“Hillsborough Law”

Question

15:10:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to introduce the ‘Hillsborough Law’ as set out in the Labour Party Manifesto 2024; and what steps they are taking to ensure any such legislation will meet the objectives set out by the bereaved families.

My Lords, the Hillsborough disaster is one of the greatest stains on British history, and the families of those who lost loved ones have shown endless determination to get justice. Having consulted with these groups over the past few weeks, we believe that more time is needed to draft the best version of a Hillsborough law. We remain fully committed to bringing in this legislation at pace.

I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend the Minister for his compassion. As far as the families are concerned, the Hillsborough law is the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, which received a First Reading with cross-party support in 2017. They worry that starting from scratch will lead to a dilution of its vital protections. Will the Government please show them any new draft in advance of introduction? There is considerable irony in such a secretive process over a new duty of candour.

My Lords, I understand there have been multiple meetings between Hillsborough Law Now and the Government, Andy Burnham, Steve Rotherham, Liverpool MPs and my noble friend Lord Wills. I also understand that the Prime Minister is taking a personal interest in this matter. I know that the Government have undertaken to look very seriously at all the questions raised and will come forward with legislation at pace, as I said in my original Answer.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights carried out an inquiry into the proposed Hillsborough law, unanimously coming out in its favour having heard evidence from, among others, victims of the Hillsborough disaster, the Lord Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, who chaired the independent inquiry, and Andy Burnham? In a letter dated 12 April, the Government did not say which of the three provisions—the duty of candour referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, equality of arms or the independent advocate—now requires more delay and further consideration. Do we not owe it to the 97 who lost their lives in 1989—including children, some of whom were my constituents in Liverpool at the time—to say why a promise made as a manifesto commitment is now a promised that has not been kept?

My Lords, the Prime Minister is painfully aware that he made a promise and yet that date has slipped. Regarding the specific points made by the noble Lord, the Government have undertaken to look at this very closely and come up with legislation. I also am personally affected by this matter—a friend of my brother died in the disaster—and everyone I know who is involved in this is very seized of the matter and wants to get the answer right as quickly as possible.

My Lords, after the lies of the police at Hillsborough, embellished by the infamous front page of the Sun, why would the Government not insist on an enforceable duty of candour? Would that not reduce the costs of many millions of pounds in other inquiries concerning the police where the culture of secrecy and cover-up still persists?

The Government have said that they want to introduce a duty of candour, with criminal consequences for those who do not live up to that standard. But it is part of a greater whole, which is the reason why the legislation has not come forward as we would have liked and why we are undertaking further talks with the parties I have mentioned.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in 2021, following a very lengthy process, which was exacerbated by prevarication, obfuscation and failure to deliver materials to the panel, the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which I chaired, recommended the creation of a statutory duty of candour, to be owed by all law-enforcement agencies to those that they serve, subject only to the protection of national security and relevant data protection legislation? The response of His Majesty’s Government, in June 2023, was that the Home Office was reviewing this recommendation and working with HMICFRS on the introduction of a statutory duty of candour. Will the Minister please tell your Lordships’ House the current position of the Government?

Yes, the Government are very clear: we remain fully committed to bringing legislation forward at pace, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply with that duty of candour.

My Lords, many truth and justice campaigns, from Orgreave to Grenfell as well as Hillsborough, have faced that culture of state defensiveness and denial. In addition, working-class communities also face an unequal battle for justice because of legal aid and resources. Can my noble friend the Minister guarantee that the new law will right that wrong and give working-class communities real access to justice?

Yes, I can give my noble friend the reassurance that she is looking for. It is about looking at the extent of the legal aid that will be available to those families as they go into these types of large-scale litigation. It is precisely those issues that are being looked at. There will be further discussions with the groups that are affected.

My Lords, Hillsborough was, of course, a disaster with tragic consequences. It evinced a disgraceful response from many public servants, public authorities and, indeed, in some instances, the police. It is rather depressing to find that we have to legislate to impose a duty of candour on such public servants when we already have a law with regard to misfeasance in public office and, surely, a failure of candour amounts to misfeasance in these circumstances. When the Government eventually come to legislate, will they ensure that they have effective means of enforcing the duty of candour—not imposing it but enforcing it—and ensuring that there will be punishment for those who fail to display such an obvious duty in public office?

I take the point that the noble and learned Lord has made. It is regrettable that we need this duty of candour, but we do need it. We have seen what has happened in events over the last 20 years or so. As I have said in answers to other noble Lords, it is the intention that there will be criminal sanctions in the duty of candour when it is brought forward, and that is the firm commitment of the Government.

My Lords, will the Minister explain how the duty of candour—notable in its lack at Hillsborough, and not only at Hillsborough —can still be made compatible with the need to protect secrets, which we need to address the complex national security threats that we face? This was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan; it is a critical part of getting this legislation right, I suggest.

The noble Baroness has made a very good point. I will write to her on that matter; it is clearly a sensitive matter, so I think it is more appropriate to write.

My Lords, I am a very strong supporter of the duty of candour; nothing should hinder the Hillsborough law from coming on to the statute books as soon as possible. However, does the Minister understand that, to make it fully effective—this could be done in a further process—there has to be protection for the people who speak out, who are very afraid of the detriment that they will experience, as well as a system that ensures there is investigation when the issues are raised?

The noble Baroness has made a very good point in raising the issue of whistleblowers, which I have heard her raise in many other contexts as well. It is worth making the point from this Dispatch Box that the duty of candour is itself a piece of legislation, but a range of measures needs to be taken and behaviours inculcated into our public service to address the wider issues which have been revealed—if I can put it like that—through past behaviours over the past couple of decades.

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will share the Minister’s admiration for the steadfastness of the Hillsborough victims and his horror at the police cover-up, but will he take this opportunity to say a hard thing which none the less needs saying? After a disaster of this kind, although victims deserve our sympathy and support, they do not become experts on the law or the ultimate arbiters of what should change. Indeed, our criminal justice system and our political system depend precisely on those decisions being made by cool-headed people who are at one remove because they are not directly involved with the horror.

Yes, I think I agree with the point that the noble Lord has made. Victims are not arbiters of the law. However, it is incumbent on anyone in government to be as sympathetic as is practical to the victims. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Prime Minister is taking a personal interest in this matter, and if anyone will know the limitations of where sympathy is appropriate, but where the law is also appropriate, he will. It is our firm intention to bring forward legislation as soon as possible.