Family of Katie Allan back bid to remove Crown immunity
It concluded that a breach of the Health & Safety Act "materially contributed" to their deaths, but the prison system is protected from legal action by Crown immunity meaning Polmont or any other prison couldn't be found criminally responsible.
The Scottish Government has said it would scrap that immunity, which has previously been removed from the NHS and the police, but would need permission from Westminster to do so.
On Wednesday Labour MP Blair McDougall will present a bill calling for Crown immunity to be removed from prison estates.
The bill is being backed by Ms Allan's parents, with Mr McDougall their local MP.
Linda Allan told the BBC: "We've always said justice for us would be the removal of Crown immunity. There's no meaning in losing a child but it would be a legacy for us.
"It means that in death Katie has done something good. That her death hasn't been meaningless.
"It means that perhaps her death might save the lives of other people in the future.
"If you look for example at the police service, when it lost Crown immunity, safety standards started to increase in terms of cell custody and police stations.
"So you would hope the same would happen across the prison estate."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Government warns asylum seekers they may be made homeless if they refuse to move out of migrant hotels into alternative accommodation - as current bill costs taxpayers £5.7million per day
Asylum seekers could be made homeless if they refuse Home Office demands to move accommodation, the Government has warned. In a bid to stop migrants rejecting alternative housing without a valid reason, ministers will bring in new rules to tackle non-compliance. A 'Failure to Travel' policy will ensure illegal migrants who are moved from hotels to other 'suitable' accommodation must take it. If they refuse they could lose their housing and support, the Home Office said. Around 100 asylum seekers refuse to move accommodation each week, the Mail understands, and ministers currently have no powers to force them. Under the Conservatives, the Government threatened to remove housing and support from those who refused to move to the Bibby Stockholm barge, which is no longer in use. Labour's new plan will mirror the Tory rules, but will be applied more widely to other forms of accommodation. The 'firm but fair' policy is part of the Government's drive to end the use of expensive hotels to house asylum seekers. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has vowed to put a stop to the practice by 2029 - in a move she says will save £1billion a year. Currently, taxpayers are forking out £5.7million per day to house asylum seekers in hotels - at an average cost of £118.87 per person per night. Other accommodation, such as shared houses, is estimated to cost just £15 per night. Ministers are looking to buy tower blocks and former student accommodation to house migrants in a bid to reduce the hotel bill. More than 106,000 asylum seekers were in receipt of taxpayer-funded support as of March this year, including 32,000 in hotels. Asylum seekers are given free accommodation and a weekly allowance if the Home Office believes they would otherwise be destitute. The majority of those arriving on small boats qualify. Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Dame Angela Eagle, said: 'We inherited an asylum system on the brink of collapse - mismanaged, under strain, and costing the public a fortune. We are getting a grip. 'We are working to close hotels, restore order, and put fairness and value for money at the heart of our asylum system. This government is making those necessary decisions to protect the taxpayer and uphold the integrity of our borders. 'These reforms to the Failure to Travel policy are another example of this government's action to transform the asylum accommodation system and crack down on those who abuse our system, so it operates fairly and saves the taxpayer money.' The Mail this week reported how asylum seekers are using taxpayer handouts to fund their gambling habits. Home Office data, released to the PoliticsHome website, showed pre-paid cards given out to pay for basics including food and clothing are being used in gambling venues such as bookmakers, amusement arcades and even casinos.
Reuters
8 minutes ago
- Reuters
Kennedy to oust care task force, WSJ reports; HHS says no decision yet
WASHINGTON, July 25 (Reuters) - U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is planning to remove all the members of an advisory panel that determines what cancer screenings and other preventive health measures insurers must cover, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson said on Friday that Kennedy had not yet made a decision regarding the 16-member U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. "No final decision has been made on how the USPSTF can better support HHS' mandate to Make America Healthy Again," the HHS spokesperson said. The Journal said Kennedy planned to dismiss all 16 panel members in what would be the latest in a series of far-reaching actions by Kennedy, a long-time vaccine skeptic, to reshape U.S. regulation of vaccines, food and medicine. In June he fired all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts, replacing them with seven handpicked members, including known vaccine skeptics. The USPSTF includes medical experts serving staggered four-year terms on a volunteer basis. Its role in choosing what services will be covered by insurers was established under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The 40-year-old group, whose recommendations provide guidance to doctors, looks at everything from routine breast cancer screening to drugs to prevent HIV infection. The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld the constitution of the task force and ruled in favor of its recommendation to cover preventive care. Though made up of an independent group of volunteer experts, members are selected by the health secretary without Senate confirmation and it relies on support from the department's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. A group of 104 health organizations, opens new tab, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, in early July sent a letter to Congressional health committees, urging them "to protect the integrity" of the task force. The task force has been criticized by some conservatives, opens new tab as too left-leaning.
Daily Mail
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Keir Starmer accused of failing in his mission to 'smash the gangs' as figures show only a tiny fraction of small boat migrants are prosecuted - as the Tories say the smugglers have 'never had it easier'
Keir Starmer was last night accused of failing in his mission to 'smash the gangs'. Figures show that just a tiny fraction of migrants crossing the Channel are being brought to justice. Since Labour 's leader became Prime Minister last July, only 446 people have been charged with any immigration offence, figures published by Parliament have revealed. Over the same period, a record 43,309 migrants have reached Britain after crossing the Channel in more than 700 dinghies. This comes despite Sir Keir vowing to tackle the illegal migration crisis by scrapping Rwanda deportations and focusing on tougher law enforcement instead. The number of those charged includes some offences not related to Channel crossings, so the number of small boat migrants prosecuted was even lower. There were 153 people charged between last July and this June with the key offence of 'assisting entry of illegal immigrant', which is intended to be used against those piloting each vessel, but Labour insisted the numbers have increased on their watch from 118 in the previous 12 months. Tory justice spokesman Robert Jenrick said: 'Keir Starmer boasted he would smash the gangs, but the gangs are laughing at him. They've never had it easier and crossings are up 50 per cent as a result. We're now heading towards being the illegal immigration capital of Europe. 'It's clear Starmer is incapable of stopping the boats and his backbenchers don't want him to. The country cannot go on like this. 'Those that arrive illegally from the safety of France must be swiftly deported so the message is clear: if you break into Britain, you will not get a life here.' He obtained the new figures in Parliamentary written questions after asking ministers how many gangs had been smashed since Labour came to power. In a Commons clash this month, he asked Shabana Mahmood: 'Can the Justice Secretary [Ms Mahmood] tell us how many individuals have been prosecuted for smuggling people in on small boats?' She replied: 'I do not have those figures directly to hand, but I am sure that if they are available, I can write to him with the details.' He accused her of not having 'a clue' about 'one of the biggest challenges facing our country right now' but she shot back 'had he paid any attention, he would know that prosecutions do not fall to the Ministry of Justice; they are dealt with independently through the Crown Prosecution Service'. Latest Home Office figures show another 1,387 people have reached Britain in small boats since last Thursday, taking the total for the calendar year so far to 23,891. A Labour spokesman said: 'Robert Jenrick can reinvent himself as many times as he likes, but he cannot rewrite history. 'With Labour in office, more people were charged with assisting unlawful immigration in our first year in government than in the entire time that Jenrick was in charge of the Immigration System. 'Indeed, we charged more people with that offence in our first three months than he managed in his last six. 'But much more important than Robert Jenrick's failures in the past are the ones he is making now, and we don't just mean screwing up this attempted attack story against Labour. 'If he was truly serious about prosecuting dangerous people smugglers, he would not have voted against our new law to criminalise people who endanger the lives of others in the Channel, and would instead be supporting us to take that action against those who cause women and children to suffocate and drown on overcrowded small boats.'
