(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the next steps for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, also known as the Hillsborough law.
As Members will be aware, the Bill was due to return to the Chamber today for its remaining Commons stages. From the very beginning we have been clear: it is a Bill for families, and it must have their voices and views at its heart. We remain absolutely committed to making meaningful changes for the families of Hillsborough, the Manchester terror attack, the Grenfell Tower fire, the sub-postmasters and, sadly, so many more.
The Bill is about something very simple: what people should be able to expect from the state when the worst, sadly, happens: candour, transparency, frankness and a system that stands with families, not against them—not a battle against the full might of the state. That is why the Bill is so important and is so long overdue, and it is why we will always be open to listening.
On Second Reading, the Prime Minister made a commitment that the Bill would not be watered down, and that any changes made to it will only strengthen it. We have always been clear that the Hillsborough law will apply to all public authorities, including the intelligence services. The Prime Minister was clear on Second Reading that the duty of candour would need to apply differently to the intelligence services, to get the right balance between transparency and national security. Last week, the Government brought forward several amendments to strengthen the Bill, including to extend the duty of candour directly to individuals working for the intelligence agencies, as well as to the authorities themselves. This was a direct response to concerns raised by MPs and campaigners.
There have been reports in the press that the Government wanted to water down aspects of the Bill. I want to take those claims head on, because, with respect, that was never, ever our intention. It is not what the amendments we proposed would have done. The amendments aimed to strengthen the Bill by extending the duty to individual employees of the intelligence services, as well as to the services as organisations. However, it is clear from our conversations with the families directly and with the stakeholders that there are concerns about how the accompanying safeguards we proposed will work in practice.
There will be questions about why we could not find a solution and why we need to delay when families have been clear on their views. I want to be clear that this is an incredibly complex area of policy. Across Government, we must think about all the possible scenarios and unintended consequences for national security, and then work together with Parliament, the Intelligence and Security Committee, the campaigners and, most of all, the families to find a way through.
It is right to acknowledge that this is not a simple issue to resolve. We are absolutely committed to the principles of the Bill: ensuring clear standards for all public servants and accountability for anyone who seeks to lie or cover up the truth. At the same time, our primary duty as the Government is to keep this country safe and secure. We must be able to assure our citizens and our allies that national security information will always be protected.
The Government remain resolutely committed to finding a way forward on this issue, which is why we have taken the decision to delay the remaining Commons stages of the Bill so that we can find a solution and bring it forward in this House. This pause is not a step back from our principles; it is a commitment to getting this right. I know that families have waited too long already. This decision is not one we took lightly, but we believe it is better to take the time needed to resolve the complex issues, rather than rush the Bill through.
I want to place on the record my deepest thanks to the families and stakeholders for all their continued work with us. It has been the biggest privilege for me, personally, to have had the opportunity to get to know them and to work alongside them over the last year—in particular Margaret Aspinall, Charlotte Hennessy, Sue Roberts, Steve Kelly, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond, who I now personally count as my friends, and I hope they feel the same.
The Bill is about restoring trust between the public and the state. That trust cannot be demanded: it must be earned. It must be earned by showing the families that this legislation is not about appearances, not about headlines, not about being seen to act; it is about making real and lasting change. By listening to the families, and by taking time to get this right, that is exactly what we are doing. Because when things go wrong, the truth must come out. Accountability must follow and families must never, ever again be left to fight or walk alone. That is what the Bill will achieve, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Justice.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
What an absolute shambles. The Government have had long enough to work this out: the campaign for a Hillsborough law started 10 years ago, in 2016; Labour MPs started campaigning for it a year later, in 2017; in 2022, the Prime Minister adopted it as a formal Labour policy; in 2024, he put it in his manifesto, promising it would be one of his first acts as Prime Minister. Yet here we are today, after another set of rushed amendments, with yet another delay and another promise to get it right, but absolutely no idea what the Government are going to do or even when they are going to do it.
This problem was not some bolt out of the blue or unforeseeable surprise. How the Bill applies to the intelligence agencies is an obvious question that has been known for years, but it is a question that the Prime Minister—the man they used to call Mr Forensic—never thought to answer. Instead, he did what he always does: he made the campaigners one promise and made the intelligence agencies another. That is why, when the Bill’s Report stage was due last week, the Government pulled it. It is why, when it was due again today, they pulled it again, late last night. It is why, just now, the Minister was unable to say when the Government will bring forward their next attempt to get this right.
Right now, in the bowels of Whitehall, the Government are trying to draft their way through the problem—trying to find a form of words that will satisfy both the campaigners and the spooks. But I have news for the Minister: they cannot draft their way out of this problem. There is a choice to be made. If the Prime Minister believes it is dangerous to apply this law to the intelligence agencies in full, just as it is applied to other public bodies, then he simply should not do that. He needs to make a decision.
I have five questions for the Minister. I am not asking for classified information, so she need not use that defence. These are reasonable questions that she can answer. First, by what specific date will the Government return to Parliament with a new amendment to address this question? Secondly, do the Government still believe it is appropriate for the heads of the intelligence agencies to determine what information is provided to an investigation?
Thirdly, if the Government believe that somebody else should decide, who do they think that should be? Fourthly, if the Government believe that the decision rightly lies with the intelligence agencies, and that this is necessary for national security, are Ministers prepared to assert that difficult truth to the campaigners? Fifthly, what representations have the Government received from the Governments of other Five Eyes countries that do not have laws like this?
There are five questions; five clear answers are needed. After all this time, we deserve answers for the families who have suffered terrible tragedies, for the brave men and women who work every day to keep us safe, and for the country as a whole.
This completely avoidable situation is the fault of a pointless Prime Minister who has no idea what he wants to do and, even if he did, no idea how to do it. He made a promise but had no idea how to keep it. He made that promise not once, but five times in this House alone. As with tax and spend, jury trials, ID cards and more, the contradictions are piling up. The Government talk about a duty of candour, but if the Minister was to show some candour now, she would admit that this has been, from start to finish, an absolute mess.
Alex Davies-Jones
I do not know how the Opposition dare. It is utterly shameful. I know that the shadow Secretary of State knows how complex this all is and how much it means to everyone involved. His party did nothing to solve this issue—the Conservatives did nothing for the families or to bring forward a duty of candour. He asks me to be candid, so I will be candid. This is about righting an injustice and preventing people wronged by injustice from going through absolute hell. To try to make political hay from this matter is disgraceful, and he should be called out for it.
The hon. Gentleman has been in the job for only a few days, and I was going to sincerely welcome him to his position and hope that we could work collegiately on this legislation for the families and the victims of these horrendous state cover-ups. However, I advise him that following in the footsteps of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), by attention seeking at all costs does not end well.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, we will continue to work with the families, to listen and to work with the intelligence services and other partners to ensure that the Bill is brought back to the House when it is fit and proper.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I must say to the new shadow Justice Secretary that we have been trying to do this since I was elected in 2019, and we could not even get a seat at the table with the Government then, so to cast aspersions—[Interruption.]
Ian Byrne
I’ll move on.
I thank the Minister for the statement and for the pause. A lot of people were extremely concerned about what was happening over the weekend, myself included, so I think the pause is the right thing to do. This is not just a law or a piece of legislation; this is a legacy. This is about the 97 men, women and children who died at Hillsborough, but also those who have been wronged at the hands of the state. This is hugely important, and it is not party political. It is for the whole House to make sure it is done right.
I would like to ask the Minister why amendment 23, which I tabled and which has the full support of everybody connected to Hillsborough, has not been adopted by the Government. Why is it deemed not to be right and proper to be adopted by the Government? It would solve all our issues. Any clarification on that would be great.
Could the Minister also give us a timeline? As she rightly stated, we have waited a long, long time for this, and there is a real concern now that the Bill could be kicked into the long grass. I know the Minister does not want that; she knows I do not want that. All the families and campaigners do not want that either. I just ask for a little clarity on those two questions.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligent campaigning on this matter throughout his entire life as a parliamentarian, and for his commitment to ensuring that the voices of the families are always heard inside and outside this place. I make the commitment to him that the Government are listening to the campaigners and committed to doing all we can to work on a way forward. We will work with him, with other parliamentarians and with the Intelligence and Security Committee to find that way forward on this complex and difficult issue. I am committed to having a meeting with him to discuss that further.
On a timeline, we know that families have waited too long. The Bill is not just overdue; it is far too overdue, and it is needed more than ever. However, it has to be right, and we have to get the balance right. We are not kicking the Bill into the long grass; we are committed to doing this as soon as possible, but we have to get it right. I am not setting an arbitrary deadline here—the families have asked me not to, because they want us to get it right. We are committed to doing that and to getting this policy correct. As soon as we have more information, I will bring that forward to the House.
My hon. Friend mentioned his specific amendment. Again, I am happy to speak with him on that and discuss it going forward. Again, I make the commitment that we will work together to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Liberal Democrat Members recognise that the Minister has worked to move the Bill forwards, and has given a lot of care and attention to trying to get it into this place, but the situation is frustrating for those on both sides of the House. This landmark legislation will transform the relationship between public bodies and victims of horrendous tragedies. It was this Government and this Prime Minister who committed to its implementation in full in the Labour manifesto, yet we find ourselves again in limbo.
The carve-out for security services is completely unacceptable and has ground this process to a halt. It is vital that the legislation includes clear, binding provisions to ensure that the security services are subject to the duty of candour. Despite much of the rhetoric around this, there are clear ways to include the security services in this duty while still protecting sensitive national security information. We already do it, as the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) alluded to in speaking to his amendment 23, which I am pleased to have supported.
Provisions already exist to allow evidence that is too sensitive for public disclosure to be heard in closed proceedings before a judge in inquiries, so there is no issue there. Heads of service must be held to account if they refuse to provide relevant information to inquiries and investigations, but it is not for them to decide what is relevant to an inquiry or investigation; that is up to the independent chair of that inquiry. Campaigners raised this issue as early as last September, and Ministers were made fully aware that this was a red line for victims and their families.
I trust that the Minister has had the families at the forefront of her mind in everything that she has done, so I ask her: when the Government present their Bill to the House of Commons, will the duty of candour apply to all in the intelligence services? Will she commit to ensuring that Report and Third Reading of the Bill will take place as soon as possible, so that there is a chance that the legislation will pass prior to the end of this parliamentary Session and the next King’s Speech, as promised, and will she give a cast-iron guarantee that it will be in this place that we put the full Hillsborough law forward, not the other place, so that elected representatives can fully scrutinise the finished legislation?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, for their tone, and for her candour; it is appreciated by the Government. I recognise and share her frustration, and that of the House, about how this process has been conducted. This is no ordinary Bill; it is something more than that, and it deserves proper scrutiny in this place, which we will ensure it receives. The Bill will come back to the House of Commons for adequate scrutiny before it goes to the Lords—we have made that commitment today.
There has never been a carve-out for the intelligence services. The duty of candour and assistance has always applied to them. The amendments that the Government tabled apply directly to individual employees of the intelligence services. The difference has always been on the procedures in place for how we handle secure information, but we are committed to finding a way forward for the benefit of everyone, and to doing so as soon as possible. I cannot give a definitive timeline, but we will do it at pace, with the families and the intelligence services. We have to get this right. The Bill will come to this House first, and I am committed to ensuring that it applies to all public servants.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the families, some of whom are in the Public Gallery; to Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby KC, who have done phenomenal work for the past 37 years; and of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and to the Minister for the work that she has done on this.
While I am pleased that the Government have paused proceedings on the Hillsborough law, I am increasingly concerned about the direction of travel. In March last year, the families of the 97 and Merseyside MPs made it clear that we would not accept anything less than the Hillsborough law. We all understand the importance of national security, but this Bill is not incompatible with national security. As has been said, provisions already exist, and quite frankly, nobody is above the law. A carve-out for the security and intelligence services would only allow the behaviour exposed by the Manchester Arena inquiry to happen again, whereby MI5 were able to withhold information and avoid accountability.
The Minister has been very patient in her responses, but I urge her to continue to work with the families, and with Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby. Please, Minister, bring the Hillsborough law back to this House, so that we can all pass it, because as a Liverpool MP, it would devastate me to vote against the Hillsborough law.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions, and I make that commitment to her. The Prime Minister was clear on Second Reading that the Bill as introduced was agreed with Hillsborough Law Now and the families, and would not be watered down. We will do all that we can to strengthen the Bill. We will continue to work with the families. I, too, pay tribute to Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby, whom the Government met this morning to discuss next steps. We met the families again today to discuss ongoing collaboration, which will continue. The families will be at the forefront of this, because this is their Bill. This is a legacy, and we want to ensure that we do right by them and bring forward the Hillsborough law.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and ask her for two points of clarification. Does she believe that it is appropriate for the heads of the intelligence services to determine what information is provided to an investigation, or should that be determined by someone else, and does she accept that in the early stages of the Bill, the Government were clear that it would not be possible to make the Bill applicable to individual agents? How can the House have confidence that we can now do that without creating unacceptable risks to national security?
Alex Davies-Jones
The primary objective of this Government, and I hope of every Government, is to protect national security and to keep our citizens safe. That is, and will continue to be, of utmost importance to this Government and to this Prime Minister. We will continue to work with the intelligence services. We have had a very collaborative working relationship with them during the development of this Bill. That relationship will continue. We would never do anything that would jeopardise or undermine national security; we have been very clear about that. The families have also been very clear that that is not their intention, and they totally understand this. We think there is a way forward. The Government introduced amendments to ensure that the Bill applied to individual agents, and we did that by working with the heads of the intelligence services directly and with the security services. We will continue to work collaboratively with them and with the families on finding a way forward.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The response of the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), while families are sitting with us in the Public Gallery, was one that he should be ashamed of. As the Minister knows, for me, this has always been about families first. It is crystal clear that the Government cannot progress the Bill without the full confidence and support of the families who have fought for decades for justice, and it is right that the Government listen to the families and pause today. The Prime Minister made a direct promise to those families that the Hillsborough law would be delivered in full. Any amendment that fails to satisfy the families on the duty of candour of individuals in the security services is a red line for me and for so many other colleagues in this place. Will the Minister promise me that she will work like the clappers with the families to introduce an amendment that has their full support, and that she will deliver justice for all victims of state cover-ups, so that we can finally say, “Never again”?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, and commend her on her tenacious campaigning on this issue. She has been a true champion for the Hillsborough families, and for all the families impacted by state failure and state cover-ups. She is a true friend to everyone who needs their voice to be heard in this place. I can make a commitment to her that we will continue to work with the families, the intelligence services and the Intelligence and Security Committee to find a way forward. I am committed to working with her and other parliamentarians on this issue. This has always been a collaborative process. I am always keen to work cross-party, despite what the official Opposition have to say, because this is above party politics. It always has been. It is about ensuring that we find a way forward that can benefit the families and be a true legacy, while ensuring that we protect national security.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
In my past life, I spent a good deal of time working on matters affecting victims of child sex abuse and trafficking, so I have a lot of sympathy with the Government’s desire to ensure that the Bill, in its final form, is workable, but it seems there is already a serious risk of ambiguity around the accountability at the heart of the Bill. How does the Minister propose to ensure that there is effective oversight of the decision-making process about disclosure? If it is her view that it is not the heads of the intelligence services who should make that decision, can she share with the House her view on who should make that decision, so that we can be confident that there will be appropriate oversight of the disclosure process?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows that this is a very complex issue, and that it is not an easy problem to solve, but we are committed to solving it, and we will continue to work with the heads of the intelligence services, the Intelligence and Security Committee, parliamentarians, the families, the Foreign Office, the Home Office and all Government Departments to ensure that we get this right and that there is protection, oversight, accountability and an amendment that the families can support. They do not want to see national security compromised. No one does. We are not prepared to go there, but we are prepared to do the right thing, and to ensure that there is candour across all public authorities.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
The Minister was right when she said that trust has to be earned. I believe that she is really putting her heart and soul into earning the trust of the families. I thank her for her work in doing so, and I hope that it leads us to a satisfactory conclusion. Not everyone affected by Hillsborough is as close as the Minister is to the very important considerations that she has to balance, or indeed to the vagaries of parliamentary procedure and the way that Bills pass into law. Our constituents might only read the lurid headlines, or about the party political point scoring, and they see stories about the Bill being watered down or delayed. It is not great for people to read that, so I urge the Minister to make sure that the next time she, or anyone in the Government, makes a statement publicly on this Bill, it is to say that agreement has been reached, and it can go ahead.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that question from my hon. Friend, who, as the MP for Merseyside and Ellesmere Port, has been a vocal champion for the families at every stage of this process. It has been a privilege to work with him and other colleagues on this directly. He is right. This Bill might colloquially be called the Hillsborough law, and many people outside this place who are not aware of the issues might think it is about a tragic football match that happened 36 years ago, but it is about so much more than that. This Bill will provide the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation to anyone who has been affected by a death in which the state had a role, and it will be non-means-tested legal aid for the first time ever.
The Bill will also ensure that all public servants and authorities are bound by a legal and criminalised duty of candour. It will bring in new criminal offences of misleading the public and of misconduct in public office. This will be a truly landmark Bill that will change the culture of British life for the better, forever. That is what is at stake here. That is why this Bill is so important, and we are committed to bringing it forward as soon as possible, but we need to get it right for everyone. That is what the Government are committed to doing.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I know that she is a woman on a mission, and let us hope that we get to the end of this before terribly long. We know that the Government are struggling with accepting the families’ wish that we should pick up amendment 23 and its consequential amendments. I am mystified about the business of a balance being struck between intelligence services personnel being transparent and the protection of national security, because my understanding was that we already had that balance; national security is safeguarded by the fact that in any inquiry, the release of sensitive information happens in closed session, via a High Court judge.
Schedule 1 includes a carve-out for the intelligence and security services, who are proven not to have told the truth. That is a dreadful shame. I am told that we have to trust what is said, but that seems entirely inappropriate, as the heads of the security services have unfortunately shown themselves not to be trustworthy. People talk about our allies being able to trust us, but if the heads of the security services are lying, I do not know how our allies are meant to trust us. Will the Minister please tell us what the problem is with amendment 23? It has been put together by Pete Wetherby, Elkan and others, and the families support it. Why can we not just agree to it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her service on the Public Bill Committee. Her thoughtful contributions there have made the Bill better. I will cite the great Pete Wetherby KC now at this Dispatch Box, and I hope I do him justice: there is no balance to be struck on national security, because national security should always come first. That is Pete Wetherby’s position, that is the families’ position, and that is the Government’s position. The Government always have to protect national security, and we will always do that, but the families have a right to the truth. I want to restate that there is no carve-out in this Bill for the intelligence services. They will be bound by a legal duty of candour, and it will apply to individual agents. All we need to do is find the mechanism by which that information is passed on to an investigation or inquiry. We are working at pace with the intelligence services and the families to find a way forward. This is very complex. It sounds simple, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is not. I am a woman on a mission, and I am determined to do this as soon as possible, but we need to get it right, and that is what this Government will do.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for the leadership that he has shown on this. It is right that we have a pause, but the Minister will know how distressing this is for the families, and about the emotional and physical toll that going back and forth to and from Parliament for decades has had on them. They came so close to this Bill being passed, only to encounter further disappointments and setbacks. This is the only experience that my constituents whose children were killed in the Manchester arena attack have had of meetings in Parliament to date, so can she assure us that when the Bill comes back, every single part of it will have the full involvement and support of the campaigners and families, and that there will be no more short-notice, unexpected amendments from the Government?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I want to place on the record my sincere thanks to her for all her tenacious campaigning on behalf of her constituents who have been through the unimaginable pain, trauma and grief of losing their children in the most horrific circumstances and then being denied the truth. It was a privilege to meet her constituents with the Prime Minister last week and to hear their truth, and I thank them again from the Dispatch Box for sharing their pain with us and sharing directly why this Bill is so important and why we need to get it right. Hearing their truth and hearing from the families is exactly why the Government have taken the decision to pause this legislation so that we can get it right. We are determined to do that by working with the families and hearing from them, and by working with the intelligence services.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Looking at the wider implications of the Bill, the Minister talks about the intelligence services. Can she confirm whether there is a carve-out for military intelligence services in any way? Looking at that more broadly still, will it also apply to special forces operations and personnel, and will it be applied retrospectively?
Alex Davies-Jones
It is important to put on the record that there is absolutely no carve-out here. The Bill will apply to all public authorities, including the armed forces and all intelligence services. We have worked collaboratively with our armed forces and with the Ministry of Defence in the design and creation of the legislation, and we will continue to do so. As I have said, the primary objective of this Government is to protect national security, and we will do that at all costs, but we also need to ensure that the families’ experiences are reflected in the Bill and that we get the legislation right, and that is exactly what we will do.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome the delay to the Bill. Too often Governments soldier on even when they are not getting things right, and that leads to bad legislation. This is something that we should get right before we send it to the other place.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said, this is not just about the Hillsborough families, and I pay tribute to them for what they have done on behalf of others who have been wronged by the state. I say as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood that it is also about the people who were wronged in that scandal. It is about the nuclear test veterans, those wronged in the Horizon scandal in the Post Office and many others. What they have all shown us is that the state will lie to defend itself, and we do need this duty of candour for all, including the security services, who can give evidence in camera, so that they tell the truth to the public when they get things wrong, and so we can learn from it and move forwards.
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is right. This is a Bill for everyone who has been wronged and lied to and who has been subject to failures of the state when it was meant to protect them. This Bill is for much more than just the Hillsborough families; it is for the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, the LABRATS, the sub-postmasters, the victims of the Grenfell tragedy and, sadly, many more. It is for every citizen in this country who potentially could be caught up in this. It is about looking forward and getting this right for decades to come to ensure that when something goes wrong, the state, which is meant to protect people, tell them the truth and be open with transparency, frankness and candour, does just that. We will ensure that the Bill does that before it leaves the Commons.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the Minister for the constructive, collaborative and collegiate way in which she has worked, and I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). That is in stark contrast with the disgraceful words from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), and his behaviour in this statement. This whole process has been marked by parties of all shades and hues working together. In that spirit, I want to reassure the Hillsborough families that that is the way in which we have proceeded on our work in association with the Bill, and we will continue to do so.
I endorsed amendment 23—I think it is sound—and Pete Weatherby has also endorsed my amendment 20, which provides a simple role for the Intelligence and Security Committee. My question to the Minister is simple: when we see the next draft of the Bill, will there be a role for the ISC?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and comments. I pay tribute to him for his collaborative work, collegiate tone and all his constructive work in the Bill Committee—the Bill is better for it. The Bill is and always has been above party politics. For anyone to seek to use it for political gain is truly shameful and disgraceful. It is all about the victims and their families, and it always will be. I will ensure that we continue to work with him and the rest of the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and any party that chooses to work collaboratively as the Bill progresses. I can assure him that there will be a role for the ISC; we will work with all partners and agencies to ensure that we get the Bill right.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her update and her acknowledgment of how important it is that the families who have suffered so much and campaigned so hard are satisfied by the final wording of the Bill. What assurances can she give us that the Government will provide the leadership, training and resources to change the culture of cover-up and minimalist responses, and ensure that people get the full truth the first time around?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend’s important question, which goes to the heart of exactly what the Bill is about. It is all very well for us to write fancy words on goatskin and ermine, but if we do not change the culture—the aim at the heart of the Bill—this process will have been pointless. We must change the culture, and the legislation is partly about that, but it is also about ensuring that we get the implementation right. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I are heading to Liverpool next week to see how we can learn from the world-leading work of the University of Liverpool on changing the culture through a duty of candour for public authorities. We are continuing that work at pace; none of it is stopping. We are continuing to work jointly on the Bill’s implementation, and on getting it right once it becomes law, while simultaneously developing the policy. I look forward to updating the House on that work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Minister very much for the statement. I also thank the Liverpool MPs, who have worked very hard to achieve balance in the Bill between citizens and the priority status of security agencies. As the Minister said, it is time for the Government to get this right, and that is what we should be doing.
My colleague Paul Frew, a Member of the Legislative Assembly back home, is taking a candour Bill through the Assembly. The obligation must apply across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. May I ask the Minister a favour, if she does not mind? Will she work with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and with my colleague, to ensure that everyone will benefit, no matter whether they are in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Alex Davies-Jones
It gives me great pleasure to confirm that, to take this forward, we have had fantastic collaboration with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Government. Everyone has collectively been pursuing the aims of the Bill, which has been a true joy for me as a Member of Parliament from a nation with a devolved Government. All nations have given legislative consent for the criminal offences to apply UK-wide—that is positive. We will bring that amendment forward when the Bill comes back to the Commons. We continue to work collaboratively across the United Kingdom to ensure that a duty of candour applies to all public authorities in the United Kingdom.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The campaign for the Hillsborough law—not “a” Hillsborough law—has been this country’s greatest and most defining campaign for justice led by ordinary people in the modern era. I am very pleased that the Government pulled back at the weekend from what would have been—regardless of any good intentions—a betrayal of that campaign. The choice that the Prime Minister now makes will come to define his domestic legacy when all is done and dusted.
Will the Minister put on the record the understanding that those of us with closer proximity to power than the people who have campaigned courageously for this law have a tendency to be too trusting of others in powerful institutions? The security services sometimes let people down, and they sometimes do not effectively protect the lives of people in our country, so a duty of candour should apply to them, too. Will the Minister confirm that the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) is not off the table and will now be fully and properly considered before the Bill comes back to this House?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and comments, and I can reassure him and everyone again that the duty of candour will apply to all public servants, including the intelligence services and individual agents. That is the intent and it will be in this legislation. We will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to ensure that we get this right. We will work with the families who have that lived experience. The Prime Minister has heard from them directly about why it is so important that the intelligence services are captured, and they will be by the duty of candour in this legislation. We will work together to ensure that we get the legislation right.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in her positive discussions with the Scottish Government relating to the provisions of non-means tested legal aid? Will Scottish families enjoy the same access to justice as those in the rest of our United Kingdom, and at the same time?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and again thank him for his service on the Public Bill Committee. It was fantastic to have another Member of Parliament from a devolved nation represented on the Bill Committee to discuss why it is so important that everyone in the United Kingdom should benefit from this legislation. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government have indicated that they would like to be part of the mechanism for legal aid, and they have asked us to include them in this legislation. Those discussions are ongoing. It will, of course, be for the Scottish Government to determine the methodology for how they determine who gets legal aid for their fatal accident inquiries and inquests. Those discussions are ongoing, but we have had very positive discussions with the Scottish Government.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I travelled through Manchester Victoria station on the day of the arena bombing and I saw the young people on their way into that concert. They were young, vibrant, excited, happy—all the things that they deserved to be, doing the most normal thing in the world: going to see a concert. It was one of the most shocking moments of my life a few hours later to hear that they had been the victims of a terrorist attack. It is painful to me that they were let down by the state and by false narratives. Almost a decade later, I am glad that the families are being listened to. I thank the Minister for her assurance that we are going to take the time to get this right. Can she please confirm that the voices of all the victims and all the families of state cover-ups and of these tragedies will be at the centre of any legislation that comes forward from this point on?