Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Maureen Burke Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this timely and important debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on grief support and the impact of death on society, I approach this issue through the lens of what bereavement means for families, communities and society as a whole. The Hillsborough disaster, Grenfell and the infected blood scandal all exposed what happens when the bereaved are met with defensiveness instead of candour and support. The proposed Hillsborough law is therefore about much more than legal mechanics; it is about whether families can begin to process grief, secure in the knowledge that they have been told the truth and given a fair voice in the proceedings.

An inquest conducted in a spirit of candour can provide a form of closure. It cannot bring back loved ones, but it can help to answer the haunting questions of what happened and why—questions that, if left unresolved, prolong grief and deepen trauma. No legislation can make amends for the terrible treatment that the families of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster endured at the hands of our public authorities, but a duty of candour can seek to ensure that such treatment is never repeated. If we truly want a culture of candour, we must see it not only as an obligation to tell the truth, but as a duty to work alongside the bereaved to give them closure where possible and to signpost them to the help they need. That is the legacy that the Hillsborough families have called for. It is the least that a compassionate state should provide.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Maureen Burke Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

This House has heard many personal stories over the course of the Bill. Seeing a loved one die a long, protracted death is not an experience that I would wish on anybody, but once it has happened to you, the memory never fades. There are many important technical, legal and medical aspects of the Bill that are essential to ensure that it operates in the safest way possible, but supporting the principle of personal agency over a dignified death comes from the heart and from the personal experiences of each and every one of us.

I am aware that the Scottish Parliament has its own legislation in progress on this very difficult issue, but I wish to share my own story with the House to help in the decision that it must take. My brother David was 52 years old when he arrived at work one day and the manager on the shop floor told him that he looked pale. He had worked a tough, physical job for 30 years and was a strong, full-of-life man. His manager was so concerned at David’s pallor that he took him straight to the hospital. After two weeks in hospital, he was given the devastating diagnosis of an advanced stage of pancreatic cancer.

Over the next 18 months, David tried everything he could to stay alive. However, after an unsuccessful operation to try and remove the cancer, and taking part in trials for new drugs, he slowly began to lose mobility. The last few months of his life were lived at home in a hospital bed. The strength and resilience of his wife, Jackie, to take care of him day in, day out remains an inspiration to me.

As David’s health declined, his painkillers were increased further and further. His painkillers became so strong that he could no longer speak, and we did not know if he could hear us. His body became skeletal and his speech gradually disappeared. In one of the last times when he still was able to speak, he called out to me from his bed and told me that if there was a pill that he could take to end his life, he would very much like to take it.

David would suffer in silent pain for a further three weeks. He could never have known that I would ever have the opportunity to stand in this place and ask colleagues to make sure that others do not go through what he went through. I have done right by my brother by speaking here today. What David needed was a humane, safe and trusting process available to him at home that would give him agency over his last weeks and months. That is what this Bill offers. That is the choice that this House is finally today in a position to give to those suffering from a terminal illness, and I commend the Bill to the House.