Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and I think she raises some really valid concerns about whistleblowing. I know it is late, but I am just going to take a moment to echo other noble Lords who have welcomed the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—to his place. I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, for the care that she took on this Bill previously. I welcome this Bill. It is the result of many years of campaigning from the Hillsborough families. But, like the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Carlile of Berriew, I cannot help feeling slightly conflicted. When I told my husband what this Bill was about—making sure that when a public authority has failed, all those with any knowledge or responsibility will be completely truthful and transparent about what went wrong—he was incredulous. “Doesn’t that happen already?”, he asked. “Do you really need a law for that?” But no, as we know, it does not happen—as you well know if you have had the terrible misfortune to be part of any of the scandals of the last 30 years and more. That is the reality, and whatever we feel about it, on the face of it, that means that this is a very good Bill. It is about taking responsibility and holding public bodies to account, something that we all support across this House. But however good its intentions, this Bill is not a panacea, and I think it is really important that we are honest about that. Let us not overpromise, because if you are involved in an inquiry or inquest where this duty applies, you have already been let down on a scale that is life-altering. I think it is important to take a moment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, did earlier, to mention the NHS duty, which did not quite work out as intended, despite having been in existence for nearly 12 years. I had a look at the Government’s 2024 review of that duty, and it is pretty clear that it did not lead to the desired culture change—94% of patients said that providers had failed to engage meaningfully and compassionately following a safety incident—nor did it always increase transparency. There were some healthcare professionals admitting they are or were reluctant to complete a duty of candour for fear of blame or declaring their own guilt. That last finding tallies with the Ockenden review, which highlighted the notable reduction of reported moderate harm incidents following the duty’s introduction. I am sure that the Minister will tell me—and of course he is right—that this duty is different. It is more far-reaching and, we hope, more straightforward, and of course it has new criminal enforcement mechanisms. I really hope that it does lead to the necessary change in behaviour. I would also be interested, as others have mentioned, to know what thinking has gone into ensuring better compliance and also that the sanctions will deter, rather than embed, defensiveness, as has happened in healthcare. In the other place, the right honourable Member for Godalming and Ash, Jeremy Hunt, who introduced the duty, identified a different problem with regard to lawyers who advise trusts not to say anything when there is a risk of legal action. It is something we may wish to look at here, along with another of his amendments, which would require information to be provided to a person who or family that has or may have been harmed, not just to those conducting investigations or reviews. I appreciate that this would expand the scope of the Bill somewhat, but it is interesting, first, because it would potentially bring forward the timeframe in which families get the answers they are seeking, and secondly, because it would give victims and families the agency that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, spoke about so eloquently. I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to hear that this brings me on to the Independent Public Advocate. When the role was established under the Victims and Prisoners Act, it was acknowledged that although it would not have statutory powers to hold public bodies to account, the IPA should become a figure of recognised integrity and authority—someone who institutions cannot brush off or ignore. In Cindy Butts, the first IPA, we are incredibly fortunate because we have such a person, but she can establish the role only with the proper support and the right structural frameworks, so I was surprised and perhaps disappointed not to see any mention of the IPA in the Bill. To that end, I will join with others in looking at amendments that would incorporate the role of the IPA, given its specific purpose to support victims, survivors and bereaved families. As my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead said so powerfully, the IPA is the only person within the system whose sole purpose it is to support them and who could do it to a far greater degree than we currently allow for. The Bill has provisions in terms of legal aid and parity and equality of arms, as we have heard, but this is about more than legal representation. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, it is about the relationship between the public and the state. I think we all agree that, fundamentally, the Bill is about rebuilding trust when trust in the system has been smashed to pieces. For many, the IPA will be the first crucial step in that process. I hope the Minister has heard the strength of feeling and support for the IPA across the House. Finally, there is a third element, which has already been highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Carter of Haslemere, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy: the need for some form of oversight in terms of inquiry recommendations and coroners’ prevention of future death reports. However, I accept that that is not for this Bill and appreciate that work is going on in tandem, which is good news. With that work, the Bill and an IPA that is supported to become truly effective and not merely a signposting position, we will end up with something that can deliver the justice and accountability that we all seek and the public deserve.