Maria Eagle MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you agree that accountability of those responsible is one of the main things that families in disasters want? Pete Weatherby: Yes, absolutely.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I just want your views, Mr Guest, on whether the new offences—committing a seriously improper act in public office and the breach of duty to prevent death and serious injury—would have applied in the Hillsborough circumstances? A match commander ordered the gate opened, which led to the crush, and then lied, immediately on national TV and subsequently, about his actions by saying that the fans had broken the gate down. Would that constitute a seriously improper act or a breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury? Subsequently, there was a cover-up that involved police officers from South Yorkshire and West Midlands police altering statements to try to get across a narrative about what had happened that was different from the truth. None of the officers who engaged in any of that has ever been found guilty of any offence or held to account in any way. Do you believe that if the offences in the Bill had been on the statute book at the time, there would have been a proper chance to hold those officers to account? Tom Guest: I begin by echoing what the previous Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill, said of his sorrow and regret about the outcome of those trials. He was also focused on whether there was an opportunity to put better and clearer law plainly and clearly on the statute book. We feel that that has happened in this Bill. I am afraid that, even if I had seen the evidence, I would not be prepared to comment on particular cases and particular situations. Do I think that the new provisions better and effectively reflect the law on misconduct in public office? Yes, I do. Are there any risks to the provisions? No, we have not identified any. That is perhaps as much as I can assist.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  They want to know what happened, and they want accountability where there have been errors or grave mistakes. In the Hillsborough case, of course, the match commander lied and then tried to cover up—unsuccessfully, in the end—what had really happened by smearing Liverpool fans and those who had died. It took many years—well, until the Hillsborough independent panel convinced the country of the truth— Pete Weatherby: In 2012.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The Bill seeks to deal with these things by having proper equal legal representation, which is a good thing in my view. Do you think it is enough? Again, it was the Hillsborough independent panel, a non-legal process, that finally got to the truth. All the legal actions that had taken place before it did not achieve that. What role do you think there is for panel-like arrangements? Pete Weatherby: I think there is a huge role, and there is a discretion within the Government Bill to extend the duty of candour to panels. We would like that to be stronger—that would be great. Of course, there is no one size fits all. As somebody who has been involved in many public inquiries, I have a major criticism of the length of them. The duty of candour will scythe down the length of public inquiries, if it is used properly. Yes, there is an extension of legal aid in the Bill, but it will be dwarfed by the amount of money that will be saved if the duty of candour is used appropriately and properly. On your point, absolutely, there is a huge role. I have been on panels myself, and it definitely is not a one size fits all. Internationally, there is learning about this. The best example is probably New Zealand, where there is a smorgasbord of different processes.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In 2012. It took a long time for that to be fully put to bed. Pete Weatherby: Without a blink, in all the cases that I have done, you start with the tragedy itself, and of course everybody wants to know exactly what did or did not happen, but the cover-up does so much damage. People are absolutely outraged. Unfortunately, you cannot undo the bomb or the crush—whatever has caused it— but you then have it compounded by a cover-up, which does so much damage.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack · Hansard source

  More

  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? 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.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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—

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  The steering group is about political policymaking rather than intelligence. I am sure that appropriate arrangements will be established if there is any such issue, but I do not anticipate that there will be a problem.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  The agreement does not change our very close relationship with the Americans. In line with the NATO strategic concept, the strategic forces of the US, the UK and France all contribute significantly to the overall security of the alliance. There is no reason why that should not continue to be the case.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is usually last, but never least, and he is not even last on this occasion. I agree that it is important that we strengthen the credibility of our deterrence, which is why we are committed to building the four replacement boats that will carry our continuous at-sea deterrent and up to 12 SSNs through SSN-AUKUS. We are doubling the drumbeat of our construction of submarines over time, which I think sends a pretty powerful signal to potential adversaries that our CASD, and our capacity to defend and to use it, is going to be significantly strengthened over the coming period. I am glad to say that I have found general support for that in this House, which I welcome.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  I am not here to speak for the French Government. As far as I am concerned, our nuclear posture has not changed; their nuclear posture is a matter for them. What this agreement says is that there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by our two nations, and although we both independently look after and are responsible for our deterrence, we believe that co-ordinating potential responses in this way provides a greater deterrent for Europe and NATO. That is the basis of this agreement.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for this extra co-ordination. The aim of all this is to make sure that NATO and Europe are safe from the threats that may come from Putin and his nuclear sabre-rattling, as the hon. Gentleman referred to. We believe that deterring those threats is the best way to ensure that we do not end up having to fight a war that would be catastrophic. That is where we are at present. I am not sure that President Putin is in the mood to agree that nuclear wars cannot be won, because he does issue nuclear threats every now and then. We need to ensure that he is deterred in his approach.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  There has not been a statement yet because the agreement has not been signed yet. In fact—

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. It is about co-ordinating the options that we have together to make Europe and the north Atlantic stronger.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.