HC Deb 26 February 1999 vol 326 cc660-71

11 am

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng)

Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about the publication of the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to apologise to the House for the fact that he cannot be here today. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that I would make the statement on behalf of the Government. I understand that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will reply on behalf of the Opposition.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary presented the report to Parliament on Wednesday. It consists of two volumes: the report itself and a volume of supporting appendices.

As the House will be aware, we have held up further distribution of the second volume of the printed report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry containing the appendices and ordered a reprint without appendix 11. Appendix 11 in that volume contains detailed information, such as the addresses of those who provided information to the police, which has not previously been in the public domain and which should have been kept in confidence.

We were alerted to that at about 10.45 am yesterday morning by the inquiry staff. They had been contacted by the Metropolitan police, who were rightly concerned about the sensitivity of the details in appendix 11. We immediately stopped further distribution of the appendices volume.

I have spoken to Sir William Macpherson this morning. He has confirmed to me that the inquiry takes full responsibility for the error and has expressed his deep regret. He has asked me to express that regret to the House. The inquiry staff had intended to include in appendix 11 a version of the document with names and other details deleted, which was the version used in evidence before the inquiry. The text submitted to the Home Secretary contained in error the unexpurgated version of that document.

It was the Home Secretary's responsibility to present the report and its appendices to Parliament. It was also our responsibility to ensure that the report of the independent judicial inquiry was published in full in exactly the text submitted. It would not, therefore, have been right for Ministers or officials to have edited the report or its appendices. Nor would it have been right for the Home Office to have second-guessed the judgments of the inquiry as to whether identities of particular individuals should have been omitted, especially as in other parts of the text the inquiry judged that identities should be made anonymous or pseudonyms used. Only the inquiry was in a position to make those judgments. It had the benefit of over a year's consideration of the evidence in order to do so. The Home Secretary deeply regrets that the error has happened.

The Metropolitan police have assessed urgently whether the publication of any of that information will pose any risk to the safety of individuals or to the further investigation of the murder. Their assessment is that a number of individuals may be put at risk by the disclosure of personal details. They have put in place appropriate protection measures.

The House will appreciate that I cannot disclose details of those measures, but we have been assured by the Metropolitan police that every possible measure is in place to protect the individuals concerned. The Home Office stands ready to offer any assistance that the police or the local authority believe necessary.

I take this opportunity to condemn the mindless vandalism that defaced the memorial stone to Stephen Lawrence on Wednesday night. I extend my deepest sympathies to the Lawrence family at this very difficult time. The Metropolitan police have confirmed to me that the memorial is now under constant surveillance.

The Home Secretary has said that this was a serious and regrettable error. It should not have happened. We should not lose sight, however, of the wider issues addressed by the inquiry report, which my right hon. Friend set out to the House on Wednesday. We shall not allow the error to sidetrack us in our determination to carry forward the recommendations of the report.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

That is simply not good enough. This has been an appalling week for the Home Office. First, the most important report affecting race relations in Britain for two decades was leaked, accompanied by widespread rumours that Home Office Ministers and officials had been selectively briefing members of the press. Then, we had the farce of the botched injunction, followed by the Home Secretary's humiliation at the hands of a judge. We then witnessed prolonged dithering about whether there would be an inquiry into the leak. Will the Minister of State take the opportunity to confirm that he had nothing to do with any leaking or off-the-record briefings on the report?

We now have the grotesque spectacle of the Home Secretary having to take back part of the report because incompetence has imperilled the lives of people brave enough to support the local police inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. What a catalogue of errors: first, the report is leaked, then there is an injunction and now part of the report has been withdrawn. The Home Secretary and the Minister of State cannot abrogate responsibility for jeopardising the safety of informants and witnesses named in the Macpherson report.

We accept Sir William's apology and the gracious way in which he accepted that the initial mistake was his. However, the Home Secretary told the House on Monday that he received Sir William's report on the previous Monday—15 February. There was more than ample time for the report to have been studied by Ministers and officials before publication and for them to have spotted the obvious mistakes in volume II. Yet we are told that the Metropolitan police discovered the blunders within a day of receiving the report. We understand that Sir Paul Condon was allowed to visit the Home Office to read the report, but it is clear that, if the Metropolitan police had been extended the greater courtesy of sufficient time to study both volumes properly, that grave error could have been avoided.

Ministers cannot say that they did not have sufficient time to spot the mistake for themselves. Had the Home Secretary and the Minister of State paid more attention to what was in the report, rather than trying to reverse the damage of a deliberate leak from within the Home Office and seeking to prevent the press from writing about it, the sorry incident might never have happened.

Last Thursday, only eight days ago, the Home Secretary called for an end to the walk-on-by society and asked the public to play their part in fighting crime. Yet today, he, his fellow Ministers and his Department stand accused of putting in peril people who did just that. Has the Minister given any consideration to the damage that will have been done to public support for helping the police to deal not only with petty crime but with serious criminality and violence?

The witnesses and informants who came forward to help the police in the Lawrence inquiry have been placed in grave danger. We shall not publicly pursue details of the security arrangements put in place by the police beyond what the Minister has already said. We have absolutely no wish to jeopardise further the safety of vulnerable witnesses and informants who are now at risk as a result of such incompetence. However, we seek an absolute assurance that everything that needs to be done will be done and that the local Metropolitan police division will have all the resources that it needs to satisfy the concerns of those who are afraid for their safety. I am sure that the Metropolitan police authority and the Home Secretary, supported by the Minister of State, will recognise their responsibilities to ensure that adequate resources are provided.

Will the Minister give an unequivocal undertaking that such protection will remain in place for as long as is necessary? Has he given any thought to the possibility that some witnesses may seek help to move home as a consequence of their identity being revealed? Will any request for help and support be granted? Has any thought been given to how potential claims for compensation will be met, or will the Home Office force individuals who have already been wronged to resort to the courts to sue for any damages to which they might be entitled?

We wholeheartedly endorse what the Minister said about the despicable way in which Stephen Lawrence's memorial was desecrated again yesterday. I am sure that the revulsion that we all feel at such callous disregard for the sensitivity of the Lawrence family and their friends will strengthen our resolve to improve race relations and put right the wrongs of the past. We agree with the Minister about that, but will he say why the active closed circuit television camera at the memorial had been removed and replaced with a dummy one? What does that say about local police resources? Was no thought given to the prospect that racist thugs, some of whom may have been associated with those responsible for Stephen's death, might seek to vandalise the memorial to coincide with the publication of the report?

I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of the Home Secretary in setting up the Macpherson inquiry or the way in which he has responded to its recommendations. We have supported him in both. The Prime Minister, who told the nation on Wednesday night that he had read the report, also spoke of his determination to root out racism in our society.

When the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, presented the report to the House less than 48 hours ago, he took justified pride—and I mean that—in what had been done and said that the report was a testament to the courage and determination of Neville and Doreen Lawrence… and upon the report we must build a lasting testament to Stephen."— [Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 393.] We share that view. However, such a personal endorsement of the inquiry and its findings surely owed a responsibility to ensure that the matter was handled with the utmost care. The Government have failed in that task.

Mr. Boateng

I shall not respond to the hon. Gentleman's personal attacks, save to say that they are utterly without foundation, and he knows it. On the point of substance, I spoke to Sir William Macpherson this morning and he confirmed that it would not have been possible for anyone who had not been closely involved with the inquiry and had detailed knowledge of its procedures to know that appendix 11 contained any information that was not already, or should not have been, in the public domain. Therefore, it would not have been possible for anyone not involved in the inquiry on a day-to-day basis to know that the release of that material would have serious consequences. That was Sir William's assurance to me. I take it at face value and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do the same.

On the wider issue, which of course concerns the whole House. I have the utmost confidence in the determination of the Metropolitan police to ensure that all those at risk or potentially at risk as a result of this lamentable disclosure will have their best interests protected at all times. I repeat that we in the Home Office stand ready to do all that we can to assist the London borough of Greenwich and the Metropolitan police to make sure that all those at risk or potentially at risk have their best interests protected.

On the desecration of Stephen Lawrence's memorial, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is the responsibility of the Metropolitan police to ensure, as an operational matter, that that memorial is properly protected. The Commissioner is under no illusion as to our determination to ensure that the Metropolitan police make every possible effort to bring those who desecrated the memorial to justice and to make sure that all the security arrangements, which I cannot discuss, are now in place to make sure that it does not happen again. I hope that that assurance will satisfy all hon. Members that everything possible has been done.

Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)

Some of my constituents are named in the appendices to the report. Will my hon. Friend be writing to them to explain the circumstances that led to their names being published and to offer them any assistance that they may need from his Department? May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, the last time Stephen Lawrence's memorial was attacked, the camera surveillance was not responsible for catching the perpetrator; intelligence given to the police led to the arrest? The camera was installed on the road as a deterrent, not as a surveillance device.

Will my hon. Friend review the procedures in his Department as I did not manage to speak to Home Office officials until yesterday, when I contacted the Department having discovered that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was coming to my constituency? In future, will his Department spare a thought for the constituency Member who is trying to defend his constituents?

Yesterday, I started the day defending my constituents, who had been accused of being racist because they live in Eltham. I finished the day defending my constituents, several of whom, at risk to themselves, gave evidence to the police to assist in the inquiry. Does my hon. Friend have a message of support for my constituents, who need time to reflect on the report of the Lawrence inquiry and rebuild the unity of the local community?

Mr. Boateng

My hon. Friend safeguards and protects the interests of his constituents with care and vigilance. He is to be commended for that and for his efforts yesterday. Of course, the Home Office will afford my hon. Friend every facility in terms of advising him of the appropriate arrangements that are being made to protect the interests of his constituents—and I have instructed my officials this morning to that effect. We shall arrange a meeting this morning between my hon. Friend and Home Office officials so that he can satisfy himself as to the arrangements that have been set in hand. The many good people of Eltham who join him in the unequivocal condemnation of the desecration of the memorial to Stephen Lawrence are also to be commended for the care and devotion with which they have tendered their respect. The mound of flowers that is now on that memorial shows that there is a good anti-racist spirit alive and well and living in his constituency.

Jackie Ballard (Taunton)

I share the deep concern and regret of everyone in the House that individuals should have been put at risk by the disclosure of their personal details, but I cannot accept that the Home Office did not think to check the publication of the relevant appendix with the inquiry. The responsibility must be shared; it cannot simply be passed on to the inquiry. It would have been sensible for the Home Secretary at least to question the danger posed to individuals by the publication of their names. Can we have an assurance that there will be a proper investigation into the failure of communication between the Home Office and the inquiry team to ensure that procedures are tightened so that such a serious and grave mistake does not happen again? I fully accept that details of protection measures cannot be given to the House, but can we have confidence that the Metropolitan police have the resources to provide adequate protection to the individuals named over what may be a lengthy period? Does he acknowledge that community relations are likely to be further damaged by the disclosure of those names and by the reprehensible vandalism to the memorial to Stephen Lawrence? What action does he think the police should now take to help minimise that damage to the community?

Mr. Boateng

Resources will not be a consideration in affording proper protection to those at risk and potentially at risk. Everything that needs to be done will be done, and the Home Office will assist in that process.

I assure the hon. Lady, however, that there is no question of Home Office officials not having done all that they ought to have done with officials of the inquiry to ensure that liaison and communication between them was kept in a good state of repair. This matter cannot be laid at the door of the Home Office. Sir William Macpherson has written today to the Home Secretary—I will lay a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library— accepting full responsibility for all that has occurred, and apologising most sincerely to Madam Speaker and to the House.

Mrs. Irene Adams (Paisley, North)

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the safety of witnesses is paramount to any police investigation. Does he recall my effort to enact the Witness Protection Bill in the previous Parliament, which was thrown out by the Conservative party? It therefore ill befits Conservative Members to cry crocodile tears when the protection of witnesses fails. What steps are the Home Office taking to protect future witnesses in any criminal trial against such a thing happening again?

Mr. Boateng

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. [Interruption.] No, she cannot be accused of being partisan—not least in the light of Conservative Members' response to this statement. She makes a valuable point. As the House should know, we are taking forward a raft of measures in the other place, which will soon come to this House, which are designed to protect vulnerable witnesses and to give them that which they have signally lacked in the past.

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet)

First, I thank you personally, Madam Speaker, for the effort that you have made, since I raised this matter on a point of order at 12.30 pm yesterday, to seek to ensure that information that should have been volunteered to the House has finally been made available.

We have heard this morning a junior Minister seeking to defend the indefensible, but we should have heard yesterday the Home Secretary, at the Dispatch Box, offering his resignation. [Interruption.] Labour Members may jeer, but I wonder whether they would feel differently if their sons, wives and daughters had been named and their addresses revealed.

The Home Secretary has turned a vile tragedy into a black farce. The handling of this by the Home Department has been lamentable; it has been a catalogue of disaster. The Home Secretary and his team have had this report for a fortnight, and it is simply not right for them to come to the House today to say, "We didn't know." Either the Home Secretary has read the report, in which case he should have withdrawn the relevant information or had it withdrawn, or he has not read the report, in which case he is culpable and misled the House on Wednesday when he said that he had read it. Have the Minister and the Home Secretary even yet read the report and appendices in full? Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to tell the House next week what damage has been done to the prospects of a successful prosecution of those who are guilty of this crime?

Mr. Boateng

The hon. Gentleman takes a reasonable point, and goes over the top with it. An examination of the facts simply does not bear his imputation against the Home Office, its Ministers or officials. Every effort has been made—and will be made—to protect witnesses and all those who might be put at risk, or who are put at risk, as a result of this lamentable disclosure. The hon. Gentleman must surely appreciate that. He must also agree that Sir William's acceptance of responsibility in this matter makes it quite clear that this error cannot properly be laid at the door of the Home Office.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Did I hear correctly my hon. Friend say that information regarding the mistake was known in the House for 19 hours after the publication of the report? Did nobody in the Home Office receive any telephone calls from eagle-eyed Tory opponents who, having read the report, drew attention to the mistake? Did any of those Lobby correspondents, who are spouting about the matter, ring the Home Office to point out the fault in part of the appendices? Did anybody at the BBC, with its anti-Labour propaganda, draw it to my hon. Friend's attention? Does not every person who picked up one of those documents and its appendices suffer the same collective guilt? They had 19 hours to draw the fact to Ministers' attention.

The truth is that the Tory party is not concerned about the big picture. Conservative Members are not concerned about racism; they are not concerned about Stephen Lawrence. They have come here this morning to make a seven-course dinner out of a pan of boiling water.

Mr. Boateng

My hon. Friend makes his own point in his inimitable way. There remains one truth: were it not for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we would not have had a report, and the House would not be addressing these long overdue matters.

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

If Sir William is planning to take the blame for this shambles, are we not seeing, to coin a phrase, institutionalised incompetence of a level which would make even the most incompetent officer named in the report seem a paragon of administrative efficiency? Is the Minister asking us to believe that, with 10 days to read the report, those in the Home Office did not spot the information in the appendices and did not have the nous to get in touch with the Macpherson inquiry to clarify it? We are asking the Minister not to purge the report, but merely to clarify it.

Does the Minister accept that, when the report was shown to us in the Lobby yesterday, it was pretty obvious—one does not have to be an expert, who has followed the inquiry minute by minute—that a line in it saying, "Mrs. Smith of 23 Acacia avenue said X, Y and Z did it," was sensitive material of the first order, and that the Home Office and Ministers should have drawn it to the attention of the Macpherson inquiry?

Mr. Boateng

A blush really ought to come to the cheeks of the right hon. Gentleman when he makes such remarks. He has sat in my place, as Minister of State at the Home Office, and knows very well that, while he did so, he did nothing whatever to bring these matters before the House. Yet he has the cheek to point the finger at us.

Mr. John Austin (Erith and Thamesmead)

My hon. Friend is right to point out that we had to wait for a Labour Government to set up an inquiry into what went wrong in the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and that Conservative Members failed to set up such an inquiry, which had been demanded and was necessary.

Having said that, it seems astonishing that, as the Home Secretary had the report for nine or 10 days—I appreciate that he may not have felt it appropriate to veto or amend the report in any way—nobody in the Home Office had the wit to telephone Sir William Macpherson to point out the inclusion of the names and addresses of sensitive witnesses and police informants.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and I live on the patch. Both his children and mine go to, and went to, the schools attended by Stephen Lawrence and those accused of his murder. I am probably one of the few hon. Members who met and knew Stephen Lawrence. I think that today's statement will be heard with disbelief by people in our area, who simply will not understand how a report with their names and addresses in it could have been published. I only wish that my hon. Friend or the Home Secretary would say, "Fair cop, guy, we accept some responsibility for that."

Mr. Boateng

My hon. Friend expresses the concern of his constituents, and of residents of Eltham, about this matter. In the Home Office, we share that concern, which is why we have put in place the train of events that we have, to clarify how the error came to be made and to protect those at risk or potentially at risk, a number of whose names and details were already in the public domain as a result of the redacted copy which was used by the inquiry for many weeks. When my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to study the letter by Sir William Macpherson that I have today placed in the Library, he may feel that the charge that he lays at the door of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Home Office is not well founded.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)

Clearly, the bungling incompetence that the Government have shown throughout this sad affair has undermined the fight against crime, let alone the fight against racism. The Minister told us this morning that everything that could be done would be done. Would he like to tell us which ministerial job is now on the line?

Mr. Boateng

The hon. Gentleman does not do himself or the occasion any favours by making that cheap party political point. He must understand how the error came about. He must understand the immediate steps that we took to rectify that error when the matter had been drawn to our attention by the inquiry team, and he should desist from pointing the finger where it ought not properly to be pointed.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)

I find the approach of the Conservative party—which failed to protect Stephen, failed to investigate his death and failed to ensure that we learned from the failure to investigate his death—horrific, but I do think that we might learn lessons from this episode.

When I read the appendix—I have actually read it—I assumed that the names were in the public domain, just as, had any of those people been called to give evidence at a murder trial, they would have been.

Although the situation is deeply perturbing, this episode and the statement that we received on Monday may lead us to the same conclusion: that, where such a judicial inquiry is demanded by a Government, it may be right that the publication of the report of that inquiry should be in the hands not of the Home Secretary, but of the chair of the inquiry. In this case, the fact that it has been in the hands of the Home Secretary has led the Conservative party to suggest that he exceeded his powers in seeking an injunction, and has led to a suggestion that he had not censored part of it, as he should have done. Some aspects of those two different positions seem to me mutually contradictory. If there is a similar inquiry in future, will the Home Office consider giving the inquiry chairman, instead of the Government, the right and duty to publish his conclusions, to ensure that the report is genuinely independent?

Mr. Boateng

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. However, we had a duty to publish the report of the inquiry as it was presented to us. We were, to that extent, in publishing the report of the inquiry to the House, acting as agent for Sir William and the inquiry team, and it was right to do so. It was also right to publish it in the form in which we published it.

If my hon. Friend looks at the first page of the report, she will find as its preface a letter from Sir William to the Home Secretary. The last paragraph of that letter consists of this sentence: I take personal responsibility for all that is set out in the Report. That makes the position absolutely clear—in reporting the report to the House, as the Home Secretary has, he was under a duty to publish it in full, unedited and unexpurgated, as it was presented to him.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is the Minister not ashamed to come here today and effectively encourage the "not me, guv" society? Will he tell us again in detail exactly how long the report was in the hands of the Home Office before it was published? Will he tell us how many officials and Ministers saw, and had an opportunity to read, the report between when it was received and when it was published, and will he tell us whether there were any personnel or officials in common between the Home Office and the inquiry at any time who might well have provided the link that he previously denied existed?

Mr. Boateng

I need no lessons in shame from the right hon. Gentleman. He does not know the meaning of the word shame, as his record in government shows.

Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East)

My hon. Friend will of course agree that this is a catastrophic error, and that all that can possibly be done must be done by all agencies to help those named. Does he also agree that people will be heartily sickened to the stomach by the pictures of the desecration of Stephen Lawrence's memorial in the papers this morning, but equally will be sickened to the pit of their stomach by the utter hypocrisy and cant of the Conservative Members who seek to use this issue, of all issues, as a political football for some obscure, mealy-mouthed, small-minded political partisan gain? They are an abject disgrace.

Mr. Boateng

The good judgment of the public can be relied on in this instance, as it can be in so much else, and all well-minded, well-meaning people will unequivocally condemn the desecration of the memorial, as all hon. Members do.

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)

The statement that the Minister made to the House this morning is inconsistent. He first said that it would have been improper for the Home Secretary to withhold any section of the report; yet, as soon as—as he admits—the Metropolitan police drew that problem to his attention, he did withdraw part of it. So it was not improper to do so—indeed, the problem should have been spotted earlier by his Department. There is a profound inconsistency in what he said.

Moreover, it is not the responsibility of the Metropolitan police to examine reports of this nature; its responsibility is to investigate crime. It was not Sir William's responsibility either, because his responsibility was to produce a report to the Home Secretary and, subsequently, to the House, although he has been very magnanimous in accepting responsibility. The responsibility for the protection of witnesses is that of the Home Secretary, and he has patently failed to carry out that responsibility.

When the Home Secretary received the report, did he delegate any official or officials to examine the document to see whether witnesses or a future trial might be prejudiced? If he did not, he is totally culpable.

Mr. Boateng

The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, if I may say so, misses and misunderstands the point. The Metropolitan police notified the inquiry of concerns in relation to appendix 11. The inquiry then notified the Home Office and, at the instigation of the inquiry, on whose behalf the report was presented to Parliament, we withdrew it at once. That is the position, that is what occurred and that, I hope, now makes the position clear to the hon. Gentleman.

On the important point that the hon. Gentleman raises about the prejudice of any future investigation, we have this morning spoken to Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve on precisely that matter. He is of the view that no such prejudice has occurred in relation to his inquiries.

Ms Beverley Hughes (Stretford and Urmston)

I share the views that have been expressed by all right hon. and hon. Members about the extreme seriousness of this matter and the extent to which such a happening must be prevented in future. However, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to the single suggestion that we have had from the Opposition that this event might have been prevented had the Metropolitan police read the report before publication? Does my hon. Friend agree that that would have been entirely inappropriate in the publication of the judicial review, in that it would have undermined the conclusions of Sir William Macpherson? More importantly, or perhaps equally importantly, it has been demonstrated that, after years of doing absolutely nothing about this matter, the Conservative party is still completely out of touch with the wider issues of racism and the extent to which we need to gain the confidence of local communities?

Mr. Boateng

My hon. Friend is quite right. Conservative Members missed the point in making the reference that they did to access to the report by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The Commissioner had such access as was appropriate in the circumstances and it would be quite wrong, and is quite wrong, for hon. Members to suggest otherwise. My hon. Friend's point is well founded.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

Must not the Home Secretary take personal responsibility for the outcome of the judicial inquiry which he himself has sponsored? Will not people in London feel that the Home Secretary appears to have used the 10 days between the receipt of the report by his Department and its publication more to look for facile slogans about institutionalised racism and the easy headlines than to apply himself to the potentially extremely dangerous detail that could perfectly well have been eliminated by a process of responsible co-operation between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and Sir William Macpherson?

Mr. Boateng

The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in suggesting that there is anything facile or headline-grabbing about institutional racism. It is a fact of life and it is something that was responsible for the most appalling miscarriage of justice, mistreatment and mishandling of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence by the Metropolitan police at the time. Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench who speak in relation to those matters, he would understand that they recognise the significance of institutionalised racism as the rest of the House does, even if he does not.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town)

Two elements of this discussion will sadden right-minded citizens throughout the country. One is the cheap party political points of Opposition Members in calling for the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary who called for the inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case, for which he is entitled to a measure of credit, which Opposition Members have accepted previously.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the second element that will sadden right-minded citizens throughout the country is the failure of the Home Office to accept a measure of responsibility for not identifying that there was a flaw in the report? Sir William Macpherson's letter saying that only someone who was involved in the inquiry throughout should or could have recognised that this was a mistake begs the question whether officials in the Home Office, either in the constabularies inspectorate or civil servants, were not tracking the report carefully enough or were not tracking it at all.

Conservative Members are members and officers of the "not me, guv" society. They created it during their 18 years in government. We have to learn the lesson that, if we make mistakes, we should put our hands up to a certain extent. However, this is not a resignation issue for the Home Secretary. I am sure that the Government will not be deflected from carrying out all the recommendations of the Macpherson inquiry.

Mr. Boateng

My hon. Friend misunderstands the point. We have nothing to put our hands up to. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we do not intend to allow this to divert us from the proper point, which is to take forward the recommendations of the inquiry with all due expedition. This is much too much an important issue for it to be lost as a result of an unfortunate error. There is a job of work to be done in making a new beginning in tackling racism in our society. Nothing will deflect us from that task.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister accept and understand that, in his statement, he was effectively silent on the job that he should have done in coming to the House this morning, which is to account to the House for the—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker

Order. What is going on? There is only one Member who has the Floor, and that is Mr. Lansley.

Mr. Lansley

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Minister should be accounting to the House for the actions of the Home Office in relation to the period during which the Home Secretary had received the report. I am sure that the Minister is right to say that nobody is expecting the Home Office to have acted as censor or to have deleted or second-guessed the report on its own account. The question is not whether the Home Office is simply a print shop, which clearly it is not, but what the Home Office was doing during nine days. The report was leaked, and now we know that it was not read by those who should have read it in the way that it should have been read with the knowledge that the Home Office had of the inquiry.

A specific question that the Minister has patently failed to answer, and should have answered, is: who in the Home Office saw the report? Did those persons include any official or Minister—but more probably an official—who knew the day-to-day workings of the inquiry well enough, perhaps by being a member of the inquiry team at some point, to be able to identify the error which had occurred in the presentation of documents to the Home Secretary?

Mr. Boateng

The hon. Gentleman must understand that, in one sense, of course, the Home Office was the printing shop for the inquiry. It was our responsibility to make sure that the report was printed and presented to the House in its full and uncensored form. There was nothing on the face of the report or in its appendices that would have alerted one to the fact that witnesses, or potential witnesses, were being put at risk by the publication of the report and its appendices in the form in which they were published. The hon. Gentleman must understand that and, just for one moment, accept that the proper role of the Home Office in this matter, in printing and publishing the report to the two Houses of Parliament, was to ensure that our response, in the form of the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and in the work that is now being carried forward in advance of the debate on the report, was to direct the attention of the House primarily to the substance of the report. That was done.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

Thank you. I shall bring this matter to a close now.