed, where an inquest is not necessary, or the coroner coroner does not have jurisdiction to investigate a death.





























































































We recognise, nevertheless, that where a public authority is an interested person is in an inquest. This needs to be identified as soon as possible to provide certainty to bereaved families and legal aid providers, and we are working to ensure that all those working in the system are aware of the importance of early identification where possible. I noted the comments of the noble and learned Lord Keen about the procedures that should make this run much more smoothly, and I think there's a good deal of common sense in that. We also acknowledge the importance of ensuring that bereaved family and bereaved families understand their rights and the whole coronial process, which for many of them, fortunately, I might say perhaps be their first encounter with that process.











































































We want them to be able to participate effectively in proceedings and have confidence that the process has been fair and properly conducted. The government is therefore also considering what more could be done to support bereaved families during that period in a number of ways, but we are open, and the noble Lord Lord Carlile predicted. I would say this and I, the at least well kept secret in this whole afternoon. We are open to continuing conversations on this issue with peers and stakeholders, and how we can ensure that families get the support they need. I noted the noble Lord, Lord Carlile's comments about bringing it back at report.





























































I'm often surprised to hear that, and I look forward to continuing the discussions before we get to a report. I also noticed his comments about soap operas. I'm afraid one of the unfortunate things about this job is I've lost the plot of most soap operas. I now turn to amendment 114, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Barham, my noble friend Lord Bach, section one of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, 2012, sets out that the Lord Chancellor must secure the availability of civil legal aid as required under legislation. The government considers that it is this test which best serves the interests of bereaved families and the aim of this Bill, and that amending the Bill to require specific legal legal aid rates is therefore not necessary.













































The government consulted between May and June this year on proposed changes to legal aid fee schemes for inquests in connection with the legal aid elements of the Bill, and we will publish our consultation response in good time for Royal Assent and prior to commencement of the legal aid provisions of the Bill. We will obviously monitor, closely monitor the effectiveness of legal aid arrangements for inquests to assess whether the Lord Chancellor's responsibility under LASPO is being met and consider any changes to arrangements where necessary. Can I briefly turn to Lord Alton and the noble Lord Lord Alton comments about the cost?





























 Coroners. He quoted some of some of the forecasts in our impact assessment. I think he suspected. I would say that will keep his under review and we will. I would just say, though, and I'm sure he'll understand this, that having spent some time looking at those forecasts myself and questioning them with officials and so on, this is a very difficult area to forecast the impact of costs. And one of the problems in the justice system, generally, as all noble Lords knows, we are apt to move costs around it in different ways. And we don't always predict accurately the consequential effects elsewhere in the system.















Which is which is the point that the noble Lord is drawing our attention to. So I'm not suggesting we won't do it at all. We obviously must. And review these costs in. Of the in the coroners in the coronial process. But I'm sure he would agree that at this stage is not an easy forecasting exercise, but for the reasons I've set out specifically in relation to achieving something that is objective and well understood, I would respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
18:20
18:21
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
First of all, can I apologise for not participating in the Second Reading of this bill? I'm afraid I had caring responsibilities which made my presence impossible, but this bill is very close to my heart and many of the things already discussed about legal aid and participation in inquests. I would endorse. But this particular amendment, if I might explain, seeks to grant individuals affected by public authority failures in court the right to make a court application to correct the public record. The idea stems from the experience of those who had lost family members in the terrible Hillsborough Disaster.





































































































































































































Amendment 106 was developed to address the injustices suffered by particularly. I'm here speaking for the Hicks family and that's why we refer to this as the Hicks amendment. The amendments named after Victoria and Sarah Hicks, two teenage sisters who were killed in the Hillsborough disaster. Victoria and Sarah were among 97 Liverpool supporters unlawfully killed at Hillsborough in 1989. As this House knows only too well, earlier this year, their parents, Jenny Hicks, who's sitting here behind the bar, and Trevor Hicks launched a campaign seeking formal recognition that their daughters did not lose consciousness within 30s and died shortly thereafter.



















































































































































































A South Yorkshire Police claimed for years, but they actually suffered for significantly longer than the narrative that was produced and promulgated by the police. Indeed, the official court records stated that Victoria and Sarah were unconscious within seconds and died within minutes during the disaster, despite overwhelming evidence from subsequent inquiries showing that this was untrue, Victoria was aged 15. She was the only female child victim of the crush. Multiple witnesses reported that she was crying and in distress at the time that her sister Sarah, aged 19, was seen by numerous witnesses who described her as intensely distressed and panicked about the fate of her sister and calling out for assistance she has even seen desperately trying to hold her sister up in the surging crowd.





























































































































































This was not just in a matter of seconds she was even. It was known that Victoria and Sarah may have survived for some time, up to an hour after the fatal crush started. The 32nd rule was relied upon in civil litigation following Hillsborough to argue that victims lost consciousness almost immediately, and therefore they did not suffer and didn't need compensation or their families didn't. The argument was relied upon in the early 1990s, when Jenny Hicks and Trevor Hicks brought a test case against South Yorkshire Police for the pain and suffering their daughters endured as they were dying.













































































































































This was the lead case. It was intended as a test case to help all the victims of the Hillsborough disaster. That case was dismissed throughout court proceedings and came all the way up to this very building, to the appellate division of the House of Lords, the appellate court here, which at that time was our highest court, and it was brought here on the basis that the girls were assumed to have lost consciousness almost immediately. And that was the position that the police vehemently put forward, that they had swift and sudden deaths, and they relied on rather inadequate medical evidence.



























































































































However, the Hillsborough Independent panel in 2012 and the fresh Hillsborough inquest from 2014 to 2016, have since made clear that this assumption was fundamentally flawed. Medical and expert evidence of a superior kind demonstrated that many victims remained conscious for up to an hour and possibly even longer. The medical evidence heard by the fresh inquest was that those who died from asphyxia at Hillsborough were likely to have been subjected to pressure that were waxed and waned, and they're likely to have suffered physical injuries and fluctuating levels of consciousness over extended periods of time. It is clear that this is what happened to both girls.











































































































I know it's painful for their mother to hear me describe it in this way. Despite these findings, the original court rulings and the legal record they created have never been formally corrected. And there is no way currently for Jenny and Trevor Hicks to have the correction made. Without South Yorkshire Police's agreement with the new campaign, Jenny and Trevor have been calling for the record to be set straight and for a Hicks rule to be introduced so that people in similar circumstances are able to easily correct the official legal record where it is wrong, and that that should be possible in that that should be possible in future.

























































































Jenny Hicks. From Liverpool, said for more than three decades, the law has recorded something about our daughters that we now know simply isn't true. This isn't about compensation. The legal. It should be known that the legal efforts followed an out of court settlement from South Yorkshire Police relating to historic claims brought by the family. So there has been compensation. But a settlement reached without any admission of liability and without any formal public correction of the earlier court findings. And so, as Jenny Hicks says, this is not about just about correcting it for our beautiful daughters.













































































It's for everyone who died that day and for other families that find themselves facing similar injustices and incorrect legal records. History should record what really happened. The injustice here, says Trevor, is not abstract because the courts accepted the police version of events. We were told our daughters didn't suffer. We were told the law could do nothing more for them. That was wrong then and it's wrong now. Now. In February of this year, I hosted a parliamentary session featuring Jenny and Trevor Hicks, and among their speakers was their lawyer, Keelan Gallagher, who's also here, sitting behind the bar, an eminent King's counsel and her team who supported her in the legal work during the inquiries from Doughty Street Chambers.

























































They were all there, as was indeed Andy Burnham before he became the Prime Minister, all of them speaking about the importance of this change in law, the implementation of the Hicks amendment in legislation would allow victims of injustice to apply for the correction of the record by this very simple legal procedure. And it's similar, similar to it's not as if there isn't a precedent. There are similar use of corrective mechanisms in defamation and in family law proceedings regularly. However, because of the high threshold established and in the clauses that we've drafted, the Hicks amendment could not be used to entertain frivolous applications.









































 This is not going to be about nominal changes, things that people are basically of a trivial nature, but which disturb people. This is about serious matters. Statements in open court, in defamation proceedings. And there is a famous case, Murray versus Associated Newspapers, where Mrs. Murray, otherwise known as JK Rowling, was given permission to make a unilateral statement in open court. There are other cases Webb versus Lewis Silkin. Only a. Ten years ago, the High Court determined that the same principles of statements and open court could apply from. Defamation law could be carried over and used in.

























In relation to cases where there was an abuse of private information and breaches of confidence. Similarly, the sir Cliff Richard case against the BBC and you'll remember the appalling circumstances in which his arrest was filmed and so on. And again, it was possible for a statement to be made in court. And so I remind this House that this really is about setting the record straight, and that can be vitally important for public confidence in our systems. We're we've drafted this in a way that prevents misuse of it, but we are calling upon this House,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

basically to accept this amendment. Amendment proposed after clause 20. Insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

20. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. In support of amendment 106, to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In support of amendment 106, to which I'm a signatory, along with the noble Lord Lord Wills and the noble Baroness Baroness May of Maidenhead. It's always, of course, a pleasure to rise in support of my noble friend Baroness Kennedy, of
18:31
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
the shores, and to make common cause with her on this, as on so many other things. On Monday last, during the second day of committee, we spent a lot of time considering the ways in which a farrago of self-serving deceptions had been allowed to replace the truth. During our debates, I referred to the 1989 inquiry established by the government and chaired by Lord Justice Taylor, which was established to find out what were the facts, what had actually happened and occurred at Hillsborough. In reality, though, as we heard on Monday, facts were superseded by fictitious and misleading accounts.











































































My noble and learned friend Lady Butler-sloss, intervened at column 476 to say that, and I quote, if you're given a whole lot of false information, well, not given the relevant information, the report you make will not be correct. That happened to the late Lord Justice Taylor, who was later Lord Chief Justice of this country. Just think how he would have felt if he was alive today to find he had written a completely useless report, a completely useless report. Well, as is so often the case, my noble and learned friend went to the heart of the matter.





























































And this amendment today builds on that and invites your Lordships to consider how a mother and a father would feel if they knew that a wholly inaccurate account had been given about the deaths of their two daughters, if they knew it had been a completely wrong, a completely useless report. But that is the situation in which the parents of Victoria and Sarah Hicks, those two teenage sisters who died at Hillsborough, have had to endure for these subsequent decades. The 1992 Hicks judgement, Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, referred to by Baroness Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, was brought by the parents of Sarah and Victoria and we heard how that judgement had been given here in the House.











































The appellate Lords sat at that time. Indeed, they sat in Committee Room one, which was where my noble friend chaired the meeting to which she referred on February the 9th of this year, in which I attended and participated in, along with Andy Burnham, then the mayor of Manchester. And we heard from Jenni and Trevor, and as we've heard from the lawyer Keelan Gallagher KC, and their plea for the correction of the original court record, which had not been able to happen without the agreement of South Yorkshire Police. So as we heard in the two quotations, which I won't repeat from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, this isn't about those children alone, this is about other people's children as well.



























This is about the common good. This is about ensuring that, as they put it, similar families don't find themselves facing similar injustices and incorrect legal records. This is about a wider public interest and why I so admired their tenacity and their courage and their dignity when they came to speak at this meeting. So this amendment isn't just about setting the record straight. It's about people in similar circumstances being able to more easily correct the official record when necessary. The Thri, the high threshold set out in subclause two, would prevent its abuse in frivolous applications. And I think it's very important for the committee to note that that this can't just be used by anybody to reopen any case where they may feel some grievance, for whatever the reasons may be, there is a high threshold that would have to be met.









 It sits well with the duties in the bill, in the search for truth, the search for candour and the search for transparency. And I hope that it will commend itself to the noble Lord Lord Lemos, the Minister, and to the government, and that we will be able to incorporate it or something like it, when we get back here at Report stage in the bill.
18:36
18:36
18:36
18:37
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, I thank my noble friend >> My Lord, I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and I thank those who have raised thank those who have raised awareness of the Hicks family campaign. I knew the sequence of events that led to this amendment, but it is still a harrowing sequence of events and. And it is important and difficult for us all to understand how difficult and grieving it must be to the family to hear these events recounted. I do agree with the noble Lord Lord Marks, that part of the grief that surrounds these events is the circumstances that has led to this campaign.





















































































































So I pay tribute to the family. The government recognises the profound suffering of the family and absolutely understands the motivation and the heartfelt sincerity behind the amendment. I have great sympathy for the families distress, as I have said, and we do absolutely and openly and clearly and unequivocally acknowledge the later the findings of the later Hillsborough Hillsborough Inquiries and inquest, and the families wish to ensure that the families entirely understandable and important wish to ensure that future generations clearly understand the circumstances of Victoria and Sarah's deaths, transparency and the pursuit of the truth are, after all, at the heart of the bill of this bill and the endeavour it represents.



































































































The. The government is committed to working with peers and indeed the Hicks family on. The best way that we can make the truth known, not just for this case, not just for the experiences of Victoria and Sarah, but for all those whose lives were lost at Hillsborough. However, regarding the amendment before us, I should address it directly and set out the government's position. We have looked at the amendment carefully, and we're not sure that this is quite the best way of achieving the outcome which the noble, my noble friend Baroness Kennedy set out, and which there has been so much support for in the House.



















































































The intention of this amendment is to allow the public record to be corrected via a new legal avenue of a statement being made in open court. It is important to make clear, however, that court judgements do constitute an official. Sorry. This is a really important point. The court judgements do not constitute an official record of historical facts. Rather, they represent a court's determination of the issues before it. On the evidence presented by the parties to a case. Inquests and public inquiries are designed to perform the function of establishing certain facts through an inquisitorial process, and it is indeed that that has led to the concerns that we are discussing here.



































































Therefore, creating a mechanism to correct facts contained in historic court judgements would likely, in the government's view, create risks and have disproportionate implications for established legal and judicial principles which exist for important reasons. The law has long recognised the importance of finality in litigation and the doctrine of residue. Decatur generally prevents parties from relitigating matters once proceedings have been fully concluded. This gives parties the assurance that the matter is settled, providing certainty and stability. And it is. It also supports legal certainty, which is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law. Now, I do appreciate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I can't hear what you're saying. I wish you could raise your voice so that we can all hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

voice so that we can all hear. Absolutely. Is this thing working? Yes. I appreciate that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Better. That's better.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for that, that help. I appreciate that the noble Lady's amendment is not noble Lady's amendment is not intended to allow people to reopen concluded proceedings. And this is, of course, also not the Hicks family's intention. However, creating a statutory process linked to historic judgements creates a risk in the government view that cases will be de facto relitigated. These. These risks would need to be carefully considered, and the amendment, as it stands, does not, in our view, take them into account. We would need to consider the legal status of any statement of this nature.































The legal effect of this amendment is unclear, and it does not specify whether the statement may be challenged. How the statement interacts with an original court judgement, or whether future courts may rely upon it. Without clarity on these fundamental questions, there is a significant risk of legal uncertainty and unintended consequences, and I'm sorry for that rather dry assessment, but we have carefully looked at the amendment as drafted. I know this is not the intended effect of the amendment, as my noble friend Baroness Kennedy has set out, and I do thank her, as well as the family, for working to find an option that achieves the intention of the campaign and the Hicks family.















Though we cannot support this amendment as currently drafted, the government and I remain willing to work with her and the Hicks family to explore whether any alternatives could approaches could achieve the objective of ensuring that later authoritative findings of fact, such as the. Such as of the sort that the Hicks family are concerned about, are brought to the attention of those reading historic judgements which may not reflect them. And in the light of that, I respectfully invite the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment.
18:44
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
I must say that I'm really disappointed, because knowing that this was the position of the government, it would have been really helpful to have had an indication of that at an earlier stage where I could have met with the Minister and we could have discussed some sort of alternative. I think that we're dancing on the head of a pin. When we start saying that there are likely to be a disproportionate implications. And what is being sought here is a simple correction of reality, and it is about truth. It goes back to the business of truth.



























And and so, yes, finality is important, but we're not getting finality when people are given the idea that these this couple of young, young persons died within seconds when it's not the truth. We're supposed to be pursuing truth in this bill. So I have to say that I'm deeply disappointed and I will withdraw this amendment, but I hope the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

invitation is going to come soon for us to find another way of correcting this. It's a pleasure that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The next group have already been debated. Amendment 107 Lord Wills debated. Amendment 107 Lord Wills not moved. 108 Baroness Kramer not not moved. 108 Baroness Kramer not moved. 109 Lord Marks not moved. Amendments 110, 11, 12 and 113 Baroness Kramer not moved. Amendment. Sorry my Lords, let's turn the page. Amendment 114 Lord Bach Not Moved.

Amendment 115 Baroness Brinton.
18:45
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lords, I have amendment 115 also signed by Lady Benjamin and Lady signed by Lady Benjamin and Lady D'Souza. 123 signed by Lady Ludford and Lady D'Souza, and then 146 also signed by Lady Ludford in this group. And I've also signed Lady Benjamin's Amendment 121. My Lords, during the passage of this bill, we've spoken of many tragedies and disasters that have had inquiries and or inquests and or compensation schemes. These include Hillsborough, which we were just speaking about, Post Office Horizon, Grenfell, Windrush, Manchester bombings, as well as the atomic war veterans, sometimes known as the nuclear war veterans who rightly feel they are struggling to be heard despite the atomic tests taking place up to 70 years ago.















































































































































































































And this week we've heard moving accounts from survivors of the Aberfan disaster 60 years ago this week who say they haven't even got to first base on being heard. Across all of these and the other tragedies, the victims tell us that their experience of compensation schemes were extremely difficult and often retraumatizing. Often they had thought it was just their scheme. Indeed, my Lords, I have sat in this House whilst one peer after another has said, well, it's all right for that scheme, but our scheme's a disaster. But that is not the case. The problems are common and consistent, and it's helpful that the National Audit Office, the Nao, published an excellent report called Lessons Learned Government Compensation Schemes, end quote.





























































































































































































On the 5th of July 2024. Now, this report was published just after the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme came into being in the Victims and Prisoners Act in May 24th. It had immediately started work at no. That's wrong. It started the latest stage of inquiries, investigations and compensation, which started all in the late 70s and 80s. The infected victims were assured that their medical information had been lost. There would be a simple mechanism used that would assume when, for example, that victim had been infected. But my Lords, two years on, processes have quietly changed and this promise, as far as the victims are concerned, has been broken because many are being asked to find bits of paper that they didn't have a originally in order to prove when they got infected, including.







































































































































































They also need arrangements for compensation. Arrangements needed to be changed where somebody has died as well, which has caused a lot of distress. And then Ibca and government are surprised that people feel retraumatised. And I do just want to say that all the officials I've met involved, either with Ibca or with the Cabinet Office and other departments, have genuinely tried to work to their best of their ability. I am not trying to be rude about them, but there is something in the system of compensation schemes that is problematic, and the Nao report sets out clearly what's gone wrong over the years.



























































































































































 In many scheme there, appendix two sets out a total of 15 schemes from the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme to the Windrush scheme. The Nao also assesses the structures and processes for each of these schemes, and it is noticeable that they are all different to each other, and the Nao has drawn conclusions. And it's important to note as the Haemophilic excuse me, can't say it today, Haemophiliac Society briefing said uniquely amongst the dozens of government compensation schemes that have been established over the years, the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme is delivered by an independent body, the Ibca.











































































































































While it's welcome in principle, the establish of a large new organisation has led to teething problems including technical and operational issues, delays to compensation and unclear accountability and feedback mechanisms. They say that the experience of the infected blood community points towards the need for a permanent, independent compensation body. Such a body would retain institutional memory, expertise and experience. Save time and money when a scheme is to be set up and be capable of ramping up and down according to need and with the best will in the world. That's not really part of the Cabinet Office's brief, where it is often dealing with other crises on a day to day basis.



























































































































The Haemophilic society go on saying that we also need to consider a national oversight mechanism to really ensure that lessons are learned. And that's because there were early missteps in the government's handling of the most recent case after the Victims and Prisoners Act came into force, and I won't relitigate that. But a national oversight mechanism really should be established to monitor and scrutinise the implementation of the recommendations from all public inquiries and hold the government to account. So that's why my amendment 115 sets out how we might come to a body that actually combines both the oversight mechanism and holds within it the power to actually deliver some of the compensation body.













































































































This point, I must confess, my Lords, I had a private member's bill on setting up a single compensation body, and I had amendments in the victims and prisoners bill to set up a single compensation bodies. And I have listened to the points that were made by both the last government and the current government. So my amendment actually says that it shouldn't be ibca that does everything. Let's make sure that if they are part of an oversight body, then they could also supervise other schemes that are set up, but using the knowledge and understanding that they have.

































































































So the Nao report talks about a couple of examples, which I think might help us to understand what the issues are. So stakeholders have been alienated, they say, by the initial response of a government body, the same bodies which now are involved in delivering the compensation scheme. And that's why we need ibca not having government departments or arm's length government departments actually doing the compensation scheme and the Retraumatisation, they're very, very clear about and they quote five different examples, one from the VGD compensation scheme, where it was said a scheme regarded to be acceptable must provide an appropriate payment within the minimum of delay and without the need for repeated and painful, persistent inquiries.















































































And ever since that, all the compensation schemes have had that particular problem. So Robert Francis Infected Blood compensation study recommended. The application process for the scheme is simple, sensitive, trauma informed, as undemanding as possible. I have to say that's not the view of the victims at the moment. With the best will in the world, it just hasn't quite worked like that. And then the Post Office Horizon scheme. It's important that establishing a clear position on evidential thresholds to make acknowledge the trauma experienced by the claimants early on in the process. And to all of that, the Nao says it is important that scheme designers and administrators work to minimise any retraumatising effect on the process of claimants.































































My Lords, other parts of this amendment set up how things will happen and who should do it, and I'm not going to go through that detail. I think it's very much as you would expect, but Subclauses 12, 13 and 14 provide accountability and transparency, both from Paca, which is the authority that will be established. And with the Secretary of State reporting to Parliament, because, my Lords, the Nao is right, there are, as there are many victims and groups from the various disasters and tragedies. We need consistency and expertise for compensation schemes separate from government and those involved in the problems and cover ups.

















































And that's what my amendment seeks to do. My amendment 123 seeks to provide legal aid for seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries. And, my Lords, I'm not going to repeat everything that has been said so well in earlier groups this evening, except to say that this particular group were excluded from that discussion. They are a very particular group and I think here of both the Hillsborough disaster and the Manchester bombings, where there were people who were still recovering from very, very serious injury, who were asked to be witnesses at inquests. And I think it's very the very least that a state can do to say that for these people who in normal times may be earning above the threshold, but probably at this particular moment, not only have extra costs because of their injuries, but also may have to stop work until they recover enough.





























But this is not because they are witnesses in their own cause. They are helping the country to ascertain what happened when other people died. And I think that also helps to make the argument why this case should be special. My Lords, my amendment one, four, six is consequential to this one. And I just want to say very briefly about Lady Benjamin's Amendment 121, because I know she will speak to it very powerfully herself in a minute. And she and I have talked about the problems that the Windrush scheme face, and what she sets out in her amendment, asks for an independent review into what's gone wrong so far, my Lords, with my brief on the other inquiries, this is not an unusual ask, but one of the problems we have is that government after government after government has delayed having that independent review, which is, at the end of the day, not just made life much harder for the victims when eventually the government has had to have another inquiry and another compensation scheme, it has cost the country a very large amount of extra money in the intervening, often many years.





So I look forward to the Minister's response and hope that perhaps we might be able to meet between committee and report. I beg to move.
18:56
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. on the Marshalled List. >> My Lords, I wish to support amendment 115 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Brinton, who spoke beautifully and passionately just now, which I have put my. My name to, and to speak on my amendment one, two, one also signed by my noble friend and Lord Bailey of Paddington. My Lords, my amendment is about why there should be an independent review with regard to the Windrush lessons learned. Review by Wendy Williams. My Lords, in March 2020, the Windrush Lessons learned review by Wendy Williams was laid before Parliament, where 30 recommendations were made in her report.





























































































































































But six years later, lessons still have not been learned. The report outlined three important elements which needed to be addressed. Firstly, the Home Office should acknowledge where the wrong had been done. It should open itself up to greater external scrutiny. And finally, it should recognise that migration and wider Home Office policy is about people and whatever its objective, it should be rooted in humanity and compassion. My Lords, the last review of progress was conducted over four years ago, in March 2022 by Wendy Williams, when it was found that only 21 out of her 30 recommendations have been met or partially met.







































































































































There has been no comprehensive review since. Despite encouragement in that report to make sure any changes were irreversible and importantly, to review progress at different stages in the future. The recommendations included to assess the limit of the impact of the hostile environment on the Windrush generation, have a better understanding of the public sector equality duty and have meaningful engagement with stakeholders and communities to develop, implement and evaluate policy. My Lords, I support amendment 115 because there has been dismal failure on the part of the Home Office to proactively identify people and encourage survivors to come forward, and they have not always acted with candour, transparency and frankness.



















































































































My Lords, the hostile environment policy caused state harm to But a report in April 2026 by the National Audit Office found that by January 2026, only 3148 claims have resulted in a payout. That's 1 in 5 of the estimated survivors have been compensated. Why, My Lords, A report published in September 2026 by the Public Accounts Committee stated that during their investigation into government compensation schemes, they received written evidence from Hackney Council that the council were running drop in sessions and outreach with potential Windrush compensation Scheme claimants because there was no effective national campaign. My Lords Windrush survivors have called for a public inquiry for some time.





























































































Their calls for truth, accountability and repair should no longer be dismissed or deferred. They have suffered huge injustices, loss of income, their homes, pensions, medical care. Some have died because of the result of ongoing stress and trauma. My Lords, remember trauma is passed down, passed down through generations. And I have personally observed this in the descendants of the Windrush victims. I have had meetings with my Lords. There has been some meaningful engagement and the scheme has greatly improved as a result. But there is still resistance and substantial change for substantial change and a failure to make fundamental changes to its culture and the way of working that are both systemic and sustainable.







































































My Lords, Wendy Williams made a finding that there was a lack of empathy for individuals and poor understanding of vulnerability and the need for help. Regrettably, there is still a failure on the part of the Home Office to acknowledge that the scheme is complex and retraumatising applicants, and that survivors need more help. My Lords, in May 2026, the Equality Human Rights Committee submitted its independent report and recommendations for improvement as part of the follow up review by the UN Committee of to Get rid of Racial Discrimination. It noted the following in respect of the Windrush generation.























































Firstly, that the government has simplified the Windrush compensation scheme. However, research shows more claimants are receiving less compensation than they are entitled to. That the government should publish independent analysis of compensation schemes performance and explain why applicants for the scheme are significantly lower than expected. And lastly, the government should increase funding for the Windrush Compensation Advocacy Fund Support Fund so that those eligible to access free legal aid, if they need it, should have it. And as I mentioned earlier, the government's own Windrush commissioner has begun a campaign to ask the Home Office to provide legal aid for Windrush victims and survivors.



































So, my Lords, to conclude my amendment 1 to 1 is asking for an updated review, as suggested by Wendy Williams, to cover these points and to access progress to assess progress. A review undertaken for the government, on behalf of the Department to acknowledge that serious harm was inflicted on people who were British, and determine how far the Home Office has demonstrated a commitment to learn from its mistakes. Mistakes, by the way, also affecting the wider community who have been indirectly affected by making fundamental changes to its culture and the way of working that are both systemic and sustainable.



















And finally, the Department should accept and implement the National Audit Office recommendation that the department should be more proactive in identifying people affected and put right any mistakes detected. My Lords, this is what Wendy Williams review recommended and what the Windrush victims and survivors deserve. So I truly hope that the Minister will agree to a review and accept my amendment one, two, one and amendment 115. My Lords. These British citizens who dedicated their lives to this country deserve to receive justice. And Campbell, my Lords, it's in the public interest to ensure this immoral injustice never, ever happens again.

Yes, my Lords.
19:04
19:05
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I want to add to my noble friend, Baroness Brinton Benjamin, and we Baroness Brinton Benjamin, and we have said on the detail of the amendments on compensation representation in this group, all representation in this group, all of which I support for the reasons that they have given. However, I that they have given. However, I just say a brief word about amendment one, two, three during the debate in Group three on Lady Gaga and Lord Barker's amendments on representation and legal aid at inquests, I made the point tangentially that similar arrangements should be made for representation and legal aid at inquiries for seriously injured survivors, as are made or to be made for the bereaved in connection with inquests.

























I would suggest that there is simply no difference in principle between the desirability and importance of parity and equality of arms and timely legal advice, assistance and representation for the bereaved in the procedure. Leading up to inquests and at the inquests, and the need for seriously injured survivors, both those who are helping at inquests and those who are involved in inquiries. That is a parallel process. The need is the same. There may be differences of detail that we can work on between now and the report, but I would suggest that it is a serious lacuna in the Bill as drafted, that inquiries are completely left out of the provision for legal aid and assistance and representation early as it needs to be.



Thorough and professional and properly paid, as it also needs to be.
19:07
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, could I begin with the >> My Lords, could I begin with the amendment of the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brunton? I would Baroness, Lady Brunton? I would make this observation. The overarching objective of this legislation is to render such a permanent body unnecessary. But, of course, I may be whistling in the wind when I say that it will be achieved. Nevertheless, we do have reservations about having a single standing body to try and attempt to discharge the purpose in question, as it would not reflect the individual circumstances of each event or, may I say, scandal.





























And therefore we do express reservations about that. The noble Baroness also raised the issue under amendment one, two, three of access to legal aid for seriously injured survivors, enabling them to participate in an inquest or inquiry. And we have some sympathy with that proposal, although I do think it requires more detail about its practical implementation. And that's perhaps a matter that the noble Lady, the Minister may wish to address. With respect to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I appreciate her concern about the issue of the Windrush lessons learned review and its implementation, but I would respectfully suggest that the role of the Windrush Commissioner and the implementation of that review is something that the government is liable to keep under review going forward, and I question whether, therefore is appropriate to try and draw this into primary legislation.







 It does seem to me that a responsible government is always going to want to address the way in which those review recommendations are being implemented. I thank my noble Lords.
19:09
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Captain of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank everyone for >> My Lords, I thank everyone for their all noble Lords for their participation in this debate. I think it's very, incredibly important issues which I have discussed with members of your Lordships House on numerous occasions from this despatch box. Turning to each point, and I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I work my way through. But beginning with amendment 115. Table by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. In certain cases courts can impose a compensation order on an offender, requiring them to make financial reparations to the victim for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from breaches of the duty of candour.





























































































































































While we recognise that breaches of the duty of candour, an inquiry or investigation may have a significant impact on those affected by the incident. Under investigation, the duty is towards the inquiry or the investigation itself and in that sense the breach will affect all participants or interested persons. And as much as I sympathise with the effort, with the recommendations and the efforts of the noble Baroness, it would be exceptionally challenging to attempt a link of breach with any particular victim. So having. So that requires us to look at this in slightly different way. I think the noble Baroness, lady and I have discussed the the detail of it on many occasions from this Dispatch Box, and I truly have heard her concerns and those of the Nao about the events that led to the creation and the implementation and rollout.









































































































































 And of course, I am always happy to have a meeting with the noble Baroness. And on this issue, it is something she knows I care passionately about and would want and would welcome such an opportunity. Having said that, the noble Baroness is very aware as I am, that the infected compensation scheme is one of the examples that has been used to establish a compensation scheme in relation to a specific incident. The government position is that this is best done on a case by case basis, taking into account all the factors specific to each case. But she is right to raise the issue of institutional knowledge and making sure that we don't start from scratch all over again.



























































































































So there is a conversation to be had. Turning to amendment one, two, three, amendment one, four, six also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we recognise the importance of ensuring that survivors can engage with proceedings and participate effectively in processes where the court has made an independent decision to invite them to play a formal role as an interested person or core participant. However, beginning with inquests, a seriously injured survivor who is also a family member of the deceased may already be eligible for legal aid under the bill, provided its statutory conditions are met.















































































































The role of other survivors at an inquest is different and will depend on the circumstances of the case. Importantly, the purpose of the inquest is to investigate a death, not to make findings about serious injury or other harm. Whilst in some cases the coroner may make an independent judicial decision that a survivor is an interested person. Others may be more likely to be called as witnesses. We therefore do not consider that everyone who is in seriously, who is seriously injured in the same incident should automatically receive non-means tested legal aid. It could have a much broader effect than intended and create unintended consequences.

































































































Secondly, turning to inquiries, there is already a statutory route through which public funding can be provided for legal representation. Section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2005 allows the chair of a statutory inquiry to make an award for legal representation, where the chair considers that appropriate. This power is available in relation to people giving evidence and people with a sufficient interest in the proceedings or outcome of the enquiry. Enquiry chairs have used this mechanism to provide publicly funded legal representation, subject to the conditions set out for the inquiry. Introducing civil legal aid. Alongside these those requirements, we create an unnecessary parallel system and could cause confusion about how participants legal services should be funded.

















































































Furthermore, these amendments would require the new entitlement to take effect immediately. Will allowing three months for the regulations needed to bring the relevant services into scope and amend and amend the merits criteria? This would result in the Lord Chancellor being under a duty to make legal aid available in these circumstances before the necessary statutory legislation was in place, and provides insufficient lead in time to make the necessary operational changes. I now turn to amendment one, two, one in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. My Lords, I think every one of us owes a huge debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness for her extraordinary work on the.



































































On behalf of the victims of Windrush, and ensuring that even today and every day the. The victims of Windrush are not forgotten. I think that is an incredibly powerful thing and I am very, very grateful for her work. With regard to the amendment, the legal aid provisions in this bill are intended to support bereaved families at inquests and represent the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a decade. Similarly to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton's amendment, her proposed amendment would amount to a further expansion of legal aid provision and would therefore require careful consideration of the policy rationale, the costs involved and the wider implications for the legal aid framework.



















































Regarding the wider issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the government remains firmly committed to learning from the Home Office Windrush scandal and delivering lasting change. The Home Office is strengthening its culture, capability and risk management so that the lessons of Windrush are embedded in how the department operates. Develops policy and serves communities. My Lords, I recognise the strength of feeling, however, behind the noble Baroness. Call for a further inquiry. However, some of the issues underpinning that call are currently with the court as part of an ongoing judicial review proceedings. As the court has reserved its judgement, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.





































But I thought it may be helpful to give an update on where we are. The Home Office has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of progress against all 30 recommendations. The process was informed by challenge from the Independent Windrush Commissioner, and the findings were considered by the Home Office Strategic Race Board, which has preferred which has provided further external scrutiny. The assessment identified progress across the recommendations and highlighted areas where further work remains ongoing. Regarding compensation, the purpose of the Windrush Compensation Scheme is to compensate members of the Windrush generation and their families who suffered because they could not demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.























The Home Office has recently received a proposal from the Windrush Commissioner regarding funded legal support for those applying to that scheme. That proposal is being considered carefully and the department will respond in due course. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that both the question of legal support and the wider lessons of Windrush continue to receive careful consideration across government, as they should. I'd be happy to meet with the noble Baroness, alongside relevant Home Office Ministers, to discuss this in more detail. However, I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. Lords, I'm very grateful for all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I'm very grateful for all the speakers in this group and I particularly want to start with thanking my noble friend Lady thanking my noble friend Lady Benjamin, because she's highlighted not just with Windrush, but many of the key points that fail. And I the key points that fail. And I think one of the issues, if I can say to the noble Lady, the Minister, that I'd like to bring to our meeting, I don't know if Lady Benjamin would like to join.

It is to discuss what happens after you get to the end of the first year,
19:18
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
after recommendations have been accepted, but not all of them have been accepted, and they just sort of seem to go into a mush somewhere and never reappear. And Lady Benjamin is right, that trauma is passed down the generations. And we're certainly seeing that with a number of of the tragedies and disasters that we've been talking disasters that we've been talking about. Let Wendy Williams ask for the update review on the legal aid. the update review on the legal aid. And I think that's another common theme with other compensation schemes. So I think my my key message for the amendment and the points I was making earlier is that there are still issues, all of which will cost us more because we will have to redo reviews, inquiries, redo compensation schemes.









































And that's why actually investing early and ensuring the right people get legal aid at the earliest stage might well help. And I hope that the debate that's happening wider on legal aid will will look at that too. When I read the Nao report, I could see that the government had taken on board some of the lessons learned. I just wondered if the Minister has could point me at a report that might summarise that more. More clearly. I'd be very grateful for that. I think, my Lords, obviously we're not going to get further tonight, but I'm very clear that I do want to bring something back at report following the discussions with the Minister.



























This issue will not go away. First and foremost, we have to try and support and protect the victims of these dreadful tragedies, which the state has responsibility. But secondly, we have to start to reduce the amount of compensation that governments are paying out because compensation schemes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gone wrong. I beg to withdraw my amendment. Is it your pleasure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your pleasure that amendment 115 be withdrawn? Amendment is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Finally withdrawn. Amendment 117 not moved. 118 Baroness Hamwee not not moved. 118 Baroness Hamwee not moved. 119 not moved. 120 not moved. 121 Baroness Benjamin Not moved. 122 Lord Wills Not moved. 123 Baroness Brinton not moved. 124 Baroness Chakrabarti not moved. 125 Baroness may have Maidenhead not moved. 125 A Lord Keen not moved. Moved. 125 B not moved. 125 C Lord King of Ely, my Lords, I rise.
19:20
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
To move the amendment. In the name of my noble friend Lord name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson. This is a short point. Clearly what we're concerned about is that nothing in this bill should affect parliamentary privilege. But that privilege is enshrined in the Bill of rights and in the claim of right of 1689. And it's the foundation of parliamentary freedom of speech to be found in article nine. But not only does article nine protect members of both houses, it also protects the integrity of the parliamentary process. And this bill, while it does not explicitly repeal article nine nor attempt in any way to amend it, could be construed as allowing for some form of criminalisation with regard to parliamentary process, which would be grossly unconstitutional.

























A recent report from Policy Exchange gave examples of how the expansion of clause 12 might facilitate concerning situations where political motivations lead to criminal proceedings. For standard parliamentary procedure, and it's to ensure that there is no scope for such developments that I move this amendment. I should say that there is precedent for such a amendment. Such a provision already exists in section one of the Parliamentary Standards Act, 2009, and it is a case that where there is such an issue of prominent and indeed unparalleled constitutional importance, we should put beyond doubt the maintenance of parliamentary privilege.









So it's in these circumstances that I invite the noble Lord, the Minister, to confirm that this amendment is not controversial in what it seeks to do, and makes it explicit on the face of the bill that which all of us would accept as appropriate and necessary in constitutional terms. I seek leave to move.
19:22
19:23
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Captain of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords) (Labour)
-
-
And I hope I'll be able to >> And I hope I'll be able to reassure members of your Lordships House. Noble Lord. Lord Walton is absolutely right. There has been a great deal said in this space, and great deal said in this space, and I'd like to reassure members of your Lordships House on the point. My Lords, the thrust of this amendment from the noble and only Lord, Lord King, really is to safeguard the protection afforded by article nine of the Bill of rights, which is an important aspect of Parliament parliamentary privilege. Whilst the government agrees that this fundamental provision should be upheld, we do not think that provision in this Bill is necessary to do so.



























As noble Lords will be aware, parliamentary privilege gives parliamentarians certain rights and immunities to ensure they can operate freely and independently in your Lordships House and the other place. As a report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege said in 1999, in order to carry out public duties without fear or favour, Parliament and its members must need certain rights and immunities. Parliament needs the right to regulate its own affairs, free from intervention by the government or the courts. Members need to be able to speak freely and inhibited by possible defamation claims. The government firmly believes in maintaining the current position and that, and this is what the Bill is intended to do.













 We are also confident that the courts should not construe the two misconduct in public office offences, or the misleading the public offence in this Bill as sitting aside from the article nine protections against proceedings in Parliament, including what members say or do in Parliament, the Bill would need to make express provisions set aside this constitutional principle, which it does not. I hope that that that this reassures noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.
19:25
19:25
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, it's good to be coming >> My Lord, it's good to be coming to the book end after several days of committee that we've experienced of committee that we've experienced on this bill, all very interesting and thought provoking. Before I. I explain what my amendment is about. Let me again put on the record that I declare an interest as a distinguished fellow at the Policy Exchange think tank, which has written a report about the bill, although I wasn't involved in the writing of that report, I also should declare, in case there are any members who've spoken in committee who feel uncomfortable about my lack of declaration in this regard that I have in the past worked for the.



























































































































Been chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and I was also in the past a member of the Bank of England's enforcement decision making committee. Both of those were public roles which would have been covered by the purview of this bill. In that sense, I should also say that I was subject to the plethora of codes covering those public bodies, not least the Nolan principles, which we've discussed at length here, and which I still hold in very high regard and certainly would have adhered to as well as the Cabinet Office. Several principles that apply to non-executive board members and so on.









































































































So that's to do with my experience of public office. Now, to get to my amendment. 125 My Lords, I don't intend to detain the House. I can see how many of us are here tonight, and I wouldn't wish to keep them from their related meals, dinners. But let me make a few significant points that I think were relative, and probably I'm aiming to be helpful to the government in this regard. Now, in the course of these three debates on committee, we've seen some 150 proposed amendments. We've had proposals for several new of beefed up institutions the office for Ethics and Integrity, the Ethics and Integrity Commission, the office of the whistleblower, the Public Authority Compensation Authority.





















































































We have a request for a Windrush independent review, which we just discussed only a few moments ago. Last. On Monday, we talked about a single national code to be developed. We've talked of subcontractors as third parties to be subject to the Act. So as well as attempts to insert. And then we've also seen attempts to insert higher education institutions into the scope of the bill, which was came from left field. And I thought the bill had been rather carefully drafted to include further education rather than higher education authorities. So I support the bill in that regard.









































































But what we don't know if and while we don't know if all these amendments will succeed at report and or how many of them will indeed be established or adopted. But the overall effect of the passage of even half of the things that I've mentioned being adopted is that the government will need to establish them. Right? Guidance, regulations, and in cases where that's necessary, do public consultations on them. I'm sure the courts would need to be consulted as well because of the criminal sanctions in the bill. I don't believe that it would be possible for a government which moved with immense alacrity and determination to nevertheless meet all the obligations in those amendments to report, either in six months or to report in 12 months, or in some cases, to report in 18 months, or upon the Bill becoming an act to report immediately or to set set about fulfilling the obligations of the act immediately.













































My amendment seeks to bind the government some time, as well as giving the courts time to see how much litigation comes forward, because for all the reviews that we're seeking, the essential thrust of our assessment of whether the bill is a success or not will be whether the sanctions of the duty of candour are delivered through the system. So. So so I'm sorry, I was distracted by by Lady Anderson. I thought she was trying to say something to me, but I take it she wasn't. So I'll continue. So I do not believe that we'll get a fair and accurate assessment of this act and its operability in the ways that we wish.



























The whole House wishes for it to operate within six months, a year, or even two years. And I therefore think that the Secretary of State should we, after three years, be able to provide us with a reasonable assessment of whether the act has fulfilled its promise or not? But of course, I don't want to give the Secretary of State an opt out. Nobody in this House would that they can take as long as they like after three years. So I've worded it so that no more than four years, but less than three years of the day in which this act is passed, is passed to lay before Parliament.













A review of the impact and effectiveness of the measures contained in the act. I'm aware that there are other amendments that have proposed that the Secretary of State lay an annual report, and I think my arguments would apply to that as well. I don't have any particular views on laying an annual report, but I really don't think until we see how it beds down, that we will be in a position to properly do post-legislative evaluations of the implications of this act.

My Lords, I beg to move.
19:32
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 20. Insert the new clause, the words of which on page 25, the words of which on page 25, the Marshalled List. I speak only to amendment one, four, five and 153, which are the amendments. In mind to which Baroness Ludford and Baroness Brinton have added their names, which are about urgency. Lords, we've waited for this Bill long enough. The Hillsborough Law campaign, who've campaigned for so long and so effectively for this legislation, started work after the end of the second inquest in April 2016. That we all went, we all know, was 27 years after the 1989 tragedy at Hillsborough, we can at least do everything we can now to end the delay.











































We owe that much to the bereaved and to the victims. Of all the tragedies that have been mentioned in these proceedings on the Bill, and I believe we owe that much to the public as well. Our amendment one, five three would bring the whole bill into force on the day the bill passes into law, with the exception of those which require codes or guidance to be drawn up, that is, clauses ten and 11 and 20, including schedule six. Those should come into force six months later. That's a fast timetable, but it allows some time for the codes to be drafted and promulgating promulgated and the guidance to be prepared and published.





























The point is to inject urgency and an end date into the legislation being in force. Amendment one, four, four, five and my name and that of Baroness Ludford would have the same effect in respect of schedule six, parts four and five, which we've looked at today. There the detailed provisions covering the provision of legal aid for inquests in England and inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths in Scotland. So they're also covered by amendments. One amendment 153. My Lords, if our amendments furthering serious, seriously injured survivors at inquests and inquiries were acceptable, even as modified as suggested that there might be by the noble Baroness, that could be allowed for.













I do not accept, though, that the present arrangements are adequate, as she suggested that they were. We would say that there should be a far clearer obligation to provide for legal assistance. But, my Lord. That said, there is no justification for delaying the implementation of this bill. With the exception of the provisions I mentioned, and our amendments will bring the bulk of the legislation into force on the date of the Act's passing of the bill's passing into law.
19:35
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, may I begin by addressing the amendment. My name, addressing the amendment. My name, amendment 147 A, which seeks to require an impact assessment for the risk that the offence of misleading the public, as set out in clause 12, could potentially be weaponised as a political tool in essentially a tit for tat manner. Now I acknowledge that the threshold for harm is there and the threshold for potential harm is there, as so far as clause 12 is concerned. But we remain concerned that that in itself is not sufficient. So I would invite the noble Lord, the Minister, to indicate what assessment has actually been made about the risk of politicisation of the provision in clause 12, and what steps will be taken to ensure that the offence is not misused.





























Can I then turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, which seeks a review after at least three years but not more than four years? And I maintain, as I did when we debated my amendment on a similar point on the first day of committee, that a review is important to ascertain the extent to which this act is fulfilling its intended purpose, and I would therefore be happy to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lady, and indeed the time frame which she explained so clearly to the House.



















It does seem to us to be appropriate in the context of the implementation of this legislation, and I would hope that going forward, the House as a whole will be able to develop an acceptable amendment, which we can support at Report stage. Referring briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, I do have reservations about the timing which he proposes for the commencement of the legislation, but I look forward to hearing the views of the noble Lord, the Minister, as to the ability to, for example, develop and publish guidance within the sort of time frame that is being proposed.

My Lords, I will begin with amendment one two, five D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady
19:37
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Falkner of Margravine. We've already discussed the importance of Post-legislative scrutiny in this committee. So in the interests of committee. So in the interests of time, if she'll forgive me, I will not repeat those points other than not repeat those points other than to note the government has made it clear that they that they will. I think carefully about the need for post-legislative scrutiny, and I've listened carefully to the points made today regarding whether a made today regarding whether a longer period might provide a more appropriate time frame for such a view. That's a helpful contribution to the debate, and I'm not in a position today to commit to a specific time period or method today.







































































































I can assure noble Lords that we will actively consider this and work with your Lordships ahead of Report stage on this. My Lords, when turning to Lord Marks's amendments, the noble Lord, Lord marks amendments. I'd like to stress to the House that the government absolutely agrees that we would. We should want to implement the measures in the Bill as soon as possible. We have no interest in delay, as I am sure the noble Lord knows. This bill brings forward significant changes, and it's been a long time coming, including a new duty of candour, an obligation for a clear code of ethical conduct, a major expansion of legal aid, and and new guidance to be issued by coroners on conduct and expectations of public authorities and officials at inquests.























































































While I understand the intention behind Lord Mark's The noble Lord, Lord Mark's amendments, I'm not persuaded that bringing the measures into force immediately is necessarily the most effective approach. All of these measures will have implications for a large number of individuals and organisations, and before many of its provisions can be properly commenced, important implementation work will need to be undertaken to ensure those affected clearly understand their new duties and responsibilities. However, our intention is that for new offences, these will be implemented within two months of Royal Assent, as is standard for measures to come into force, but I do.









































































I do restate again that we we we have no interest in delay, and we will work to bring forward commencement as soon as we can. The noble Lords Amendment 145 ensures that those provisions to ensure parity of legal aid of inquest come into force on the day the act is passed. This is the largest expansion of legal aid in a generation. As I think I've said several times now from the despatch box and significant work, I'm sure that noble Lords will recognise this is required by the Legal Aid Agency and others to ensure that systems will be ready and that the legal support will be in place for families to access.



























































Our intention is to bring this into force as soon as possible and we will set out a timeline, but we would want to do that clearly in an orderly way. Moreover, as we remain in committee, the final shape of the bill is not yet known. Further amendments may be agreed which create additional implementation requirements, including the need for further guidance, codes of practice or operational arrangements. I note the noble Lady, Baroness Falconer's comments on that. However, I recognise the importance of ensuring that implementation is not unnecessarily delayed. I think I've reinforced that point. The government would be content to set out at the appropriate stage how we intend to approach implementation of the Bill and the steps that would be required before its provisions could be commenced.









































Turning now to amendment one, four, seven, eight. This would mean that the misleading of would mean the misleading. The public offence does not come into force until the government has laid before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the events on free and frank public debate, where vexatious complaints are made to the police. I acknowledge that the noble and learned Lord Keen of Ely has set out his concerns repeatedly, both on this point and on the wider point, about the potential costs to public authorities of this. And I do want to reassure him that the government has been concerned to avoid the misleading, the misleading, the public offense being used vexatiously or for politically motivated reasons.

























We don't want the sort of tit for tat political arguments that the noble Lord referred to. The noble and learned Lord referred to the test for the offence, as he noted, have been crafted accordingly. For example, the behaviour must have caused harm or the potential for harm, and it must have departed significantly from what would have been expected of that person in carrying out their functions. However, we will of course, keep the impact of the offence under close review from all the points of view that the Noble and Leonard Lord have suggested. My Lords, before I close, can I thank everyone for their participation in the Committee debate, which has been a very important.









And what's the word, sombre and and and serious debate. There's much more work to be done, my Lords, and I look forward to working with your Lordships on that. I therefore, with these reassurances, reassurances reflect respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
19:42
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
I beg leave to withdraw. My amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That amendment 125 be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn in Amendment is by leave withdrawn in schedule six. Amendment 126. Lord Lee must move formally. Question is Lee must move formally. Question is amendment 126 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content not content for content's content not content for content's content not content for content's habit. Amendment 127 to 135 move formally en bloc. Lord Lee Moss question is these amendments be agreed to en bloc? As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, content, content. The contents have it.





















































































Amendment 136 A and and 136 B and 137. Lord Lemos moved formally en bloc. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is that these three amendments be agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. Content content for contents have it. The question is that schedule six, as amended, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schedule six, as amended, as amended, be the sixth schedule of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. Content, content. The contents have it in clause 24. Amendments 138 and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do we not do that much earlier? If you want me to, but I think we If you want me to, but I think we have done so already. Where were we have done so already. Where were we in clause 24, amendment 138 and 139 moved formally. Lord Lemos question is that these two amendments be agreed to as many as on that opinion will say content. Content, not content contents have it. Question is clause 24, as amended, stand part of the bill? As many as are that opinion will say content, content, content. The contents have it in clause 25.























































Amendment 140 140 not moved 141. Lord Lemos moved formally. The question is amendment 141 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content, content content content for condensed habit amendments 142 and 143. Lord Marks of Henley on Thames not Moved 144. Baroness Hamwee not moved. Question is that clause 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content to the contents have it. The question is that clause 26 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content not content.







































The contents have it. Amendment in clause 27. Amendment 145. Lord Marks of Henley on Thames 145. Lord Marks of Henley on Thames not moved and 46 not moved. 147. Lord Keen of Ely not moved and 147 a is 147 a not moved, not moved. Amendment 148. Lord Lemos moved formally and clauses 149 to 152 moved formally en bloc. As many as of that opinion will say content, content, content, content. The contents have it. Amendment 153. Lord Marks of Henley on Thames not moved. The question is that clause 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill.























As many as are of that opinion will say content, not content. The contents have it. The question is. Clause 28 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content. The contents have it. The question is that this be the title of the bill. As many as are that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. That concludes the committee's proceedings on the Bill. The House will now resume. My Lords, the Committee of the whole House to which the Public Public Office Accountability Bill was committed has gone through the same and has directed me, directed me to report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it to your Lordships with amendments. My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn.
14:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Discussion with the USA regarding reducing international tension Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 21 House of Lords - 21 October 2026.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page