Home Office
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the governments response to Bishop James Joness report, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power a report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated - and on the steps we will take to respond to the points of learning contained therein.
Bishop James has done our nation a great service, and his report is an exceptional piece of work.
I want to salute the Hillsborough families for the assiduous care they have given to help create this report and forge the response that flows from it. I had the privilege of meeting many of the families in Liverpool in June this year, alongside the former Home Secretary.
I was deeply moved to hear of their experiences, and by the dignity with which they shared them. But even more affecting was their unflinching determination to make some sense of the senseless, and bring about change for others. That is the true mark of compassion campaigning selflessly for change, knowing that nothing that any government can do will bring their own loved ones back or temper their grief.
The Hillsborough families have through their determined efforts over decades created a lasting legacy, a national legacy, that is a tribute to their loved ones. At the start of his report, Bishop James expressed his hope that we might be a better nation for having listened to them. We are, and they deserve the thanks of our nation.
Second, I also pay tribute to those in this House who continue to campaign on behalf of the Hillsborough families and for families bereaved by other tragedies, including the members for Garston and Halewood [Maria Eagle], Halton [Derek Twigg], Wirral South [Alison McGovern], and Liverpool West Derby [Ian Byrne].
I thank former members of the House who have also given important support to the families, including Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham.
And I thank Glenn Taylor, for his vital work on the ongoing independent Forensic Pathology Review.
Quite apart from its important recommendations, Bishop James report lays bare the truly devastating experiences of those bereaved by the Hillsborough disaster on 15 April 1989.
An unimaginable tragedy unfolded. 97 innocent men, women and children ultimately lost their lives. Hundreds more were injured and traumatised by what they saw.
But for Hillsboroughs bereaved and survivors, that terrible day was only day one of an enduring ordeal. And in the days and decades thereafter it became clear they suffered a double injustice.
First, there was the abject failure of the police and others at the ground to protect their loved ones, failures described in Lord Justice Taylors 1990 Report as blunders of the first magnitude. Then, they faced years of unforgivable institutional defensiveness.
Second, the Hillsborough families and survivors suffered what can only be described as cruelty as innocent fans were cynically blamed for their own deaths. But that, Mr Speaker, as was later to become clear, was a web of lies spun by those seeking to protect their own reputations.
I emphasise this point because although the disaster may have been over 34 years ago, these baseless narratives still inexplicably, persist in some quarters today. So let me take this important opportunity to restate what is not a matter of opinion, but unassailable fact: fans attending the Hillsborough stadium on 15 April 1989 bear absolutely no responsibility for the deaths and injuries that occurred.
In making that statement I echo what was said 7 years ago, by my Rt Hon Friend, the Member for Maidenhead at this dispatch box when she read out the full findings of the second inquests namely that 96 men, women and children were unlawfully killed.
Since then, Andrew Devine, who suffered life-changing injuries at Hillsborough, passed away on 27 July 2021, becoming the 97th fatality of the disaster. I would like to place on record my deepest sympathies to Mr Devines family and friends, and indeed to all those who lost loved ones.
Mr Speaker, the governments response to Bishop James report has been a long time coming. For some of that time, it was necessarily held back to avoid prejudicing the outcomes of criminal trials, but there has been delay since and I recognise that this has only compounded the pain of the Hillsborough families and survivors. And the government apologies for that.
As the House will be aware, the governments response follows that of the police, which was published in January this year.
Today, the Chief Coroner is also publishing his response which relates to his leadership role regarding the coronial service.
Collectively, these responses address the points raised by Bishop James but this doesnt stop here. We will, of course, continue to listen to the families of those involved in all major incidents, and their concerns.
Bishop James report contains 25 points of learning. While he said he considered each to be vitally important, he was clear that three, in particular, were crucial. So let me turn to those:
First, he proposed the creation of a charter for families bereaved through public tragedy. Bishop James made clear he wanted to help bring about cultural change through commitments to change related to transparency and acting in the public interest.
Its worth reflecting that in setting out POL 13 regarding The Hillsborough Law (which I will come on to) Bishop James says that he has drawn heavily on that laws principles in the drafting of the charter. So it is worth taking a moment to consider that language.
It commits signatories, the leaders of public bodies, to strive to:
- place the public interest above the reputation of their own organisations
- approach all forms of public scrutiny including public inquiries and inquests with candour in an open, honest and transparent way
- avoid seeking to defend the indefensible
I can tell the House that the Deputy Prime Minister has today signed what will be known as the Hillsborough Charter, on behalf of the government.
Other signatories of the charter include the National Police Chiefs Council on behalf of all 43 police forces, the College of Policing, the Crown Prosecution Service, National Fire Chiefs Council and others.
We want this charter to become part of the culture of what it means to be a public servant in Britain. So the Deputy Prime Minister will be writing to all departments, to ensure that everyone who works in government is aware of the Hillsborough Charter and what it means for the way they work. A reference to the charter will also be added to the central induction to the Civil Service for all new joiners.
The Hillsborough Charter and Bishop James Report have also been added to the curriculum for every recruit who joins the police.
This charter will now be embedded in our public life.
The second crucial point of learning from Bishop James Report is what he described as the pressing need for proper participation of bereaved families at inquests.
Inquests are, first and foremost, about answering four questions: who, where, when and how an individual has died.
But as Bishop James highlighted, the Hillsborough families were let down by the very process that should have given them answers during the first inquests, and then had to endure a second.
At the first inquests, the families were forced to fund their own legal representation a single barrister between them.
We recognise that proper involvement in an inquest will in appropriate cases mean that bereaved families should get legal representation, especially when the state is represented.
Thats why changes have been made such that had the Hillsborough tragedy happened today, the families would have been eligible for free legal aid, through the Exceptional Case Funding Scheme.
The government is determined to make this process as straightforward as possible, which is why in January 2022 the Ministry of Justice removed the means test for representation in relation to ECF cases. In September 2023, the means test was also removed for legal advice at inquests.
But we want to build on this progress. So I can announce today that we will consult on an expansion of legal aid for families bereaved through public disaster where an Independent Public Advocate is engaged, or in the aftermath of a terrorist incident.
I acknowledge that Bishop James talks broadly about the proper participation of bereaved families at inquests where the state is represented. We will seek to further understand the experiences of these individuals, and I would welcome a conversation with Bishop James on this early in the new year.
We also support the principle raised in Bishop James report that public bodies should not be able to spend limitless public funds on legal representation. We have for the first time set out a requirement on government departments to consider the number of lawyers instructed bearing in mind the commitment to support an inquisitorial approach [annex A to the guide to coroner services for bereaved people].
And we will now go on to set out that central government public bodies should publish their spend on legal representation at inquests and inquiries, reaffirming that this spend should be proportionate, and never excessive.
We have also published a set of principles to guide how public bodies should instruct lawyers at inquests. These include a requirement to approach the inquest with openness and honesty and to keep in mind that the bereaved should be at the heart of the inquest process.
But we will also publish