My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for Amendment 118, which extends legal aid to inquests. I completely understand the point that is being made, but the Government’s position is that the effect of the amendment is extremely broad and would give all interested persons the entitlement to free legal support and representation in any inquest, regardless of whether or not it follows a major incident, provided that at least one public authority was also an interested person. So, because of its width, the Government are unable to support the amendment.
In addition, the Government are already considering access to legal aid at inquests following major incidents. That is notably in response to Bishop James’s 2017
Hillsborough report. The MoJ is consulting on expanding free legal aid that is available for bereaved families at inquests following a major incident under this legislation and following terrorist attacks. In the Government’s view, the amendment goes beyond its stated purpose and the Government are already acting to deal with the issue of legal aid at inquests, so I respectfully urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 119, a probing amendment. I am sure that everyone was moved by the description of the experience of Jenni Hicks, which was recounted by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I was very sorry to hear about that experience. We very much appreciate the effect this must have had on Mrs Hicks and other families affected. In the Government’s view, Jenni Hicks and others are entirely right to have raised the issue in this Chamber. It is an issue that requires proper consideration. I know that Operation Resolve itself very much regrets the anguish and distress caused by the incident, and has offered its apologies. The officer in overall command has written to them setting out the actions taken to address their concerns, and last year I think the Policing Minister met with the families affected. The Home Office has been assured that appropriate procedures are now in place.
6 pm
As to the wider issue, the Government entirely agree with the sentiment behind the amendment—that this kind of thing is unacceptable. I say that on behalf of the Government. It is true that there is already wide-ranging guidance for police, pathologists, coroners and others; this includes guidance by the College of Policing, by the Home Office in partnership with the Royal College of Pathologists, by the Chief Coroner and by NHS trusts.
However, it is also the case that the victims were failed in this particular instance, and the Government have commissioned an independent forensic pathology review—I think it is Mr Glenn Taylor who is conducting this—which is expected to report to the Home Secretary in the summer. In the light of that review, the Government will carefully consider its findings and the whole question of the processes. I hear the point made about the “Marchioness” incident—that is one that particularly sticks in one’s memory—and indeed the point made about the whole process of disclosure in other cases of medical difficulty in the NHS, how to get hold of reports and matters of that kind.
I can assure the House that this matter is on the Government’s radar and will be examined most carefully and widely, once the findings of the independent forensic pathology review are available.