Maria Eagle
MP for Liverpool Garston · Labour · United Kingdom
“Of course, I recognise, as do many colleagues who have spoken in the debate, that the reasoning behind the sentence reduction for early guilty pleas—a principle that is a long-established part of our justice system—is that it saves courts time, reduces costs and can spare victims some of the trauma of having to give evidence, which can be…”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When Parliament created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, which was a breakthrough in itself—it had not been recognised in law before—it recognised an important truth: domestic abuse is not always physical. It can be psychological, emotional and deeply insidious.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This petition, on what is known by many supporters as Paris’s law, reflects a growing concern that our justice system must do more to recognise the unique nature of coercive control and its ongoing impact on victims; it is not something that comes and goes.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), which my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) also spoke about from his experiences as a police officer: victims can spend months or years preparing themselves for trial, gathering evidence, reliving traumatic experiences, anticipating having to give evidence in c…”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I also pay tribute to Hayley’s mother Ruth Yates, who has campaigned tirelessly since Hayley’s untimely death for answers, accountability and change. She has worked relentlessly so that Hayley’s story could be heard, and to ensure that changes are made so that nobody else has to go through what Hayley did.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For many victims, that can feel like an extension of the very behaviour that they have sometimes endured for years and for which the justice system is seeking to hold that person to account. The uncertainty, delay and emotional toll can all compound the harm caused by the abuse.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
4,013 held · 3,329 searchable for Maria Eagle. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Perhaps a standing appointment is the answer, because such a person, who was there anyway, would be able immediately to spring into action and consult the families.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not intend to press the amendments to a vote. The Minister is being his usual constructive self, and I am sure that over the summer between all of us we will be able to rewrite the Bill so it looks a lot more like mine. [Laughter.] Sorry, I let that slip. We will be able to improve the Bill significantly so that it will do an appropriate and, hopefully, good job for those caught up in public disasters. On the basis of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 24, page 19, line 23, leave out “or close friends”. This amendment would narrow the definition of “victim” to close family members of those who have died or suffered serious harm as a result of the incident and make more certain who falls within the definition.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If so, is the close family member supposed to prove that a family relationship that looks, on the face of it, to be a little distant is in fact close? What about a close friend? That could be anyone.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That seems to mean survivors, who are certainly one group that the public advocate should aim to help, but subsection (7)(b) says that victims also include “close family members or close friends of individuals who have died or suffered serious harm as a result of the incident.” The paragraph does not define “close family members”; nor does it define “close friends”, which is a much more uncertain and ambiguous term than “close family members”, although there is uncertainty in both. Suppose that I am a second cousin. Is that “close family”? What about an aunt who is particularly close to a niece who has unfortunately died. Is that close enough? Or does it depend on the specific relationship in each case?”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 67 and 68 are probing amendments, which are intended to explore who the Government intend to be the recipient of help from the public advocate that they are establishing under the Bill. Clause 24(7)(a) defines the victims who are to benefit from the service of the public advocate, once appointed, as “individuals who have been harmed by the incident (whether or not that harm is serious harm)”.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is the point of the probing amendments: simply to get to the bottom of precisely what the Minister is seeking to achieve.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about trying to cope with all situations, but it is quite hard—as a lawyer, he knows this—to get the definitions right. Through the probing amendments I am seeking to get the Government to be clear. Like most lawyers, I work on the assumption that uncertainty is undesirable—although it can be lucrative. In this context, wrangles over who might be allowed to get support are certainly not desirable. The amendments are about trying to get the Government to set out a little more clearly than they do in the Bill precisely what they mean by these unusual phrases. I cannot think of another piece of legislation that refers to “close friends”. Perhaps the Minister will have an example that will show that I have not looked far enough—no doubt he will.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I said at the beginning of my remarks, these ae probing amendments. The Minister is right that they narrowed the definition, but only to probe. On the basis of the assurances that he has given, I am quite content to withdraw the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Before I say a few things about clause 24 stand part, I would like to speak to my new clause 15. At the beginning of our consideration of part 2 of the Bill, I said that my own Public Advocate Bill and the Government’s Bill envisage the role of a public advocate somewhat differently, although there are points of similarity. New clause 15 sets out roles and functions that are closer to what I would like to see in the Bill. It would require the Secretary to State to appoint an individual to act as a public advocate for victims of major incidents, and to ensure an efficient and effective means of support, with appropriate remuneration and reasonable costs, to carry out the functions assigned to the post. It would be a standing appointment, rather than an ad-hoc appointment on a case-by-case basis.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My own view is that these kinds of public disaster occur infrequently. My main worry is whether a single standing appointment would be able to cope if more than one disaster occurred at the same time. As I envisage it, the independence of the role and the fact that it is a standing appointment would enable that person to act swiftly. It would have to be somebody who is a people person and is able to relate to individuals in trauma. The appointment itself would have to take into account the kind of qualities that the person would need, but I believe a proper person could be found who would be suitable in most circumstances.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The lies, slurs and abuse that have been directed at families, victims and survivors over 34 years mean that no one has been held accountable for the unlawful killing—that is what it was—of 97 innocent children, women and men. It was only the Hillsborough Independent Panel, a non-legal process of getting to the truth through transparency and publishing documentation, that led to the full truth being reiterated to a shocked public 23 years after the event. That led to David Cameron’s apology to the families as Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, not only for what had happened to them, but for the lies and slurs that had followed, all perpetrated by public authorities using taxpayers’ money to pay for it. That is how they did it—they did not raise the money themselves, as the families defending the reputations of their loved ones had to.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is despite the fact that the original public inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor laid the blame for the disaster squarely at the door of the South Yorkshire police and admonished them for their lies, within four months of the disaster occurring. They just carried on seeking to deflect the blame elsewhere. This part of the Bill should seek to remedy the problem of public authorities such as the South Yorkshire police using their entire budget, resources and effort over decades to try to avoid being blamed for what they have done wrong. Decades of litigation resulted in deep trauma for the Hillsborough families and survivors.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I share one very large perspective with the Minister—that having a public advocate available to help victims in the aftermath of a disaster is entirely desirable—so I welcome the Government’s intention for this part of the Bill, even if I keep saying that I would do things differently. I hope he will not be too offended. My support for the clause arises from my long-standing experience. For the families of the 97 who died at Hillsborough and the thousands of traumatised survivors who had to fight for a lifetime to be properly acknowledged by our society and to get the correct inquest verdicts of unlawful killing, it was 23 years until they got the truth fully acknowledged and had an apology from the Prime Minister of the day, David Cameron, for what they had to go through.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Lord Wills said: “In some way, families have to be given effective agency, and that must mean some fettering of the powers on the Secretary of State. I am agnostic about the way to do that, and I have always accepted that my private Member’s Bill was not perfect.” –– [ Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 95, Q183.] He, too, is willing to change arrangements, and ensuring that the Secretary of State has regard to the wishes of the bereaved and surviving victims would be a good start at making a way forward. When we come to later amendments, especially those related to the functions of the public advocate, I will talk a bit more about how the Bill is different from what I envisaged. However, I turn now to clause 24.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She also said: “When you are caught up in disasters, particularly if there is propaganda surrounding it, you need to be able to trust—you would need trust in a public advocate in a team. By having to report to a Minister, you are thinking, ‘Well, who is in charge of this? Is it the public advocate or is it the Minister?’ I do not think that would go down very well.”—[ Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 115, Q220.] Jenni speaks with decades of cynicism about what has happened to her in her quest to get to the truth, so one might take the view that she is jaded, but there is nobody more experienced than a Hillsborough mum in understanding what the state does to people after a public disaster. We would do well to listen to her experience and what she has to say.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She said that “as it stands at the moment, the Government’s suggestions for an independent public advocate just would not work. It would just not be independent, because it is too dependent on the Minister. It seems that the supposedly independent public advocate will be answerable to the Secretary of State, which does not sound like independence to me.” –– [ Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 112, Q212.] Jenni said that she thought it was “vitally important that we have this facility, but that we have it correctly” –– [ Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 114, Q220.] She said that independence is a key part.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It also emphasises the independence of the advocate at a very early stage of his involvement: if the families ask him to get involved, and if he can decide that a particular incident falls within the definition of “serious incident” and triggers his possible involvement, it is quite clear that he is independent and is not being told what to do by the Government of the day, about whom there may be some suspicion among those who have been caught up in the incident. The independence of the advocate from the Government is another vital way in which families and survivors can have trust and confidence, which can be gained at an early stage and reinforced thereafter during the processes that follow a public disaster. That was emphasised in our evidence session, particularly by Jenni Hicks, who is one of the Hillsborough mums.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That would deliver one of the key requirements for a public advocate to succeed, in my view, which is to ensure that the affected families have some agency about whether his services should be called upon in respect of a particular incident. Those families must feel that they can call the advocate in to help them navigate the aftermath and get to the truth. The trust and confidence of the families of the deceased and survivors is a crucial requirement for the post of public advocate to be introduced successfully. Enabling them to have a meaningful say in whether the advocate should be involved is an important way to establish that trust from an early stage.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Subsection (6) defines a major incident as one “that has caused the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals and involved— (a) serious health and safety issues, (b) a failure in regulation, or (c) other events of serious concern.” The key difference from the Bill as drafted by the Government is that the affected families and survivors can get the advocate—who will already be in post—involved, should a majority of them wish to do so, even if the Secretary of State has not asked the advocate to get involved. The advocate can make it clear that he thinks that an incident meets the threshold for his involvement—if, indeed, he thinks that—on the basis of precedent. Obviously there will have to be a few involvements before precedent can come into it.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The second is if the advocate thinks a major incident has occurred that meets the requirement under new clause 15(6) and the advocate has been asked to undertake the function by a majority of representatives of the deceased and injured survivors of the incident. That part of the clause puts into legislation my idea, and Lord Wills’s idea, that there should be agency for the families, that they must have a role in deciding whether the advocate gets involved and that the advocate himself should decide whether the definition of major incident or public disaster is met.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So I am in favour of having a standing appointment.”—[ Official Report , Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee , 22 June 2023, col. 93, Q179.] We can see that there are pros and cons, whichever way one decides to do that. I just happen to have come down on the side of a standing appointment being preferable on balance. That is the approach that Michael Wills and I took when drafting our own version, which has the advantage of the postholder being able to go into action immediately with no delay required. My new clause envisages two scenarios in which the advocate is called into action. The first is where the Secretary of State invites him to get involved; I hope the Minister will be pleased to see that I am not entirely excluding action by the Secretary of State.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A secretariat could be drawn together at short notice—a standing secretariat, as it were. It would be doing work within the civil service, but when a public disaster happened it could be brought to bear to act as a secretariat for the independent public advocate. I hate to think of what might happen. If you imagine a big terrorist incident, for example, the Government would be in turmoil anyway, and then they would have to find the time and space to go through all the selection processes, find out people’s availability and negotiate terms of reference. In the meantime, the poor families are left without anyone to support them, as they always have been up until now. It rather defeats the object of this whole exercise.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is in that immediate moment that they need an advocate—somebody who will represent them to Government and signpost them to the agencies that are available to support them in that moment of trauma.”—[ Official Report , Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee , 22 June 2023, col. 86, Q166.] Lord Wills, too, believes that there should be a standing appointment. That is perhaps not surprising, because the Bill he introduced in the Lords, which has just had its Second Reading, includes a standing appointment. He said: “I believe it should be a standing appointment, for the reasons that the bishop set out extremely well. In the turmoil of the aftermath of a big public disaster, it is important that someone is on the ground immediately to support the families. I do believe that, and I think it is a perfectly achievable position to have.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Bishop James Jones said: “I do not think that that independence is sufficiently guaranteed by the Bill as it stands; I think it can be guaranteed only if it is a standing appointment.”—[ Official Report , Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee , 22 June 2023, col. 87, Q168.] He made the point that independence is tremendously important, and that that requires a standing appointment. He also said: “Contrary to the Government’s proposal, I believe that there should be a standing independent public advocate. Why? Because in the immediate aftermath of a public tragedy, people are grief-stricken and traumatised. They are unprepared and disorientated, and they no longer feel in control of their life.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both approaches. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is pointing out what he sees as the downside of a standing appointment. One could envisage circumstances in which a standing appointment may have downsides, but there are also upsides. In the end, to get their legislation through, the Government must judge which approach they prefer. I simply seek to persuade the Minister and the Government that a standing appointment may have more pros than cons—and more pros than an ad hoc appointment, which has downsides too. My approach has always been that there should be a standing appointment rather than an ad hoc one. There was extensive support for that approach in this Committee’s evidence sessions.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It should not just be signposting to get immediate help in the aftermath of a disaster for those caught up in it; it should be about nothing less than us preventing things from going wrong in the aftermath, as a society looking after and supporting those caught up through no fault of their own in such disasters. It should be about ensuring that the organs of the state do not use taxpayers’ money and their capacity to be defensive—that appears to be infinite—to prevent themselves from facing up to the truth of what has happened.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The issue is about torpedoing cover-ups as well as helping families. It is about stopping things from going wrong. As a lawyer, I know that the only way Hillsborough could have been stopped from getting as bad as it has got would be to have stopped it from going wrong in the first place. I believe that creating a mechanism through which transparency and truth can be focused on at an earlier stage and be told at the beginning is the way to stop things from going wrong. The legal system does not always appear to be able to do it, and I believe that the Hillsborough Independent Panel-type process is the way in which we can do it. I unequivocally welcome the Government’s commitment, but I urge the Minister and the Government to have more ambition for what can be achieved through the process.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some 30,000 people turned up at Anfield on the 20th anniversary of the disaster. That is why the Hillsborough Independent Panel was set up; that is why we were able to get it set up. The rest of the country was amazed that, 20 years on, 30,000 people would turn up to the service. It would have been more, if they had let more in. I was there on that day. I was not surprised to see what we saw on that day. In two years, the Hillsborough Independent Panel unravelled the lies of ages. By publishing the documents and its account of what had really happened, it was able, incontrovertibly, to lay to rest all those lies and slurs and to elicit a heartfelt apology from the then Prime Minister David Cameron—who I think was a bit shocked when he read the report and saw what had happened. We must not let this happen again.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is completely correct. She will know from her own constituency experience of representing those caught up in the Birmingham pub bombings how dangerous and awful it is, not only for the families involved. We are talking intergenerational, here. Many of those still active in trying to get more accountability in respect of Hillsborough were barely born—sometimes not even born—at the time it happened. They are daughters, sons and other relatives who were not even alive. And the effect is not just on families intergenerationally; it is felt across communities. The damage that Hillsborough has done to faith in the police in Liverpool since that time has been enormous, and it is intergenerational. It was not the Merseyside police—it was South Yorkshire police and the West Midlands police. That does not just go away.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we discussed this morning, it is really about him not acting with unfettered discretion, but trying to gain the trust and confidence of families, and taking them with him in the decisions that he makes. It is a probing amendment, but I hope to hear from the Minister that he is not unsympathetic to it.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 25, page 19, line 31 at end insert “,but only after consultation with bereaved families and victims”. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult with victims before terminating the appointment on such grounds as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. This should not take long because it deals with an issue that we spent quite a lot of time talking about this morning: ensuring that families have some kind of say. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with victims before terminating any appointment of an independent public advocate on such grounds as he might consider appropriate.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 25, page 20, line 7 at end insert— “(6) An advocate appointed in respect of a major incident is to be regarded as a data controller under General Data Protection Regulations for the purposes of their role”. This amendment ensures that the Independent Public Advocate is a data controller for the purposes of General Data Protection Regulations.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I believe that functions enabling the public advocate to handle documents and the power to set up an independent panel like the Hillsborough Independent Panel, which we will come to later, are vital to the success of the legislation and of the post that we all seek to create.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“After more than two decades of failure to get to the truth and have it accepted, justice for those who were unlawfully killed was advanced. If we can learn the lessons of the Hillsborough Independent Panel and apply them by having a public advocate who has functions and powers to do what the Hillsborough Independent Panel did, we may be able to stop future disasters from going so appalling wrong over such an extended period as Hillsborough. That is what we should seek to do. If the legislation aims a little lower than that—I fear it may do—and aims just to signpost victims to support services and help in the immediate aftermath, it will be valuable but we will have missed a major opportunity to prevent things from going as wrong as they did for those caught up, through no fault of their own, in the Hillsborough disaster.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we could manage to do this, it would make an enormous difference in the aftermath of future disasters and would hopefully prevent things from ever again going as wrong as they did with Hillsborough. Part of what the Hillsborough Independent Panel was able to do was to lawfully collect and process documents. That turned out to be crucial. It worked on the basis of obtaining and publishing all documentation to ensure total transparency in what had been an atmosphere of deep suspicion. It was that approach that broke the logjam of suspicion among bereaved families and survivors, while getting at the truth in a way that was revelatory about the causes and aftermath of the incident. That was no small feat, but it was key to the success of the process.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We saw what the police did with Hillsborough: they created a false narrative as part of that cloud of unknowing that they wanted to create, to cover up. What they feared, rightly in the end, was that they would be blamed for it. That is true of pretty much every public disaster: obviously the details are different, but there is that essential pathology. There is always a risk of cover-up. I hope this Bill, suitably amended, will raise the barriers against that, but it does not mean that we can drop our vigilance against the potential.”. –– [ Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 94, Q181.] I think Lord Wills sets out there pretty clearly what he and I were seeking to do with our own proposals in our public advocate Bills. That is what I press the Government to aspire to.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If a process like that could work for a disaster that was so contested at the time and that was more than two decades old, about which there were literally hundreds and thousands of documents, could not a similar process be used to prevent things going so wrong in the aftermath of other disasters? Things going wrong in the aftermath of disasters is surely what this legislation is seeking to try to prevent. As Lord Wills said in his evidence to us: “We have to accept that a cover-up is part of the pathology of a big public disaster. It is human nature. When something happens like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing or Grenfell Tower, it is a huge story for the nation, and obviously those in power at the time, who feel they might be blamed for it, will feel that they have to cover up in some way.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In just over two years, it did the job of establishing unequivocally and incontrovertibly the truth of what happened to each of the then 96 people who died at Hillsborough. It made it completely clear that many could have been saved and that the appalling behaviour of senior police commanders had been the cause of the disaster. It torpedoed the cover-up by South Yorkshire police of their culpability. It made abundantly clear that there had been no contribution from those killed or from other Liverpool fans to the disaster. That is what the legal system had failed to establish clearly over more than two decades, through myriad and repeated proceedings in every conceivable kind of court.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 70 would insert a subsection into clause 25, making it clear that an advocate appointed in respect of a major incident is to be regarded as a data controller for the purposes of the general data protection regulation in carrying out their role. Amendments 72 and 73 to clause 27 are consequential upon the public advocate being a data controller, and would make it clear that they themselves can handle documents and do so lawfully, while removing some of the usual reasons why documents are withheld. The point of the amendments is to try to implement the lessons of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, which is why Lord Michael Wills and I have been bringing forward our own public advocate Bills over the years. The Hillsborough Independent Panel was a stunning success.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to discuss the matter further. Obviously there is a difference between the Government’s view and my view and that of Lord Michael Wills, who introduced a Bill in the Lords, about what the focus ought to be, but I appreciate that the Minister is willing to discuss the matter further. Perhaps we might be able to come a bit closer in so doing. If we cannot, at least we will still have Report and the remaining stages to make further points. 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.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Subsection (3) says: “An advocate must have regard to any directions given by the lead advocate as to how they are to exercise their functions in respect of the incident.” Having “regard to” is not necessarily “following the instructions of”. Is it not a recipe for chaos if there is a disagreement between advocates about the best way to act?”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 27, page 20, line 27, at end insert— “(e) an independent panel to establish the truth of what happened” This amendment enables the Independent Public Advocate to establish a Hillsborough Independent Panel type process to get at the truth of what happened at an early stage following an incident.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Transparency for the families, freedom of information and the capacity for the public advocate to establish an independent panel are essential parts of what should be a successful reform if we get everything right.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was not until the Hillsborough Independent Panel that we had that evidence, finally, and we finally—as I say, four years after HIP—had the correct inquest verdicts.”—[ Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 144, Q219.] What a failure of our legal system. For that reason, it would be an omission to legislate for a public advocate without enabling them to establish an independent panel in consultation with the families, to assist them in respect of an independent panel process, and to help if there are inquests or inquiries. As the Minister rightly said, the Bill puts transparency at the heart of proceedings occurring after disasters.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made this morning about the health consequences of these kinds of disasters on those affected by them. Anne Williams always knew that her son had been unlawfully killed. When I first met my constituent Jenni Hicks as her MP in 1997, I was struck that she and her ex-husband, Trevor, were discussing a new bit of information that one of them had been passed about the movements of one of their daughters during her last moments. That was what the original inquests should have told them, but they did not even try to do so. As Jenni Hicks told us: “We basically knew the truth but we could not get hold of the evidence; nobody could.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She knew precisely what had happened to her son, Kevin—when, where and how he died—long before that truth was acknowledged by the findings of the second inquests. She spent the rest of her life campaigning to get a new inquest for her son. It was repeatedly denied her, despite the fact that it was clear he was alive after 3.15 pm and may well have benefited from medical intervention. Anne Williams was unwilling to acknowledge that her son’s death had been an accident, and she never collected the death certificate that said so. She was right: he was unlawfully killed, but it took her the rest of her life to be vindicated and have the accidental death verdict overturned. She lived to see the original verdict quashed, but she did not live to see the unlawful killing verdict at the second inquests. That relates to a point that my hon.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The families were prevented from finding the truth by the police cover-up and a coroner who, overwhelmed by the extent of the task—I am being kind—imposed a 3.15 pm cut-off, which led to material facts being ignored. The inquests left more questions than answers, and most of them were taken up by perpetuating the Hillsborough slurs that the police were on a campaign to spread, dealing with things such as blood alcohol levels, even though a third of the victims were children, and the slurs about fans being ticketless. The families did not find out when and how their loved ones died until the Hillsborough Independent Panel answered those questions for them 23 years after the event. Some mums, such as Anne Williams, simply went and found out herself.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is all helpful, but it is not sufficient to fully learn the lessons from the success of the Hillsborough Independent Panel and apply them when disasters strike. The only other real function for the public advocate in clause 27 is a report-writing one. We will come to that when we debate clause 29, so I will not dwell on it now. A key lesson from the 23 years it took the Hillsborough families to get to the truth of what happened to their loved ones is that most of the usual processes following disasters failed them. The original inquests did not establish the cause of death for each of the deceased, although their basic function was to uncover the who, what, where and why.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 75 would insert into the clause, which sets out the functions of the advocate, a power to establish an independent panel such as the Hillsborough Independent Panel in consultation with the families affected. Amendment 74 would enable the public advocate to provide support to victims in respect of an independent panel-type process, if such a process is ongoing in respect of a major incident. It follows from what I said about amendments 70, 72 and 73 that I think the public advocate should that I think the public advocate should have a broader range of functions and powers than the Bill currently sets out. Indeed, it allows only for liaison between families and organs of the state and signposting to support services.”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗