Hillsborough Law
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in the development of the proposed ‘Hillsborough Law’.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister opened last week’s House of Commons debate on the Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—with what he described as
“a simple acknowledgment, long overdue, that the British state failed the families and victims of Hillsborough to an almost inhuman level”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/25; col. 653.]
Echoing the “burning injustices” description used by the noble Baroness, Lady May, he powerfully described the closing of ranks, institutional lies, cover-ups, smears and betrayal by the very people who should have been protecting families: victims who became trapped in a cycle of profound grief and wicked vilification, with the public purse used to bankroll misconduct and malfeasance and to camouflage the truth. Truth, expeditious justice, and consequences are the three themes I wish to address today.
Hansard records that 36 years ago, as a Liverpool Member of Parliament, I sent correspondence to the Government of the day questioning the suitability of Hillsborough for the semi-final on 15 April 1989. I enclosed a statement from the chief executive of Liverpool Football Club, who said
“there was no way I could support the choice of Hillsborough this year with the same ticket allocations applying”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/1989; col. 32.]
Of course, the match was played, with disastrous consequences.
Despite repeated suggestions that the fans had brought the calamity on themselves, Lord Justice Taylor accurately identified the role of South Yorkshire Police and criticised its attempt to shift responsibility from itself to the spectators. Four days after the disaster, I wrote to Sir Cecil Clothier, then chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, enclosing a first-hand account from a constituent. I asked him to open an independent inquiry into attempts by the police spokesman to blame the fans for their own deaths. I said this was
“part of a smokescreen of propaganda aimed at diverting attention from the truth”.
He declined to investigate the conduct of the police, despite repeated requests.
Years later, I was shown a letter from Sir Cecil to the chief constable of South Yorkshire, saying that he had done his best to “deflect” my complaint. Sir Cecil signed the letter “Spike”: a word journalists use when an editor has decided to withhold a story from publication. With the truth being “spiked”, victims had to watch a system circle its wagons around its own. In 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel found that 164 statements had been altered significantly, and 116 had been amended to remove content that was unfavourable to the police.
It was only when the original 1990 to 1991 inquest verdicts of accidental death were re-run—using the obligations of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 2 of the ECHR—that verdicts of unlawful killing were finally reached. Some 27 years had now passed as the truth gradually began to emerge. The 2016 jury vindicated the fans and established gross negligence, defects at the stadium, errors in the safety certification and much more besides. Instead of consequences for those at fault, we have seen early retirements and enhanced pensions.
Parliament will want to be convinced that the Hillsborough law will tip the balance away from the behemoth against whom the small battalions are pitted. We must finally lay to rest what the 2017 independent report into Hillsborough, chaired by Bishop James Jones, described in its title as The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. Five years after its publication—and 28 years after the disaster—I protested that there had still been no government response to the report’s recommendations that, first, a duty of candour, secondly, an equality of arms at inquests, thirdly, the appointment of an independent public advocate, and fourthly, a charter for families bereaved through public tragedy, should be enacted.
Following this up in 2023, I participated in an all-party group meeting here on public accountability. We discussed a range of public tragedies, including Primodos, atomic test victims, infected blood and Hillsborough. Other examples might have included Windrush, Chinook, Grenfell, Manchester Arena, Covid, grooming gangs and Horizon. After that meeting, I suggested to Ian Byrne Member of Parliament, who had been a young spectator at Hillsborough, that he should write to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—of which I was a member and which I now have the privilege to chair—and ask us to examine the Hillsborough law. It did, and its witnesses included Bishop Jones and Andy Burnham. The hearing led to our unanimous report in May 2024 calling for a Hillsborough law. On 3 March, the Government responded positively. It is indicative that, during its hearings, the Joint Committee was told that a Hillsborough law could have made a difference when inaccurate evidence was given to the late Lord Kerslake’s inquiry in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing.
In addition to the duty of candour, the new law must build on the admirable work begun in 2014 by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and Maria Eagle Member of Parliament in promoting a Bill for an Independent Public Advocate, which I strongly endorsed, and which was established in 2024. The post is now held by Cindy Butts. Although the JCHR has not yet decided what its approach will be on the new Bill, I hope it will consider seeking further information on whether she has adequate powers and resources to support victims of major incidents, to guide them through the obstacle course and to ensure a response from Government. I would like to hear the Minister’s view about strengthening the advocate’s role and for her to tell us why the Government say this Bill might not be the right place in which to do it. I would also like to hear about the creation of a national oversight mechanism to ensure that when recommendations are made, they are implemented.
The House will also want to hear about the practicalities of ensuring that victims of disasters or state-related deaths receive parity of legal representation during inquests and inquiries, and about the resources the Government will set aside for this. Above all, the House will want to hear how confident the Minister is that the new legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials will bring to an end the depressingly familiar pattern of cover-ups and concealment, and whether penalties will be exemplary and adequate to punish outrageous conduct.
In the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, who will steer the Bill through this House, we have a Minister whose entire working life has revolved around justice, and she is particularly well placed to turn bitter experiences and unfulfilled promises into a workable reality. I am grateful to her for the constructive discussion we had last week.
Thirty six years ago, I visited the families of constituents who had loved ones, including teenage children, among the fatalities and the injured. Among those was Andrew Devine, who suffered life-changing injuries after being deprived of oxygen. His remarkable parents, Hilary and Stanley, lovingly cared for Andrew with exemplary humanity and courage. Andrew emerged from his coma in 1994. On his death in 2021, the coroner ruled he had been unlawfully killed, becoming the 97th Hillsborough victim.
Andrew’s family are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet them privately, without media intrusion, to discuss their hope, which they have asked me to relay to the House, that there will be one enforceable code of conduct for all public officials with significant sanctions, including financial penalties, for non-compliance. In the quest for truth, expeditious justice and consequences, Andrew, his family and all those who 36 years ago paid such a terrible price must now be our guiding light. I thank all noble Lords who are taking part today.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate in such a magisterial way. I take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to him for all his decades of work on behalf of the Hillsborough families.
The Bill is important because, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said at Second Reading in the other place, the experience of the Hillsborough families and so many others show how
“the culture of the state has to change”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/25; col. 655.]
The Bill is intended to do just that. As the Bill makes its way through Parliament, it is vital that the interests of the victims and bereaved in these great public disasters are kept front and centre of our deliberations. I suggest that they can be summarised as this: finding the truth about what happened and why, finding it quickly, and for accountability to follow without delay. All of this was denied for so very long to the Hillsborough families and so many victims of public disasters.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify a few important details about the Bill that bear on those objectives. I will quite understand if she is not in a position to answer them today, but I would be grateful if she would agree to meet me at some point to discuss them before the Bill arrives in your Lordships’ House.
My first point is about the duty of candour. This crucial part of the Bill aims to transform the culture of cover-up that has characterised the aftermath of public disasters such as Hillsborough, but transforming the culture of public sector organisations is notoriously difficult. This is particularly the case when those in such organisations might feel they are in the frame for allowing the disaster to happen, rendering them liable to be charged, for example, with gross negligence manslaughter.
This was the charge eventually brought against Chief Superintendent Duckenfield over the Hillsborough disaster. The maximum penalty for gross negligence manslaughter is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for breaching the statutory duty of candour in this Bill is two years’ imprisonment. In these circumstances, it is possible to imagine how someone who felt that they might end up with a sentence of life imprisonment might prefer to take their chances with breaching the duty of candour.
To lessen the chances of such calculations taking place, and to accelerate the cultural change that the duty of candour is designed to engineer, there need to be greater protections for whistleblowers. Imagine if there had been a whistleblower who felt sufficiently empowered and protected to challenge the poisonous culture in South Yorkshire Police following the Hillsborough disaster. There must have been some in that force who hated what was happening. If there had been such a whistleblower, the Hillsborough families would have been spared decades of struggle and grief.
The detriments suffered by whistleblowers and the public service they can deliver are well known, and I will not rehearse them here today. But this Government have repeatedly acknowledged that existing protections are inadequate, yet they have done nothing about it. The time has come to stop this prevarication, which is so damaging in so many ways. This Bill offers a rare legislative opportunity to do so, and I would be grateful if the Minister would consider all the proposals that I and many others in this House will propose for doing so in due course.
Secondly, I turn to the so-called parity of arms sections of the Bill, which aim to stop what the Prime Minister has described as bereaved individuals being confronted at inquests by
“armies of state-funded lawyers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/25; col. 659.]
I hope the whole House will support that principle.
However, there are some important questions of detail that are unanswered in this Bill as drafted. Importantly, it seems to leave open the question of who exactly will qualify for legal aid at inquests. My understanding—which may not be perfect—is that the definition will derive from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which defines relevant members of an individual’s family as relatives
“whether of the full blood or half blood or by marriage or civil partnership … or cohabitants”,
or where one has parental responsibility for the other.
But what would happen in the case of, for example, a divorced couple whose adult child was killed in a public disaster? Do they each get legal aid? If not, how would the allocation be decided? There are many more such problems of definition.
Theoretically, this could lead to a situation, after a public disaster such as Hillsborough, where there are over 100 lawyers on legal aid acting on behalf of the bereaved. This could prolong an inquest for years, and, crucially, that, in turn, would prolong the trauma and grief of all those who had suffered in such a public disaster.
The Minister might point out that the coroner has powers to prevent such prolongation, but I ask her to consider the response from victims and the bereaved, not to mention the media and the general public, if a coroner were to try to shut down in any way an advocate speaking on behalf of any one of those victims and bereaved. So I would be very grateful for any light the Minister could shed on how the Government propose to tackle this issue.
Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain exactly why the Government refuse to use this Bill as an opportunity to increase the powers of the Independent Public Advocate to support those bereaved by public disasters. She will be aware that the establishment of this position rose out of my Private Member’s Bill in 2014, the drafting of which, incidentally, was greatly helped by the Prime Minister in the hiatus between him leaving his post as the DPP and becoming an MP, and for which I and my friend in the other place Maria Eagle campaigned for 10 years. This arose out of my experience working with the Hillsborough families.
The Minister will also be aware that this position, as I had originally envisioned it, was significantly watered down by the previous Government. Crucially, the ability to set up the equivalent of a Hillsborough Independent Panel—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to its importance—got to the truth quickly. That panel, which I devised when I was a Minister, was the way in which the Hillsborough families finally got the truth, after all the legal efforts and everything else. Incidentally, they got it in two years and it cost under £5 million, compared with, for example, the Grenfell inquiry: £170 million, seven years and still going. So why is there no provision in this Bill for such an independent panel—not to mention other measures to increase the powers of the Independent Public Advocate?
The right honourable Maria Eagle made a compelling case at Second Reading in the other place for not relying solely on lawyers—with all respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench—to secure justice for victims and the bereaved in public disasters. Measures to improve the powers of the Independent Public Advocate would not be alternative to measures in this Bill; they would actually strengthen support for the bereaved. I believe something such as that would command cross-party support in your Lordships’ House, and I await the Minister’s response to my suggestion with great interest.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who raises many salient points. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for tabling the debate and for his, as ever, eloquent and very moving introduction to it.
In terms of the development of the Hillsborough law, it is clearly well advanced, and we have the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which is good news. The duty of candour and the proposed new offences are a good step forward, and I think we all hope that they will bring about the change in culture that is so desperately needed. As has been mentioned, campaigners have fought long and hard for this Bill, and that means that expectations around it are riding extremely high.
If you are from Hillsborough or Grenfell, if you are one of those infected or affected by infected blood, or if you are one of the sub-postmasters, you understand only too well the barriers, frustrations and failures along the way. When you have faced, at best, a never-ending barrage of obfuscation, the duty of candour is a very appealing thing, even if it is the least you should expect from those in a position of responsibility.
However, I do think we need to sound a note of caution. The duty of candour does provide part of the answer, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, highlighted, it is not a cure-all and, if we place too much emphasis on what it can realistically achieve, we risk creating further disappointments for people who have already endured enough setbacks to last a lifetime.
As we all know, a duty of candour has existed in the NHS for over a decade, but we have not seen the desired culture change there. The new Bill provides a more robust framework: the reach is wider and there is a requirement for codes of ethical conduct. But, if we are to truly transform the response to those who have been failed by the state in all its various forms, there are other things that we should pay equal attention to. I think the Minister might see some themes emerging from this, because I would also like to talk about the Independent Public Advocate. This was created in the last Government’s Victims and Prisoners Act, and that was in no small part due to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, the right honourable Maria Eagle and my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead.
One of the most appalling features of all the scandals that we have mentioned and continue to mention in this House is the way in which those affected butt up against a system that seems to work against them, thereby inflicting further harm. The Independent Public Advocate is the only part of this intimidating wall of bureaucracy that people face that speaks solely for the victims and survivors, and that they know will be entirely on their side.
The new Bill has provision for parity of arms in terms of legal aid, but this is about more than legal representation; it is about the relationship between the public and the state. It is about building trust when trust in the system has been smashed to pieces. I just do not think the value of this can be overestimated, so I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wills: I think many of us would have preferred to see a much stronger role for the IPA than that which we ended up with.
As it was originally conceived, the IPA would have had the power to compel evidence, which could potentially solve problems earlier down the line and could also, in some instances, avoid the need for costly public inquiries. As it stands, the IPA has not been given the remit or resources to do this. The last Government agreed to a review once we have seen how the role is evolving. Will the Minister’s Government champion the first IPA, Cindy Butts, giving her the necessary support to develop the role and allow it to reach its full potential?
An example that I mentioned previously was that of the sub-postmasters. When they asked whether anyone else was experiencing problems with Horizon, they were told that no, they were the only ones. Had we had a duty of candour back then, you would hope that maybe it might have prevented that—but then, had that group of sub-postmasters also had the backing and, importantly, the clout of the IPA, the situation might have been very different. Those lives might not have been ruined, and we might not have ended up with another costly public inquiry.
If we can get the duty of candour and the IPA working in tandem and to full effect, it is just possible that, in future, when an inquiry is necessary, it may not need to be statutory. In the current climate, the calls from victims and campaigners for an inquiry to be statutory are absolutely unavoidable, because only a statutory inquiry can compel evidence. The moment that happens under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005, it is inevitable that the process will be long and expensive. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has mentioned, there are other options, such as independent panels, which can be more agile and sometimes more effective, depending on the circumstances. The recent Select Committee established to look into the Inquiries Act, which I was on, also recommended that other models of inquiry be considered if possible.
We need to look at ways in which to achieve this because, as the number of statutory inquiries has proliferated, we now have this enormous backlog of recommendations, all of which tend to be accepted by the Government of the day—any Government—and many of which are not then delivered. I work with many of the groups involved in a number of recent public inquiries and they are all, without exception, deeply frustrated. They have all asked what the point is, if the recommendations are not going to be delivered. Inquiries are there partly to rebuild trust and, in that sense, I am afraid that they are no longer doing their job.
In fact, as I speak, the group Act on IICSA is holding an event right now to highlight the fact that so many of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse have not been implemented. Just to demonstrate how ridiculous it has all become, we are now heading into another related inquiry on grooming gangs, on the back of a report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which repeated many of the recommendations made by Professor Alexis Jay in her original IICSA report. This is the situation in which we increasingly find ourselves, not helped by the fact that there is no formal monitoring for inquiries or inquests.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
I am going just as long as everybody else did, and I have one more paragraph and one important question.
Can the Minister say whether the Government are actively looking at this issue? Does she agree that the Hillsborough law needs to sit in a wider suite of initiatives if we are going to deliver that long-lasting change?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to be insensitive or difficult, but this is a time-limited debate, and the time limit for speeches is seven minutes. The effect of going over that time will be to curtail the time available to the Minister.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for placing this item for us to discuss. I have to admit a certain inadequacy. I thought when I put my name down that there would be many other speakers, and I wish to raise only a particular, narrow point.
In a way, the debate has had the wind taken out of its sails by the fact that we now have the Bill and we have had the Second Reading in the House of Commons. I urge all noble Lords to read the whole transcript, because the extent of the problems and the issues that need to be dealt with are brought home very strongly when we do so.
Of course, this is popularly known as the Hillsborough law. I was struck by what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice said, echoing the words of the Prime Minister, in winding up the debate. He said the legislation
“was not born here in Westminster; it was born out of heartbreak, out of unimaginable loss, out of the tireless courage of those who refused to be silenced”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/25; col. 720.]
We need to recognise that in the debate. It was brought home to me by reading in Hansard all the different cases that were raised and where action is required. I have to pay testimony to my honourable friend Ian Byrne MP, who—I think we can fairly say—led this campaign but, of course, is part of a coalition with what were described as the scouse MPs, and MPs from across the country. The campaigners really deserve the credit for what is being achieved here.
Two things struck me in the debate. I will get on to my specific point shortly, but it is worth saying that what came out of it was the range of issues, and—it has already been touched on by my noble friend Lord Wills and by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton—that it is not just about the duty of candour. It stuck me that, in trying to achieve the target of a rebalance of power between the state and working people, the issues of legal aid, whistleblowers, press regulation and Leveson 2, and the questions of inquiry follow-through and having a clear, specific locus for national oversight of these issues were raised.
The second point, which brings me to the specific question I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister, is about the range of issues that have raised concern. Obviously, Hillsborough is the centre of this; people also mention Grenfell and Windrush. I went through underlining all the different problems that MPs raised, which are clearly of crucial importance to them. They vary greatly. Windrush was very specific and tragic, and it destroyed families. My big question is: what range of issues is going to be covered by this legislation? Here, I declare my interest as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services.
I am widely concerned. During the previous debate, I had to nip up to Committee Room 14 where there was a meeting of the all-party group. Committee Room 14 was packed with people who have suffered financial harm and are looking for some form of better support than they have received so far from the apparatus of the state. The harm you receive from being defrauded is straightforward, but the psychological harm, in some cases, leads to people’s deaths. I am not specifically suggesting here that the law should be expanded to cover all circumstances, but it is an issue that we need to consider. Financial harm can be as severe on people as the other problems that were discussed in the House of Commons. I hope we will be able to have a full discussion about the scope of what is covered by this legislation and what the state needs to do to rebalance power from the state, as regulators of the financial sector and individual people.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, like others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the opportunity to debate this important matter, and I shall be brief.
The long and painful process of inquiry into the Hillsborough tragedy demonstrated atrocious behaviour by a number of organisations and individuals who failed in their duty to act with integrity. It also revealed determined attempts to avoid accountability. Similar concerns arose in the context of the Post Office scandal and the Infected Blood Inquiry, to which I gave evidence. They also form part of the background to the Orgreave inquiry, which is about to begin under the able chairmanship of the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Sheffield.
I therefore welcome the fact that, after a number of false starts, the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Accountability is of course one of the seven principles of public life, initially articulated by Lord Nolan nearly 30 years ago and endorsed by all subsequent Prime Ministers. Without accountability, checks on the abuse of power are lost and we also lose the ability to learn from errors and mistakes. That is very clear in the inquiries that have taken place: we have failed to learn from the errors that have taken place over many years.
I am also therefore encouraged that the Bill goes a step further and requires all public authorities to promote and actively maintain high standards of ethical conduct. One might expect that most departments and agencies and other parts of the public sector would do this as part of normal business, but that is not the case. When I was chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, we undertook an inquiry into the ways in which departments, agencies and other public bodies encouraged and inducted their staff in terms of the ethical requirements of their roles. In many cases, the system was almost entirely absent. In fact, on one occasion I had a discussion with a senior official in one department who said that he did not believe that his department faced any ethical challenges or issues, which struck me as an extraordinary blind spot for somebody in such a senior role. I will not be naming names.
It is so important that all those in public service should understand what is expected, experience the opportunity to learn and then be expected to live up to those standards, and that there is a system to help and encourage and require them to do so. There is no such system today. I also wonder whether this duty should be widened to include Parliament, where our current induction into ethical expectations and conduct is often sketchy, to say the least, but that is perhaps a discussion for another day.
I further welcome the inclusion of the intelligence agencies within the scope of the Bill. Accountability may, of necessity, operate differently for the agencies, but it is no less important, and the Bill proposes a workable model to ensure accountability without prejudicing sensitive information, the publication of which would damage the ability of the agencies to protect us all from threats such as terrorism and from increasingly aggressive hostile states.
Of course, the test of the new arrangements will be the extent to which they prevent, or at least help to uncover, the abuses of the sort surrounding the Hillsborough disaster and the other scandals to which a number of noble Lords and Ladies have drawn attention. We need to keep an eye on the cultural aspects of this as well as the legal aspects and the education and the encouragement of all those in public service to live up to the high ethical standards which we all proclaim but which we have found are in a number of cases sadly lacking.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, in a television documentary about Kenny Dalglish, the man known in my home city as King Kenny reveals how he was contacted by Mr Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, who was seeking advice on how to end the widespread boycott of his product in Liverpool. He was told firmly that he needed to print a new front page that simply read, “We lied”. Four days after the disaster, the Sun’s front page had been headlined “The Truth”, but it published false and deeply damaging claims and made vile accusations against the victims. It took many decades for the truth to be revealed.
For that, we must thank those who overcame the barriers created by officialdom, as outlined by my former candidate in Liverpool, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. We must thank the heroic campaigners and families whose unwavering strength and courage eventually dragged this necessary legislation before Parliament. Their fight to expose institutional defensiveness, lies and deceit over three decades demands our utmost respect.
The Bill seeks to correct a monstrous injustice done to the 97 who died and to avoid similar injustices involving institutional cover-ups. It has taken the 36 years since Hillsborough for us to set about establishing a statutory duty of candour to provide for transparency and frankness on the part of public officials and authorities, with consequential criminal penalties for wilful deception. Calls for such measures were resisted by almost everyone in authority until the 20th anniversary memorial of the disaster took place at Anfield. The speech given by the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was loudly interrupted by booing and cheering, and chants of “Justice for the 96”. That was the number of fans who had died, to be followed later by Andy Devine, who was in a coma from his injuries before he died 32 years after he was crushed. A previously reluctant Government were then persuaded to look again at Hillsborough by setting up the independent panel.
With the legislation that is now proposed, we must also change the culture which allowed the cover-ups, falsehoods and denial of justice over the decades. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, repeated, the warning from Bishop James Jones about the danger posed by the “patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, and this extends well beyond those involved in the Hillsborough deceit. To dismantle that power and ensure the Bill is effective, I believe we need to focus on three critical areas that demand strengthening as the legislation proceeds through Parliament.
First, we must achieve a genuine equality of arms in our justice system. This means correcting the grotesque inequality of families having to scrape together every last penny they can for representation to face what has been described in this debate as an army of well-funded state lawyers.
Secondly, we must ensure robust accountability with no hiding places. It is welcome that the Bill’s intention is to apply the duty of candour to private bodies and contractors delivering public functions, but we must ensure this measure is not weakened and includes all subcontractors. While the Bill includes complex provisions for the security and intelligence services, the principle must remain absolute: the duty to tell the truth must apply to everyone, without carve-outs that risk becoming new cover-ups. We must also ensure that accountability goes right to the top, resting personally with chief officers and executives—not merely the corporate body—to act as a true deterrent against the culture of defensiveness.
Thirdly, effectiveness depends on embedding mechanisms for disclosure and learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, argued persuasively, we need to strengthen whistleblowing protections to help the facts come to light. We need that independent office of the whistleblower to ensure statutory protection for those who exercise candour. These measures would provide critical front-line defences against institutional misconduct.
Finally, the integrity of the Bill requires an accompanying commitment to a national oversight mechanism. Without a body responsible for monitoring and ensuring that recommendations from inquests and inquiries are acted upon, we face the problems described by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, that hard-won lessons risk being left on a shelf, gathering dust, compounding the original injustices.
Our goal must be to pass a strong law, unwatered down, which guarantees genuine transparency and accountability.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. It would be wrong not to pay particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his advocacy concerning the Hillsborough families and for public accountability more widely.
The Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill, widely referred to as the Hillsborough law, represents a significant step towards placing a legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials, and strengthens the inquest representation for bereaved families and victims.
Noble Lords who have followed the Hillsborough campaign know that this is not simply an exercise in drafting; it is an attempt to learn the hard lessons of decades of anguish and pain. It is our duty to ensure that no families ever again have to go through the prolonged fight for truth that the Hillsborough families have had to endure. The Government’s stated aim, to ensure that the truth cannot be concealed by the state and to extend legal aid for bereaved families at inquests where the state is an interested party, is therefore to be much welcomed.
As and when noble Lords scrutinise the Bill in your Lordships’ House, legitimate concerns that have been raised by campaigners and practitioners about the Bill’s scope and drafting must be considered. As was flagged by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, it is crucial that the duty of candour is framed so as to be effective in practice and not merely declaratory in form. The new criminal offences must be targeted so as to deter serious wrongdoing without producing unintended consequences that discourage necessary co-operation by public servants in good faith.
As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, we must also be clear about the Bill’s application across different parts of the state, including how it interacts with national security, defence and policing functions. Thoughtful, precise drafting and careful parliamentary scrutiny, which are hallmarks of your Lordships’ House, will be essential.
As was highlighted also by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wills, on practical points, the commitment to broaden legal aid at inquests is welcome but it must be matched by clarity over funding and timeliness, and it must also provide the support that families require to participate fully in investigations and hearings. If the Bill is to fulfil its promise, the culture and the practical machinery of state accountability both need to change, not only the letter of the law.
Finally, as the Government and Parliament proceed, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition thank those across the other place, your Lordships’ House and, most notably, outside the Palace of Westminster who have worked tirelessly over decades to ensure that this grave issue remains on the radar and is ultimately fixed for good.
The former Attorney-General, the right honourable Dominic Grieve, persisted with constructive engagement over many years with questions of public accountability and the rule of law. His contributions, both in public office and subsequently, have helped advance turning the wider public concerns into enforceable statute.
There are many families whose perseverance has made this measure possible. Their cause deserves the highest level of care and best efforts in scrutinising and improving the Bill when it comes to your Lordships’ House. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition look forward to further discussion and collaborating cross-party with all noble Lords to ensure that the Bill is effective and fair and delivers the justice that families of relatives and friends caught up in the Hillsborough disaster both seek and deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, it would be customary to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate, but I am sure he will agree with me when I say that I should open my reply on behalf of His Majesty’s Government by paying tribute to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. In doing this, I want to make it clear that I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Wills that the victims and the bereaved must always be front and centre of the Government’s mind as this Bill makes its long overdue way through Parliament.
I hope that all noble Lords will understand what I mean when I say that the Bill is not just about justice for the Hillsborough victims and their families and those of the other disasters—which, for reasons of time, I will not name individually, but many of which have been listed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton. The Bill is more than just that; it determines what kind of society we are and want to be. Do we protect vested interests, or do we believe in the importance of the rights of and protections for our fellow citizens as individuals?
At this point, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, not just for securing this debate but for his tireless work to see justice done for the Hillsborough families. In his powerful and moving opening remarks, the noble Lord referred to wanting to be convinced that the Hillsborough law will tip the balance away from the behemoth against whom the small battalions are pitted. I suggest nothing speaks more powerfully to this Government’s commitment to this than the fact that not only did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister make a personal promise that he would bring forward a Hillsborough law but he delivered the opening speech himself at the Second Reading debate in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said some kind words about me and my life in the law, for which I thank him. I can honestly say that my proudest moments as a lawyer, and latterly as a judge, have been when I have been able to make a decision which puts the individual citizen’s rights first. It is my profound wish to continue to do so.
I shall do my best to respond to all points made by noble Lords, but if time does not permit today, I will write to those I was unable to answer here.
Perhaps I may also say a few words of thanks to my noble friend Lord Wills for the important role he has played in bringing us to where we are today. He and I tried to meet before today’s debate, but time pressures did not allow it. I have already made arrangements to meet him as soon as possible after this debate. I would be delighted to meet other noble Lords, if they wish to do so, before Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. We need to get this right.
I now turn to matters raised by noble Lords: first, and perhaps most obviously, the duty of candour, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Wills, among others. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton when he said that it is not just about the duty of candour. All the elements of the Bill are intended to work together as a catalyst for change. Reflecting on the experiences of local government, we intend to bring forward an amendment in the other place to extend this duty to local authority investigations in England, capturing the local grooming gang inquiries and the Kerslake review into the Manchester Arena attack.
I reassure noble Lords that although this duty focuses primarily on the public sector, some private bodies will be captured. Private bodies which deliver public functions, have a relevant health and safety responsibility or are relevant public sector contractors will be subject to the duty. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton raised an important point about the scope of it. Financial consequences really matter too, and it will cover, for example, the Horizon inquiry or events similar to that.
My noble friend Lord Wills brought up the discrepancy between the maximum sentence available for breach of the duty of candour and for substantive offences such as gross negligence manslaughter, and whether that might have the unintended consequence of creating a perverse incentive to cover up rather than to be frank. It is an interesting point, on which I will reflect and about which I would welcome a discussion with my noble friend.
Whistleblowing was raised by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Wills and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The new mandatory ethical codes of conduct must set out a process through which employees can raise concerns internally and to ensure that whistleblowing procedures are clear and accessible. Noble Lords will almost certainly think that that does not go far enough. This matter can be discussed during the passage of the Bill. At present, the Government believe that any significant reform to whistleblowing needs to be considered as part of a broader assessment of the framework, but we are happy to discuss this matter.
Legal aid, support at inquests and parity were raised by many noble Lords. Under the Bill, people bereaved as a result of a public tragedy will never again have to face the inquest process unsupported or the grotesque spectacle of having to raise money from friends and family to ensure that their voices are heard. It will be funded by the individual public authorities; in effect, the legal aid will be clawed back from the public authorities when they are an interested person.
My noble friend Lord Wills asked: why for only one member of a family? This is considered to be a reasonable and proportionate use of public funds. However, where there are exceptional circumstances, individuals can apply to the exceptional case funding scheme and be considered on a case-by-case basis. We intend for this to help foster proportionate participation and spending behaviours among interested public authorities, including in the use of their own legal representation at inquests.
We understand the concern about this allowing inquests to turn into a battle of the lawyers, not only enriching them—that offends many people—but extending the time taken. So we are requiring public authorities to use legal representation only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and we will crack down on any poor conduct by public authorities and their legal teams at inquests. We want to ensure that they are focused solely on supporting the fact-finding nature of investigations.
The Independent Public Advocate was at the forefront of my noble friend Lord Wills’s speech, but was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton. As your Lordships’ House is aware, Cindy Butts has now started as the first Independent Public Advocate. She is an excellent appointment and has recently been deployed to support the victims of the horrific attack at Heaton Park synagogue. The Victims Minister met Ms Butts last week to discuss her early experiences in post, and we will continue to engage with her on the nature and delivery of her role, and to better understand the experiences of victims. We are keeping an eye on this. The Government will update the House if we feel that there is further to go in these respects, and reports written by the Independent Public Advocate about her functions will be laid before Parliament as per the Victims and Prisoners Act.
The national oversight mechanism was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton. We agree that, too often after inquiries have concluded, lessons are not learned—whatever anybody says—and mistakes are repeated. This Government have already taken steps to improve the transparency of government responses to inquiry recommendations through a new online database, and we are considering how we can improve scrutiny and accountability to ensure that inquiries lead to lasting change. This work will continue alongside the Bill.
Inquiries reform was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Public inquiries can effectively investigate serious concerns, address past injustices, give voices to victims and help to implement change, but they often last a very long time, meaning that victims, their families and the public are waiting too long for answers. Therefore, the Government have been exploring ways for public inquiries to deliver findings more quickly and in a way that facilitates public trust. It is a substantial piece of work, led by the Cabinet Office, that will aim to improve how we identify wrongs and get to the truth. This important policy work is in its early stages, but we will continue to keep Parliament updated.
I turn briefly to the application of the duty of candour to the security services, raised by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, who has great experience in this area. We are grateful to him for saying that he thinks it is a workable model. We believe that we have got the balance right, but we will be interested in what is said during the passage of the Bill by others.
It may be the Government who are bringing forward the Hillsborough law, but the credit is not ours. That belongs to the campaigners who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of justice. We have worked closely with those campaigners to develop legislation, and we will continue to do so throughout the Bill’s passage. I look forward to meeting all victims, survivors and their families. I repeat: we are in listening mode and we are determined to get this right.