Oral Answers to Questions

Janet Daby Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Government have decided to change the use of Cookham Wood youth offender institution to an adult prison. That follows a lack of progress in improving young people’s access to education, and increased violence on the prison estate. The behaviour management method of keeping young people in their cells has failed. This decision puts a spotlight on the wider crisis in adult prisons. When the young people are transferred, how will the Minister ensure that the practice of keeping them in their cells, and the cycle of violence, will end?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her question about Cookham Wood. As she will be aware, a number of specific local factors at work in Cookham Wood led to the urgent notification, and the challenges in addressing that. As for those young people and their transfer to other institutions, a number of them will be released before Cookham Wood closes. Those still in custody will be assessed individually, and they and their families will be engaged with to ensure that they are placed in institutions that are best suited to their needs, and that give them the greatest opportunity to progress and make positive life choices for when they are released.

[Janet Daby]

It is a shame that the Minister did not address the violence specifically. Violence is a challenge across the youth estate, not just at Cookham Wood. Recently, a girl with challenging behaviours and complex needs at Wetherby YOI was restrained and then stripped—not once, but twice—by male officers. In the context of rising violence and extreme self-harm, does the Minister believe that is acceptable, and what alternative provision does he have in mind other than the Keppel unit in Wetherby YOI?

[Edward Argar]

I did address the point about violence on the estate in response to the original question from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). The hon. Lady asked specifically about a case highlighted by the chief inspector of prisons in his recent report.What happened there was clearly against policy. It was clearly wrong and concerning, but I do have to correct her: the individual involved was at no point strip-searched. That was inaccurate reporting. At all times, the modesty of the individual was protected with a blanket, so I am afraid that what was said in reporting that it was a strip search is not correct. Clothes were removed under a blanket in order to protect life where there was imminent risk to it. Those officers made a difficult decision in the circumstances to protect life. It is right that we look into the specifics of what happened, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I have done. I think we just need to be a little cautious at this point about accepting everything that was reported as fact.

Oral Answers to Questions

Janet Daby Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I recently visited Cookham Wood young offenders institution. There, officers told me about the challenges they face, including a staffing shortage and shocking recruitment issues, which have led to rising levels of violence. Can the Minister say when he last visited Cookham Wood, and why this Government continue to be unable to solve those crucial problems?

Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill

Janet Daby Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on her success in the private Members’ Bills ballot, and I am pleased to be responding to the Second Reading debate on her Bill today. It is important that this issue has been brought to the House’s attention. Children and justice is an area of concern for many when joint enterprise is considered and it has been campaigned on for several years. The Bill highlights that, but I am aware that an amendment similar to this Bill has been tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill. Before I go further into the discussion of this Bill, it is right to say that although it is critical of joint enterprise, and there are very convincing arguments for amendment to it, joint enterprise is also a necessary tool in the criminal justice system, as I will explain further.

I thank all Members who have participated in and contributed to this debate: my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum); my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Easington (Grahame Morris); the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler); the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn); and the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I have also noted the many comments made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

Having listened to the debate, the clear overall message is that joint enterprise needs to be reviewed. As we have heard, it allows an individual to be jointly convicted of the crime of another if the court finds that they were involved in the commission of the crime. There is a strong case to tighten the definition currently used to ensure that justice is fair and proportionate. As in the case of R v. Jogee in 2016, the Supreme Court has ruled that joint enterprise had been wrongly used for 30 years—that is extremely concerning. The ruling stated that it was not enough for the prosecution to prove that the defendant foresaw the possibility of violence occurring. Instead, the prosecution should now prove that the defendant intended to encourage or assist the person who committed the crime. Yet, a list of controversial joint enterprise cases continue to this day. The Manchester 10 case, which many in this Chamber will know, was tried under conspiracy legislation, but activists say this mirrors crimes prosecuted in the UK as joint enterprise. The trial’s use of drill music to convict the 10 defendants has also been criticised; this is a common feature of joint enterprise prosecutions for defendants from minority backgrounds. I am aware of the campaign by Art Not Evidence that aims to stop the criminalisation of those who engage in rap and drill music.

[Dawn Butler]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we do not judge people by the music they listen to? Judging one music to be violent, as against another genre, is a very subjective measure.

[Janet Daby]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that; she makes a very meaningful point. There are lots of words in lots of different types of music, and we should not be judged by that.

I have also met Janet Cunliffe, a co-founder of Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—JENGbA—whose son was imprisoned under joint enterprise. She is a tireless campaigner, who has shared in the experience of her son’s sentence. In 2020, JENGbA released a research report written by academics at Manchester Metropolitan University arguing that women are negatively impacted by joint enterprise. It stated:

“Women were often marginal to the violent event, with almost half not present at the scene and almost all never having engaged in any physical violence”.

And yet, as the report found, women were being seriously penalised.

JENGbA has highlighted the case of a teenager, Carrie. She was 15 years old when, in the early hours, she was walking with two other older people. They had all been drinking and a fight broke out with another group of local adults. One person from the other group was killed by an injury caused by a broken bottle. In the summing up of the case, the judge acknowledged that Carrie was so drunk she did not have the ability to join in with a fight. The judge warned that

“mere presence is not enough there must be some form of participation”.

During the trial, judgments were made about Carrie’s character and not her actions. That became central to her prosecution. The offence was committed by a 35-year-old man. The jury found the man guilty of murder. Carrie, 15 years old at the time of the event, was found guilty of manslaughter. The report found that there are many other women like Carrie in prison.

I have been critical of joint enterprise, but there is a place for it in our courts and the wider criminal justice system. Joint enterprise has helped to secure convictions that otherwise would not have been successful. The conviction of some of the men who killed Stephen Lawrence was secured using joint enterprise legislation. By using joint enterprise legislation, it was found that it did not matter whether Gary Dobson and David Norris carried out the killing; rather, it was important that they were part of an attack that could end in serious harm. Indeed, it did. It has also been successfully used to prosecute paedophile rings and those who commit economic crime. That should not be forgotten.

I am glad that the Bill does not seek to abolish joint enterprise in its entirety. Labour has previously said that it would look to reform joint enterprise, and that remains our ambition. Furthermore, the Lammy review in 2017 advocated for the reform of joint enterprise laws. In particular, recommendation 6 said:

“The CPS should take the opportunity, while it reworks its guidance on Joint Enterprise, to consider its approach to gang prosecutions in general.”

With regard to that recommendation, the CPS commenced a pilot to monitor joint enterprise homicide and attempted homicide cases in February 2023. The results were concerning. Black people make up only 4% of the UK population, but according to the CPS, under joint enterprise cases, black defendants make up 30% of case loads. It was also revealed that joint enterprise prosecutions disproportionately affect children, young people and men.

There has been progress on gathering more data, with the commencement of a full national scheme in all CPS areas. The CPS has said that a report of homicide and attempted homicide cases brought on a joint enterprise basis will be produced annually, and it will contain a breakdown by the protected characteristics of ethnicity, sex, age and disability. I believe that the CPS today convened a scrutiny panel with a focus on joint enterprise cases in which evidence of gang association is a feature.

Let me be clear: the Bill is perfectly reasonable and commendable. However, for the best chance of proper reform, it is important to wait until the CPS has built up more data before legislation is used to tackle the problem. We can solve the issue only when we have the full picture; that way, the law can work as intended.

Many from across the political spectrum believe that change needs to happen. There are some cases of people being convicted of serious crimes despite making no significant contribution to them; we have heard such examples given from across the Chamber. It is not in the public interest to prosecute those who have not made a significant contribution to a crime. I am interested to know whether the Minister agrees.

In reply to an amendment on joint enterprise in the Criminal Justice Bill Committee, the Government said:

“there have been examples of case law since the Jogee case that show that approach being fairly applied.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2024; c. 484.]

What is the Minister’s view on the reported disproportionate impact of joint enterprise on diverse communities?

The Government must end the criminalisation of children and young people associated with rap and drill music, and put in place protective factors to ensure that they are not disproportionately criminalised under joint enterprise.

[Philip Davies]

I am not sure what point the hon. Lady and Labour Members are making when they talk about the disproportionate amount of people from various ethnic minorities who have been prosecuted under joint enterprise. Is she saying that the Crown Prosecution Service is institutionally racist? Is she saying that juries are institutionally racist? Is that the allegation she is making from the Labour Front Bench?

[Janet Daby]

That is an interesting intervention. I find it concerning and alarming that hon. Members in this place do not appear to be aware of how racism and discrimination acts. So much evidence and information, and so many reports, inquiries and reviews on the subject have come out of this place and many other institutions and public organisations across our country for many years. I find it alarming and disturbing that he questioned that in the way he did. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Janet Daby Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Children’s Commissioner’s report on family contact in the youth estate states that at the weekend, in two young offenders institutes, boys spent only up to one hour outside their cell each day. We can clearly see why that has led to an increase in violence. What is the Minister going to do about it?

[Alex Chalk]

It is important to note that, since 2010 when we came into power, the number of under-18s in custody has dropped dramatically. The cohort now in young offenders institutes is, to put it politely, highly complex. We take that extremely seriously and want to ensure there are sufficient staff. We do not give up on people, but it is important to recognise that that cohort will have been convicted of extremely serious offences, and we want to ensure there are sufficient resources to try to get the best out of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Janet Daby Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the new shadow Minister.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Education is vital to reduce violence, especially on the youth estate. However, violence on the youth estate is skyrocketing. Since last year, assaults on staff have increased by 33%. That puts prison staff at risk in their workplace and increases the trauma experienced by children and young people. It can also prolong their rehabilitation. How will the Minister use education and other methods available to him to reduce that violence?

[Edward Argar]

It is nice to be taking questions from the hon. Lady in her new role as shadow Minister, rather than when she used to question me in the Justice Committee. She is absolutely right to highlight the challenges of violence across the youth estate, which have been too high for too long, and we continue to work hard across all sites to address it. Among the measures put in place, we are ensuring that each child receives a full needs assessment, covering education, psychology, resettlement, health and behavioural support. Education and skills play a vital part in helping children and young people to get their lives back on course, but that must be in the context of a secure environment, because security has to be the premise on which all those other benefits can be delivered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Janet Daby Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Prison leavers in employment training are less likely to reoffend. That means that education and training for young offenders in prison is crucial. Will the Minister say why the Government have failed so far to implement a new prison education service? It was promised in their party’s manifesto in 2019. Implementing it in 2025 is too little, too late.

[Damian Hinds]

I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the hon. Lady to her place and similarly look forward to working with her. I can bring her good news. First, there is an education service operating in every prison, with four contracted providers. We also have additional provision that governors can put in place, but for the new service that she mentions—it was indeed a manifesto commitment—the process is well under way. I look forward to being able to make further announcements before long.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Janet Daby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady alluded to the fact that people with law enforcement experience already sit as Parole Board members, so, on her last point, there is already a pool, which can be augmented and built up over time. That will allow those who are already experienced in Parole Board decision making to sit on some of the most serious cases. That therefore mitigates her concerns.

We are seeking to ensure that the views of those experienced in law enforcement are considered, and we will strengthen that further. That is not a factor that will determine the outcome, but we want to ensure that those voices are heard more consistently and that the process is more formalised than at present. We believe the clause strikes the appropriate balance in ensuring that the board has that perspective at its disposal in any particular case, as well as other relevant perspectives, to aid it in reaching the decision it chooses to reach.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Parole Board membership

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 47, page 43, line 6, leave out from “office” to end of line 9 and insert

“only on grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity”.

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to remove the Chair of the Parole Board only on the grounds of misconduct or incapacity.

I want to begin by providing some context about the justification for removing the Parole Board chair from office. The Parole Board is rightly independent from the Executive. That independence is well established in several court rulings and is crucial to how the board functions. There are elements of the Bill that would undermine that independence. The Minister will know that I am not alone in voicing those concerns, given that Members of his own party also did so on Second Reading.

The Minister has been open to hearing and taking on board the concerns of Members throughout our time in Committee, and I know that that has been much appreciated. Therefore, I hope that he will reflect on the concerns raised on protecting the independence of the Parole Board. A balance needs to be struck. Although Members on both sides of the Committee will recognise the need for the Secretary of State to have the power to remove the chair, what matters is how that is done. I do not wish to recount too much the circumstances of the removal of Nick Hardwick as chair of the Parole Board—Members will likely already be familiar with those—but it is important to recognise the challenge that placed on the independence of the Parole Board. The powers of the Executive must be appropriate. I consider the termination protocol devised after Nick Hardwick’s time as chair to have the better level of that appropriateness.

The current grounds on which the chair may be removed are set out in a clear way, and the criteria that must be satisfied are reasonable and measurable. There is a procedural fairness in how a recommendation for removal can be made. That is not to say that it is a perfect mechanism. It does not, for example, consider misconduct as a criterion for the chair’s removal, nor does it fully address the concerns raised by the High Court regarding recourse and appeal in the removal of the chair. Furthermore, it does not recognise the potential impact of removing the chair on the independence of the Parole Board. All these merit further consideration in determining how a removal mechanism should operate.

As it stands, I do not believe that the power being given to the Secretary of State to remove the chair addresses those points adequately. Its current wording is narrowly focused and too broadly interpreted. Maintaining the public’s confidence in the parole process is a perfectly reasonable aim, but it should not be the sole consideration in whether the chair is fit to perform the functions of the role.

If the clause ends up on the statute book, how will the Secretary of State measure public confidence? Will it be on the basis of a decision made on an individual case? Clause 47 goes on to say that the chair must not “play any part” or “influence the recommendations” in relation to an individual case. That would clearly make it unfair to dismiss the chair because of a decision taken on a single case.

The Parole Board’s job is to take decisions on complex and occasionally controversial cases. In a small number of examples, that may result in a certain level of unease, but unfettered ministerial power to remove the chair on fairly broadly interpreted grounds is not the proper way to resolve that unease.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am very supportive of the argument that my hon. Friend is making, because there needs to be absolute confidence that the Parole Board is acting for the right reasons. Any indication of political influence would undermine public confidence in the system. That is why I support her amendment.

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for everything she just said, and I absolutely agree. Those are absolutely the points that I am making as well. I fear that the power is too subjective and, with respect to the Secretary of State, may be misapplied if not handled carefully. In evidence to this Committee, the chief executive officer of the Parole Board himself said that this risked the Parole Board’s independence, and the measure fails to note that the chair may need to be removed on grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity.

Although I do not intend to take amendment 120 to a vote, I hope that it will encourage the Minister to rethink how this clause is drafted, tighten up the removal mechanism, give greater consideration to protecting the Parole Board’s independence and privilege misconduct or incapacity as reasons for removing the chair.

[Ellie Reeves]

I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East. First, it is right that if someone is not up to the job as chair of the Parole Board, there should be a way of removing them—the public would not expect any less—but clause 47 goes a great deal further than that. Amendment 120 seeks to address that. In his evidence to the Committee, Martin Jones, the Parole Board chief executive, stated:

“There is already a protocol in place that would allow a Secretary of State to follow a process in a fair way to remove the chair of the Parole Board if they believe they are not fulfilling their functions.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 55, Q107.]

Caroline Corby, the chair of the Parole Board, stated at the Justice Committee’s evidence session:

“My concern is that if it is used simply because the Parole Board has made a controversial decision, that potentially impacts on the independence of the Parole Board.”

That is because parole decisions, by their very nature, are sensitive and controversial. Removing the chair because a decision in an individual case is unpopular would likely influence the panel’s decision making, thereby undermining the independence of the board in its judicial decisions. Given that, Ms Corby argued that

“the chair of the Parole Board needs more protection than pretty much any other chair of any arm’s length body.”

For those reasons, the Justice Committee concluded in its letter to the Justice Secretary that there should not be a statutory power to enable the Secretary of State to dismiss the chair of the board in the manner and terms proposed. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about these points and what reassurances he can give me and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham East for her kind words, for the approach she has adopted throughout the passage of the Bill and for her amendment, which gives us an opportunity to debate this issue alongside clause 47. The Bill creates a new power for the Secretary of State to dismiss the Parole Board chair on the grounds of public confidence, and the amendment would change the grounds of that dismissal power to misconduct or incapacity.

There is already a process for terminating the appointment to the chair due to misconduct or incapacity. The agreed protocol allows an independent panel to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State on whether the chair should be dismissed on the grounds of absence, if they have been convicted of an offence or are an undischarged bankrupt, or if they are unfit or unsuitable to continue in their role. The protocol extends to all board members, not just the chair, and is an essential recourse, where necessary, for maintaining the high standards required of board members. The amendment would effectively replace an existing process, albeit only for the chair and without requiring the involvement of the panel.

The purpose of clause 47 is not to replace that important process but to create a new route for dismissal on grounds that are not already incorporated in the agreed protocol—namely, public confidence. The Parole Board is a high-profile public body that makes important decisions on public protection every day. I do not underestimate in any way the difficulty of its job, and in general—as we have alluded to in debates on previous groups—the board do it very well. However, it is right that the Secretary of State for Justice should have the levers to change the leadership of the board if a situation arose whereby public confidence in the overall work of the board had been irreversibly damaged, because public confidence goes beyond individual decisions.

The chair is responsible for ensuring that the board takes proper account of guidance provided by the responsible Minister or the Department, for ensuring that the board is well run and is delivering high standards of regularity and propriety, and for promoting public awareness of the work of the board. As there already exists a process for the chair of the Parole Board to be dismissed on the grounds of misconduct or incapacity, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham East for saying that she does not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but I understand the context in which she tabled it. Notwithstanding what I may say in a moment on clause 47, I am happy to have a further conversation with her outwith the Committee, if she thinks that would be helpful.

[Janet Daby]

Again, I thank the Minister for his very mature approach. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

Clause 47 amends schedule 19 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which governs the membership and operation of the Parole Board. The clause makes important changes to the Parole Board’s membership and leadership. Let me begin by confirming that subsection (10) means that any changes in respect of the chair of the Parole Board do not impact on the appointment or functions of the current chair, Caroline Corby. She has led the board well since her initial appointment in 2018, and the Ministry is grateful to her for her effective leadership in this high-profile and, at many times, challenging role. She will step down as chair in October next year, and it is at that point that the functions of the chair as set out in the clause will come into force.

I now turn to the specific provisions of the clause. Subsection (3) increases the statutory minimum number of Parole Board members from five to seven. In practice, the board, of course, has many more members than that, and its current membership stands at about 300. I take this opportunity to thank the board’s members more broadly for the difficult, but crucial work they do in keeping the public safe from harm.

The Government are increasing the minimum membership of the board for two reasons. First, to make the position of vice chair a statutory role, which is necessary because of the changes the clause makes to the chair’s functions. Secondly, as we touched on when considering clause 46, to require the board to include a law-enforcement member in its core membership. The requirement for a law-enforcement member is in clause 47(4), with a definition of the role in the proposed new section (2A) to be inserted into the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by clause 47(5).

The overall effect will be for the Parole Board to be made up of a minimum of seven members: a chair, a vice chair, a law-enforcement member and four other statutory members, one of whom must have judicial experience, one must have knowledge of probation, one must be an expert in prisoner rehabilitation and one must be a psychiatrist. Requiring the board to have access to that range of expertise as a minimum will ensure that risk is assessed as effectively as possible and that offenders are released only when it is safe to do so. The board will remain free to recruit members from other fields and to appoint independent members, as it deems appropriate.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Janet Daby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

Lucia’s caseworker remains incredibly concerned about her. Women such as Lucia should not have to live in fear of their abusers or of immigration enforcement. If the police had treated her with dignity and compassion, she might have had a greater chance of escaping abuse and achieving justice. A firewall is desperately needed to ensure the safeguarding of migrant women, giving them the same status in law as any other victim. It is crucial for building police trust in communities, protecting victims and witnesses, and preventing perpetrators from committing violence and abuse.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

It is very disturbing to hear the example that my hon. Friend has brought before us. Does she agree that what that lady has experienced is double jeopardy—with a sense of being totally undermined by the police, not being believed and being accused? The revictimisation in that situation sounds absolutely appalling.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Janet Daby]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In discussing new clause 25, I will focus on the Government’s own equality statement on the Bill. Hon. Members will recognise the problem of disproportionalities in criminal justice. Too often, minority groups face unfairness in how they are treated in the justice system. More action is required to identify those inequalities, and where they are identified, they must be tackled.

The new clause requires the Government to lay before Parliament an annual report covering how the Secretary of State has exercised his powers regarding release decisions for top-tier offenders. The report would include how a case is referred, the decision from that referral, and information about the appeal mechanism after referral. All the information will be broken down by protected characteristics.

I wish to make three brief points. First, black and Asian prisoners and those aged 18 to 20 fall into the top-tier category at a higher rate than other parole-eligible prisoners; they are over-represented. That is why the new clause is required: to record such concerns. For some protected characteristics, such as marital status or pregnancy, it would be difficult to identify the impact of clauses 35 to 39, and the equality statement recognises that. However, the new clause requires reporting on all protected characteristics to catch disproportionalities that are not currently identified, but may arise in future. It is also a tool to address wider concerns of disproportionality. Between Committee and Report stages, I hope the Minister will include that point in his consideration of whether to revise the clauses.

Secondly, following recommendations made in the Lammy review, the Ministry of Justice committed to publishing

“more and better data on ethnicity where possible”.

Let us please follow that principle. If a new power is given, information on how the power will affect ethnic minority groups should be published. In response to the Secretary of State’s new referral powers, therefore, I hope he will publish that kind of data. Unfortunately, new powers are often introduced before Ministers are required to publish regular information on the impact of the powers. I hope the Minister will not make this another such example. It is in the Minister’s interest to produce an annual report and to allow parliamentarians to scrutinise the issue, so that he and his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice have more information and can be proactive in tackling inequalities.

That brings me to my third and final point, on victims and public protection. The equality statement highlights the Government’s belief that confidence in the system must be balanced against the case for rehabilitation—I refer Members to page 30 of the equality statement. Unfortunately, I am not yet convinced by that analysis. Building confidence in the parole process is inherently linked to the rehabilitation of offenders. If it is not—as the Government’s equality statement seems to indicate—it will fail to reassure victims and it will undermine the Government’s aim of prioritising public protection.

The impact assessment for the Bill shows that, in recent years, about a third of those who would be classified as top-tier offenders have been released. Even after the Bill gains Royal Assent, top-tier offenders are expected to be released at a similar rate. That is why rehabilitation is essential for victims and for public protection. We must make best use of: rehabilitation opportunities; key work; the use of open conditions where appropriate; and release on licence to facilitate reintegration back into the community. I accept that that will not always be possible, but I expect that the Minister in his reply will agree that a range of options should be available when making a release decision. Perhaps he could reflect on how creating a top tier of offences might better interact with rehabilitation opportunities. That will reassure victims and protect the wider public.

I hope that the new clause encourages the Minister to acknowledge the issues highlighted in the equality assessment, and to consider how we can resolve them as the Bill passes through Parliament.

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East for moving new clause 25. As I outlined earlier, there is concern across the political spectrum about the impact of clauses 35 and 36. I also share my hon. Friend’s concerns about racial disproportionality in our criminal justice system. The equality impact assessment for the Bill finds that the provision it makes for the creation of a top tier of prisoners will disproportionately impact black and Asian prisoners and young adults. As the Prison Reform Trust’s evidence points out, the Government have made

“no provision to mitigate or prevent that discriminatory impact.”

It therefore seems sensible that the Secretary of State should report annually on the use of the powers on release decisions. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham East for her new clause 25, which would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish certain information about the cases on which they or another Minister have adjudicated. I fully appreciate the intent behind the new clause. The exercise of the power of the Secretary of State must be transparent, and every decision must be made objectively and fairly. It is vital that we guard against any discrimination or bias in the system. However, we do not necessarily agree that those aims are best achieved by putting the requirement in primary legislation. For the new approach to parole, we would prefer greater flexibility in how and when information is published.

For the avoidance of doubt, I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the Ministry of Justice welcomes proper external scrutiny of our work. We routinely publish large amounts of data to assist Parliament and the public in their understanding of how the criminal justice system is performing. Of course, it is open to Parliament, following the implementation of the Bill’s provisions, to provide post-legislative scrutiny in questions or in other forums; I might touch on that point in a minute. We are currently working through the implementation issues for the parole reforms in the Bill. We need to take time to consider the full range of data and other information that will be required to enable us to evaluate the new process and ensure that it runs smoothly. We also need to consider what would be most helpful to Parliament.

I reassure the hon. Member for Lewisham East that we will closely consider the items in her new clause as we develop our performance measures. Her points were typically sensible. I confess that I will look at this particularly carefully out of a degree of self-interest, because as a member of the Justice Committee she has a regular opportunity to summon me before her to answer difficult questions. I hope I have reassured her that I will look carefully at what she is suggesting.

[Janet Daby]

I reassure the Minister that I will be following through on this point: I am sure he will experience me asking him further questions and pressing him on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 26

Access to services for victims with no recourse to public funds

“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment, a victim of domestic abuse who—

(a) has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which is subject to a condition that they do not have recourse to public funds,

(b) requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it,

(c) has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given as a result of a maintenance undertaking,

is entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

‘domestic abuse’ has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;

‘victim’ has the meaning given by section 1 of this Act.” —(Sarah Champion.)

This new clause would ensure victims of domestic abuse who do not have recourse to public funds are still entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Sarah Champion]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In effect, I am trying to help the Minister to reach out to all victims, because some are currently unable to access his excellent new code. Evidence suggests that migrant victims are more vulnerable to experiencing serious crime and, at the same time, less likely to receive redress. Migrant victims encounter multiple barriers to protection and safety. The immigration system and the hostile environment policy create structural obstacles to justice. Migrant victims of domestic abuse often face a stark choice: staying in a violent relationship, or deportation and destitution if they leave. Because of their own or their parents’ insecure immigration status and the no recourse to public funds condition, children may also be trapped in those situations.

Improved legal rights are therefore crucial to enabling migrant victims to access lifesaving services and support to escape abuse and rebuild their lives. Southall Black Sisters have been leading a 30-year campaign, to which I pay tribute, to ensure that migrant victims and their children are able to access safety and support. The campaign is calling for the no recourse to public funds condition to be lifted and for victims of domestic abuse to have the right to stay in the UK. That is critical, so that they can obtain welfare benefits and housing from the local authority to escape abuse on the same basis as those with secure immigration status.

I acknowledge that the new clause does not go that far, but it would ensure that, at the very least, migrant victims can access support services under the Minister’s victims code. The current situation is untenable. Many cannot even enter a women’s refuge if they cannot pay their rent or living costs. Many cannot seek help without the fear of being removed from the UK. Many women risk being sent to countries where women face particular ostracism, harassment and honour-based abuse due to the stigma of being separated, divorced or unmarried.

Over the years, Southall Black Sisters have achieved some major reform to immigration policy and rules for those on spousal or partner visas. The introduction of the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain scheme in 2002 and of the destitution domestic violence concession in 2021 has benefited over 1,000 victims every year. However, the provisions do not cover those on other types of visa or those without documents who may be subjected to domestic abuse by partners or family members: they remain unprotected and vulnerable to domestic abuse within the home or to economic and sexual exploitation outside it, as they become destitute and homeless as a consequence. Undocumented victims are particularly vulnerable to the weaponisation of their status by the perpetrator; they can become overstayers through no fault of their own, because they have few rights in this country.

In April 2021, the Home Office introduced the support for migrant victims pilot scheme to provide support for victims of domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds. The scheme, which is being delivered in a UK-wide partnership led by Southall Black Sisters, has now been extended for another two years to March 2025, pending a longer-term solution. The extension clearly indicates that the Home Office recognises the vital importance of providing financial support to migrant women with no recourse to public funds. The pilot assisted about 400 victims in the first year and 560 in the second.

The first year of the pilot scheme has been externally evaluated by the Home Office, but the results have not yet been published. However, Southall Black Sisters commissioned the child and woman abuse studies unit at London Metropolitan University to evaluate the pilot for the same period. The unit’s report “Living at the Edge” shows that although providing assistance under the scheme is essential, victims need more money for longer, as the current rates are below those for universal credit, despite a recent rise to deal with the cost of living crisis.

Many victims are still unable to access a refuge in areas where there are high rents. Instead, they are housed with their children in unsuitable accommodation such as bed and breakfasts or hotels. Also, some refuges are reluctant to accept referrals if funding is available for only a short period, particularly in complex spousal/partner visa cases, non-spousal/partner visa cases and undocumented cases.

The evaluation recommends an extension of the destitution domestic violence concession and the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain scheme to protect all migrant victims of domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner also recommends the simple extension of those two schemes, which should be available for six months for all migrant victims, pending longer-term solutions. The commissioner’s report estimates that the social gains of supporting migrant victims in that way would be about £2 billion over 10 years, with about 7,700 victims likely to need refuge or other accommodation. That small amount would not place a significant burden on the public purse. More importantly, it would provide crucial safety and support to vulnerable victims and their children.

Based on all the evidence, an extension to the current provision for those on a spousal or partner visa to all victims, irrespective of their immigration status, would be the most simple and effective way of improving access to vital lifesaving services and support for migrant victims. The new clause would help to end the discrimination and the two-tier system that currently exists between migrant and non-migrant victims. I also ask the Minister to commit to ensuring that all migrant victims can access support services under the victims code and that tailored services for migrant victims are funded and resourced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I hear what the Minister is saying. I will say again that Southall Black Sisters have been pushing for this for 30 years, so it has been an issue across multiple Governments. The Minister also has to recognise that in the current climate, my hopes that the right thing will be done towards migrant women are about as low as they have ever been in these past 30 years.

There is an awful lot of support for these measures. We will not give up, but at this point, as I am a realist, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

Victim Contact Scheme: annual report

“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare an annual report on the operation of the Victim Contact Scheme and an assessment of its effectiveness.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must set out—

(a) an assessment of how many victims eligible for the VCS—

(i) became engaged with the scheme in the last year;

(ii) are engaged with the scheme overall;

(iii) made a victim statement of any kind;

(iv) challenged a Parole Board decision;

(v) applied for a licence condition;

(vi) chose not to join the scheme;

(vii) chose to join the scheme at a later date than initially invited to join;

(viii) chose to leave the scheme;

(ix) reported not being invited to join the scheme; and

(x) reported that their contact stopped during the scheme;

(b) how many staff were working in the VCS in the last financial year; and

(c) the ratio between staff and those engaged with the scheme overall.

(3) The first such report must be laid before Parliament before the end of 2024.

(4) A further such report must be laid before Parliament in each subsequent calendar year.”—(Janet Daby.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Janet Daby]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 27 arose from a conversation with the Parole Board about how information can be accessed regarding the parole process. I was concerned to hear that, on an alarming number of occasions, there are reports of those eligible for the victim contact scheme getting lost in the system, not receiving the contact that they have opted into and to which they are entitled, and subsequently being left unable to exercise their rights under the victims code. That should not be the experience of victims, and this probing measure seeks to address those concerns and to ensure that the victim contact scheme operates as fully and effectively as possible.

The victim contact scheme gives the victims or bereaved families of serious violent or sexual offences, where an offender receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, the right to be kept updated at key points during the offender’s sentence and parole process. Victims are assigned a victim liaison officer and can determine themselves the extent of information that they wish to receive and how they receive it. That can facilitate victims providing a statement during the parole process, or request a licence condition be applied where a prisoner is released. It is a valuable tool in providing reassurance to victims and ensuring that they can exercise their rights. It is vital that it operates as it is intended to, so that victims and bereaved families do not fall through the cracks.

New clause 27 would require an assessment be made of how many victims report not being invited to join the VCS as they should be, and how many report their contact from the VCS stopping when it should not have done so. It would also require that an assessment be made of how many victims are choosing to opt into the VCS or not, and how many of those who do opt in then go on to make a victim statement or apply for a licence condition.

Essentially, the new clause assesses how victims of the most serious crimes are choosing to access information that they are entitled to and to exercise their rights under the victims code. It is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to ensure that victims can access the information to which they are entitled and that they can exercise their rights. The VCS clearly plays an important role in doing that. That is why it is crucial that it operates effectively and does not see victims falling out of the system. I hope the Minister and other Members share that goal. Through this probing amendment, I hope that the Minister will hear the concerns that are being raised and will consider how remedies to those concerns can be included in the Bill.

[Anna McMorrin]

I thank my hon. Friend for tabling this new clause. The criminal justice system places such a high burden on victims, in terms of the processes that they are expected to understand and take part in, that we need to do more to ensure that victims properly understand the sentences that are imposed and that the parole process is about the assessment of future risk and not punishment.

As the victim contact scheme is an opt-in scheme, it is likely that many victims do not even know of its existence. There are also countless victims with specific communication and access needs who may find it difficult to access the victim contact scheme. We are not furnished with information about how easy or difficult victims find it to engage with the processes; it is very difficult even to find that information. We do not know whether those victims who do engage find their experience beneficial or not. I agree with my hon. Friend that the only way to improve the victim contact scheme is to fully understand its performance—strengths and failures—so that we can know what improvements to it are needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank the Minister for allowing himself to be probed and for being considerate about how best to improve the VCS. I gather that he may be very busy over the summer recess, but I will not move the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Anna McMorrin]

As we have reached the end of the Bill Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who has worked so hard on the Bill over the past few weeks and enabled the Committee to have fruitful and mainly co-operative debates about such crucial issues.

My biggest thanks go to the victims and survivors I have worked with over the past two years in the lead-up to the Bill. Their strength and bravery in sharing their truth is the reason that we can advocate and fight for the changes we want to see. They are the real human cost and impact behind the Bill, and they must never be forgotten or sidelined.

I also thank the various stakeholders I have worked with. There are far too many to mention, and I have thanked them as we have gone through the Bill. I particularly want to mention Dame Vera Baird, Claire Waxman, Nicole Jacobs, Ken Sutton and Dr Ruth Lamont, who have worked closely with me on the Bill.

I thank Committee members for their patience, interest and engagement, and the Whips, who have steadfastly done their job throughout the Bill Committee. I thank my Labour colleagues, whose commitment has enabled a wide-ranging, informed and well-researched debate. I particularly thank my Front-Bench colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge and for Birmingham, Yardley, for their support.

I also thank the Minister for his tone and his willingness to work together to improve the Bill as it goes to the next stages—no pressure there. I hope we will work together to vastly improve it.

I would like to say a huge thank you to everyone who has kept the Bill moving. I especially thank my parliamentary researcher, Honor Miller, who is watching, for her dedication and commitment day and night. She and I have dedicated our lives to this Bill over the past weeks and months.

I also thank the Clerks, who are amazing, for putting up with all of us and our sometimes ridiculous questions. I thank the Government officials, Hansard and the Doorkeepers, who are amazing. Last but not least, I am grateful to the Chairs—to you, Mrs Murray, and to Ms Elliott, Sir Edward and Mr Hosie—for their patience and commitment.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Janet Daby Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

Amendment 79 would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion over how to publish the advocates’ reports.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Minister may recall that during an evidence session, I asked Lord Wills whether he thought it was acceptable that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish a copy of the report made by the independent public advocate in whatever manner they considered appropriate. He replied that it was an example of the Bill giving the Secretary of State “too much unfettered discretion”, as one of my hon. Friends has said. Could the Minister respond to that?

[Edward Argar]

Although I have a huge amount of respect for the noble Lord Wills, I disagree with him on that point, hence the approach that the Government are taking in this legislation. If the hon. Lady allows me to make a little more progress, I might give her a little encouragement—maybe more than a little—in that respect.

I have already set out that where it is most appropriate for the reports to be laid before Parliament or referred to the relevant Committee, they will be. Amendment 79 would also remove the Secretary of State’s ability to omit material from the report that would be contrary to the public interest or contravene data protection legislation. Although I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments, I believe that the public interest and data protection legislation are important. The purpose of the public interest test is to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to sensitive information, such as matters that relate to national security. That is consistent with the approach taken in the Inquiries Act 2005, and ensures that there are no unintended negative consequences as a result of disclosing information that could impact national security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin]

Again, I want to mention INQUEST, Hillsborough Law Now and Justice, the organisations working with me on these provisions. There is an urgent need to introduce a duty of candour for those from across the public services, such as policing, health, social care, and housing, when a major incident occurs. A duty of candour would place a legal requirement on organisations to approach public scrutiny, including inquiries and inquests into state-related deaths, in a candid and transparent manner. The duty would enable public servants and others delivering state services to carry out their role diligently, while also empowering them to flag dangerous practices that risk lives.

Institutional defensiveness has been found to be a pervasive issue in inquests and public inquiries; we heard about that today. It causes additional suffering to bereaved persons, creates undue delay to inquests and inquiries, undermines public trust and confidence in the police, and undermines a fundamental purpose of inquests and inquiries, which is to understand what happened and to prevent recurrence. Establishing a statutory duty of candour when major incidents occur would go some way to addressing those issues.

Justice’s report, “When Things Go Wrong: the response of the justice system”, found that in both inquests and inquiries,

“lack of candour and institutional defensiveness on the part of State and corporate interested persons and core participants are invariably cited as a cause of further suffering and a barrier to accountability”.

In his Government-commissioned report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families, the Right Rev. James Jones concluded that South Yorkshire police’s

“repeated failure to fully and unequivocally accept the findings of independent inquiries and reviews has undoubtedly caused pain to the bereaved families”.

During the evidence sessions, when asked if a duty of candour should be extended to include public servants, the Right Rev. James Jones answered:

“Yes, I think that there should be a duty of candour on all public officials. Anybody who accepts public office should bind themselves according to their own conscience to speak with candour and not to dissemble when called upon to give the truth and an account of what has happened.” ––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 90, Q173.]

[Janet Daby]

Does my hon. Friend agree that duty of candour is a serious issue? It is so serious that I cannot think of anybody who, during the evidence sessions, did not agree that duty of candour should be extended to include public servants.

[Anna McMorrin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A lack of candour frustrates the fundamental purpose of inquests and inquiries, as we heard in the evidence sessions. Candour is essential if we are to reach the truth and learn from mistakes, so that similar tragedies do not occur in the future.

Public bodies such as the police have consistently approached inquests and inquiries as though they were litigation. They have failed to make admissions, and often failed to fully disclose the extent of their knowledge surrounding fatal events. For example, South Yorkshire police have been repeatedly criticised for their institutional defensiveness in respect of the awful Hillsborough tragedy in 1989. A 1989 briefing to the Prime Minister’s office on the interim Taylor report on the Hillsborough disaster noted that

“senior officers involved sought to duck all responsibility when giving evidence to the Inquiry”.

It went on to say:

“The defensive—and at times close to deceitful—behaviour by the senior officers in South Yorkshire sounds depressingly familiar. Too many senior policemen seem to lack the capacity or character to perceive and admit faults in their organisation.”

A statutory duty of candour would compel co-operation, and so enable major incident inquests and inquiries to fulfil their function of reaching the truth, so that they can make pertinent recommendations that address what went wrong and identify learning for the future.

Failure to make full disclosure and act transparently can lead to lengthy delays as the investigation or inquiry grapples with identifying and resolving the issues in dispute, at a cost to public funds and public safety. A recent example is the Daniel Morgan independent panel, which was refused proper access to HOLMES, the Home Office large major enquiry system, by the Metropolitan Police Service over seven years. The panel needed access to HOLMES to review the investigations of Daniel Morgan’s murder, but the lengthy negotiations on the panel’s access led to major delays to its work. The delays added to the panel’s costs and caused unnecessary distress to Daniel Morgan’s family, and the panel concluded that the MPS was

“determined not to permit access to the HOLMES system”.

A statutory duty of candour would significantly enhance participation in inquiries by bereaved people and survivors, as it would ensure that a public body’s position was clear from the outset, and so limit the possibility of evasiveness. The duty would also direct the investigation to the most important matters at an early stage, which would strengthen the ability of the inquiry or investigation to reach the truth without undue delay. By requiring openness and transparency, a statutory duty of candour would assist in bringing about a culture change in how state bodies approach inquests and inquiries. It would give confidence to members of an organisation who wanted to fully assist proceedings, inquiries and investigations, but who experienced pressure from their colleagues not to do so. It would compel co-operation with proceedings, inquiries and investigations, dismantling the culture of colleague protection—for example, in the police service.

I am sure the Minister is aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has committed a Labour Government to introducing a Hillsborough law. That would place a duty of candour on all public bodies, and those delivering state services, going through inquests or investigations. I am sure the Minister will understand the compelling reason for strengthening the Bill, and will voice his support for the amendment and new clause.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Janet Daby Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle]

I very much welcome the fact that clause 24 enables the Secretary of State to appoint an independent public advocate, no matter how much we might disagree about how we should do it—whether it should be a standing appointment or done on an ad hoc basis, precisely what functions the independent public advocate will have, how he ought to go about his role and, indeed, what that role ought to be. I think there are some differences in all those areas, but there are no differences between us about the fact that there ought to be an independent public advocate.

Across the Committee and the House, we have recognised that something about the aftermath of public disasters—the Minister calls them major incidents; I call them public disasters—is remiss. The way in which we as a society respond to them does not work at present. Although we can hope to minimise the number of disasters, we can never stop them entirely. There have been more since Hillsborough, and there have been more since I introduced my Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill to the Commons and Lord Wills introduced the Public Advocate Bill to the Lords. It would be best if we could get a better arrangement. We all agree on that; the issue is just about how.

The amendment has arisen from my 26 years’ experience of campaigning with the Hillsborough families and survivors to get to the truth of what happened on the day. Usually, families want to know what happened to their loved ones, especially if they have lost them. They want to know that it will not happen to anybody ever again, because they feel the deep distress and pain of having to deal with these issues in the public glare and on all the newspaper front pages. Going suddenly from nowhere to that is pretty hard for people, so they want to know that it will not happen again.

Families want to know that their loved ones have not been lost in vain and that lessons will be learned, and they want to be able to have faith that the investigations over the subsequent period will get to the truth and will not be some way of covering up what happened in order to excuse the feelings—and usually the pockets—of the public authorities that might have some responsibility for it.

The role and functions of the public advocate, as set out in the clause, do not quite accord with what I think is necessary, but I hope that we can agree in due course to improve the Bill so that it becomes a turning point, which it can be, in how we as a society deal with the aftermath of public disasters and the terrible burdens they place on those who become victims, rather than it being a missed opportunity. Clause 24(1) gives the Secretary of State discretion to

“appoint an individual to act as an independent public advocate for victims of a major incident”.

A “major incident” is defined in subsection (2). As we have already mentioned, the clause as currently drafted gives the Secretary of State total discretion about whether to appoint an advocate. Under subsection (4), the person may be appointed only if the Secretary of State considers the person “qualified” and “appropriate”. Subsection (5) details that the person may be qualified by virtue of qualifications, their relationship with a “geographical or other community” or “any other matter” the Secretary of State considers relevant. He has total discretion to consider whether and who to appoint.

Nothing in clause 24 gives any kind of say or agency to the victims of the disaster, whether they be families of the deceased or survivors. That is an omission, and a missed opportunity. At this early stage, the Secretary of State could give the families immediate reassurance—that what they think matters, that their feelings matter and that they have some kind of role in how the state is going to deal with what has happened. Families and survivors of major incidents and disasters often feel powerless in the aftermath as the processes of the state begin to grind forward. Inquiries, inquests—they grind into gear and it makes families feel done to, rather than a part of: they feel that they have no power or role in these matters.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making such a meaningful speech about putting victims first, at the heart of the process. For the independent advocate to really play their role, the victims need to have a say on whether an independent advocate needs to be appointed. The role is there primarily for the victims, not for the Secretary of State.

[Maria Eagle]

I agree with that. It is easy to lose trust, and it is hard to gain it; it is very hard to regain it once it is lost—that is my experience of these things.

I will give one example. When Jack Straw became Home Secretary in 1997, he was convinced that something needed to be done, in the aftermath of the drama-documentary “Hillsborough”, which raised some of the issues about what had gone wrong. We should remember that that was some eight years after the disaster—a long time ago, but only eight years after the disaster. A lot of things had already gone wrong in that time. He did not want to set up another public inquiry. What he came to was the Stuart-Smith scrutiny, which looked again at some evidence and reported back a year later.

When Lord Justice Stuart-Smith went to Liverpool to meet the families, the families had been misinformed about precisely which floor of the building he was on, so they were a few minutes late. He immediately made a joke about how they were late like the Liverpool fans on the day. That was not funny; it was crass in the extreme. It showed that he had taken on board utterly the police account of events. People may not know—some will—that a key part of the police smears about Hillsborough, to try to deflect the blame, was that Liverpool fans had turned up late. It immediately destroyed any credibility for that inquiry. The families thought very carefully about walking out and not co-operating with it. I am absolutely certain that there were ructions in the Home Office at the time about what should be done.

I use the example to illustrate the point that the families must have trust in the person and in how the state is to proceed if such an inquiry is to work. The failure of that inquiry wasted a year, upset the families very deeply and destroyed some of the credibility that the new Government of the time had with the families about what could be done to put matters in respect of Hillsborough right. The inquiry revealed one thing that was of use in the end, which was that statements had been altered by the police. That was the first inquiry that reported on that point, but Lord Justice Stuart-Smith did not think it important because it had not fooled Lord Justice Taylor. He was right in that respect; he was wrong in others. With one comment, the trust of the families were gone. They were obviously not consulted about who should head the inquiry. A judge was asked for, a judge was put forward, and that was the unfortunate consequence.