Bid to reintroduce Hillsborough Law draft blocked
Labour's Ian Byrne introduced the original version of the bill, drafted in 2017, to the House of Commons for a second reading, but it was blocked.
He has called on the prime minister to "bring forward the real Hillsborough Law" before he returns to Liverpool for the Labour Party Conference in September, after fears the duty of candour element had been removed from a later draft of the bill.
The Ministry of Justice has been contacted for comment.
Sir Keir Starmer told the House of Commons earlier this month a Hillsborough Law would be brought forward, but he wanted "to take the time to get it right".
A terrace crush during the 1989 FA Cup semi-final at Sheffield Wednesday's Hillsborough stadium fatally injured 97 Liverpool supporters.
Byrne, then 16 years old, was at the stadium that day and the MP for Liverpool West Derby has been parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough Law Now campaign as a survivor of the disaster.
Byrne said he wanted to see the "real Hillsborough Law" - officially called the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill - brought forward before Starmer heads to his home city for Labour Party Conference.
In a statement issued on social media, Byrne called on Starmer "to keep his word and support the bill for the 97, for all victims of institutional failure, for truth and justice".
He made the comments after an attempted second reading of the bill was blocked by a government whip on Friday.
Byrne tabled the original bill on 2 July, and told Starmer he risked "yet another betrayal of Hillsborough families and survivors" if the government did not support the legislation.
In 2016, after a 27-year campaign by victims' families, an inquest jury ruled fans were not to blame for the disaster and that those who died had been unlawfully killed.
The original Hillsborough Law, first presented in 2017, included a legal responsibility for public servants to tell the truth after state-related disasters.
Legal funding would also be provided for those affected by them.
Byrne's Bill was co-sponsored by a cross-party coalition, including fellow Liverpool Labour MPs Kim Johnson and Paula Barker, SNP Westminster Leader Stephen Flynn, Liberal Democrat Tom Morrison, and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Starmer told the House of Commons that he was "fully committed" to bringing in legislation which would force public officials to tell the truth at major inquiries, with "criminal sanctions for those that refuse to comply".
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
Starmer pledges Hillsborough Law legal duty
MP to reintroduce original Hillsborough Law
Hillsborough Law draft 'betrays' families - lawyer
Families 'will not support' weakened Hillsborough Law
Hillsborough Law 'must be right, not rushed'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How many asylum seekers are in UK hotels and why are they being housed there?
The subject of asylum seekers being housed in hotels has come into sharp focus after a High Court ruling. On Tuesday, Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary injunction blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in the Essex town. Here, the PA news agency takes a look at the latest overall data. – How many asylum seekers are in hotels across the UK? The most recent Home Office data showed there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079. New figures – published among the usual quarterly immigration data release – are expected on Thursday, showing numbers in hotels at the end of June. Figures for hotels published by the Home Office date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023 when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. – How many hotels are in use for asylum seekers? It is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210. – Why are asylum seekers being housed in hotels? Asylum seekers and their families can be housed in temporary accommodation, known as contingency accommodation, if they are awaiting assessment of their claim or have had a claim approved and there is not enough longer-term accommodation available. The Home Office provides accommodation to asylum seekers who have no other way of supporting themselves on a 'no choice' basis, so they cannot choose where they live. When there is not enough housing, the Home Office can move people to accommodation such as hotels and large sites, like former military bases. In May, the National Audit Office said those temporarily living in hotels accounted for 35% of all people in asylum accommodation. – Is this likely to be a permanent arrangement? Labour has pledged to end the 'costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers in this Parliament' – which would be 2029, if not earlier. Campaigners and charities have long argued that hotels are not suitable environments to house asylum seekers. The Refugee Council said they 'cost the taxpayer billions, trap people in limbo and are flashpoints in communities' and urged the Government to 'partner with local councils to provide safe, cost-effective accommodation within communities'. – What is the Government saying since the legal ruling? Ministers are 'looking at a range of different contingency options' following Tuesday's ruling, according to security minister Dan Jarvis In the immediate aftermath of the judgment, border security minister Dame Angela Eagle repeated criticism of the previous Conservative government, saying Labour had 'inherited a broken asylum system'. She said the Government would 'continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns' around asylum hotels. – What options does the Home Office have now? Last month, amid protests outside the Bell Hotel and more migrants crossing the Channel, an extra 400 spaces were being prepared to house male asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield in Essex. The former military site, which has a usual capacity of 800 beds, is expected to house more adult men on a short-term basis. The Labour Government scrapped the large site of the Bibby Stockholm barge in Portland, Dorset, earlier this year, while Napier Barracks in Folkestone, Kent, is also due to end housing asylum seekers and be returned to the Ministry of Defence in September. – Why were there protests outside the Bell Hotel? The hotel in Epping has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl – something he has denied and he is due to stand trial later in August. After the High Court's ruling, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage wrote in the Telegraph calling for Epping protests to inspire further action wherever there are concerns about the 'threat posed by young undocumented males' living in hotels. But on Tuesday more than 100 women's organisations wrote to ministers warning that vital conversations about violence against women and girls are being 'hijacked by an anti-migrant agenda' that fuels divisions and harms survivors. The joint statement, including from Rape Crisis England & Wales and Refuge, said: 'We have been alarmed in recent weeks by an increase in unfounded claims made by people in power, and repeated in the media, that hold particular groups as primarily responsible for sexual violence. 'This not only undermines genuine concerns about women's safety, but also reinforces the damaging myth that the greatest risk of gender-based violence comes from strangers.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kneecap terror charge 'should be thrown out thanks to legal blunder', court told
A member of rap group Kneecap is bidding for a terror charge against him to be thrown out by claiming police and prosecutors made a technical blunder at the start of criminal proceedings. Liam Og O hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, is accused of supporting a proscribed terror organisation by displaying a Hezbollah flag at a gig in November last year. At Westminster magistrates court on Wednesday, his lawyers launched an application for the charge to be dismissed because of the way the charge was first brought. It is argued that Attorney General Richard Hermer had not formally given his consent when police told O hAnnaidh that he faced a terrorism-related offence on May 21. The following day, the senior law office's consent was given, but O hAnnaidh's lawyers say this was now out-of-time, falling a day beyond the time limit of six months to bring a criminal charge. The Crown Prosecution Service opposes the application, arguing the consent of the Attorney General is not required to bring a criminal charge. 'The Attorney General consent is not required until a court appearance at which the defendant engages with a charge', said Michael Bisgrove, for the CPS. Hundreds of Kneecap supporters turned out with flags and banners for O hAnnaidh's latest court hearing, greeting him with chants of 'free, free, Mo Chara'. O hAnnaidh was swamped by photographers as he arrived, with security officers taking more than a minute to usher him into the court building. The Metropolitan Police has imposed conditions limiting where the demonstration outside the court can take place, saying they are needed to 'prevent serious disruption'. That decision was met by Kneecap with an accusation it was a 'calculated political decision' that was 'designed to try and portray support for Kneecap as somehow troublesome'. The band 'asked supporters to go out of your way to be compliant with all instructions issued, irrespective of how pitiful'. O hAnnaidh's lawyers, in written submissions to the court, argue the charge against him was brought on May 22, after Attorney General consent had been given, and is therefore 'out of time'. They say the CPS 'now seeks to rely on a written 'charge' issued by the Metropolitan Police on the previous day, 21st May 2025. 'However, proceedings could not be lawfully instituted without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) - who could not consent without the permission of the Attorney General. 'The DPP had not consented to the institution of proceedings when the police 'charge' was issued on 21st May 2025, nor had the Attorney General given his permission to the DPP to consent. 'The charge issued by the Metropolitan Police was, in the circumstances, a nullity.' Court papers reveal the Met Police issued a 'notice of criminal charge' on May 21 at midday, over the alleged offence on November 21 2024. O hAnnaidh was told in the notice to appear at court on 10am on June 18, with a Detective Constable named as the issuer. The next day, at 6.06pm, the reviewing lawyer in the case, who is a specialist terrorism prosecutor for the CPS, sent an email to the defence solicitor which read: 'At 18:06 hours today I made the decision to re-issue the Postal Charge and Requisition. 'This relates to the same offence/allegation. 'A copy of this is attached for your information. You will be provided with some disclosure about why this has been done in due course'. This fresh notice came with a 'charge date' of May 22 An explanation provided by the CPS to O hAnnaidh later explained that the police Postal Charge and Requisition (PCR) was issued when 'a Law Officer had not given permission for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to consent to the institution of proceedings. 'On 22 May 2025 His Majesty's Solicitor General gave permission for the DPP to consent to the prosecution of the Defendant. Thereafter the DPP consented to the prosecution of the Defendant. 'On 22 May 2025 the Prosecution, after DPP consent had been given, issued a PCR .' The hearing, before Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring, continues. O hAnnaidh has not yet entered a plea to the charge. He is represented by four barristers for the hearing, including three who are King's Counsel.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
FX Brokerage Implosion Ties Up Millions Owed to Farage Backer
By and Greg Ritchie Save Christopher Harborne, a little-known mogul who's one of the biggest backers of Nigel Farage's political ascent in the UK, seemed to have landed a bargain. Harborne's IFX (UK) Ltd. agreed to buy currency brokerage Argentex Group Plc in mid-April, rescuing a rival on the verge of collapse after a slump in the dollar triggered by US President Donald Trump's tariff war. The businessman – who paid for Reform UK leader Farage to attend Trump's inauguration – appeared to have picked up a competitor for a fraction of its historic value.
