“Hillsborough Law”

Question

11:37:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in introducing the proposed “Hillsborough Law”.

My Lords, we remain committed to delivering a Hillsborough law, as set out in the manifesto. It is vital that we get this landmark legislation right and that, when introduced, the Bill achieves the change expected by those who have campaigned so hard for change. Since March we have listened to stakeholder feedback to ensure that we deliver the best Bill possible; this engagement has been constructive and progress has been made. Engagement is ongoing and will continue over the summer.

My Lords, the tragic events at Hillsborough will always be etched on our minds, as will the appalling establishment cover-up that followed. The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, when he came to Liverpool, promised that his Government would introduce draft legislation, including a duty of candour with criminal sanctions. This was published on 15 April, the anniversary of that fatal crowd crush at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield in 1989. The Minister rightly says that it is important to work with families to get this right. Will he give a clear commitment that there will be no watering down of that duty of candour intent when the Bill is published?

I agree with the way that the noble Lord has framed his question. There was an establishment cover-up, which must never happen again. The Prime Minister has made a personal commitment to the affected families to work with them constructively to come up with an appropriate law. Regarding the duty of candour, the Government are clear that what happened following the Hillsborough disaster must never happen again. Under the Hillsborough law, public officials will be bound by a duty of candour with criminal and professional consequences. We are committed to achieving a true cultural change. The Bill cannot change culture on its own, but it can and should act as a catalyst, and we remain committed to launching a programme to encourage cultural change alongside the Bill.

I am grateful to my noble friend, as always, for repeating the Government’s commitment to introduce the Hillsborough law, but I am afraid that the families and their representatives feel a little less positive about the engagement that they have had so far. Some worry that they have been briefed against to the newspapers and, generally speaking, they worry about the dilution that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has warned against.

I am sorry to hear that from my noble friend. I am aware of very recent interaction with the families in Liverpool. My understanding is that those talks have been going positively, and it is very much hoped that we will be able to reach some form of agreement in the coming weeks and months.

My Lords, Andrew Devine was my constituent. He died in 2021, the 97th victim of Hillsborough, 32 years after his chest was crushed and he was deprived of oxygen. We owe it, as the noble Lord has said, to his memory and to many others in that disaster and others, such as the Manchester Arena bombing and Grenfell, to fully implement the manifesto commitment of a Hillsborough law; I greatly welcomed it when it was made a manifesto commitment. Before the Minister appears before the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the autumn, will he go back and reread the findings of the committee, which called two years ago for “stronger measures” to be put in place “to prevent a repeat of the failure to uncover and acknowledge the truth of what happened at Hillsborough” and the subsequent promise to the committee by the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor to proceed at pace? Will he spell out to the House what that means and what the proposals are for a duty of candour, as well as an equality of arms in legal representation and an independent advocate? Will he commit that that will not be, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has said, watered down or diluted in any way? Do we not owe that to the memory of Andrew Devine and the many others who suffered?

The noble Lord asked a similar question when we last spoke about this very serious issue. As I shared then with the House, I also have a personal connection in that the brother of a friend of mine was killed at Hillsborough. The noble Lord asked about parity of arms. Our manifesto commitment was to “provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related deaths” at inquests. That is a commitment that we will fulfil. We are currently exploring how best to deliver on that commitment and the House will be updated in due course when we reach that stage. I can say to the noble Lord that the Government have accepted the inquiry’s recommendation to make it a legal requirement to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by Select Committees, coroners and public inquiries. There is now an up and running website where the infected blood scandal recommendations and the Grenfell Tower phase 2 recommendations can be seen, and where the Government’s progress in meeting those recommendations can be monitored.

My Lords, I ask in plain terms: what will be the obligations of candour imposed under this new law? What will be imposed on public servants? In short, what will they be obliged to do and say that they are not currently? If the Minister cannot answer today, will he please write to me and place a copy in the Library?

As I think I said in answer to an earlier question, the Government have been quite clear that, under the duty of candour, public officials will be bound by that duty, with criminal and professional consequences—the noble Lord is shaking his head. What I also said is that we think there needs to be a wider cultural change and there need to be other programmes put in place to achieve this. If I can provide more detail, I will happily write to the noble Lord, but I think that we are being very genuine and explicit in the ambition that we have set forth, that a duty of candour will be at the core of all public officials’ roles.

My Lords, we will shortly be hearing a Statement, yet again, on the infected blood compensation scheme. Last week, we heard about the continuing problems with the Post Office Horizon scheme. Both scandals were made much worse over decades because of the lack of candour by officials. In opposition, Labour—including the Minister, many of whose amendments on the duty of candour I signed—said that it would introduce that duty to prevent scandals such as these in the future. But the press are reporting that the delay is caused by officials watering down the details, including the level at which officials are bound by the duty of candour. Can the Minister confirm that there is no truth in this?

I think that is, if I may say so, a similar question to that from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I have heard that the ongoing discussions are in fact reasonably positive, and we are very hopeful of reaching an agreement in the coming weeks and months. It is certainly not the intention to water down recommendations; however, it is our intention to come up with a workable Bill that forms part of a wider work programme. As I think I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we have also put in place this website where people can monitor how the Government are making progress on other recommendations on other scandals, such as the infected blood scandal and the Grenfell scandal.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm—I think he said this in answer to my noble friend Lord Alton—that the Bill will guarantee funding for legal representation for families who participate in inquests and other inquiries? Without such funding, families cannot effectively participate.

My Lords, as I said before, it is a manifesto commitment to provide legal aid at inquests for victims of disasters or state-related deaths.

My Lords, the right-wing press had a role to play in this scandal. Will this Bill, or any other legislation, address the issue that the media played a major role in Hillsborough and many other scandals?

My Lords, I do not think that this Bill, which has not been published yet, will address that issue. However, I take the point that my noble friend makes. Really, he is raising a far wider concern and if there is anything more that I can say to him, I will write to him, but I think his question goes far wider that the Question itself.

My Lords, hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent on public inquiries following deceitful conduct by police officers at Hillsborough and Orgreave and in the spy cops inquiry. Would we not save a lot of money, and help to restore confidence in the police, if officers felt that they might lose some of their pension if they failed to observe a duty of candour and, for example, doctored evidence again?

I take the point that the noble Lord makes, and we will see what the recommendations are. As I have said in answer to earlier questions, it is foreseen that, under the duty of candour, the professionals involved could be subject to criminal and professional consequences with the full might of the law.