Maria Eagle
MP for Liverpool Garston · Labour · United Kingdom
“There is concern about this news among my constituents who work at JLR Halewood and those who work in the supply chain in the whole of the north-west of England.”
“We must bear in mind not only the inequality of arms, but the length of time taken to get through the legal actions, even if they proceed swiftly and well.”
“That was not a legal action; it was about transparency, freedom of information and being open. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has his frustrations about the fact that his well-intentioned health reforms are not operating as he would have wished.”
“Before he leaves the Chamber, I say to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) that I agree very much with what he said about transparency and its importance. He made the point that lawyers are sometimes a problem. Obviously, the legal system, in which I used to be a participant, is adversarial.”
“Although such powers are not in this Bill, because it is too narrow in scope for them to be included, I hope that my new clause 1 on producing a report within 12 months of the passing of this Bill on how the Independent Public Advocate is working and the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence—a public advocate with…”
“She was right in the end. She knew absolutely what had happened to her son, because she went and found out. She knew that the inquest verdicts were wrong, so she wanted to focus on that. But on the whole the families kept together and were able to decide how they would go forward.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Maria Eagle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“It would certainly make people in power think twice about covering things up if they knew that they would have to show the documentation.”
“With all Pete Weatherby’s hard work—I thank everybody who has worked so hard to get this as good as it is—the Bill is good, but adding the public advocate to it, with the power of being able to retrieve the documentation, would really strengthen it. That would help to fill the gap until the culture changes. The culture is not going to change straight away; it is possibly going to take years, because it has gone on for so long. There are people like the veterans of nuclear testing—their concerns go back to the 1950s. This has gone on for a very long time. It is not a new thing. We desperately need that change to strengthen the Bill. It is already good, particularly if you implement Pete Weatherby’s most recent amendments, but this would make it watertight.”
“No, don’t worry. Jenni Hicks: I know from experience and my journey that it was the thing that worked. It just worked. What worked was being able to read the documents. When Bishop James Jones made his report, he pointed it out in his 25 points of learning. It is right at the top: being able to retrieve the documents. When it comes to this culture change, sometimes they think they are not actually lying; they are just not telling the truth. I have not quite worked out what the difference between those two things is. I have tried to analyse it—lawyers are very good at that. That has to be part of it to strengthen the Bill and make it the best it can be.”
“As Mr Minnoch says, it is not going to happen overnight; it is going to be a change that has effect over a number of years. But these are, I think, useful nudge factors in the right direction to get to the level of parity that we are trying to achieve here—”
“I made the point earlier that I do not think the bereaved family is going to be overly concerned about the number of lawyers on the other side, if those lawyers are actively assisting the inquest. If they are not, it is a much bigger issue. Richard Miller: I think there are a couple of measures in the Bill that helpfully come together to try to encourage greater parity, including the duty of candour and the fact that the Ministry responsible for the public body is going to be asked to meet the legal costs of the bereaved family. They come together to put an onus on the public body and the Ministry responsible for it to be proportionate. If they create a situation where they are requiring the bereaved family’s lawyer to undertake a lot more work, they will ultimately have to meet the costs.”
“I do not think an inquest that takes place the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent will be an open and transparent process, as the Bill anticipates. For me, one of the key aspects of the legal aid elements is the ability of the lawyers, not just when the proceedings commence, but in the conduct of the parties leading up to the inquest, including the disclosure elements and the openness and willingness to reveal information to the bereaved family’s lawyers—that is the critical part for me to begin with. The family’s lawyers can then assist the coroner in making an assessment of the conduct, and I think it is the conduct of the public authority that is key, when you are thinking about parity of arms.”
“I have to say that I am speaking only on behalf of the lawyers who represent bereaved families; I cannot speak for lawyers who represent public authorities—I have no experience of that. We have already heard evidence today that the critical aspects of the Bill are those that will change the culture within public authorities. That is not going to happen overnight, because it is a cultural shift that is required, which will take some time, and because there are consequences for the individuals involved in those public authorities, based on what could come out of it. What we want the legal aid provisions to do, including on parity of arms, is assist those broader duties to take place. I do not think that it is going to happen from day one, and nor does any lawyer I have spoken to who does inquest work.”
“Q It is very interesting to hear the evidence you have both given. I am interested in not only the parity of arms but the concept of a public authority’s legal representation being necessary and proportionate. We have heard a lot of evidence that those with unlimited public funds at their disposal tend to think that what is necessary and proportionate is a very large legal team. Obviously, inquests are not supposed to be adversarial—we know that, in some instances, they become adversarial. What do you think is necessary and proportionate from the point of view of a public authority? One way of getting parity of arms is to cut down the number of lawyers that public authorities are paying to attend inquests. Chris Minnoch: I have some initial thoughts.”
“There is very often a tension between what a coroner feels they need to hear to answer the statutory questions, and some wider questions that family may want answered. That remains a tension that I am not sure that this Bill is necessarily going to answer.”
“Do you believe that this Bill, and introducing legal representation for families and the concept of parity, might serve to address that kind of problem that you get when inquests become adversarial—as, increasingly, some of them do—or do you believe it might serve to prompt more inquests to become adversarial? Do you have a concern about that? Judge Durran: I have a concern because, as I have said, a coroner has to answer four statutory questions. If an inquest engages article 2, the “how” becomes “in what circumstances”, but they are very narrow questions that should be answered. A coroner has to be very clear in answering those four questions in setting their scope—in setting the parameters of their investigation in answering those questions.”
“Q The original Hillsborough inquests, which were the longest in legal history at the time, in 1990, did not answer the four statutory questions in respect of each and every one of those who died who were the subject of them. They were, indeed, used as a way of overturning Taylor. That is what my constituents who I met when I became an MP told me was the effect of that inquest. It was not the inquest; it was actually the Hillsborough independent panel that answered those four statutory questions, but unfortunately that did not happen for 24 years.”
“It is too binary to say lawyers are good or lawyers are bad; everyone has to be working with the same objective, which regrettably does not always happen.”
“Q Do you think that the parity of arms, however it is achieved—whether it is bringing down the level of representation of the public authorities or increasing the level of representation of the bereaved families—might make things less adversarial and better? You have raised some concerns about the extra work it might lead to coroners having to do. Judge Durran: It is too binary to say that lawyers are good or lawyers are bad. Lawyers for the family will give them a better voice, will enable them to be better engaged, and will help families better understand some of the complexity of the evidence or decision making. On the other side of the question, I would be sad to see public authorities lose lawyers where there is a complexity to the evidence that needs to be explored; I think that better enables questions to be answered.”
“However, it is certainly worth considering whether we should be a sort of safe house to guard information. Also, in terms of the duty to—”
“Q In view of what you have said, do you think that your current powers are adequate? If it were in order for us to put something about your role into the Bill, would you think that your powers ought to be expanded and, if so, in what way? Very quickly. Cindy Butts: Very quickly? Exceptional circumstances —I absolutely think that that should be something that I can recommend. Where there is a case that requires my involvement, I should be able to make representations to the Secretary of State in that respect. As I said before, the issue of being able to access information might be an area where further powers are required, although that should be dealt with very carefully, because we are not an investigatory body and neither should we be.”
“The Prime Minister knows that, for over two decades, the legal system failed to provide truth and justice to the Hillsborough families, and it was only a non-legal process—the Hillsborough independent panel—that finally set things right on the road to truth, justice and accountability. Does he see any prospect, therefore, that we will include in the legislation at a later stage provision to ensure that a Hillsborough independent panel-type process can be offered to families involved in future disasters, to try to circumvent the long-standing failure of the criminal justice system to offer truth and accountability to families quickly?”
“I may well try to explore in Committee, where it is in order, what can be done about that. I believe that provision for an independent public advocate would increase the range of options for bereaved families in the aftermath of public disasters like Hillsborough. It would mean that families had a greater choice of how to take forward their efforts. It would be a good addition. The truth, quickly; accountability, not cover-up; justice for those affected; and lessons learned and swiftly, and implemented so that nobody else has to suffer the same way—that is what families want, and this Bill must be judged on how well it promotes those aims. I think it will do so very well.”
“This kind of proceeding has the potential to enable families to side-step the years of overlapping legal actions that they get caught up in after public disasters. I think it would be a useful addition to the armoury for families who want the truth and accountability quickly, and who want lessons to be learned. Families bereaved by public disasters should have the option of asking for such a process at a much earlier stage in the aftermath, and that should be up to them. A version of the Independent Public Advocate was brought in by the previous Government towards the end of their time in office, and an appointment to the office has been made by the current Government. However, I do not believe that she has sufficient powers or resource to do the job that my Bill envisaged being done.”
“The Bill that I keep introducing to the House would enable a public advocate to assist families in getting to the truth much sooner, in the event of a disaster, because it would replicate that same process at a much earlier stage in the disaster’s aftermath. I believe that would promote the telling of truth at a much earlier stage. Shining the light of transparency on the activity of public officials in the aftermath of a disaster will torpedo cover-ups before they can get very far—and at a significantly lower cost to the public purse and faster than our justice system has shown itself able to. The Hillsborough independent panel did in two years what the justice system had failed to do in 24 years.”
“There were shocking revelations in the report, and it led to an immediate re-appraisal of the public view of what had occurred. It led to an apology to the families by David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the day, and a striking down of the accidental death inquest verdicts, which were eventually substituted with unlawful killing verdicts—but not before South Yorkshire police had again tried to tell its cover-up story, over an agonising two-year legal process, in the second inquests. This was a terrible ordeal for families, and it only concluded in 2016. The Hillsborough independent panel was not a legal proceeding. It was about the transparent release of documents, freedom of information, and a narrative account arising out of the study of the documents. Lawyers were not involved.”
“Finally, the truth that the South Yorkshire police had tried to cover up for all those years was established in the public consciousness. The fans were not at fault. The police caused the disaster. Many of those who died could have been saved had they received timely medical assistance. The police engaged in an appalling cover-up, and set out to deflect blame from themselves on to fans, including by attempting a wholesale revision of police witness statements to better reflect the cover-up story, and to erase any statements that seemed to point the blame at senior officers. They also took blood alcohol readings, even from the children who died—the youngest was 10, let us remember—to try to smear them as somehow being at fault.”
“Since 2016, I have been introducing to the House an independent public advocate Bill, which I have worked on with Lord Wills in the other place. He has been introducing it there since 2014. It was drafted after work we did with some Hillsborough families and those affected by other disasters. It arises out of the following insight. The legal system has failed repeatedly in the aftermath of disasters, but the Hillsborough independent panel succeeded spectacularly. It was established in 2009 by the Labour Government of Gordon Brown after the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough, and it reported in 2012, under the Conservative Government, who allowed it to complete its work despite the era of austerity, thanks in large part to Theresa May.”
“However, lying liars are going to lie, and although I am not convinced that, had this legislation been in place at the time of Hillsborough, the cover-up would not have been attempted, I am gratified to see—this is certainly the case—that there would have been more opportunities to punish those caught lying when they were caught. The more serious punishments in the Bill for breaching a duty of candour are a good thing, but would this have stopped the cover-up or the long years of agony endured by families and survivors? We have to take this opportunity —it will be the only one—to enact legislation that has a chance of achieving this. I have spent the last few years trying to tackle the way in which we deal with the aftermath of disasters from a slightly different angle.”
“I note that this legislation takes up more rather more pages establishing a duty than the original 2017 Bill, but I have no doubt that these changes and their import will be fully scrutinised in Committee and we can understand the intention fully. I know that there will be significant interest in the legislation, not only in this House but in the other place. Bishop James Jones’s 2017 report—“The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, which is about the lessons learned from Hillsborough—recommended, along with his 24 additional points of learning, enacting Andy Burnham’s Public Authority (Accountability) Bill.”
“Those are the three tests by which I judge the adequacy of legislation that sets out to learn the lessons of Hillsborough, including this Bill. I was a sponsor of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, introduced in 2017 by Andy Burnham, which was the precursor to this legislation. I can see nothing wrong at all with having a duty of candour in statute. It helps get across to public officials subject to it the importance of telling the truth to inquiries and investigations and that their functions should be carried out with candour, transparency and frankness. I would have hoped that they would all have known this anyway, but apparently some of them need to be reminded.”
“It is a good thing that an equality of arms is to be set up in legal proceedings, and it is a good thing that families can get the help that they need. I support that, but it does not guarantee truth, justice or accountability. I have met many families bereaved by public disasters —not just those affected at Hillsborough but the MV Derbyshire families, the Alder Hey organs scandal families, Manchester arena bombing families—and they all want pretty much the same thing. They want the truth, and they want it as quickly as possible. They want accountability for those at fault, not official cover-ups. They do not want any other families to go through what they have endured; they all say that—they want lessons learned and what went wrong put right for the future. That is simple. It is not too much to ask.”
“That is where the justice system, and the lawyers and judges, got us to. The way I see it, the justice system might properly be said to have failed in all respects and at every turn in this most appalling miscarriage of justice imaginable. The legal system failed. Multiple lawyers, judges and causes of action failed: failed to get to the truth, failed to do so in a timely fashion and failed to make those responsible accountable. The system failed the bereaved families, it failed the survivors and it failed those who died. To the extent that this Bill suggests that more lawyers and an equality of arms before the law is enough to guarantee truth and justice, I say it is not enough. That, to me, is one of the main lessons of Hillsborough, and I say that as a lawyer, because I am indeed a lawyer.”
“That effort failed spectacularly at the public inquiry and was repudiated within four months of the disaster, but the justice system allowed the perpetuation of this mendacious false narrative by those who had been identified as at fault: senior South Yorkshire police officers. The first inquests allowed ongoing reports in the newspapers for over a year about the inquest proceedings, firmly to establish in the public mind that the false narrative was true. It was as if the public inquiry and its findings had never happened. Those who had caused the disaster were retired early on enhanced pensions. Society got the impression that the disaster was about football hooliganism, and the unlawful killings were said to be just “an accident”—despite the findings of Lord Justice Taylor in the public inquiry.”
“That is despite the fact that every possible kind of legal action had been undertaken in that time—none of them worked. Once the justice system gets it wrong, and appeals and judicial reviews do not succeed, it is almost impossible to get it right subsequently using the same system. It seemed like the truth did not matter to the justice system. The system was content to settle on a lie, with inquest verdicts of accidental death and no criminal or disciplinary proceedings for those at fault. It was content to allow the perpetrators to peddle the appalling falsehood that the disaster was caused by Liverpool fans being drunk, late and ticketless. This was a South Yorkshire police cover story, and what they aimed at establishing as the truth through the systematic changing of police statements.”
“But South Yorkshire police simply ignored the findings of the public inquiry and used all subsequent legal proceedings —all paid for with public money, with expensive lawyers doing the job—and most notably the first inquest, to redouble its efforts to evade responsibility. Eight years of legal action had failed to get to the truth by the time I was elected in 1997. There was no justice for those involved, and particularly for those who, as we now know, were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. There was not a sniff of accountability for those whose gross failings had led to the disaster or those whose subsequent behaviour in blaming the victims and survivors led to so much anguish over so many years for so many families and survivors.”
“This disaster unfolded live on TV at a very high-profile national event; we all saw what happened. There was a large appetite in society to get to the bottom of what had happened. Within four months of the disaster occurring, the interim report of the public inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor had correctly identified the loss of police control as the main cause of the disaster, excoriating South Yorkshire police for its attempt to evade responsibility for what occurred by trying to blame Liverpool fans and telling the force to modify its behaviour. That is where truth and accountability could have been established.”
“Indeed, some of the very first meetings I had with constituents after my election were with members of the executive of the Hillsborough Family Support Group—Trevor and Jenni Hicks, Hilda and Phil Hammond, and Doreen Jones, who between them lost five family members at Hillsborough. Four of them were my constituents, and three of them still are all these years later. I think that my long and close involvement with some of the families gives me some insight into what went wrong, and I have some observations. My first observation about the disaster, as I have alluded to already, is that the legal system—the entire justice system—showed itself to be totally unable to deal properly with the aftermath or even to fulfil its basic functions in the face of a national disaster.”
“As a trainee lawyer in Liverpool, I got to know some of the bereaved families only a year after the disaster, in 1990, as they sought to recover damages for nervous shock, which was a way of reaching a legal finding of culpability against the police. The bereaved families did not want to make money; they wanted the police to accept the blame that they should have accepted. This was one of a number of legal actions ongoing at the time. I worked on some of those cases at the direction of my principal, who was on the steering committee of solicitors conducting that civil litigation, and while I did not have conduct, I was familiar with matters and met some of the families at the time. Some of the bereaved families became constituents of mine when I was elected in 1997.”
“This is the first time that any Government have brought forward legislation to tackle what went wrong at Hillsborough. It is a fulfilment of a Labour manifesto commitment and a commitment by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, and I congratulate him on it. I rise to support the legislation. The duty of candour with effective sanctions and equality of arms are all good, and will make a difference. However, I think that the Bill should also seek to boost the powers and capabilities of the office of the new Independent Public Advocate, and I want to explain why. I was first elected to this House in May 1997, and I have been making speeches about the Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath ever since. The disaster happened a full eight years before I was elected more than 28 years ago.”
“These attacks threaten our economy and our national security, so what help can the Minister offer the company and my constituents at this worrying time? Things do not seem to be getting any better.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) on securing this urgent question. I used to represent the Halewood plant until boundary changes, and hundreds of my constituents work at that plant, with many more working in supplier companies. They are at home and being paid at the moment, but The Sunday Times reported that prospects of a quick end to the saga are limited, and that the worldwide shutdown is costing £72 million a day in lost sales. Despite requests, local MPs have had no meaningful information from the company, although we have a 30-minute Zoom call on Friday, which is a start. What can the Government do to ensure that this disaster is brought to a close as soon as possible?”
“Co-operation between our countries on nuclear research will also deepen, while we work together to uphold the international non-proliferation architecture. Further details will follow today’s agreement. In an increasingly volatile and complex global security environment, exemplified by Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine—a war on the European continent—the UK and France, as Europe’s two nuclear powers, are united in our determination to work closer than ever before on nuclear deterrence. That is a manifesto commitment, a promise made and a promise kept, and yet another example of how the Government are delivering for defence.”
“Today, the Prime Minister and President Emmanuel Macron will agree to deepen their nuclear co-operation and work more closely than ever before on nuclear deterrence. That is an important step forward for the UK-France nuclear partnership, and reflects the significant improvement in the relationship between our two countries that this Government have driven. A soon-to-be-signed declaration will state for the first time that the respective deterrents of both countries are independent but can be co-ordinated. The declaration will also affirm that there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by both nations. As such, any adversary threatening the vital interests of Britain or France could be confronted by the strength of the nuclear forces of both nations.”
“The UK and France have a proud history of co-operation on defence nuclear matters. Alongside our conventional warfighting capability, the independent strategic nuclear forces of the UK and France contribute significantly to the overall security of the NATO alliance and the Euro-Atlantic. Since 1995, we have stated that we do not see situations arising in which the vital interests of one could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened. In 2010, both nations agreed to share research facilities and co-operate on nuclear technology under the Lancaster House treaties. In 2022, at Chatham House, the Defence Secretary set out the importance of rebooting Lancaster House and our defence relationship with France. That was reaffirmed in our 2024 manifesto.”
“If the right hon. Gentleman would like to listen to the reply, the agreement has not been signed yet. I am sure that as soon as it is signed—”
“I am sure that as soon as it is signed— [ Interruption. ] The shadow Minister has asked his questions. I would like to try to answer them without him heckling me too much, although it is up to him how he behaves.”
“That just strengthens the power of the deterrent across Europe. When two nations that are nuclear powers can co-ordinate their responses, it strengthens the deterrent against our potential enemies by making it clear that the two nations will act in co-ordination rather than entirely separately. The shadow Minister asked whether the agreement has any implications for our deterrent still being dedicated to NATO. It does not; our deterrent is, of course, still dedicated to the defence of NATO. He referred again to tactical nuclear delivery options. I do not know whether he meant tactical nuclear weapons development. This Government do not see any use of any kind of nuclear weapon as tactical, and we are not proposing in this agreement to develop any new kinds of nuclear weapons.”
“Indeed. The shadow Minister asked whether the idea that we should work more closely with France has any implications for the independence of Trident, and he referred to the phrase “independent but can be co-ordinated”. The answer is no. Our CASD operations are entirely unaffected. This is not a new nuclear doctrine on behalf of the UK. Our nuclear doctrine is the same as it ever has been. The use of our nuclear deterrent in any circumstances can only be authorised by the Prime Minister, and that remains the case. The French have their own arrangements for how they authorise theirs; it is a matter for them. This agreement implies no co-ordination in that respect. The agreement says that there is an opportunity, when vital interests are affected, for co-ordination between both nations in the way in which they respond.”
“The effort on co-ordinating our nuclear deterrence, between the UK and France, is in the context of a refresh of the Lancaster House treaties, which also include provisions about co-ordinating our conventional forces and co-ordinating efforts through our industries to ensure that we can manufacture new and future-proofed complex weapons that will assist in deterring potential adversaries who would threaten Europe. This is in the context of an entire, refreshed agreement that should strengthen our conventional forces as well as our capacity for co-ordination between our militaries and of our nuclear deterrence.”
“There will be increasing co-ordination of that effort, but I stress that our decision-making arrangements remain completely independent. Both nations recognise that there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by our two nations—our vital interests are the same in that respect. On Security Action for Europe and access to EU funds, negotiations are ongoing but not complete. One would hope that progress can be made. I cannot recall the hon. Gentleman’s third point—”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for deeper defence co-operation. On the co-ordination of our nuclear deterrence—there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by our two nations, but France and the UK remain two sovereign nuclear weapon states, and their respective nuclear forces and decision-making processes are independent. There will be increased co-ordination of research and development, and of the co-operation that we have been engaging in since the Chequers announcement of 1995. That will be deepened, and a co-ordinating committee between the Élysée and the Cabinet Office will be the joint arrangement for deciding precisely how and what extra research or training we might do.”
“I have nothing further to say on that today, as the hon. Gentleman would probably expect in a response to an urgent question on nuclear co-ordination.”
“I suppose I should say that I am surprised that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence only quoted half the sentence—if indeed that is the case—but he is probably not the first Opposition spokesperson to do that in the history of Oppositions in this House. I agree with my hon. Friend that what we have here is a strengthening of the deterrent across Europe, which will help to deter potential adversaries from conducting themselves in a way that might threaten the future of our nations.”
“The hon. Gentleman complains about the amount of time it has taken this Government to do things in respect of defence, but we had to pick up the mess that was left by his Government, who were in office for 14 years. It is a bit of a cheek for him to complain about delay, when the reality is that his own Government did nothing for 14 years. I have made it quite clear that our defence nuclear posture is not changing, and that we are not seeking to acquire new and different nuclear weapons, but if the vital interests of the UK and France are engaged and threatened, we will co-ordinate our nuclear response as a result of this agreement, and that provides a greater deterrent.”
“My hon. Friend is correct. The refresh of the Lancaster House treaties is about not just nuclear co-operation, but co-operation between our conventional forces and greater co-operation and effort between our industries bilaterally to provide us with things like complex weapons in a way that will deter and enable us to defend ourselves at thresholds well below any nuclear threshold. Any increase in defence spending, as we are seeing, does give more opportunities for our own industries. Whether those companies are offering novel or dual-use technology, or are our traditional big primes, any increase offers more opportunity for all of them to help us in our rearmament.”