Key Facts

• The amendment aims to ensure consultation with victims before terminating an advocate's appointment.
• The Minister acknowledges the need for victim confidence and flexibility in deploying advocates.
• Clause 26 allows for multiple advocates following major incidents, requiring potential adjustments to maintain agility.
• Ken Sutton, secretary to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, is thanked for his work on part 2 of the Bill.
• Amendment 70 seeks to insert a clause making advocates data controllers under GDPR.
• Amendments 72 and 73 are consequential on Amendment 70.
• Amendment 70 would insert a subsection into clause 25 regarding advocates being data controllers.
• Amendments 72 and 73 are consequential amendments to clause 27 about handling documents lawfully.
• The Hillsborough Independent Panel took over two years to establish the truth about what happened in the disaster.
• Amendments 70 and 72 aim to make the IPA a data controller.
• Amendment 73 proposes establishing an independent panel for victims support.
• Section 35(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 criminalises suppressing, altering or destroying information during inquiries.
• Maria Eagle intervenes on Clause 26.
• Subsection (3) states that an advocate must have regard to any directions given by the lead advocate regarding how they are to exercise their functions in respect of the incident.
• Amendment 74 proposes inserting new text into clause 27 of the Bill.
• The proposed amendment aims to establish an independent panel akin to the Hillsborough Independent Panel to uncover the truth about major incidents.
• Amendment 75 similarly seeks to enable the establishment of such a panel but adds a requirement for consultation with victims.
• Amendment 75 would insert a power for the public advocate to establish an independent panel like the Hillsborough Independent Panel.
• Anne Williams spent her life campaigning for a new inquest for her son Kevin due to the original verdict's inaccuracies.
• Jenni Hicks and her ex-husband were unable to get crucial information about their daughter from the initial inquests, which was only provided by the Hillsborough Independent Panel four years later.
• Amendments 74 and 75 propose establishing an independent panel similar to the Hillsborough Independent Panel.
• The Hillsborough Independent Panel was established many years after the tragedy, avoiding interference with ongoing legal proceedings.
• Eagle acknowledges potential conflicts between early-stage panels and other legal processes.
• New clause 16 details the functions and powers of the independent public advocate.
• The advocate can provide support to victims during investigations, inquests, and inquiries related to major incidents.
• An annual report must be submitted to Parliament by the end of 2024.
• Clause 27 provides an indicative list of functions for IPAs supporting victims post-major incidents.
• Advocates cannot provide legal advice or financial support, nor offer healthcare services.
• Clause 28 amends the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to allow advocates to be considered interested persons in inquests.
• On 22 May 2017, 22 people were murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack.
• Chloe Ann Rutherford and Liam Thomas Allen Curry were among the victims from South Shields constituency.
• The Births and Deaths Registration Acts 1926 and 1953, along with the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, dictate death registration procedures involving inquests or inquiries.
• The Hurley family lost their daughter Megan Hurley in the Manchester Arena bombing.
• Families have been unable to register the death due to statutory barriers.
• Multiple Ministers were involved, leading to delays and policy shifts.
• New clauses aim to ensure families can choose to register deaths certified by coroners.
• The clauses also propose establishing an independent panel for support during investigations.
• The new clause seeks to provide families bereaved by a major incident with a role in registering the death of their loved one.
• A death reported to the coroner cannot be registered until any inquest has been completed.
• The General Register Office has offered families bereaved by the Manchester Arena attack the option of being present at registration.
• Amendment 76 targets clause 29 in the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
• The amendment seeks to delete a specific requirement for the Secretary of State's instruction to the Independent Public Advocate.
• Clause 29 deals with reports to the Secretary of State.
• Amendments 76 to 79 aim to change clause 29 of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
• The amendments propose that the Independent Public Advocate reports directly to Parliament rather than the Secretary of State.
• Clause 29 currently allows for redactions by the Secretary of State and publication at his discretion, which Maria Eagle argues fuels suspicion of cover-ups.
• Edward Argar is addressing concerns about the sub judice rule and its adherence by Members.
• Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to publish reports from the advocates.
• The Minister clarifies that there can be discretion in publishing methods based on the report's content, timing, and nature.
• Maria Eagle is disappointed by the Minister’s response on her amendments.
• Concerns are raised about delays in IPA reports until all legal actions end.
• Amendment withdrawal is requested for further discussion.
• The statement mentions INQUEST and Justice as organisations working on these provisions.
• Institutional defensiveness is cited as a barrier to accountability in public inquiries and inquests.
• The Daniel Morgan independent panel faced delays due to lack of access to HOLMES system by the Metropolitan Police Service for seven years.
• The Bill does not prohibit annual reporting.
• The Inquiries Act 2005 places legal duties on participants with sanctions for non-compliance.
• Police officers now have a duty of co-operation during investigations and inquiries.
• Amendment 23 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to omit material from the advocate's report if it is contrary to the public interest.
• Parallel provisions for redacting sensitive information were included by the previous Labour Government in the Inquiries Act 2005.
• The Minister emphasizes the importance of national security and responsible sharing of information.
• Clause 30 creates an information-sharing gateway allowing advocates to communicate with other advocates, victims, the Secretary of State, IPA secretariat, and public authorities.
• Advocates will not share personal data without victim consent.
• The clause ensures compliance with existing data protection legislation.
• Clause 31 gives the Secretary of State power to produce guidance for IPAs.
• Guidance cannot be directed at specific advocates or incidents to maintain operational independence.
• The clause allows for updating guidance regularly to reflect new lessons and adapt to future scenarios.
• The Parole Board's chief executive stated that the new test does not make significant changes to their practice.
• Amendment 96 aims to broaden the list of factors the Parole Board must consider in release decisions.
• In the Worboys case, alleged but unproven offences were not considered at his parole hearing despite later revelations.
• The amendment would add unproven allegations as a mandatory criterion for the Parole Board's decision-making.
• The Supreme Court's Pearce judgment allows the Parole Board to consider unproven allegations appropriately without establishing them as facts.
• Unproven allegations are already considered within the scope of existing mandatory considerations outlined in Clauses 32 and 33.
• Clause 32 amends chapter II of part II of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 regarding life sentence prisoners.
• Clause 33 amends chapter 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 concerning determinate sentence prisoners.
• The Parole Board applies a release test to determine whether it is no longer necessary for public protection that a prisoner should be confined.
• In the vast majority of cases, the Parole Board will apply the test as they do in each and every one of the 25,000 cases considered annually.
• The criteria set out in the clause are intended to ensure consistency without significant changes to how the board currently assesses a prisoner's risk and suitability for release.
• The Justice Committee wrote to the Lord Chancellor expressing potential positive effects of the changes on consistency and transparency but also noted they are not strictly necessary.
• There is a risk that specifying a list of factors may lead to an unintended failure to consider relevant issues such as unproven allegations or family court findings related to rape and domestic abuse.
• Clause 34 amends section 128 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
• It facilitates changes to the release test applied by the Parole Board in future cases that cannot be foreseen today.
• The amendment requires an affirmative statutory instrument for scrutiny.