Baroness Hale of Richmond (CB)

My Lords, at this stage in a debate it has almost all been said, but some things need to be said more than once, so forgive me. Nearly 37 years ago, 97 Liverpool fans were unlawfully killed at the Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield. Fourteen years ago, the Hillsborough Independent Panel published its report. Thirteen years ago, the High Court quashed the original inquest verdicts of accidental death. Ten years ago, at the second inquest, the jury returned a determination of unlawful killing. Eight years ago, the then Home Secretary commissioned a report on how we could learn from the families’ experiences “to ensure that the pain and suffering … is not repeated”. Those are not my words but those of the author of that report, Bishop James Jones, to whom tribute has already been paid today. He presided over the independent panel and he titled his new report with the powerful words already quoted today: The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. The independent panel had listened to the families and analysed the documentary evidence in great detail. It had discovered three things which had not been revealed in previous inquiries: first, that the families had been treated with an astonishing lack of sympathy and compassion in the arrangements made and in their interactions with the police, seemingly bent on blaming the victims; secondly, that numerous police witness statements had been altered to tell the story that the police force wanted to tell; and, thirdly, that many of the victims might have survived had the response of the police and ambulance services been less chaotic. Among the learnings from Bishop James’s report was the need for this Bill. We should not need it, but we do. One of the reasons for this is undoubtedly the patronising disposition that he referred to—that the families and the fans did not need to be taken seriously or even treated with basic humanity—but another reason is the extreme defensiveness which can be shown by public authorities when bad things happen. I am afraid that this is partly, at least, because of the fear of being held liable in the courts—the courts in which I served for so long. Yet, early recognition of the truth can often prevent the need for long, costly and heartbreaking legal proceedings, so we need to change the mindset—we need to change the culture. The duties of candour and assistance in the Bill have the potential positively to change the culture of state institutions by discouraging defensiveness and encouraging transparency from the outset, which should lead to earlier answers, earlier learning and earlier accountability. This is not just about righting past wrongs; it is about learning lessons and preventing future harms. If investigations have access to the information they need, the truth can emerge more quickly. This is not only fairer for victims and families but important for the public sector in the future. It should also build confidence in state institutions—confidence which has been seriously eroded by a number of scandals, not only Hillsborough but many others which we all know about now but did not at the time, many mentioned today. When institutions are open, honest and forthcoming, accountability is strengthened and trust is rebuilt. and none of those institutions should be wholly exempt from these duties. None of these institutions is immune from the patronising disposition of unaccountable power, so they should not be immune from the correctives in the Bill. Of course, there should be protection for information which is sensitive on national security grounds, for the safety of public officials, or otherwise privileged or immune from disclosure under existing law. and it is my understanding, along with that of the other place and others who have contributed to this debate, that the Bill achieves those objectives. As a former member of the Law Commission, I also welcome Part 3 of the Bill, which broadly implements the commission’s recommendation, made as recently as 2020, to replace the common law offence of misconduct in public office. For someone whose first law reform proposal, on the abolition of blasphemy, was implemented only some 23 years later, this is remarkably quick and I welcome it. I end by paying tribute to the Hillsborough Law Now campaigners, who have worked so hard to bring about this much-needed reform, and who have some very sensible suggestions for improvement, many of which have been referred to today. I hope that these will be taken seriously, but let us not make our efforts to achieve the very best become the enemy of achieving the very good.