Anna McMorrin
MP for Cardiff North · Labour · United Kingdom
“I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that there are always lessons to be learned in this place, but we recognise that more needs to be done on second homes and short-term lets. The UK Government will consider a wide range of evidence on the issue, including learning from other parts of the UK.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister’s announcement to give everyone a route off the streets by Christmas comes with a £442 million boost in funding and a landmark summit to bring everyone together to end rough sleeping.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. She is absolutely right: these are challenging times right across the country. Wildfires are a stark reminder for us to take care of our environment as we face the ongoing challenges of our changing climate, and we need to mitigate the effects of more summers like this.”
“We are listening closely to farmers, as we always have. We have announced more to protect family farms. We have changed the allowance for the 100% rate of relief, increasing it from £1 million to £2.5 million. That gets the balance right between supporting farms and businesses, fixing the public finances and funding our public services.”
“Housing is a devolved matter in Wales, but we know that people are struggling with the affordability of everyday life. That is why easing the burden on the cost of living is our priority. We have taken immediate action by removing VAT from energy bills from 1 October, giving millions of households breathing space this winter.”
“Farming is central to Wales’s economy and rural communities, and we are steadfast in our support for farmers. That is why I regularly meet and speak to farmers and their unions, visiting farms and agricultural shows across the country, including the Royal Welsh show this summer.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Anna McMorrin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 13.
“I endorse the words of my right hon. Friend, who has spelled out in great detail the importance of having access to the correct data, and not just in the immediate aftermath. We must learn the lessons from what happened at Hillsborough, and ensure that in future there is access to important data and information.”
“It is so important that the function and operational scope of the independent advocate is strong and clear, so that they can carry out their role to get to the bottom and the truth of an incident. We must ensure that we learn lessons from Hillsborough and the review panel that followed. At present, there is simply nothing independent about the advocate, but I appreciate the fact that the Minister is willing to work with us to ensure that we tighten up the wording, so that they are more independent and the Bill is as robust as possible.”
“We have no objection in principle to the appointment of multiple independent advocates for the same major incident, therefore creating a panel. However, will the Minister clarify the context in which that panel would operate? Importantly, would it be the same as the Hillsborough Independent Panel—granted the same powers—or would it still be open to Government interference? Will he set that out in his response?”
“I rise to support absolutely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood says about the amendments. They are about getting to the truth of what happened, and ensuring there is true transparency and freedom of information. Bereaved families should see justice straightaway; they should not have to go through what many other families have tragically gone through.”
“They simply wish to state their personal details on their child’s death certificate as a final step in their grief and to officially register them as dead. I am sure the Minister will understand that and what it means for parents to record the deaths of their loved ones, and I hope he will agree to the new clause. The Government prolonged Chloe’s and Liam’s parents’ grief; all those parents want is for their children’s legacy to be that no other family goes through what they did ever again.”
“Now that the deaths of Chloe and Liam are officially registered, the families must request a copy of the death certificates from the registry office in Manchester. If the Government were genuinely concerned about causing distress to families, that step would not be in place either. In the latest correspondence from the Government to the hon. Member on this matter in March, which I have a copy of here, Lord Murray set out what happens when the coroner records the death after an inquest has taken place. He said, “This ensures that the inquest and registration details fully align, while also removing exposure to any risk of outside interference or alteration.” That is heartless and an insult to those families who have lost loved ones. Bereaved families have no intention or wish to alter the findings of the inquest and the coroner.”
“If a child dies in a common circumstance, such as due to a health condition, their parent can personally register their death. However, if they die in a major incident, their parents are denied that last official act. We understand that not all relatives would want to register the death of a loved one, as in most cases an interim death certificate is given soon after the incident for funeral arrangements, but we advocate giving families the choice. The Government stated in letters to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields that it may be too distressing for relatives to register the deaths, but in normal circumstances a relative has no choice but to personally register the death.”
“Ministers stated that the changes would be against public policy and would make the framework less effective. However, the changes could be narrow and targeted towards only a small set of circumstances, such as after a mass casualty event, as outlined in new clause 1. As the inquiry has now drawn to a close with the final report complete, it is with great sadness that I can confirm those two children’s deaths were registered just last week. Their parents travelled to Manchester to be present at the death registration, but current legislation prevented them from doing it themselves. The heartbreaking reality for those families is that time simply ran out for them as they fought the Government on this minor legislative change. A cruel and unfair two-tier system for death registration is in place.”
“On Wednesday 22 February 2023, both my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood met the Home Office Minister, Lord Murray of Blidworth, and the Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green, alongside the bereaved families. During that meeting, however, both the Members and the victims’ families were told that no legislative change would be explored, despite the Government expressing their commitment to “look at options to change the law in the longer term” in a letter just one month earlier. The families had waited almost a year for answers. They had travelled to Westminster at their own expense to meet Ministers, only to find the Government had changed their mind. They felt misled, patronised and let down, and they still do to this day.”
“Member for Corby, and now the Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), is dealing with this issue. There was also a month in which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was faced with complete radio silence from all Ministers involved because of the constant conveyor belt of new Ministers coming in and out, with no listed responsibilities. To top it off, the main responsibility for this matter was moved from the Home Office to the Ministry of Justice and no one informed any of those involved. I am sure that the Minister agrees that this oversight is not acceptable, especially when dealing with such a tragic and sensitive case. I hope he will take a co-operative approach to new clause 1 and finally resolve the issue for the sake of the families involved.”
“This issue was first raised in the main Chamber on 1 March 2022—a year and four months ago. The Government had ample time to make the relevant changes to the legislation before the death registrations for those killed in the Manchester Arena attack needed to take place, but as usual they have been too slow to react, despite the previous Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), making promises to look “at this issue with the utmost priority”. —[ Official Report , 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 396.] Since March last year, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has had several meetings with many different Ministers due to the constant chaos and churn of the Government. First, it was the hon. Member for Corby, and then the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). Then it was back to the hon.”
“It is every parent’s worst nightmare, but after sitting through agonising hours of the public inquiry, the families were told that the registration of their precious children’s deaths would not be done by them, but by a stranger. That is what began the campaign. Chloe’s and Liam’s parents understandably feel that they have been denied this final act for their children, stripping them of a vital step in the grieving process. Under the Births and Deaths Registration Acts 1926 and 1953, which lie with the Home Office, and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which lies with the Ministry of Justice, it is standard practice for a coroner to register deaths involving an inquest or inquiry. For the past year, the families have been campaigning to amend the legislation to allow grieving relatives the choice to register the death of a loved one.”
“She and her staff have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and her strong advocacy in this place for bereaved families has brought them a lot of comfort. Some of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood also tragically died in the same attack, and she has been heavily involved in the campaign, so I look forward to hearing her comments shortly. On 22 May 2017, 22 people were murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack. Two constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields were among them: Chloe Ann Rutherford, aged 17, and Liam Thomas Allen Curry, aged 19. Both were just teenagers.”
“I will speak to clauses 27 and 28 before moving on to new clause 1. Although the list of functions in clause 27 is welcome, I would like the Minister to assure me that the functions listed are non-exhaustive, and to ensure that the list is not designed to be applied in a rigid way. I appreciate that clause 28 is designed to make the independent public advocate party to relevant information in relation to inquests. However, I would like the Minister to clarify that the independent public advocate will be allowed to participate properly in an inquest where the family involved want that to happen. It is a privilege to speak to new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck).”
“I understand the points that the Minister is making about the legal wording, but this is such a deeply rooted issue. He refers to a small number of families, but the impact goes far wider. I wonder whether he could seek to find a form of legal language that would allow the change to take place, or whether we could work together on the new clause to ensure that it takes place, so that the families can register the deaths.”
“(5C) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any reports received under (1) and (2) within 14 days of receipt, and where appropriate, refer the content to relevant Parliamentary committees.” This amendment would require a public advocate to provide reports to the Secretary of State about relevant events and to report if, in their opinion, public authorities or public servants have not complied with the duty of candour in NC3.”
“I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 29, page 22, line 15, at end insert— “(5A) An advocate must provide periodic reports, at least annually, to the Secretary of State, regarding relevant events and occurrences. (5B) In any case where an advocate is of the opinion that the duty under section [ major incidents: duty of candour ] has not been discharged, and the matter has not been effectively resolved, a report shall be sent to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.”
“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.]”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“I am disappointed by the response on the amendment, new clause 3 and the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood for a response to the report that was published in 2017—more than six years have gone by since then. I hope that the Minister can guarantee that response before the end of the Committee; that gives him an extra week.”
“Although I am disappointed, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I hope that we will continue discussion of the importance of the duty of candour, and ensure that it is a core element of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .”
“91, Q176.] The failure to address concerns expressed about the independence of the supposedly independent public advocate demonstrates that lessons are not being learned from Hillsborough. When the next major incident occurs—which, unfortunately, it will—we will be discussing not legal terminology, but human tragedy. I hope the Minister heeds our calls and ensures genuine independence for the independent public advocate.”
“We are going back to the whole question of trust. The responsibility to report to Parliament should, at the very least, encourage a feedback loop that ensures that Government conduct can, through the fact-finding process and in its aftermath, be properly scrutinised by the legislature and, more generally, the public. That will not happen if the clause is left unamended. During our evidence sessions, Lord Wills echoed my concerns and stated: “As I understand the Government’s proposals, the independent public advocate will not have the right enjoyed by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, for example, to be an independent office that has the right to produce reports on its own initiative.” –– [ Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c.”
“This clause states that the Secretary of State can require the advocate to produce a report on the investigation processes, but that the report can be redacted by the Secretary of State on public interest grounds. The amendment seeks to rectify that. Yet again, a provision of the Bill is undermining the independence and transparency of the IPA’s role. This is another example of the Government suggesting that they believe in an independent body, but then restricting it in a way that completely contradicts that notion. Redacting the work of the supposedly independent IPA is hopeless. We cannot subject someone’s work to redaction while claiming that they have independence. Why does the Minister think that the public will trust the Government to redact the IPA’s work in a way that does not serve their own interests?”
“I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 29, page 22, line 18, leave out paragraph (a). This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to omit material in the advocate’s report if they believe it is contrary to the public interest . I think this is my last amendment; I am grateful to the Committee. The amendment, similarly to my previous amendments, seeks to ensure the independence of the independent public advocate. Again, I give my deep thanks to Ken Sutton, secretary to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, for his continued support and work on these issues. The fact that the independence of the independent public advocate is being debated should be a worry for us all. The clause relates to the reporting process for the advocate.”
“I am disappointed because I think the amendment would really strengthen the Bill, as would amendment 79 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood. The Government may not support this amendment, but why could they not instead subject the IPA to a protocol of disclosure similar to that of the Hillsborough Independent Panel? Can the Minister respond to that now?”
“I thank the Minister for agreeing to reflect on the issue. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“I simply say that I think the arguments that I set out in my amendments and new clauses still stand. The clause states that the Secretary of State can require the advocate to produce a report on the investigation processes, but that the report can be redacted by the Secretary of State on public interest grounds. Amendment 23 seeks to rectify that, while amendment 25 and new clause 3 seek to ensure the transparency and openness that the Minister speaks about. They would add not only that additional strength to the Bill but, most importantly, that trust.”
“Well, I won’t comment on that, Mr Hosie. I would just like to say, very briefly, that I would like the Minister to provide the assurance that the IPA will be granted the authority to be given all the information that they require relevant to their role, and, further to that, that they will be granted the necessary powers to ensure that none of the relevant information is destroyed. That is essential.”
“I have already made my points about this issue. I wish to ensure that the IPA is granted the authority to receive all the information they need. I hope the Minister will continue to work with us to get that right. Question put and agreed to . Clause 30, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 Guidance for independent public advocates Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“I thank the Minister for expanding on the guidance for an independent public advocate. My remaining concern with the clause is the potential for the Secretary of State to use the guidance to restrict the powers and remit of the IPA. Will the Minister assure me that that will not be the case?”
“I understand that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner is still waiting for a response to their “Safety Before Status” report five months after the deadline. Can the Minister explain why the Government do not believe it is necessary to respect the powers of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and respond to such a pivotal report? Can he reassure all of us here that exactly the same practice will not just happen again to the Victims’ Commissioner?”
“During the evidence sessions, Dame Vera raised her concerns about the efficacy of the data that will be available to the commissioner for the purposes of their report—something that I have also raised in debates on earlier amendments. Will the Minister outline how a future Victims’ Commissioner, when appointed, will receive the appropriate data and information to allow for independent scrutiny? The Bill at present fails to do that. The Victims’ Commissioner’s powers under clause 16 do not go far enough in ensuring that victims have a steady, reliable voice that criminal justice agencies and the Government must listen to. Granting agencies the duty to respond to the commissioner’s recommendations is a welcome first step, but how will the Government ensure that agencies respond and comply?”
“I thank the Minister for addressing the clause. As I have already outlined, regarding my previous amendments that would have strengthened the powers and authority of the Victims’ Commissioner, we fully support the function of a robust and independent Victims’ Commissioner. We first asked for a provision to grant the commissioner a statutory duty to prepare and issue a report to lay before Parliament in early 2021, so I am glad that the Government have finally caught up and heeded our calls. We believe that victims’ rights should be a parliamentary responsibility, and I am pleased that the report will not just go to the Secretary of State.”
“It is imperative that a formal consultative role is established as only some inspectorates routinely consult the Victims’ Commissioner. I welcome this provision, but would like to see that point emphasised.”
“It is clear from my previous amendments to the Bill on expanding the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner that the commissioner should be widely consulted for the majority of matters in the victims code. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the recommendation following pre-legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee to place a duty on criminal justice inspectorates to consult the commissioner when developing their work programmes and frameworks to drive improvements, because it is the victims’ experiences and what they go through that matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood was absolutely right when she emphasised, as the Select Committee set out, that the inspectorates need the levers to act when these issues are pointed out.”
“Finally, it is worth noting that the ombudsman service is not well known among victims of crime, so how will the Government increase its visibility?”
“I also echo the ombudsman’s further request to allow victims to make a complaint in formats other than in writing. The Government’s response to the Justice Committee was that complainants can nominate someone else, such as a family member, to submit the complaint for them. However, there is a consensus that that does not go far enough in ensuring that everyone has adequate access to this vital public body. The ombudsman’s consultation response on the Bill outlined the issue using a case in which the complainant stated they found the system difficult to navigate because they could not read or write. There is no guarantee that this individual would be able to nominate someone close to them to handle this incredibly sensitive and very personal issue for them, so I wonder whether the Minister might consider conceding on this point.”
“There have been calls for some years to remove the MP filter so that victims who want to complain do not have to go through their MP. I met the ombudsman in July last year, and they made it clear how essential it was for the MP filter to be removed, so I am glad the Minister has outlined this proposal and finally conceded the point. This move has widespread approval both inside and outside Parliament, but it is long overdue. The Government introduced a draft Bill back in December 2016 to remove the MP filter. How many victims could have sought support directly from the ombudsman in the last six years had the Government followed through with that Bill? That is not to mention the fact that the MP filter was intended as a temporary measure to be phased out after five years when first introduced in 1967. Yet here we are in 2023.”
“I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert— “(d) offences against children.” This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for child victims.”
“They often experience those crimes in their homes, schools and communities, and the crimes are sometimes carried out by people who should keep them safe. The Howard League for Penal Reform surveyed over 3,000 children in schools over a period of seven years; of those, 95% of children aged 10 to 15 reported being a victim of crime. Including them in the duty to collaborate is imperative to ensuring that the relevant agencies are prioritising children’s unique needs. That is what amendment 9 seeks to do. Amendment 19 would include victims of fraud in the duty to collaborate. I put on the record my thanks to Catch22 and the shadow Attorney General’s team for working with me on the amendment. Concerns have been raised around there being a need to collaborate only with a subsection of crime types.”
“If we are going to put children as victims into the Bill, we have to recognise that they experience crime and victimhood very differently. What we need to put around them, to make sure that they are supported and can process things to see justice delivered, is different. Including children in the duty to collaborate would allow a national network, operating through regional and local levels, to enable every child to have the same experience and the best support. At present, as the Children’s Commissioner outlined, “it is just not there.”––[ Official Report , Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 24, Q51.] According to Victim Support, children and young people are disproportionately more likely to be victims of crime, particularly the most serious crime.”
“I will start with amendment 9. As it stands, the duty to collaborate in the Bill is limited to victim support services for domestic abuse, conduct of a sexual nature and serious violence. All of that is welcome, but it is such a restrictive remit that it excludes vulnerable victims who would benefit from joined-up services. Extending the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for child victims would ensure that children’s needs are guaranteed to be front and centre of any collaboration that takes place. In her evidence session, when asked whether children should be included in the duty to collaborate, the response of the Children’s Commissioner for England and Wales was, “Absolutely.” I am happy to see that the duty to collaborate is in the Bill, but there needs to be more accountability around it.”
“It is the most commonly experienced crime in the country, ruining the lives of millions, yet the Government did not see fit to include victims of it in the duty to collaborate. I am sure that the Minister will agree that they would benefit from a multi-agency approach. I am keen to hear his response before deciding whether to push the amendment to a vote.”