News focus: Hillsborough families are unimpressed by public advocate plan

If the aim of Dominic Raab’s proposal this week for a new Independent Public Advocate (IPA) was to reassure campaigners and victims, the early signs are that he has failed.

The justice secretary unveiled plans to create panels to support victims and relatives following national tragedies such as the 1989 Hillsborough stadium disaster and the 2017 Grenfell fire. But there are already questions about how independent a government-appointed advocate would be. Disappointment is also widespread that Raab has continued to reject granting legal aid to families for representation at inquests, helping confer equality of arms with lawyer-backed public authorities.

In a letter to the campaign group Hillsborough Law Now, Raab apologised for it taking five years from consultation on an IPA to his announcement. But was it worth the wait? The justice secretary said the scheme would give ‘practical support and a greater voice in seeking answers for the loved ones that families lost’.

‘The IPA will empower the victims throughout any inquiry, make sure they are listened to, and get the support they need from day one,’ said Raab.

Lack of power

The IPA will be an individual or a panel, usually ex-civil servants, emergency services workers or clergy. They will guide victims to sources of support, provide updates about investigations, and advocate on their behalf to public authorities and the government. Once investigations are complete, the IPA will produce a written report with recommendations for preventing similar disasters.

The response to Raab’s scheme has been lukewarm at best.

Maria Eagle, the Labour MP for Garston and Halewood in Liverpool, welcomed the pledge to legislate for a public advocate but was ‘very disappointed’ by the provisions announced by the justice secretary.

‘His proposed public advocate would not be independent, would not be a data controller, and would not be able to act only at the behest of families,’ said Eagle. ‘It would not have the power to use transparency to get at the truth at an early stage and torpedo the cover-ups that public authorities set about undertaking in the aftermath of disasters.’

Commons justice committee chair Sir Bob Neill urged Raab to reconsider extending the availability of legal aid, arguing there should be non-means-tested legal support in all cases involving mass fatalities.

‘It is not fair – there is no equality of arms – when those public bodies are represented by teams of lawyers, but the bereaved families have to rely on sometimes getting legal aid and sometimes not, or on pro bono representation,’ said Neill.

Raab pledged to review this suggestion, but stressed that inquiries are not supposed to be adversarial, which is why legal aid provision rules are as they are. A statutory duty of candour, as suggested by Labour, is set to be included this spring as part of a Home Office response to the Hillsborough inquiry.

‘I have never said that the IPA is the whole picture,’ Raab added. ‘I said that it is a partial but important step that we are taking. It is better to get on with it, because after so long, one thing that I get from the communities, victims and survivors is the need to get on with tangible action – that is the way we will restore confidence.’

No confidence

The problem is that victims and survivors retain little confidence in the government to meet their demands and prevent further disasters. Elkan Abrahamson, solicitor at north-west firm Broudie Jackson Canter and a director of Hillsborough Law Now, said engagement from the government with the Hillsborough families had been ‘almost non-existent’. In the five years since a review into the disaster was completed, 23 of the review’s 25 recommendations have yet to be implemented – even when the new IPA proposals are taken into account.

Abrahamson said: ‘We will be taking the justice secretary up on his offer to hear our views on the effective and independent development of this policy. Crucially, we will be reminding him of the many other recommendations which remain outstanding.’

Ian Byrne, MP for Liverpool West Derby, who was 17 when he went to watch the fateful semi-final at Hillsborough, said Raab’s proposals were a ‘pale imitation’ of what campaigners have spent years calling for.

‘For me, the key question is whether this proposal would have stopped the state cover-ups of Hillsborough, the contaminated blood scandal and so many other cover-ups over the ages, and whether it will prevent further cover-ups,’ Byrne said. ‘Unfortunately, I have to say that the answer is no.’