My Lords, first I shall speak to the amendments tabled in my name, on behalf of the Government, which address the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government. Government Amendments 103A and 109A will require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before declaring a major incident that occurs in Wales and before appointing an advocate in respect of that incident. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has tabled Amendment 109B, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other noble Lords have supported it.
The scheme here is being administered and funded by the UK Government. The Government’s position is therefore that the right level of involvement for Welsh Ministers is to be consulted by the Secretary of State before decisions are made, rather than requiring consent or concurrence, as Amendment 109B suggests. The Government believe it would not be proportionate for the UK Government to require the consent of Welsh Ministers, thereby in effect giving them a veto over those decisions. The Government must be able to act quickly following a disaster. I believe these amendments prioritise both speed and operability while respecting aspects of this policy that cover devolved areas.
For the avoidance of doubt, I add that, as far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned, we have perfectly good relations with the Counsel General for Wales, and we are in regular touch with Welsh Ministers on matters of mutual interest. For myself, I do not anticipate any difficulties arising from the sensible amendments proposed by the Government. Given that the Government have tabled these amendments, and having regard to
the points I have just outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I shall be moving the amendments in my name in this regard.
Government Amendment 110A is a technical amendment, clarifying the grounds on which the Secretary of State may omit from reports material that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would prejudice an investigation, inquest or inquiry. This is an important amendment to ensure that materials relating to national security or those that might prejudice a subsequent investigation or criminal trial, for example, are protected. In the Government’s view, the amendments preserve the necessary balance between protecting that integrity and giving reassurance that the independent public advocate’s reports will not be unduly affected. It is a sensible precaution to take.
4.45 pm
Finally in this regard is an important point in relation to Amendment 119A in my name, which places an obligation on the Secretary of State to review the operation of the IPA scheme and to publish and lay before Parliament a report. The review period will be 18 months and will start when the first advocate is appointed in respect of a major incident. This was very much in response to discussions we have had with the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on this and other topics. The Government believe that the review will be most effective once a major incident has been declared, but we recognise that this should be done as quickly as possible to ensure that it is working as intended.
That will require the Secretary of State to publish his review and lay it before Parliament. The scope of the review has been kept very broad and involves the operation of the whole part of the Bill. If I may make this point generally, in the Government’s view it addresses a broad range of points that have been made about the independent public advocate. The Government’s position is that we should not try to run before we can walk; let us set up this perfectly sensible scheme. At this point, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and others, especially the Hillsborough families who have campaigned for a public advocate of this kind. We now have a scheme and a structure. Let us try it out and see how it goes. If it needs to be extended later to other sorts of incidents, smaller incidents, linked events or whatever, let us see how it goes first and then cross that bridge. Let us not be overeager to make this as extensive as possible from the outset. It is sensibly put together and, in the Government’s view, it is a good balance at the moment.
Those were the Government’s amendments. I turn now to the various amendments proposed by noble Lords, for which I thank them. Amendment 104 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, seeks to allow the Secretary of State to declare a major incident in circumstances that fall short of the definition of a major incident. The Fishmongers’ Hall example was given in the debate. The Government’s view is that at this stage the scheme should be controlled so that it can focus on exceptional, single-time events. That is the essential drift of the amendment on major disasters. The Government do not believe it would be helpful to create an expectation that the IPA might be created to
support victims involved in small-scale incidents. If we take Fishmongers’ Hall as an example, sadly there were victims but mercifully a small number of them. The purpose of the independent public advocate is to support victims on a wider scale in major incidents. We are thinking of the Grenfell-type situation, essentially. I use that as an example. The Government do not believe at this stage that where there are very few injuries or fatalities, or isolated incidents, it would be right at this point to extend the schemes to those kinds of events.
The Secretary of State has a discretion under the Bill to declare a major incident. There may be a certain room for manoeuvre in terms of “significant”. What exactly is “significant”? I do not know. The Shoreham air disaster might be a bit on the edge—it could be significant, or perhaps not—but let us leave those sorts of decisions for the future. The Government intend to publish a policy statement that will provide more detail. It will include the public interest, but the Government are not yet in a position to accept the wider vision, if I may call it that, that lies behind Amendment 104 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
I come to Amendments 102 and 105, which are very dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I say again that we have had long discussions about these matters. If I may put it briefly, they essentially relate to two points. One is looking back to the past and making all these provisions retrospective. The other is extending the scope of the public advocate’s role to so-called linked events, when there is no single major incident but a series of small events that happen and have similarities or links between them. Amendments 102 and 105, and one or two related amendments, seek to extend the scope of the Bill to those kinds of situations.
We have looked very hard at this, and I thank the noble Lord for his care in trying to meet the Government’s points, but I have to say that we are still not in a position to agree the amendments. If we take retro- spectivity first, that is difficult in parliamentary terms. On the whole, there is a general presumption against retrospectivity in legislation. It raises the major point: how far back do we go and what do we cover? Do we go back to Aberfan or Piper Alpha? Do we go back to the Paddington train crash? You could go back for many years on all these sorts of things.
The Government do not feel that is the right approach, especially when the most major incidents that come to mind are already the subject of major public inquiries. Are we inventing a fifth wheel for the coach if we go back too far? Is it right to spread public resources backwards rather than forwards, which is what the Bill is supposed to do? The Government are not persuaded that it is right to look back, nor to go down the road of linked events because you would thereby bring an enormous range of cases within scope. It risks diluting the scheme, because it would then cover a lot of small cases, and detracting from dealing with major disasters, which is what we are driving at. That is the Government’s position on those two amendments.
Personally, I regret that the Government cannot go any further than I have just explained. But it is important to bear in mind, as I have just said, that the Government will review the situation, and if it turns out that it is feasible, correct and proportionate to extend this office—if
it turns out to be a great success—the review, once it is up and running, is an opportunity to re-debate this whole issue. At the moment, the Government’s view is: let us not run before we can walk.