Orgreave Inquiry

13:49:00

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement regarding this Government’s commitment to establishing the truth about events at Orgreave in 1984. The clashes at Orgreave coking plant in 1984 are etched indelibly into our nation’s memory. The clash marked a pivotal moment in the nationwide miners’ strike that was ongoing during that period. Some 95 picketers were arrested and charged with riot and violent disorder, but all charges were later dropped after evidence was discredited. As a result of the violence, there were serious implications for the relationship between policing and coalfield communities at that time, and the passage of time has not diminished the impact on those present and their families. On Thursday last week, the Home Secretary visited the site of the former Orgreave coking plant, along with campaigners from the National Union of Mineworkers and the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, as well as a number of Members of this House and the Mayor of South Yorkshire. I know that the Home Secretary was very grateful to all those who took the time to attend and that she was moved by the experience they shared and by walking part of the route that picketers walked on that day 41 years ago. It is this Labour Government’s commitment to get truth and justice for those coalfield communities. It is important to note that there have been significant changes in the oversight of policing since 1984 and the way in which public order is policed. Nevertheless, questions about the specific events at Orgreave have remained unanswered for far too long. More than four decades may have passed, but those questions must still be answered. That is why we committed in Labour’s manifesto to ensure, through an investigation or inquiry, that the truth about events at Orgreave comes to light. Yesterday we made good on that promise, as the Home Secretary announced the establishment of an inquiry into events surrounding the clashes at the Orgreave coking plant in 1984. The Rt Rev Dr Pete Wilcox, the Bishop of Sheffield, has agreed to chair the inquiry. The bishop is a very well-respected member of the local and wider regional community in South Yorkshire, and his credibility and impartiality will stand him in very good stead to deliver this inquiry. He will be supported by a small panel of independent experts who will be appointed in due course, in a similar vein to the Hillsborough panel chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool in 2010. The purpose of the inquiry will be to aid public understanding of how the violent clashes and injuries caused at Orgreave on 18 June 1984, and the events immediately afterwards, came to pass. It will be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, with the appropriate powers to compel the provision of information where necessary. The direction of the inquiry’s investigation will be a matter for the chair. As the sponsoring Department, the Home Office will provide support and ensure that the inquiry has the resources needed to fulfil its terms of reference, but it will have no other say in the conduct of the inquiry or the conclusions that it may reach until it is time for us to respond to them. It will be key for the inquiry to have access to all information that it deems relevant. For that reason, the Home Secretary has recently written to all police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and all Government Departments to ask that all material they hold relating to the events at Orgreave be retained, in order that it can be provided in a timely manner to the inquiry if requested. Recognising the need to deliver swiftly while avoiding any undue impact on individuals’ wellbeing, I hope the inquiry will look to previous examples of good practice, such as the Hillsborough independent panel, to inform its method of delivery. The Home Secretary is in the process of consulting the inquiry chair on proposed terms of reference. She has asked him to engage with key stakeholders, including the National Union of Mineworkers and the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, as part of that process. We will place a final copy of the terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses at the earliest opportunity thereafter. It is our expectation that the inquiry will launch in the autumn. For the police to perform their critical functions effectively, it is essential that they can secure and maintain the confidence of the people they serve. That is why this Labour Government have made rebuilding trust in policing an integral part of our plan for change. Of course, much of that effort is concerned with strengthening forces for the challenges of now and the future, but where historical events cast a long shadow that stretches into the present day in our coalfield communities, we must shine a light on what happened and ensure that any and all lessons are learned. Questions about events at Orgreave have gone unanswered for too long. This Government committed to putting that right, and the upcoming inquiry will work independently, fairly and without fear or favour to establish the truth about what happened. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

13:56:00

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Growing up in the north-east, I know the emotions stirred by the miners’ strike; decades after the events, they continue to cause significant division and disagreement in our communities. Regardless of people’s views on the rights and wrongs of the incident, historic events such as this, which saw conflict and violence on our streets, will always be deeply regrettable. We must acknowledge that in the decades since, no Government—including the last Labour Government, which had 13 years—deemed it necessary to establish such an inquiry. That Labour Government included three current Home Office Ministers, with the current Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), serving in the Home Office at the time. If this inquiry has a real contribution to make, why did the then Labour Government not hold one? What has changed? As Members will know, there have been previous calls for such an inquiry, but when the decision was made not to grant one, it was based on reasoned grounds. There has been a passage of time, and there have been significant legislative and systematic changes in the decades since. As the Home Secretary said in her written statement, “there have been significant changes in the oversight of policing since 1984, and to the way that public order is now policed”. Does the Minister believe that an inquiry is likely to result in any meaningful and relevant lessons for today’s policing system? The Minister is a long-standing advocate for those impacted by infected blood—a case of truly disgraceful systematic treatment over decades. Similarly, the Hillsborough panel highlighted the deep injustice of a tragedy involving this police force, but both those inquiries understandably came at considerable cost. Will the Minister outline what the Department anticipates that delivering a proportionate and meaningful inquiry on this issue will cost? The press reports on the proposed chairman raise serious questions about his ability to act in a politically neutral and independent manner. Can the Minister assure the House that the inquiry will not be political in nature and that it will listen to the views of all parties present on the day, so that it is not merely an example of the Government putting the interests of the unions ahead of the police? As with so many issues recently, this raises questions about the commitment of the Government to supporting brave police officers, who act within the law to do their job. Can she confirm that the Government are committed to supporting police officers who put themselves in harm’s way to keep public order and comply with their training and instructions? Finally, I note from the Government’s publication that the inquiry will be statutory, with powers to compel individuals to provide information where necessary. That sounds remarkably similar to a request that we have made to the Government, which was repeatedly rejected. The victims and survivors of rape gangs deserve detailed updates on the progress of that inquiry, yet the lack of information about how the new inquiry will be set up and how it will compel evidence leads me to conclude that the Government have prioritised the miners over the minors who suffered horrific exploitation at the hands of rape gangs. This Labour Government’s union paymasters should not determine the pecking order of justice in this country. There are still perpetrators of child sexual exploitation and those who covered it up who have gone unpunished, yet the Government have chosen to prioritise this inquiry. In her audit, Baroness Casey spoke of the need to implement inquiries that are time limited. I ask the Government to focus on this issue and, given their initial refusal to do so, ensure that action is taken at a much greater speed to bring about justice for those young, vulnerable women who suffered at the hands of rape gangs.

I was going to start by saying that I welcomed the shadow Minister’s initial comments, in which he recognised how the situation at Orgreave all those years ago still casts a shadow over communities in Yorkshire, the north-east and other parts of the country. I must say that I was surprised by some of his comments, because I know that he is a good man and is trying his best to fulfil the role of shadow Policing Minister. I will answer his questions, and will come on to the issue of grooming gangs that he raised in the latter part of his contribution, but I must say that I found his comments extremely distasteful, as well as not accurate or correct. First, I will deal with the question of why we are having this Orgreave inquiry. Our manifesto committed us to ensuring that there was a thorough investigation or inquiry, so that “the truth about the events at Orgreave comes to light.” We are delivering on that manifesto commitment today. As I said in my statement, we are also committed to rebuilding public confidence in policing, and campaigners and mining communities have spent decades searching for answers about what happened. The purpose of the inquiry will be to aid the public understanding of how the events at Orgreave on 18 June 1984 and immediately afterwards came to pass. I hope that explains why we are taking this action today. The shadow Minister asked about the cost. We have been very clear that the Home Office will meet the cost of the inquiry. We are also mindful that we want the inquiry to be as expeditious as possible, and to be value for money. That is why we have looked at the model of the Hillsborough independent inquiry—we think that is a good model to follow. Certainly, there will be conversations with the chair about the projected cost and the timeline that he will want to set out. Turning to the issue of the chair, again I was really disappointed by the shadow Minister’s remarks about the bishop. Bishop Pete has previously supported calls for an inquiry. It is important to note that that was in the context of his pastoral role, in which he has supported members of the diocese of Sheffield who were impacted by the events at Orgreave. He certainly did not show any favour towards either the police or the picketers when calling for that inquiry. I do not think that that call detracts from the necessary credibility, impartiality and independence that I believe Bishop Pete will bring to his role as chair of the inquiry. He has the backing and support of the key stakeholders in taking that role forward. It is also important to remember that the chair of the inquiry will be supported by a small group of independent members, who will have expert knowledge in certain areas to help the chair fulfil his terms of reference. As the shadow Minister said, the inquiry is statutory. That is because we recognise the importance of ensuring that documents can be brought forward. It is important that people can be compelled to produce documents and that witnesses can be compelled as well. Finally, the shadow Minister referred to the issue of grooming gangs. He will know that a great deal of work has been done to make sure that the hideous, appalling situations that have been uncovered around the grooming gangs will now be dealt with. The Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), has given statements to the House, as has the Home Secretary, and there has been a clear list of the actions that are being taken. It is absolutely right that that work is done. Of course, when the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was set up under the previous Government, there was support across the House for the work of Professor Alexis Jay. It is a great pity that the previous Government did not enact any of Professor Jay’s recommendations. That is the hugely shameful state of affairs that this Government inherited, but I am absolutely clear that this Government are dealing with grooming gangs. That is the right thing to do, but equally, setting up the Orgreave inquiry today is the right thing to do.

I very much welcome the Policing Minister announcing to the House the actions that the Government will be taking. I was active at the time of the miners’ strike, and I now represent 23 former mining villages. Many of the men I represent were at Orgreave, and if we were to take even a small sample of opinion as to what those men think happened there, they would say that the finger points in one direction only: at No. 10, and at people closely associated with Mrs Thatcher. I want to ask about the inquiry’s terms of reference. On the day, 90-odd men were arrested on trumped-up charges, with evidence falsified by police officers. I have met some of those police officers, and they say that they had orders from above telling them what to say and what to write. That is a serious matter: men were put on bail, put in prison or even hospitalised, all on trumped-up charges. Will the inquiry’s terms of reference allow the bishop—who is a good man—to pursue the trail of evidence wherever it leads, in order to determine once and for all how that injustice was organised by people in the Conservative party?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question; I know that he has a great deal of experience and knowledge in this area. As I said in my statement, the terms of reference are currently being discussed with the chair, but it is very clear that the inquiry should look at the evidence, and should hear testimony if that is what it wishes to do. It will do so without fear or favour, wherever the evidence leads it to look.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I came into the Chamber for this statement to hear and speak about the Orgreave inquiry, so it was pretty shocking to hear the shadow Minister use it as an opportunity to yet again play politics with child sexual abuse and exploitation. As a survivor myself, I find that particularly appalling. The Liberal Democrats welcome the announcement of a statutory inquiry into the events that took place between police and miners at Orgreave on 18 June 1984. For years, those caught up in the harrowing events of that day have had to carry the painful trauma of that unresolved injustice—not just the injuries sustained, but the police charges that were subsequently dropped. Over 40 years on, we must come together to ensure that this inquiry reaches its full potential and uncovers the answers that those impacted deeply deserve. That must include proper consultation, which will be key to rebuilding public trust. I would therefore welcome more details from the Minister about how local communities, campaigners, and impacted miners and their families will be involved throughout the inquiry. Inquiries can be a powerful tool for uncovering the truth about injustice, but they will only reach their full potential when there is a duty of candour that requires public officials and authorities to co-operate fully. As such, although the Government have committed to bringing such a duty of candour into force, will the Minister take this opportunity to provide a clear timeline for introducing a Hillsborough law to Parliament?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. To put things in context, the Home Secretary and I have met a range of key stakeholders already to hear their respective views on the scope and nature of the Orgreave inquiry and what it should seek to achieve. There has already been a consultation with the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, the National Union of Mineworkers, South Yorkshire police, the Mayor of South Yorkshire and many Members of this House who have an interest in this issue, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as Orgreave lies in her constituency. We have also met other interested parties in the field of law. One of them whom I met personally was Michael Mansfield KC. He was the lawyer who represented a number of those who were charged at Orgreave. We have also met academics, because we know that there is value in looking at what academics can show us about what works with inquiries. We have therefore already engaged in a lot of consultation. There is further ongoing consultation on the terms of reference, and that is the responsibility of the chair. I expect that all the parties we have met will be engaged again. There is active work being done on the Hillsborough law at the moment. I cannot give a timeline today, but I know that it will be brought to the House shortly.

It is a privilege to be in the Chamber today to hear that we are finally getting the inquiry that has long been campaigned for by the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, the NUM and many in my community and across South Yorkshire. They are simply asking for the truth. The shadow Minister has just said that the inquiry should not be politicised, but does the Minister agree that Orgreave is political? It is one of the most political things that has ever happened to South Yorkshire, and it is incredibly important that the inquiry is put on a statutory footing so that it can compel people to give evidence and get to the truth of something that many in our communities still bear the scars of.

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about how Orgreave has affected her community so many years on. She makes the important point that there is a political context to this inquiry. Those of us who were around then know that it was a very political time, with the miners’ strike and all that. It is absolutely right that we have this opportunity to look across the piece at what happened at Orgreave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, there was perhaps the involvement of other politicians, so it is important that we recognise the political context. That is why, again, it is so important that the inquiry will be put on a statutory footing, to allow documents to be demanded and witnesses to be compelled to give evidence.

First, I welcome the statement that has been made by the Minister today. It is an enormous step forward, and we should pay a huge tribute to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, and in particular Kate Flannery and Chris Peace and their colleagues, for all the great work that they have done for a long time. Labour pledged to hold an inquiry in its last three manifestos—in 2017, 2019 and 2024—so this is a good step forward. Will the Minister bear in mind carefully what the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said in his excellent question? Lives were ruined. People were badly injured as a result of Orgreave. They suffered for many years and were unable to work because they were blacklisted and for other reasons. Charges were made on trumped-up evidence and consequently people suffered. It has gone on for a long time. We need to know a number of things. Will the terms of reference allow evidence to be taken under oath from wherever it needs to be taken, and from whoever was there? Arthur Scargill and many others, and all those surviving miners who were there must be given time to explain exactly what happened. We also need to know the role of South Yorkshire police in the attacks that took place against those miners, so that we can get to the truth. I realise that putting a timetable on an inquiry is a slightly difficult thing to do, because we do not want to prevent the inquiry from getting all the evidence it needs, but we also do not want the inquiry to run on forever and lose its impetus and purpose. Can the Minister therefore give us some idea of roughly how long she expects the inquiry to take to report? Is she prepared to accept interim reports, so that rapid progress can be made? Will the Minister assure the House that where the evidence leads to the culpability of Ministers, police officers, senior civil servants or many others throughout the command chain for the events that the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth explained, prosecutions will follow, with evidence put before the courts and, if necessary, people brought to justice for it? We have to bring justice to the totality of this event.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about paying tribute to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. I had the privilege to meet some of the members of that campaign, and I fully acknowledge and appreciate how lives were ruined and families have suffered a lot. Not just the people there on the day, but the wider families have suffered. It is absolutely right that we set up this inquiry; lives have been ruined. I know that the chair will take note of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about what he would like to see in the terms of reference. As to the timetable, I absolutely agree. I want this inquiry to be conducted as quickly as possible, but as thoroughly as possible. We were looking at a timeframe of around two years, but that was in the early discussions that we had. I obviously cannot prejudge the recommendations of the inquiry; we will need to look at those recommendations when they are made.

As chair of the coalfields group of Labour MPs, and on behalf of the group, I welcome this statement. It is an historic moment, and I know that Orgreave Truth and Justice campaigners and many more Labour colleagues would have been present had they had a little more notice. The Minister will know that, even last year, organisations such as Northumbria police were destroying documents. Those actions could hinder this inquiry, and it is vital that individuals and organisations are held accountable, not just for what happened 40 years ago, but for any attempts to undermine justice by destroying evidence. Will the Minister confirm that the inquiry will have access to all information and evidence, and that no further documents will be destroyed or evidence withheld? Will the inquiry have the power to compel witness testimony? I hope that this inquiry will not only uncover the truth, but make recommendations to right the wrongs done to many miners, including some of my constituents, who were wrongly convicted under riot and unlawful assembly laws. Ray Patterson, now sadly no longer with us, is one of those miners. I thank the Minister and the Government for honouring the manifesto pledge.

First, I will deal with this issue around documents. The Home Secretary recently wrote to all police forces in England and Wales and all Government Departments to remind them of the relevant legislative frameworks for records management and to ask that information relating to the events at Orgreave on 18 June 1984 be retained. The Home Secretary has asked, if any documents have been destroyed, what those documents were and why they were destroyed. It is also worth reminding the House that under section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005, it is a criminal offence to destroy or conceal information relevant to a public inquiry.

I thank the Minister very much for her statement, and for her carefully chosen words on a contentious issue. I ask her this question gently from experience. Does she appreciate that, similar to the prosecution of veterans and service personnel in Northern Ireland, asking a retired officer why he made a split-second decision 40 years ago, what was happening in detail when he made that decision and the exact wording of directions given to him is and can be incredibly distressing and upsetting? Those officers are now in their 80s or perhaps even their 90s. What support can the Minister offer them to enable them to cope with the re-traumatisation that they will undoubtedly suffer?

That is an important point. This is not the first time a Minister has had to stand here and agree to an inquiry into events that happened a long time ago. The hon. Gentleman and I have worked together on the infected blood inquiry, so he will know that it took a long time to arrive at that point. I fully recognise that the length of time involved means some people, sadly, will have died, while others will be very elderly and having to recall what happened. This is not how we would want it to be, is it? As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about those who will be called to give testimony to the inquiry, I know that the bishop will be considering what support should be provided to help the witnesses, whether they are police officers or picketers and their families, and I am sure that that will be uppermost in his mind.

As one who represents a constituency in the heart of the Durham coalfield, I recognise the pressing need for an inquiry into the events that occurred at the Orgreave plant on 18 June 1984, and, like others, I send a huge thank you to the members of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, who have worked for decades for this moment. Does the Minister share my frustration at the length of time it has taken the House to invoke such a crucial inquiry, and will she commit herself to investigating the role and involvement of central Government in the planning and instruction on how to allocate resources—financial and otherwise—in the lead-up to, during and after that day at the height of the 1984-85 miners’ strike in Rotherham?

I bitterly regret the fact that it has taken so long for the inquiry to be established. As I have said, there were a number of other causes, but we should have been looking at this far earlier. I think it helpful that Members are expressing their views about what should be covered by the terms of reference for the inquiry, because I know that the bishop will want to note what the House and its Members have to say and ensure that they form part of his discussions about those terms of reference.

It was alleged that Amber Rudd refused to hold an Orgreave inquiry because it would slur the memory of Thatcher. Can the Minister confirm that this inquiry will have a statutory power to compel witnesses to provide evidence, and that politics will not get in the way of uncovering the truth once and for all?

I can absolutely confirm that this is a statutory inquiry, with all the legal powers that a statutory inquiry has to compel the provision of documents and of evidence from witnesses and to go wherever the evidence leads it.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice and a lifelong trade unionist, I welcome the long overdue announcement of a statutory inquiry into Orgreave and pay tribute to all who have campaigned for truth and justice, particularly the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. However, given the serious concerns about evidence that has been destroyed, tampered with or withheld, will the Minister confirm that any inquiry will be underpinned by a clear legal duty of candour to guarantee full transparency and accountability on the part of all those involved, including the police and former Government officials, so that the victims and campaigners receive the full answers that they deserve?

We gave careful consideration to the role played by the Hillsborough independent inquiry, because we think it would be very useful for the chair of this inquiry to look at the model that it provides. I take my hon. Friend’s point about the duty of candour, and work is being done on putting that into statute, but the bishop will be looking at all these issues.

I remember clearly the miners’ strike of 1984 and, in particular, what happened at Orgreave, and I know that it has many painful memories for a lot of people, so let me first thank and commend the Government for holding this statutory public inquiry. It appears that after four decades we will finally secure some truth and justice in relation to what happened on 18 June 1984, and also what happened to the 95 miners and how they were treated. Will the Minister please assure the House that if the inquiry does reveal evidence of misconduct and wrongdoing, the necessary action will be taken, and that we will learn lessons to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is clear that once the inquiry has been established we must let it do its work and make its recommendations, and we will then seek to respond to those recommendations.

I thank the Minister for her statement and for launching the inquiry, thus keeping our manifesto promise. In coalfield communities such as mine, many former miners still bear the scars, physical and mental, of what happened at Orgreave 41 years ago, and our towns and villages still feel that collective sense of injustice. A great many men want to share their stories of that day, to ensure their own closure but also to ensure that the truth will out. Will the Minister assure my constituents, and ex-miners up and down the country, that they will have an opportunity to contribute to the inquiry?

I am sure that the bishop will listen carefully to the comments that Members have made. I know that some people would feel very comfortable talking about what happened, explaining and giving testimony, while others would not want to do that. It will be for the bishop to decide on the best way forward, to ensure that the inquiry hears from individuals and has access to the documents, and he will be setting out the terms of reference shortly.

I strongly welcome the Minister’s statement and the fulfilment of that manifesto commitment and, like others, I pay tribute to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. I am sure that Members across the House will have been disturbed by reports of the destruction of potentially relevant documents—a point that has already been ably raised. The Home Office is currently considering the case for instituting a public inquiry into the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings, and I do not expect the Minister to pre-empt that today, but in respect of the preservation of records, will the Department consider taking the same actions to preserve potentially relevant documents, including those held by external bodies, in advance of that decision? The Northumbria police case highlights the particular risk of accidental loss or deliberate destruction in advance of that legal protection kicking in. I would welcome the chance to discuss this matter further with the Minister.

I am very happy to discuss this matter with my hon. Friend. I think it worth pointing out that police forces are independent of Government and that decisions concerning the management of their records are for them to make in accordance with their respective reviews and policies on retention and disposal. The Government expect any such decisions to be made in accordance with relevant legislation and national guidance and, as I have said, it is a criminal offence to destroy documents that may be relevant or to conceal information that would interest a public inquiry.