My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the appointments, functions and processes for the independent public advocate in different ways. They are all designed to secure the greater independence and effectiveness of the advocate.
Given that it has been almost seven years since the creation of an independent public advocate featured in the 2017 Queen’s Speech, Amendment 123A simply removes any further possibility for the Government to unnecessarily delay the implementation of this post. Amendment 123B ensures that Parliament fulfils its function of scrutiny in respect of the appointment of the independent public advocate. Sadly, as many of your Lordships will be well aware, Ministers cannot always be relied upon to act benignly when scrutiny of their Government’s actions is involved. It is therefore crucial that they be held to account by Parliament in these matters and that Parliament retains a role in the appointment of the independent public advocate.
As the Minister will be aware, the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Accounts Select Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee already fulfil this function of approval for some key public appointments, and for good reason. That good reason must surely apply in the case of the independent public advocate. It must be essential that the public and those who need the services of the independent public advocate can have complete faith in the integrity and independence of the advocate, and a parliamentary confirmatory hearing will help to secure that.
Amendment 123C provides an alternative route for the appointment of the independent public advocate and a trigger mechanism for the retrospective appointment of the advocate. Clearly, this would become applicable only in the event that the Secretary of State decided
not to appoint an independent public advocate. I am aware of the Government’s concerns about fettering the freedom of the Secretary of State’s action over the appointment of an advocate and the scope of their powers. In that context, I stress that this amendment creates no statutory fetter on the Secretary of State’s freedom of action. However, it does entrench a parliamentary role for the operation of this position and provides an additional safeguard for the interests of victims.
I spoke on the previous day in Committee about the need for retrospection. As I said then, it seems perverse to exclude from the support of the advocate those to whom the original damage was caused before the passage of the Bill but who have still to secure justice for it and who still suffer the consequence of it, such as those postmasters whose lives were wrecked by the Horizon scandal, and those whose lives were devastated by the transfusion of contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s or by nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. This amendment provides a trigger mechanism for such an appointment of the independent public advocate, as it were in retrospection. I envisage that it might come into effect, for example, when the relevant Select Committee had investigated a particular “major incident”, in the language of the Bill, and concluded that victims still suffering the consequences would benefit from the assistance of the independent public advocate. Again, I stress that this would not impose a statutory fetter on the Secretary of State, but it might spur them on to action if they had not already taken it. However, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to justify their decision to Parliament and render them subject to scrutiny of their decision to reject such a recommendation. I hope that the Government might recognise that it is in the interests of victims that any decisions by the Secretary of State in this area should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. After all, we remain a parliamentary democracy—despite some recent attempts to subvert it.
Amendment 124A is perhaps the most important of this group of amendments that I have tabled, because it entrenches the timely achievement of transparency as a key task of the independent public advocate. The amendment avoids being overly prescriptive about what powers the independent public advocate might require to establish an effective fact-finding inquiry to secure timely transparency for the victims, the bereaved and the wider public, because obviously the circumstances of every major incident will be different. However, this might well include placing the advocate in the position of data controllers, so they would be enabled to see all the relevant documentation and report on it without necessarily being able, under data protection regulations, to publish all the data.
In his letter to Peers, the Minister—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy—set out the reasons for the Government resisting such powers, and they are worth quoting, because to me they exemplify many of the problems with the Government’s approach. He said that
“a new and competing investigative body would be disruptive, duplicative and risk undermining or prejudicing other investigations which are seeking to establish the truth or assign liability”.
I am afraid these assertions are not borne out by evidence. The role need not compete with other investigations under the terms of this amendment. If the Secretary of State believes that such power would not be in the public interest, nothing in this amendment would force them to grant it. It remains at the Secretary of State’s discretion. However, this amendment forces the Secretary of State to justify such a decision, in respect of the fact that they made it with regard to timeliness, cost, transparency, and the emotional and financial interests of the victims.
5.15 pm
It is unclear to me why the Government should resist the obligation to justify their actions with respect to these crucial concerns. The experience of the Hillsborough Independent Panel demonstrates all the advantages of such a process, acting in effect as a triage for other forms of inquiry. It does not mean it is acting in competition with them; it is acting as part of an overall process.
Turning to the detail of the problems of the Government’s approach, I start with the interest of the taxpayer, which I hope is never far from any Government’s mind. I hope I do not need to remind the noble Earl the Minister of the cost of the public inquiries that the Government seem to favour. The Grenfell inquiry has so far cost £170 million. The infected blood inquiry has so far cost £130 million. The Post Office Horizon inquiry has so far cost £22 million. In contrast, the Hillsborough Independent Panel—the replication of which the Government seem determined to resist and which has nevertheless been universally recognised as an exemplarily thorough piece of work—cost a fraction of these sums. The House of Lords Library has struggled to find a precise figure, but it seems clear that it was under £5 million. A cost-effective triage, such as the Hillsborough Independent Panel, could save many millions of pounds down the line.
Even more importantly, there are the interests of victims, those who have been let down and betrayed by the state. I remind the Minister of how long these public inquiries can take. The Grenfell inquiry has so far taken nearly seven years. The infected blood inquiry has so far taken over six years. The Post Office Horizon inquiry has so far taken nearly three years. There is no obvious end in sight for any of these inquiries. In contrast, the Hillsborough Independent Panel took two and a half years from starting work to the publication of its report. That was about events that had taken place over two decades previously, with all the consequent difficulties of research and assessment.
The Minister will be familiar with the adage that justice delayed is justice denied, yet the Government seem determined to resist an obvious way to comply with it in the circumstances. I ask the Minister to consider the plight of those victims, on whose behalf the position of the independent public advocate is being set up. They have suffered directly or indirectly from the loss of loved ones because, in some way, the state that was meant to serve and protect them failed them. They could never have expected that to happen, yet that same state makes them wait not weeks, not months, but years, and sometimes decades, to find out
what has happened. This lack of timeliness—with interminable delays—compounds their grief and suffering and makes any kind of closure even harder than it already is.
I also remind the Minister that, for all their costs to the taxpayer, the length of time they take and the damage that that time does to victims, these public inquiries do not always succeed in their purpose. There was a public inquiry and a scrutiny—in effect, much the same thing—of the Hillsborough disaster, and the Minister will be aware that both failed to get to the truth and win the trust of those most affected by that tragedy. That is why they campaigned for decades to get the justice that they are finally beginning to receive. It took the Hillsborough Independent Panel to do that, yet the Government seem to resist its replication. The amendment would address those issues. Resisting it would be not only wrong but cruel to all those who might benefit from it in the future.
Finally, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, went on to write:
“It is also true that giving the Independent Public Advocate powers to compel information from public authorities would not then necessarily allow them to disclose this information to victims”.
That weasel adverb “necessarily” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that claim. Again, the Hillsborough Independent Panel provided a model of how all the relevant information that the state owes to victims can be provided to them—that is the model and process envisioned in the amendment.
I now turn to Amendment 128A. As it stands, the Bill appears to permit the Secretary of State to appoint the independent public advocate but deprive them of the means to exercise their function. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intended, but in any event the amendment will prevent the Government travestying the position of the independent public advocate and give them all the secretarial and other support necessary for them to exercise their functions effectively.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 133ZA. Despite everything I have said in Committee, I have to recognise that the Government are still resistant to these amendments that would improve the agency of victims and produce transparency in a timely manner. This amendment calls for a review of the operation of the independent public advocate after a year,
“with regard to timeliness, cost, transparency and the emotional and financial interests and views of the victims”.
It recognises, as I said, that the Government have not been minded to accept most—or indeed any—of my amendments so far. It is baffling to me why the Government seem so resistant to improvements in timeliness, cost and transparency and, above all, in support for victims and the bereaved that victims themselves are asking for. The Government say that they have their reasons; they are not compelling to me or to many others, but here we are. Recognising that fact, the amendment simply asks the Government to have the courage of their convictions. If they believe that the Bill, as it stands, really is the best way forward for victims and the bereaved, the amendment requires them to put it to the test after a year. Resistance to the amendment will only indicate that the Government do
not, in fact, have confidence that their measures are the best that can be done for victims and the bereaved.
Your Lordships will have noted that the amendment is predicated on the Government accepting some degree of retrospection in the independent public advocate’s activities, as there may not have been a new major incident within the timeframe. But I hope that the Government will have recognised the imperative not to deprive all those who are victims, and who continue to suffer from previous major incidents, of the support that could be offered by the independent public advocate. I refer again, for example, to the postmasters, the victims of contaminated blood transfusions and the victims of nuclear tests. In those circumstances, I was encouraged—I hope not mistakenly—by the Minister, who, on the previous day in Committee, seemed to indicate that he might be open to looking again at that provision. I hope very much that the Government might accept at least this amendment—although I obviously hope that they will accept all my amendments —because it will put their position to the test. I hope they will not resist that.