Alex Davies-Jones
MP for Pontypridd · Labour · United Kingdom
“Hopefully, last week the hon. Lady will have seen the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), outlining the Government’s response to tackling some of the covert filming that is causing such anxiety to women in particular, and to other vulnerable people.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question, because it is important to recognise the abuse that this is causing. The law alone is not enough, but we are strengthening the criminal law through world-leading packages.”
“I have huge sympathy for anyone who is struggling with this issue, whether that is because they have to travel further owing to the nature of the case, or for religious reasons. This issue is deeply concerning. My right hon. Friend will know that coroners are independent judges.”
“I will, of course, look at Harmony’s petition to see what more we can do, and look into the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I recently met a group of victims and survivors who discussed the impact that technological abuse is having on them.”
“If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details of the case, I will of course look into it. Delays of that nature are rare, but they can happen because cases are looked at case by case. I will look into the specifics of that case. To reassure the House, we are aware of the issues with coronial delays.”
“My hon. Friend is right: perpetrators are able to generate and share harmful content at unprecedented speed and scale, and we need to be able to respond quickly. Ofcom does have robust enforcement powers under the Online Safety Act 2023, including the power to impose substantial fines and other sanctions.”
The complete record
Every one of 606 lines we hold for Alex Davies-Jones, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 13.
“Hillsborough families spoke of the importance of individual accountability, and we listened. It is clear from our engagement across the public sector that such a strong new measure will—as drafted and when properly implemented—have a serious and real deterrent effect. We are confident that it and every other measure in the Bill will drive forward a culture of candour and truthfulness. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, and I request that he withdraws his amendment.”
“The harm threshold ensures that the public, the police and prosecutors are able to distinguish between those actions that meet the threshold for criminal sanctions and those that should be dealt with through other routes, such as an organisation’s complaints process, or covered by other aspects of the law. The nature of public life is that it is not uncommon for public officials or officeholders to be accused of being untruthful when going about their daily tasks. If it is used to trigger police investigations into vexatious claims, or to engage in political lawfare, rather than for the grave examples of state cover-ups that the Bill was meant to deal with, it risks undermining the offence itself, as well as the intention of the Bill. The creation of an offence of this kind is a bold step.”
“That is a non-exhaustive list and it can include other types of harm. The condition includes harm or the potential for harm. The offence does not require there to be proof that the act has caused harm to an individual. In cases such as Hillsborough and Horizon, evidence of harm caused by cover-ups is clear and apparent. We have designed the offence with historical incidents of state failure in mind where, at a minimum, potential distress could be identified and in many cases much more serious harm. The requirement for an act to have the potential to cause harm is a key condition to ensure that the offence applies only to serious cases.”
“It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for outlining his concerns. I hope I will be able to reassure him as to the Government’s intent. Clause 1 of the Bill clearly sets out that public authorities and officials are expected to act with candour, transparency and frankness at all times. Criminal sanctions should be reserved for the most serious cases. The condition that an act has to have caused, or had the potential to cause harm will achieve that effect. It will not be a bar to prosecution in those cases, and I hope to explain why. The definition of harm is broad. It includes physical harm, psychological harm, including distress, and economic loss. I reassure the Committee that distress was added on the suggestion of Hillsborough Law Now.”
“Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting. Without the exemption, only public service broadcasters would potentially be subject to this criminal offence for their journalistic activities and reporting, while other broadcasters would not. The approach ensures that PSBs are still captured in respect of their other public functions—for example, an incident that took place at the BBC itself—but excludes journalistic activity. I hope that that satisfies the concerns of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills.”
“On Second Reading, we had a very healthy debate on journalism and the impact of media in state failures. It has laid heavily with me. It was a big focus of the debate, and we have taken the issue forward with colleagues across Government and the media to look at how we can best support individuals—victims, especially—when the media has such a crucial role to play. Amendment 30 seeks to remove the exemption in the offence of misleading the public for any acts done for the purposes of journalism. The purpose of the exemption is to avoid capturing journalistic activity by public service broadcasters that might otherwise meet the definition of a public authority. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation.”
“Amendment 5 clarifies our intention that the exemption is limited to journalistic activity by public service broadcasters and those working for them. This is defined with reference to the Online Safety Act 2023. Because amendment 5 achieves the same aim as the amendment that my hon. Friend tabled and hopefully satisfies his concerns, I kindly request that he does not press his amendment to a vote.”
“Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, alongside colleagues at Hillsborough Law Now, has raised concerns that the exemption, as it is currently drafted, could be interpreted more broadly, which was certainly not our intention. He made a very important point about what defines journalistic activity. In particular, there are concerns that the exemption might be considered to apply to officials who are not journalists themselves but who are involved with, for example, preparing journalistic materials, such as briefings or press releases by other public figures making public comment, who might improperly seek to use this exemption as a defence for their actions. That is certainly not our intention and I have tabled amendment 5 to provide more clarity.”
“I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken about the need for responsible media reporting to prevent disinformation and misinformation. This provision, however, covers only public authorities. We are therefore capturing only public service broadcasters, so the types of journalism that the hon. Gentleman describes are totally out of scope of the Bill. We would effectively be restricting the BBC, but other journalists would not be captured by the legislation. We need to raise this more broadly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and look at it across Government. I recognise his concerns, because I share some of them. It is very important for the Bill to define what a “journalist” is. My hon.”
“This is a transformative offence that will ensure that when something goes wrong and public officials lie to the public, there are serious consequences. It will act as a powerful deterrent against the sorts of state cover-ups that we have sadly see all too often. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle asked me about offences which potentially attract two or more years in prison. I will write to him on that and come back on the specifics, as well as on his question about the Attorney General. With that, I commend clause 11 to the Committee.”
“Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting, as we have already discussed. Subsection (6) includes a reasonable excuse defence, with specific defences for the exercise of functions by the intelligence services and armed forces on active service. That is necessary to make it clear that when officials can prove that they misled the public to protect national security or this country’s defence operations, they are not subject to criminal sanctions. I stress, however, that this will not prevent the successful prosecution of members of the security services or armed forces who mislead the public for any other purposes, such as personal gain or to protect their reputation.”
“The Northern Ireland Executive, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have all confirmed their agreement to extend the offence, and we will be extending the offences accordingly. We hope to bring forward amendments on the territorial extent on Report to ensure full coverage for the United Kingdom. Subsection (4) also excludes any act done for the purposes of journalism. That is to avoid capturing public service broadcasters and those working for them who would otherwise meet the definition of a public official. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation.”
“Although these sorts of lies should entail professional consequences, we do not think they meet the bar for criminal sanctions. The individual must also have departed significantly from what would have been expected of them in carrying out their functions. This is to ensure that where it may be necessary to mislead someone as part of a person’s job—for example, as part of an undercover police operation—that is not captured. This clause as introduced does not apply to devolved matters. We have written to all the devolved Governments to request that the offence be extended in their jurisdiction in line with the other provisions on duty of candour, which apply across the UK.”
“It will be for the judge and the jury to determine whether that test has been met, but clause 11(3)(a) sets out minimum conditions that must be present: that the act— “involved dishonesty that was significant or repeated…in respect of matters of significant concern to the public”. That will avoid capturing minor instances of lying or misleading on trivial political or private matters. The act must have caused or have the potential to cause harm. Harm, as we have already discussed, is broadly defined, including economic, physical or psychological harm, including distress. The purpose of this is to avoid capturing inconsequential matters, such a Minister lying about where they went to university or competing in a chess tournament or a local government official overstating their council’s performance.”
“The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no family ever has to go through what those families went through and continue to go through. I can only imagine how hard that report was to read and the pain that they continue to feel. The new offence will ensure that when a public official has misled the public, there is accountability. To have committed the offence, an authority or official must have acted with the intention to mislead the public or been reckless as to whether their actions would do so. By reckless, we mean a person acting with the knowledge that there is a risk that they might mislead the public and taking that risk without reasonable justification. It does not include accidental mistakes or inaccuracies. They must have known or ought to have known that their act is seriously improper.”
“Clause 11 creates a new offence of misleading the public, which is designed to capture the most serious incidents of misleading the public, such as the behaviour seen after Hillsborough, where officials intentionally spread a false narrative to protect their reputation and caused harm as a result. That, as the shadow Minister rightly states, is punishable by up to two years in prison. We all know the harm that caused and how, three decades on, families are still fighting for justice and accountability for what the spreading of that narrative did. The Independent Office for Police Conduct report on Tuesday was clear: a lie was told; a false narrative was spread to protect reputations and avoid consequences.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for raising this important issue. We agree wholeheartedly with the intention behind the amendment, and I can assure him that the Bill achieves that intent. Schedule 3 makes further provision regarding clause 5 and clause 11 offences. Paragraph 2(2) sets out that, “Proceedings for an offence under section 11 may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.” With that clarification, I hope the shadow Minister will withdraw his amendment. Hopefully, I can answer some of his other queries as we move through the debate.”
“To add an unnecessary “or” between sub-sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), when that is already the meaning, would risk putting the position in doubt in other legislation across the statute book and could cause confusion. Paragraph (1)(2) refers only to the clause 5 offence because the clause 11 offence applies only in England and Wales. A case could not be heard by a court in Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, as I confirmed earlier, we have in principle agreements to extend clause 11 offences to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we are working with the devolved Governments to draft amendments, which we intend to bring forward on Report, so that the offence is UK-wide.”
“I will happily raise that issue with the Pensions Minister in our discussions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for tabling the amendments. I hope to be able to provide some clarification. Amendments 56 and 57 seek to ensure the same extraterritorial extent applies for the offences of failure to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. The intended effect of amendment 56 is already achieved in the Bill as drafted. In schedule 3, paragraph 1(1), the disapplication does not apply if any the criteria of sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) are met. It is already an “or” list, not an “and” list. That follows the standard parliamentary drafting convention.”
“Finally, paragraph 4 provides that where an offence relates to unincorporated bodies, proceedings must be brought against the name of the body.”
“Paragraph 2 provides that consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales or from the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is required before proceedings for the breach of duty of candour offence may be brought forward. I hope the shadow Minister is reassured on that point. The same consent is required in England and Wales for proceedings for the offence of misleading the public, which as I just said, currently only applies in England and Wales, but we are making provisions to apply it to the UK as a whole. Paragraph 3 makes it clear that where a body commits an offence and a relevant person, for example a director, manager or partner, consented or connived, both the individual and the body are liable.”
“Yes, they are indeed. Schedule 3 works alongside clauses 5 and 11 to make some additional provisions about the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. Paragraph 1 provides that an offence may be committed outside the UK only if the person who committed the offence is a UK national, an individual who habitually resides within the UK, or a body incorporated in the UK. In practice, that means that UK civil servants working abroad are captured, but country-based staff employed by UK embassies, who perform a range of predominantly administrative or maintenance roles are not. These are local staff subject to local laws and regulations instead and their exclusion is consistent with other precedents.”
“The offences in clauses 12 and 13 may also be committed by acts done outside the United Kingdom provided that, at the time of the act, the public office holder is either a UK national or habitually resident in England and Wales. The clause ensures conduct like this could be caught by the new offences.”
“That is commensurate with other offences where a failure of duty leads to serious or critical consequences, such as gross negligence manslaughter. As with the offence in clause 12, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence in clause 13. That is to guard against the risk of spurious claims being made against public officials in this position and to ensure that only the most serious cases are prosecuted. Clause 14 clarifies the territorial application of the new offences in clauses 12 and 13. It makes clear that a public office holder can commit the seriously improper acts or breach of duty offences by their actions either within England and Wales, or in other UK territories such as Scotland or Northern Ireland.”
“The requirement that the act must fall far below the standard that could reasonably be expected of the person in the circumstances ensures that minor or honest mistakes and legitimate but risky operational decisions made in challenging circumstances will not be captured. For example, a law enforcement officer having to decide in the moment whether to take a particular risky operational decision would be caught by the offence only if they intentionally recklessly breach the duty, their act falls far below the standards reasonably expected of them in those circumstances, and they have no reasonable excuse for their actions. The offence will be triable on indictment only and will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.”
“The offence is made out only if the public official knows or ought to know that they are subject to that duty. The breach of duty must cause either critical harm or a significant risk of that harm materialising. It will not capture cases where a negligible or insignificant risk of harm is caused. The breach of duty must also have been intentional or reckless. These are both very high criminal thresholds. To act recklessly means to proceed in full awareness of the potential outcome and in circumstances where it is unreasonable to take the risk. Only the most serious breaches of duty are captured by the offence.”
“The new offence is committed when a person who holds public office either causes or creates significant risk of causing someone else to suffer critical harm, in breach of a duty to prevent other people from suffering such harm. They must know that they are under such a duty, and their act must fall far below what could reasonably have been expected of them in the circumstances. The offence requires that the person be under a duty to prevent critical harm that arises by virtue of the public office that they hold. That means that the offence can be committed only by public office holders whose roles inherently involve a duty to prevent critical harm—for example, service personnel, firefighters and the police. It does not apply to public office holders whose roles do not put them under a duty to protect the public from critical harm.”
“We have already heard examples of that. It will ensure that only cases that are serious in nature and justify criminalisation are prosecuted. It does not require the personal consent of the director—consent can be delegated—so it should not cause any undue administrative burden. The clause will ensure that serious misconduct and corrupt behaviour by those in public office will continue to result in criminal sanctions, and that those who abuse positions of public trust are held to account for their actions. I commend the clause to the Committee. Clause 13 establishes the new offence of breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. It is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful neglect of duty under the common law offence.”
“There is a list of factors that the jury must consider to make that determination, including the extent to which the act involved an intention to mislead or be dishonest by withholding, covering up or misusing information. A defence is available if the person can show that they had a reasonable excuse for their action—for example, a public office holder has to disregard one fraudulent benefits claim to uncover a more serious, larger scale benefits fraud. The offence is indictable and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. That puts it on par with similar statutory offences, such as bribery and fraud. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence. That is to safeguard against the risk of spurious claims against public officials, including politicians.”
“When we talk about protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, we intend to capture serious situations where someone uses their office in the way that we associate with the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster: the manipulation of evidence in order to protect the reputation of a person, including an organisation, or the spreading of allegations about other people, designed to damage their reputation. The clause is about not the usual back and forth of everyday politics, but severe abuses of power that undermine the very basis of public service. An act is seriously improper if a reasonable person would consider it so.”
“The seriously improper acts offence is committed when a person who holds public office uses that office with the intent to obtain a benefit for themselves or another person, or to cause detriment to someone else. They must know or ought to have known that any reasonable person would regard their act as seriously improper. The offence can capture a wide range of conduct. “Using” an office can include both acts and omissions. “Benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment including, but not limited to, financial gain or loss, protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, and benefits or detriments of a physical or sexual nature, whether temporary or permanent.”
“I will speak to each of the clauses in turn. Clause 12 will introduce the first of two new statutory offences to replace the common law offence of misconduct in public office. In its 2020 report, the Law Commission recommended that the common law offence should be abolished and replaced with two new offences that broadly replicate the coverage of the common law offence. In acting on those recommendations, the Government do not intend to change significantly the type of conduct the criminal law will capture. Like the common law offence, the new offences are intended to capture only wrongdoing at the most serious level. The clause establishes the new offence of seriously improper acts, and is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful misconduct under the common law offence.”
“Yes, I can confirm that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 Holders of public office Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Government amendment 12 ensures that all those carrying out the judicial functions of the coroner are included in schedule 4, regardless of how they are appointed. A deputy chief coroner can be appointed in two ways: those qualified by being a High Court or circuit judge are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and those qualified by being a senior coroner are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The amendment makes it clear that we intend to capture both. It is not a policy change, merely a drafting refinement.”
“All the Government amendments relate to our measures on the offences of misconduct in public office. Government amendment 11 adds members of the Parole Board to schedule 4 to the Bill, which sets out the list of those who are considered public office holders for the purposes of the new statutory offences in part 3 of the Bill: seriously improper acts and the breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. The amendment is not being made because there has been a change in policy; rather we have determined that making explicit reference to the Parole Board is a clearer approach than relying on paragraph 21 of the schedule to capture this body. As the offences currently extend to England and Wales only, the reference added to the schedule is only to the parole board that operates in that jurisdiction.”
“Clause 16 abolishes the common law offence of misconduct in public office, which our new statutory offences will replace. It also sets out arrangements for the transition to the new offences, ensuring that the common law offence will continue to apply to any acts done, or begun, before its abolition. The clause also makes it clear that we are not affecting other offences, or the civil tort of misfeasance in public office. Clause 17 and schedule 5 amend existing legislation to reflect the abolition of the common law offence and the introduction of the new statutory offences. Schedule 5 sets out the specific—and minor—changes to three pieces of existing legislation. Question put and agreed to. Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 5 agreed to.”
“Clause 18 and schedule 6 represent a milestone moment in addressing the disparity in power often faced by bereaved families and other affected persons in the inquest and inquiry system. They provide for non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at all inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the widest expansion of legal aid in a generation.”
“They amend a reference in schedule 6 to a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and relocate the position of a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into the same schedule to the 2009 Act. I commend the amendments, and the clause and schedule, to the Committee.”
“Part 4 of schedule 6 also amends the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. The amendments ensure that not only legal help, advice and assistance but advocacy is available as an appropriate form of civil legal services at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. They also ensure that legal representation is an appropriate form of civil legal service in an appeal to the High Court to open or reopen an inquest under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The amendments will ensure that the bereaved have access to the appropriate form of legal aid for the proceedings that they are experiencing, ensuring that they are appropriately supported at each stage. Finally, amendments 14 to 17 are minor technical amendments.”
“Part 4 of schedule 6 then turns to amendments to the supporting regulations. The first set of amendments are to the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013. There are three amendments to regulation 5, in particular sub-paragraph (m) and proposed new sub-paragraph (ma). Those sub-paragraphs allow for the financial means test to be disapplied when an individual applies for legal help or advocacy at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. The third amendment at sub-paragraph (n) is a purely technical amendment that facilitates the changes. By disapplying the means test for legal aid at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the changes will truly make a difference for the bereaved. This will be a key turning point in rebalancing the system.”
“As per determinations for section 13 applications under current ECF—exceptional case funding—legal representation will be provided, rather than legal help and advocacy funding, and applications will be means-tested. The fourth amendment to LASPO insert a new paragraph into part 3 of schedule 1 to the Act to set out the conditions under which an individual can access funded advocacy services at inquest proceedings. The conditions are that, first, a public authority must be an interested person at the inquest and, secondly, advocacy must not have already been made available to another family member of the deceased in relation to the same inquest or a linked inquest. Whether an inquest is linked—that is, whether it is investigating deaths stemming from the same incident—is a matter for the coroner hearing the case.”
“The first two amendments are technical and update references to “the Coroners Act 1988” to say “the Coroners and Justice Act 2009”, which has largely repealed and replaced the 1988 Act. The third amendment brings applications under section 13 of the 1988 Act into scope of civil legal services. Section 13 allows bereaved family members to submit a request to open or reopen inquest proceedings to the High Court. The Government recognise the importance of bringing such applications into scope of legal aid, and this amendment to LASPO delivers that. Unlike inquests, section 13 applications are adversarial court proceedings in the High Court.”
“Part 2 of schedule 6 makes it clear that changes made to the Inquires Act 2005 by part 1 of the schedule should apply to relevant non-statutory inquiries, albeit with certain modifications as set out in paragraph 2(3). Part 4 of schedule 6 makes expanded provision for legal aid at inquests. It details a number of amendments to the legislation and regulations underpinning the legal aid system. Those, when taken together, keep applications to open or reopen an inquest in scope of legal aid; set out that, where a public authority is an interested person in the inquest, non-means-tested legal aid for the inquest can be accessed by families; and provide for conditions in relation to advocacy funding. Part 4 begins with four amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, known as LASPO.”
“A person to whom the report is made must give the inquiry chair or coroner a written response. Part 3 of schedule 6 makes further modifications to schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to provide that where a report is made by a coroner, a copy must be sent to the chief coroner. Part 3 also amends section 36 of the 2009 Act to add those reports and their responses to the matters that must be summarised in the chief coroner’s annual report to the Lord Chancellor. It further amends section 43 of the 2009 Act to provide that regulations made under that section may make provision in respect of reports made by coroners in relation to concerns over the conduct of public authorities.”
“The schedule amends section 41 of the 2005 Act and section 43 of the 2009 Act to make provision for an “overriding objective” to be created in an inquiry or inquest. In particular, that may include objectives for, or in connection with, ensuring that relevant affected persons are able to participate fully and effectively, maintaining the inquisitorial nature of proceedings, and that they are given sufficient information about proceedings. The schedule also inserts proposed new section 34C into the 2005 Act and amends schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to create a power for an inquiry chair or coroner to raise concerns and report the matter to the person who has overall responsibility for the management of the public authority—or such other person who has power to take action—as to the conduct of a public authority or its legal representatives.”
“Schedule 6 inserts proposed new section 34B into the 2005 Act and proposed new section 42A into the 2009 Act to place a public authority that is a core participant at an inquiry, or an interested person at an inquest, under a duty to engage legal representatives to act for the authority only if, and in so far as—this is important—it is necessary and proportionate, and to take steps to ensure that those representatives conduct themselves in accordance with the guidance from the Lord Chancellor. In our evidence, we heard how bereaved families feel at an inquest when they turn up with their legal aid-appointed person—or are sometimes not even given a legal aid-appointed person—and the public authority has an army of barristers. This measure seeks to curtail that and to ensure equal representation and parity of arms.”
“Parts 1, 2 and 3 of schedule 6 impose a common framework of obligations on public authorities and their legal teams in respect of their participation across statutory public inquiries, non-statutory public inquiries and coroner investigations. The schedule inserts proposed new section 34A into the Inquiries Act 2005 and amends section 42 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that guidance may be issued by the Lord Chancellor to set out the principles that should guide the conduct of public authorities in respect of public inquiries and coroner investigations.”
“I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we have a strong and positive working relationship with the Scottish Government and all the devolved Governments about the Bill. The Scottish Government have written to ask us to extend the provision to Scotland. We are working with our colleagues in Holyrood and across the UK to see how we can best apply that. I will happily update my hon. Friend on those discussions, which are positive and ongoing. The provisions in the Bill on legal aid go further, setting out a common framework of obligations and accountability for public authorities and their legal teams when they participate at public inquiries and coroner investigations. I will now get into the detail.”
“I am grateful for those questions. On who will police the spend, it will not be for the coroner to police it; it will be for the public bodies themselves. They will be under an obligation, because they will also be funding the legal aid for the bereaved families, depending on which public authority or arm of government it comes under. If it is health, for example, that Department will fund the legal aid costs of the bereaved families; if it is the Prison Service, the funding will come from the Ministry of Justice; if it is police, it will be the Home Office, and so on.”
“No, there is no new money for this legislation. Therefore, we hope that the spending that public authorities carry out for inquests will match how much they have to fund for the bereaved families. We hope that this will also be a deterrent against arming up officials when going towards what should be an inquisitorial process.”