Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Amendment)

1st reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

14:01

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to omit section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; to provide that the Sovereign, the Royal Family, the Royal Household, the Royal Archives and the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are public authorities for the purposes of that Act; and for connected purposes.

I am grateful to have the chance to introduce this Bill alongside colleagues from parties across the House. I am very grateful for the breadth of support across many parties for the measures that it contains; that shows how much Members of the House recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in public office.

Today the people of France celebrate Bastille Day, to commemorate when they were driven to revolt because they were fed up of an aloof regime that they had no way of holding to account. One particular member of the royal family was travelling to shady destinations to meet secretly with foreign men of extreme wealth for reasons that would have shocked the common people if they had known. There is no record we can find to say whether or not Marie Antoinette spent three days visiting any of these men to tell them that she could not be their friend any more. Meanwhile, the elected representatives of the country—the Third Estate—were being blocked from having any say in the behaviour of the French royal family or even being able to investigate what members like that were up to.

To be clear, at this stage I do not believe that we in this place should be calling for an insurrection, as the Third Estate did then. Instead, the Bill I present today will go some way to adding a brick of transparency to the wall of secrecy and privilege that surrounds our own monarchy nearly 250 years later. The Bill also has support from the Campaign for Freedom of Information, Republic, the general committee of Labour International, and the National Union of Journalists.

There are two questions that we must ask in connection with the royal family and freedom of information. Under our constitution, which needs modernising in so many ways, are the royal family public servants or not? If they are, is it reasonable for one set of public servants to have such a blanket exemption from the rules that all others have to follow?

As MPs and Ministers, we are expected to follow the Nolan principles of public life, as are all public bodies and servants. The fifth Nolan principle is openness. It says:

“Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for doing so.”

Clearly, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was created in that spirit. But despite meeting the criteria of a public body, and despite the royal family unarguably being public servants, the monarchy has its own special exemption carved out in the Act. Can that in any way be right? Some right hon. and hon. Members may be concerned that the Bill is not perfectly reasonable in what it asks for, but I assure them that it is. It is about providing the bare minimum of accountability to the royal family and closing loopholes that I think we all agree should not be carved out just for members of one privileged lineage.

The Bill will address section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which gives a more or less blanket exemption to communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family, not just the King. That provision too often prevents communications from being released under freedom of information requests to other public authorities. In practice, the section 37 exemption has meant that perfectly reasonable questions about trips on the RAF’s royal flight have been refused, including the question of who flew with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor when he was not only a member of the royal family but employed as our trade envoy.

We now have a former Prime Minister pressing for information about whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor used taxpayer-funded jets or RAF bases to meet the paedophile and trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Countless other questions along those lines should have been answered long ago.

Andrew Lownie, who wrote the biography of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has seen the exemption at work time and again. He told me last week:

“It’s a scandal the royal family are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act—this was never intended to be an absolute exemption, and in practice the public interest test that should be applied has never come down in favour of disclosure, in my experience from scores of requests over a decade.”

This is really just one arbitrary and absurd rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us. My Bill would remove section 37 from the Freedom of Information Act completely.

The second part of my Bill would add a number of relevant institutions to the list of public authorities in the 2000 Act. That is because none of the main royal institutions is listed in the Act, so freedom of information requests cannot be made of them directly. My Bill proposes to fix that by adding the royal family, the royal household, the Royal Archives, and the ex-officio royal duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster to the list of public authorities covered by the Act. We should be able to ask questions to those undoubtedly public authorities.

Currently listed in schedule 1 of the 2000 Act are such institutions as the Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products, the British Wool Marketing Board, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine. The Act is very comprehensive, because we rightly expect transparency from the whole range of public bodies that owe us the Nolan duty of openness in exchange for our funding, patronage and respect—and we should of the royal family too.

All the usual exemptions would still apply—those relating to junior staff and national security, for example—but my Bill would go further. With reasonable measures similar to those that protect MPs from disclosures that might pose a danger to us from a security perspective, my Bill will allow for non-disclosure where data such as future travel details appear.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the uses and abuses of the secrecy currently afforded to the Royal Archives and why that must be included in schedule 1 to the 2000 Act. Under the Public Records Act 1958, UK Government Departments must identify records of historic interest and release all possible content to the National Archives. Many closed Government records have been made public this way through the 30-year rule—now the 20-year rule. MI5 now declassifies and releases historical records to the National Archives after 50 years, but the royal family operates with no such rule around its own archives.

The Royal Archives operates broadly reign by reign, but nearly four years after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, still no historical records since 1952 can currently be accessed from the archives. Even when records are unlocked within the archives, as those from previous monarchs have been, it is still left to the archive gatekeepers to decide which historians can be given the keys—in private and without the public interest tests of the Freedom of Information Act.

History should not be curated, but the preservation of royal image—even many years after a monarch’s death—seems to take precedence over academic inquiry. We need all historians, not just those within a certain circle, to have access to these records so that we can have a truthful account of our own history.

This sounds like a Bill only for republicans, but I believe that monarchists should be its most fervent supporters. No one has damaged the reputation of the monarchy in this country and abroad more than Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was able to carry on his nefarious activities in the comfort of knowing that he was protected by this shroud of secrecy. Yes, we found him out many years later and took away his offices, but the sunlight of Nolan is not only disinfectant in retrospect, but also preventive. If he had had to be open, would he have been as bad? We will never know.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Siân Berry, Ian Byrne, Rachael Maskell, Tom Gordon, Pete Wishart, Kirsty Blackman, Claire Hanna, Jeremy Corbyn, Dr Ellie Chowns, Hannah Spencer, Liz Saville Roberts and David Davis present the Bill.

Siân Berry accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 119).

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

In the circumstances following the late change to today’s business, Mr Speaker has selected amendments tabled after what would have been the usual deadline.

New Clause 8

Information contained in public records

“(1) This section applies to information contained in a record that is transferred to a relevant authority under—

(a) the Public Records Act 1958,

(b) the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937,

(c) the Public Records Act (Northern Ireland) 1923, or

(d) any other enactment or arrangement under which records are transferred to a relevant authority for their care and preservation.

(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, the information is not to be treated as information that is held by—

(a) the relevant authority, or

(b) persons who work for the authority.

(3) Each of the following is a ‘relevant authority’—

(a) the Public Record Office;

(b) the Keeper of Public Records;

(c) an authority responsible for records deposited at a place of deposit appointed under section 4 of the Public Records Act 1958;

(d) the Keeper of the Records of Scotland;

(e) the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland;

(f) any other person with responsibility for the care and preservation of records under arrangements made with an authority within any of paragraphs (a) to (e).

(4) In this section references to a record being ‘transferred’ to a relevant authority include references to it being transmitted to, or accepted or acquired by, the authority.”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This new clause provides for an exemption from the duty of candour and assistance for bodies such as the National Archives so far as relating to their statutory responsibilities of holding public records.

Brought up, and read the First time.

14:11

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 9.

New clause 1—Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into—

(a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident.

(b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident.

(2) The report must assess—

(a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act.

(b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents.

(c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b).

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”

New clause 2—Offence of wilfully destroying information or records relevant to an inquiry or investigation—

“(1) A public authority or public official commits an offence if—

(a) they deliberately destroy relevant information or records relevant to an inquiry, investigation, or inquest;

(b) they know that, or are reckless as to whether, the information is relevant to or required by an inquiry, investigation, or inquest.

(2) A public official who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).”

This new clause introduces an offence for wilfully destroying relevant records after a major incident that may lead to an inquiry or inquest.

New clause 3—Monitoring compliance with duties under the Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must commission and publish annually an independent report which monitors public authorities’ compliance with their duties under the Act.

(2) The report must assess—

(a) public authorities’ record-keeping, disclosures and responses to inquiries and investigations;

(b) the effectiveness of enforcement and sanctions provisions in the Act in helping to ensure that public authorities and public officials perform their functions in line with the duty of candour in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; and

(c) the effectiveness of the provisions in the Act for supporting persons, including public officials, making protected disclosures and for reporting wrongdoings to an inquiry or investigation following a major incident.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report before both Houses of Parliament.

(4) The first report must be laid within the period of 12 months of the passing of this Act.

(5) Each subsequent report must be laid annually beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to commission and publish annually an independent report with the purpose of providing an oversight mechanism to monitor compliance with duties under the Act.

New clause 4—Conduct of public authorities and access to legal aid for seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries—

“(1) Legal aid must be made available, without a means test, to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where there are reasonable grounds for believing the matter under investigation relates to the conduct of public authorities tasked with carrying out public functions, or public officials working for bodies in a public capacity, in connection with the discharge of their public duties.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, make regulations to—

(a) add civil legal services to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in connection with proceedings relating to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries as under subsection (1);

(b) amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) for the purposes of providing criteria for a determination for legal representation in respect of cases under subsection (1).

(3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.

New clause 5—Review of the merits of establishing a national oversight mechanism for ensuring candour and transparency of public authorities in respect of inquests and inquiries—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, carry out a review to determine the merits of establishing an independent oversight mechanism to help ensure candour, transparency and follow up with respect to the actions of a public authority arising from the conclusions and recommendations of inquests and inquiries.”

New clause 6—Monitoring the standards of ethical conduct of officials in response to the recommendations from inquests and inquiries—

“In discharging its duty under section 9(1) of this Act a public authority must monitor the standards of officials in response to the recommendations from inquests and inquiries to ensure they are acting with candour, transparency and frankness.”

New clause 7—Public interest—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must define in regulations what constitutes the “public interest” for the purposes of section 1(1)(b).

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to define public interest for the purposes of this Act by regulations.

New clause 10—Expected standards of conduct and duty of NHS boards to report medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings—

“(1) This section sets out a duty for boards of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in England to adopt codes of conduct mandating reporting of concerns in relation to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within an NHS body.

(2) A member of the board of directors of an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust in England must report any evidence or reports they have seen of systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within the trust to—

(a) the Care Quality Commission,

(b) the Department of Health and Social Care, and

(c) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.

(3) The board of directors of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust in England has a collective duty to—

(a) refer the trust to the Care Quality Commission, and

(b) alert the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, if staff employed by, or acting on behalf of, the trust raise concerns of systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety.

(4) In discharging its duties under subsection (1), an NHS trust board must, in particular—

(a) adopt a code of conduct which sets standards expected of members who serve on the boards of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust, and

(b) ensure that the code of conduct is published.

(5) An NHS trust’s code of conduct must in particular—

(a) require members of a board of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust to act in accordance with the duty of candour in reporting concerns relating to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within a trust,

(b) require members of the trust’s board to promote ethical conduct, candour, transparency and frankness within all parts of the NHS trust or foundation trust for which they work,

(c) contain information about the steps that a person who works for an NHS trust should take if they believe that a member of a trust’s board has failed to act in accordance with the code of conduct.

(6) In this section—

‘systemic medical malpractice’ means an action or omission in the provision of health care that falls below the expected standard of care and indicates a widespread, patterned, or recurring failure within the systems, processes, or governance of the trust.

‘wrongdoing’ includes abuse of authority, perverting the course of justice, neglect of duty and the exploitation of vulnerable people.”

This new clause sets a duty for boards of NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England to adopt codes of conduct mandating reporting of concerns in relation to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within a trust.

New clause 11—Duty of candour and enforcement of standards of ethical conduct in DHSC—

“(1) In discharging its duties under section 9 of this Act, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), must, in particular—

(a) set out the steps DHSC will take to ensure that legal services provided to NHS bodies and other relevant health-related organisations are consistent with the statutory duty of candour and the principles of openness, transparency and learning following patient safety incidents.

(b) set out which oversight body is responsible for ensuring the standards set out in DHSC code of ethical conduct are adhered to and enforced.

(c) set out provisions to allow a relevant oversight body to examine on its own initiative suspected serious or systemic breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct.

(d) set out a mechanism for ensuring that any breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct are recorded and that proper data is kept and published that records the extent to which complaints have been made regarding its ethical conduct and their outcome.”

This new clause would set out additional requirements for the DHSC in respect of the statutory requirements it must fulfil under section 9 of this Act.

Amendment 13, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, after “public authorities” insert

“, Members of both Houses of Parliament”

This amendment is connected to Amendment 14.

Government amendments 151 and 152.

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(ca) where the authority or official has relevant records, including digital messages and communication, retain and disclose those records;”

This amendment would add the disclosure of digital messages and communication to the assistance that a public authority or official must provide to an inquiry or investigation.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.”

This amendment requires public authorities or officials who are assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation.

Amendment 150, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(4A) Where in exercise of its duties under subsections (1) to (4) a public authority or public official intends to provide information to the inquiry or investigation, and that information includes information about a person who has or may have been caused harm in the incident under inquiry or investigation it must, subject to subsection (4B) below, provide to that person, or if deceased, the person administering their estate, such part of that information as is relevant to the nature and cause of the harm they have or may have sustained.

(4B) The obligation described in subsection (4A) above does not apply if the chair of the inquiry or investigation directs, either on application or their own motion, that the subsection should not apply, or where the chair directs that subsection (4A) shall apply subject to conditions specified in the direction, the subsection shall apply subject to those conditions.”

This amendment would require a public authority or public official to provide information to a person, or the relatives of that person, who was affected by an incident under investigation subject to the chair of an inquiry or investigation directing otherwise.

Government amendment 153.

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, after “authority” insert

“or any sub-contractor in any chain of provision to a service provider”

This amendment ensures that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider which was subcontracted will fall under the duty to comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry or investigation.

Amendment 5, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by—

(a) a public authority, or

(b) a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act,

the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority or a corporate body with public responsibility under Clause 4 for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance.

Government amendments 26, 28 and 154 to 157.

Amendment 20, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) Where an obligation to give notification would have arisen under section 2(3), save for the exemptions in subsection (2), the head of the relevant intelligence service must provide a written notification to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament summarising the acts that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation.”

This amendment aims to provide accountability for intelligence services and their operations in relation to the duty of candour and its exemptions from them.

Amendment 199, page 6, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) Where, in compliance with the obligation under section 2(4), a person who works for an intelligence service, a military intelligence service, the National Crime Agency, Counter Terrorism Command, or one of the armed forces, would be required to provide security or intelligence information, the obligation applies in respect of that information only if the head of the service or agency consents to it being provided.

(2B) The head of an intelligence service, the head of military intelligence service, the head of the National Crime Agency, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing UK, or the head of one of the armed forces may withhold consent under subsection (2A) only if it appears to the head that either of the following conditions is met.

(2C) The first condition is that it is necessary for consent to be withheld in the interests of national security or otherwise for the purposes of the proper exercise of the functions of the service.

(2D) The second condition is that the information would not be of assistance to the inquiry or investigation in meeting its objectives.

(2E) Where the head of an intelligence service, the head of military intelligence service, the head of the National Crime Agency, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing UK, or the head of one of the armed forces withholds consent under subsection (2A), the head must notify the person leading the inquiry or investigation of that fact.”

This amendment ensures that the duty of candour and assistance may require a person who works for an intelligence service, military intelligence, the NCA, Counter Terrorism Command or the armed forces to provide security or intelligence information with the consent of the head of their service.

Government amendments 32 and 33, and 158 to 168.

Amendment 2, in clause 9, page 8, line 3, after “work” insert

“including the retention and disclosure of digital records including messages relevant to their public functions”

This amendment ensures that digital messages and records are added to the duty of candour in relation to inquiries and inquests.

Government amendment 37.

Amendment 6, page 8, line 18, after “disclosures” insert

“and to whom such disclosures should be made;

(ba) how a person making a protected disclosure under paragraph (b) is protected;

(bb) a list of prescribed people and bodies to whom a potential whistleblower may speak to in confidence about a relevant concern.”

This amendment would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information on whom a person can make a protected disclosure to and how that person would be protected.

Amendment 7, page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State must introduce a standard template for ethical code of conduct for completion by public authorities which satisfies the requirements in this section and which may be added to by public authorities to include information specific to their organisation or function.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce a standard template to ensure a consistent and high standard approach to completion of code of ethical conduct documentation across public authorities.

Government amendments 38 and 39.

Amendment 14, in clause 11, page 9, line 22, after “public authority” insert

“, Member of either House of Parliament”

This amendment expands the offence of misleading the public to apply to Members of either House of Parliament.

Amendment 15, page 9, line 23, after “authority” insert “, Member”.

This amendment is connected to Amendment 14.

Amendment 25, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(1A) An act under subsection (1)(a) includes the provision of misleading information to a person acting for the purposes of journalism (as described in subsection (4)(b)) carried out via a press statement, media briefing, or other communication intended for dissemination by a recognised news publisher.”

This amendment would ensure that the offence of misleading the public would include a public authority or public official providing misleading information to a recognised news publisher.

Amendment 16, page 9, line 38, after “authority” insert

“, Member of either House of Parliament”

This amendment is connected to Amendment 14.

Government amendment 40.

Amendment 8, page 10, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 17, page 10, line 8, at end insert

“, or

(c) in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment is connected to Amendments 13 to 16 and 18. It provides that the offence of misleading the public does not apply to any act done in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament.

Government amendments 41 and 42.

Amendment 19, page 10, line 23, at end insert—

“(7A) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.”

This amendment requires the Attorney General to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public.

Amendment 18, page 10, line 37, at end insert—

“(8A) A certificate signed by the appropriate authority (as defined in section 34 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000) certifying that an act is done in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.”

This amendment is connected to Amendments 13 to 17.

Government amendments 43 to 51.

Amendment 12, in clause 15, page 13, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) References in this Part to a person who ‘holds public office’ include references to an individual who was, but is no longer, such an office holder, in respect of conduct occurring while they held such office.”

This amendment would ensure that public officials would still be liable for misconduct during their time in public office if they resign or retire.

Government amendments 52 to 69.

Amendment 11, in clause 23, page 22, line 20, at end insert—

“(6) For the purposes of this Act, any duty or liability imposed on a public official or a person holding public office applies in respect of any act or omission occurring while the person held that office or performed those functions, notwithstanding that the person has subsequently resigned, retired, or otherwise ceased to hold that office or perform those functions.”

This amendment would ensure that the duties and liabilities in this Bill apply to public officials during their time in public office even if they have since resigned, retired or ceased to hold a public office.

Government amendments 70 and 71.

Amendment 9, in clause 25, page 22, line 30, leave out subsections (1) to (8) and insert—

“This Act shall come into force on Royal Assent, save for sections 9, 10 and 18, which will come into force six months thereafter.”

This amendment clarifies that the Act should come into force straightaway except for those sections which require the provision of codes or guidance.

Government amendments 72, 76 and 169 to 178.

Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert

“, independent panel or review established by a Minister”

This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown.

Amendment 146, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert

“, independent panel, review established by a Minister, or independent panel or review established by a local authority.”

This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown and by local authorities.

Government amendments 78 to 80, 91, 93 to 97, and 179 to 198.

Amendment 149, in schedule 2, page 47, line 22, at end insert—

“(4A) Notwithstanding regulations made under sub-paragraph (4) a statutory water company holding an appointment under Chapter I of Part II of the Water Industry Act 1991 as a water undertaker (company) must meet the obligations set out in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of this Act for public functions in connection with their duties to—

(a) provide water supply within their area;

(b) supply water that is wholesome for domestic or food production purposes;

(c) provide, improve, and extend a system of public sewers and to treat sewage within their area;

(d) comply with water quality regulations;

(e) ensure long-term resilience of water supply and sewage networks against climate change, population growth, and consumer behaviour changes;

(f) maintain their assets to prevent sewage from polluting watercourses; and

(g) reduce sewage pollution.”

This amendment would place privatised water companies in England and Wales under the obligations of Chapter 2 of Part 2 on the face of the Bill for the functions for which they are responsible of a public nature.

Government amendments 98 to 142.

[Catherine Atkinson]

It is an absolute privilege to bring the Bill back to the House on Report. I know that Members across the House have long supported it and have been waiting for its return.

At its heart, this legislation is about what people should expect from the state when the worst happens: honesty, transparency and a system that stands with victims and families, not against them. For too long, that has not been the experience of too many people in this country; bereaved and traumatised families have been forced into exhausting, heartbreaking battles to uncover the truth. Institutions have closed ranks and ordinary people have been left to fight the full weight of the state at the very moment when they most needed its support. The Bill seeks to put an end to that. It will drive the culture change that the country so desperately needs so that when public bodies fail, the response is candour, not cover-up.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am going to make some progress, but I will give way.

It is essential that there is accountability, not denial, so that those affected get the support they need, not obstruction. We often refer to this Bill as the Hillsborough law. Without the determination of the Hillsborough families, we would not be debating this legislation today. Their determination has been driven by a selfless belief that no other families should ever go through the ordeal that they have suffered. But sadly their story is not unique: we have seen scandal after scandal and cover-up after cover-up, where families have had to fight for the truth and their trust in the state to be forthcoming and truthful has been shattered.

The Bill began with the Hillsborough families, but in the last decade their fight has become a movement, with a coalition of families and campaigns and those searching for the truth; the Bill belongs to every one of them. I am sure that the House joins me in thanking every single family member and campaigner from the Hillsborough families, the Manchester Arena families, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal and many other campaign groups, as well as many other individual cases that fall outside those campaigns.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will make some progress, and then I will take interventions.

Many have graciously—often at huge personal and emotional cost—shared their experiences with us to shape the Bill. The changes that it brings forward are so needed. It is thanks to their campaigning, perseverance and willingness to work with us to find solutions that the Bill is back before the House today. The House and the country owe them a debt of gratitude. I know that some of them are in the Gallery with us today—thank you.

Before I turn to the Government amendments, I must pay tribute to the work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). I was on the Bill Committee, and I know how hard she worked to get us to this point. I also thank the Attorney General, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and colleagues across Government for coming together to resolve these complex issues, so that we could bring the Bill back before the House today.

From the start, we have been clear that this is a Bill for the families concerned. That means listening to their views, and ensuring that the legislation delivers and has their confidence. It was in that spirit that the Manchester Arena families raised their concerns about the duty of candour and how it would apply to the intelligence services; I thank them for doing so. It is right that when a concern is raised, we pause, take stock and, where necessary, change course. The process has not been easy, and it has taken some time, but we had to get this right, and assess all possible implications and unintended risks resulting from how the duty would work in practice. I thank Pete Weatherby KC, the Intelligence and Security Committee and experts across our national security community, campaigners and Members of both Houses.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am proud to have sponsored the original proposal, promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and I salute the survivors and the victims’ families. I am glad that the UK Government have listened to them, and that the Bill reflects the level of accountability required of our public authorities. Plaid Cymru stands in firm solidarity with the Hillsborough families and other families in their long campaign for justice. Considering the Labour Government’s reset next week, will the Minister assure me that this law will be implemented in partnership with devolved Governments, and that constructive engagement with Wales and elsewhere will be ensured throughout the legislative process?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know that this is a highly sensitive debate, but interventions must be short and to the point. Lots of colleagues want to get in on the debate.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank the right hon. Member for her intervention. She has my assurance that we are clear that the Bill needs to apply across the United Kingdom, and we are working with devolved nations to ensure that happens.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister is making a passionate and important speech about a long-overdue piece of legislation. Freddie Scappaticci was the agent known as Stakeknife in the IRA. He was involved in lots of murders, but the Government have yet to unmask him as Scappaticci. Will the Bill put an end to the ridiculous position we are in by doing that? Would the Bill have stopped MI5 doing everything in its power to prevent the public from finding out about his crimes?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are seeking a full culture change, and are trying to prevent any kind of attitude of covering things up. I am happy to meet him further to discuss that specific case.

All the work that has been undertaken has enabled us to find a solution that provides full application of the duty, while protecting national security, which is absolutely essential.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am going to make some progress, and then I will take interventions again.

The amendments before the House ensure that the duty of candour and assistance applies to all individual intelligence officers, while establishing secure procedures for the disclosure of sensitive information. First, the Bill as introduced did not allow compliance directions to be issued to individual intelligence officers; rather, they were issued to the organisation that officers worked for. There were concerns that this effectively amounted to a carve-out for the intelligence services. Our amendments allow compliance directions to be issued to individual intelligence officers, so that the duty applies consistently across the public sector.

Secondly, the amendments establish secure models for the disclosure of sensitive national information. The Government’s objective has always been clear—it has been to ensure that where information can be disclosed, it should be disclosed, while ensuring that proper protections are in place. We have therefore adopted the approach proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), which is to apply existing safeguards to the new provisions. When an individual working for a national security body receives a request for protected information, they must pass that information to the head of the authority, not directly to the inquiry or investigation. The head of the authority is then responsible for sharing it with the inquiry or investigation, subject to all existing arrangements for protecting information in law and practice. Restrictions on disclosure can still be sought, where necessary. Existing arrangements for secure inquiries remain available, and established practices, such as the use of security-vetted counsel, can continue.

Under these arrangements, national security bodies will now be under the same duty to notify as other public authorities, but we have a limited provision to ensure that the right public authority is making the notification, and that this happens in an orderly and secure manner. While the Government support removing this exemption, nothing in this Bill, and none of its practical effects, change our position, which is that national security and the safety of our citizens and public servants must never be compromised.

[Vikki Slade]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the matter of the safety of our citizens. I have been contacted over the last couple of years by the family of Major Anthony Hornby MBE, who was a victim of the Chinook crash. Today, the Ministry of Defence is in the High Court, fighting for them not to have rights under the duty of candour. Will the Minister step in and ensure that the victims of the Chinook crash are given the same dignity and respect as others, and that their case can come under a full public investigation?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am very happy to meet the hon. Member and others, specifically in relation to the Ministry of Defence, and to give reassurance on how this can work and be done safely.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the Minister give way on the point about the duty of candour?

[Catherine Atkinson]

If it is specifically in relation to security services, and to security at the moment—

[Yasmin Qureshi]

It is on the duty of candour.

[Catherine Atkinson]

If I can just wait—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Minister, either you take an intervention or do not. Please do not continue a conversation when Members are seated.

[Catherine Atkinson]

It is important to stress that nothing in this Bill, and nothing about its practical effect, changes our position in relation to national security. Many in our public services work in sensitive roles, and revealing their identity could put them or others at risk. The Bill does not require anyone to breach any other law. It expressly states that it does not override existing legislation, including the Official Secrets Act 1989. The Bill contains a specific protection from the requirement to notify for employees of the intelligence services and other select bodies, where they cannot come forward.

However, there may be other situations where notifying may carry a similar risk. I want to make it clear that a public servant does not have to come forward until it is safe to do so, but steps must be taken without delay to ensure that a notification can be made safely. The Bill requires notification to be made as soon as reasonably practicable, after the authority or official becomes aware of the investigation. The explanatory notes will clarify that it would not be considered reasonably practicable if that meant a person was at risk of harm in making that notification. In those rare circumstances, the official must contact their current or former employer, or another third party if necessary, so that arrangements can be made with the inquiry or investigation for a notification to be made safely. Those actions must be taken without delay. Those leading inquiries and inquests must act reasonably, and authorities have a responsibility to protect their current and former employees.

We will also set out guidance to accompany the duty. It will explain what individuals should do, and will make it clear that public authorities and investigations must work together to put arrangements in place for authorities and individuals to meet their duties while protecting personal safety and national security. If the investigation cannot provide those means, existing legal processes already provide ways to convert it into a form of investigation that can.

Now that we have the right model for applying the duty in a national security context, we are extending that model to Defence Intelligence, the National Crime Agency and Counter Terrorism Policing, where the same considerations about the sensitivity of their information and work apply. Clause 8 includes them in the list of relevant public authorities for the purpose of clause 6. We have also made several amendments to ensure that the compliance directions operate as intended. The explanatory notes for schedule 1 clarify that directions should be made only where the person leading the investigation believes that a compliance direction would genuinely assist, and that they are not, for example, obliged to issue multiple directions to individuals who may all have the same information.

We have also made a small change to clause 2 to make it clear that we are not inviting individuals to speculate on what may or may not be relevant. It is for the inquiry or investigation to define relevance through its terms of reference or equivalent. Finally, we have amended schedule 1 to require the investigation lead to consult the head of the public authority before issuing a compliance direction to an individual employee where national security is concerned. This aligns the new duty process with existing practice, in which public authorities and chairs of inquiries work together to determine how protected information can be provided safely. This will assist inquiries or investigations in practice because, given the way national security bodies operate, they will not usually know which individuals hold the relevant information, or how to receive it without creating unnecessary risks.

The Bill also includes a power to extend the duty of candour to other types of investigations. We intend to make broad use of this power, and will bring forward secondary legislation, following consultation with the relevant sectors and investigatory bodies. I can confirm that that will extend the duty to investigations into police misconduct; to serious healthcare incidents, including major maternity reviews, such as the Leeds and Sussex maternity services reviews; to serious health and safety investigations; and to key ombudsman investigations, transforming the ability of these investigations to get to the truth.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to everyone who has pushed and cajoled the Government to enable us to get to this stage. The Minister mentioned secondary legislation. One of the key areas mentioned in the Grenfell inquiry by Grenfell United and Justice for Grenfell was a national oversight mechanism to make sure that the Government are not marking their own homework when it comes to recommendations from public inquiries. Will that be included in the consultation?

[Catherine Atkinson]

It is absolutely right that recommendations are tracked and that we ensure there is a clear way of giving everyone confidence that recommendations will be implemented. The Cabinet Office is doing a significant piece of work to ensure that that is put in place, and both the Cabinet Office and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to share with her the work that is happening, both on recommendations from inquiries and on the prevention of future deaths and inquests.

14:30

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I appreciate the way in which the Minister has responded on the national oversight mechanism, but if this is to have teeth, and if it is to deal with both inquiries and inquests, do we not need a separate public body? It is a substantial piece of work.

[Catherine Atkinson]

The Government have already taken steps to improve transparency in response to inquiry recommendations, including launching the new gov.uk dashboards, which demonstrate progress in delivering accepted inquiry recommendations. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently considering how the implementation of recommendations resulting from future public inquiries should be scrutinised, and we welcome that.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

I have given the Government evidence that hundreds of children with special educational needs and disabilities are avoidably killing themselves because of public authority negligence and misconduct, including my constituent Jen Bridges-Chalkley. Does the Minister agree that the first step in tackling this problem is knowing how many of these suicides there are? We cannot do that unless we have a national oversight mechanism and a preventable death tracker that measure it.

[Catherine Atkinson]

The Office of the Chief Coroner has continued work to improve access to prevention of future deaths reports, while the Government seek to strengthen arrangements for responding to concerns raised through them, including better and more strategic use of technology. In addition to the work that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is undertaking, there is clearly work to be done in relation to inquests and in relation to inquiries and their recommendations, and I look forward to working on that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

Do the Minister and the Government agree with the principle that an independent body should oversee the Government’s performance in responding to inquiry recommendations? Is that the way we are going to go forwards? The way that the Government—not just this one, but others in the past—have responded to recommendations from inquiries has, to say the least, required improvement for a very long time. Can we be assured that independence will be introduced into the scrutiny process?

[Catherine Atkinson]

It is clear that there needs to be public confidence about what happens to any recommendations, and this is therefore an area of work that is being considered. I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend is kept up to date with the work as it continues.

I will now make some progress. Transforming the ability of investigations to get to the truth is essential, and I hope that the House recognises how far we have come. On Second Reading, the Prime Minister said that we would only strengthen this Bill, while affirming that we would always protect national security. The amendments I have mentioned do both.

I now turn to the Government’s remaining amendments. On legal aid, families attending inquests have for too long found themselves, in their darkest moments, facing public authorities represented by large legal teams while they have been left to navigate complex proceedings without legal representation. The Bill finally addresses that imbalance through the largest expansion of legal aid in a generation, granting access to non-means-tested legal aid to families at any inquest where a public authority is an interested person.

We have tabled amendments to ensure that this new entitlement operates as intended—first, to make it clear that legal aid will also be available when an individual is named as an interested person on behalf of a public authority or Government Department and, secondly, to simplify how the legal aid system operates so that it is more effective and easier to manage for providers and the Legal Aid Agency. The amendments mean that the expansion will operate efficiently from the outset.

[Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)]

I think there is widespread welcome in the House for the expansion of legal aid, but does the Minister agree that allowing advocacy for each family only to the first person who manages to apply for it might cause some problems subsequent to disasters like Hillsborough? What will she do to try to improve the mechanism for who gets the legal aid?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the time she has spent with me in raising this and other issues. Under our proposed expansion, multiple family members will be able to receive non-means-tested legal help to prepare for an inquest hearing where a public authority is an interested person, and that includes help with preparing documents to send to the inquest. Increasing the number of legal representatives when it comes to advocacy is an area of some concern. Inquests are fact-finding proceedings designed to determine the circumstances of a death, and we would hope that, in general, one legally aided advocate would be sufficient to support each family through an inquest hearing. However, we have heard her concerns, and I hope for her assistance in continuing to look at the issue as the Bill progresses. [Interruption.]

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will—my hon. Friend assists me in finding my place in my notes again, so I thank her.

[Sarah Russell]

My hon. Friend is most welcome. I am grateful for all the amendments that the Government have tabled, but I remain concerned that the current civil legal aid rate is £40 an hour. She has referred to security-vetted counsel. Is it likely that security-vetted counsel will be prepared to work for £40 an hour, when those of us who have done legal aid work know that, frankly, half the work that we do is unremunerated?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I just point out that many colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, so I hope she is coming to her conclusion soon.

[Catherine Atkinson]

My hon. Friend has been a passionate advocate in relation to legally aided work, and I know that she will take every opportunity to raise concerns about the rates. The amendments mean that the expansion will operate efficiently from the outset, giving bereaved families the support that they need while avoiding delay.

Let me turn to the amendment relating to archivists. They play an important role in preserving historical records, but do not account for the actions within them, so we have tabled Government new clause 8 to ensure that public record officers and keepers of public records are not subject to the duty of candour in relation to their record-keeping duties.

We have worked closely with the devolved Governments on the Bill, and I am grateful for their co-operation and collaboration. We have tabled amendments to ensure that the offence of misleading the public and the two statutory misconduct in public office offences apply on a UK-wide basis. Those are amendments 40 to 42 and 70, and new clause 9 and amendments 44 to 51 respectively. At the request of the Scottish Government, we have also extended access to legal aid in Scotland for fatal accident inquiries where the state is represented. That will include a power for regulations to establish detailed criteria, which will be agreed by the Scottish Parliament.

Before I close, let me address concerns that have been raised about implementation. The Government are well aware that the Bill is long overdue. Families and victims rightly deserve no further delay, but this is about cultural change, and change of such breadth and depth cannot be achieved by legislation alone. Some measures can come into force quickly; others depend on guidance and systems being in place to ensure that they work as intended. We are therefore stress-testing the earliest possible commencement points for each measure. We will update the House as soon as possible and publish a clear timeline for implementation.

We are, as we have been throughout, absolutely committed to working with the families and other stakeholders to ensure that the Bill delivers real change. Everyone should be able to expect honesty from the state when the worst happens. They should expect a system that helps them establish the truth, rather than forcing them to fight for it. That is the purpose of this Bill.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

You are probably aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the fact that I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Primodos for the last 14 years. The Minister may well be aware that earlier in the Bill’s consideration I asked for reassurance that independent panels established by Ministers would be covered, such as the expert working group report on Primodos, which was set up by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency as part of the Department of Health and Social Care. Can the Minister point to where that can be found in the Bill and, if not, will reassurances be given through secondary legislation that those panels are covered by this legislation?

[Catherine Atkinson]

The Bill allows a Minister to extend the duty and allows the flexibility to apply it to reviews where it would be most beneficial. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long on this point, and I would be happy to talk to her about how that takes place.

In conclusion, the Bill is about restoring trust between the public and the state, ensuring that when public bodies fail, they respond with openness rather than defensiveness and with support rather than obstruction. Above all, it is a testament to the families who have, despite every setback, courageously campaigned for change and their determination to ensure that no other families ever again suffer as they have. I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their extraordinary bravery. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I was nine years old at the time of the Hillsborough tragedy, and I remember listening to the news of the terrible events on the radio, sitting behind my parents in the car. I was 32 when, while working in the Home Office, I received a copy of the report by the Hillsborough independent panel, which detailed the full horror of that terrible tragedy. In my time in the Home Office I saw many intelligence reports and papers about serious crimes and terror plots, but the Hillsborough report was undoubtedly the most shocking thing I read.

More than two decades passed between the tragedy itself and that moment of truth and transparency, and we can only imagine the pain felt by the victims and their families who fought for years for justice. I pay tribute to them and would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister. They have known grief and suffering none of us would ever wish to experience.

This is not a debate about the need for transparency. I am proud to have played a modest part in bringing that about when I worked in the Home Office. Nor is this a debate about the need for accountability. I have spent many years in different roles making the case for better police accountability and, indeed, working with those who lead and work in our security and intelligence agencies. They themselves would be the first to say—though their work is by definition often secret—that they need to be accountable. They are only citizens of this country, just like everyone else. I am sure that everyone here today agrees on the need for accountability.

The question is, how should this accountability work? Today we are considering one specific issue among several: is the proposal to extend the duty of candour to the intelligence agencies, the military, military intelligence, Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Crime Agency, which all necessarily work to some degree in secret, appropriate? Does it deliver accountability, and does it allow these sensitive services to do their work to the best of their abilities? Our job today is to consider that question and that question alone.

Of course, we may be informed by the trauma, pain and emotion that come from terrible tragedies—tragedies that have, in some instances, been compounded by undue secrecy and even outright dishonesty from the state itself—but it is our job in this place to get the law right, for if we do not, we may find ourselves back here in future debating another tragedy that could have been stopped had it not been for the unintended consequences of what we are debating today.

11:30

It is our job in the House of Commons to get this right. It is also the Government’s job to put their proposed law to us in a timely, considered and responsible manner, but that is not what Ministers have done. The Prime Minister adopted the Hillsborough law as policy in 2022. He put it in his manifesto in 2024, promising that it would be one of his first acts in office, and announced its introduction at the Labour party conference in 2025. But he never worked out how the Bill should apply to the intelligence services and others who work to ensure our national security. The Bill was introduced without a carry-over motion, which meant the Government believed that it would pass during the last Session of Parliament. Then it had to be carried over when they ran out of time, and now we are being asked to approve another motion to extend the carry-over motion because the Bill has taken so long.

We were supposed to give the Bill its Report stage and Third Reading in January, but it was pulled at the last minute because campaigners told the Government that they were unhappy with its provisions relating to the intelligence agencies. Now we have the Report stage, and Members are being asked to give the Bill’s new provisions scrutiny—all with less than 24 hours’ notice. Those who had been briefed on the contents of the Bill found out over the last day or two that what is now being proposed bears no resemblance to what they had been told to expect. It is, I am afraid, a shambles, and the reason it is a shambles is that the Government originally made contradictory promises to the campaigners for this law and to the intelligence agencies and others who work to keep us safe. They knew they had created this problem, which is why they pulled the Bill in January, but now they pretend there is no problem.

Desperate for a legacy and to claim the credit before the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) takes over, the Prime Minister has chosen; the Government have watered down the protections they specifically proposed back in January for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. Today they pretend that those protections are not necessary, but in January, Ministers believed that they were vital. Those protections would have allowed those in charge of the agencies to determine whether secret information could be revealed to an investigation or an inquiry, giving them the power to withhold information if it was considered unnecessary for the investigation or inquiry, or if it was necessary for national security to keep the information secret.

Our security and intelligence agencies, as with soldiers and others such as those working in counter-terrorism policing and the National Crime Agency, all necessarily deal in secrets. They have to protect their sources, methods and capabilities. They have to protect information provided to them by agencies from allied countries, which are equally concerned with protecting their sources, methods, capabilities and, in some cases, live operations. But now this Bill takes decisions about which secrets should be shared over their heads, and gives that responsibility to those leading investigations and inquiries. These people may be non-experts, potentially lacking understanding of serious national security issues. That could lead to intelligence that should, for good reasons, remain secret being published, undermining the way in which the intelligence agencies and others work.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State will know, given his background working in the Home Office, that a duty of candour is not the same as the duty to disclose sensitive information. The two should not be conflated, and he should not be doing so on the Floor of the House.

[Nick Timothy]

I am confused by that intervention from the hon. Lady, who was the Minister in charge of this Bill. The argument I am making is consistent with the position she brought to the House in January, only to back down when it became controversial.

As I was saying, this could lead to intelligence that should, for good reasons, remain secret being published, which undermines the way the intelligence agencies and others work. We know this is a matter of grave concern for the agencies, the military and those in law enforcement because they have told us that. The Government know this, because the same people have told Ministers, and we know that the Government accepted this, because that was why they tabled the amendment in January, which they have since dropped.

Allied military and intelligence partners—most notably, the US and other Five Eyes partners—will look at what the Government are doing today and question what can be done to protect them and their methods. The Justice Secretary is once again not here today.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

Could the hon. Member point to current legislation that has a gap and does not give the protection to the intelligence services that we all wish to see?

[Nick Timothy]

I am not sure I follow the hon. Member’s question. If he wants to repeat it more clearly, I will happily listen.

[Derek Twigg]

The hon. Member is saying that the intelligence services are not protected under the current legislation. Could he say why?

[Nick Timothy]

The point is that this is a new duty, which is backed by criminal sanction, and that is why it is different from the status quo.

As I was saying, the Justice Secretary is a Privy Counsellor. He is the Deputy Prime Minister. He was once the Foreign Secretary—the man to whom MI6 and GCHQ were accountable. He knows that these sources of intelligence from allies are essential. They support our national interest, protect our way of life and save the lives of innocent people. Neither he nor the Minister can, hand on heart, stand here today and say that they know for sure that this Bill does not endanger that intelligence. Nobody can say that, because this Bill will change the behaviour, decisions and actions of those we ask to keep us safe, because it might change the terms of the relationships with our allies, and because we cannot anticipate the decisions made by individual heads of future investigations and inquiries.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that chairs of inquiries and inquests already have the power to hold closed sessions in private if they are looking at information that is sensitive or potentially poses a risk to our national security? That already exists, and the measures in the Bill do not impact that at all—it is already done on a daily basis in inquiries.

[Nick Timothy]

What the hon. Lady says is not entirely relevant to this proposition. This is about the provision of information to particular investigations and inquiries, and we do not know—indeed, we cannot know—the identities of the people who lead those investigations and inquiries. That is one of the reasons why this is such a step into the dark.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I used to be a prosecutor before coming to this place. We were able to find perfectly good ways of dealing with confidential sources of information—informants and others. There are procedures already in place for that.

[Nick Timothy]

We are sent here to scrutinise legislation. That is what we are doing. We have talked to people in the intelligence agencies, the police and others who are very concerned about this. The concerns that I am expressing were shared by Ministers themselves, which is why the amendment we are proposing today reflects the amendment that the Government themselves brought to the House in January.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The interventions and the shadow Secretary of State’s responses are indicative of what he said earlier: we should not be discussing something as technically complex as this, which could have wide-reaching ramifications, with 24 hours’ notice and without any opportunity to have a proper discussion and raise these points.

[Nick Timothy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Prime Minister said this was going to be one of his first acts as Prime Minister; it turns out it is going to be his final act as Prime Minister. He is only doing it by the skin of his teeth, because he is presenting a proposal to the House that none of us got to see even this weekend, and those who had been drawn into the consultation process and had been privately consulted say that this bears no relation at all to what they have been shown, even very recently. The Government are clearly doing this on the hoof, and it is very worrying.

It is no exaggeration to say that some of those people who may be appointed to lead investigations and inquiries might be influenced or pressured by those whose purpose is the destruction of the British state and British sovereignty itself.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The people who lead these inquiries are leading public figures and have usually held significant judicial office. Is the hon. Member honestly suggesting that they are going to be successfully pressured by people who want to destroy the British state?

[Nick Timothy]

I am tempted to say that the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the Attorney General, who used to prosecute British soldiers and was still appointed to one of the highest offices in the land.

Irish republicans, Islamist extremists, useful idiots deployed by Putin’s Russia—they will all see the opportunity in this law, as we know they have seen the opportunity in examples of lawfare fought elsewhere, including Northern Ireland. These are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns. [Interruption.] There is an additional risk that the security services will be tied up in court cases, thanks to differing interpretations of the legislation, or that the scope of the Bill and the information that must be disclosed will be widened over time. I can hear sighs and complaints from Government Members, but they do not seem to understand that new laws—especially when they are to be taken in balance with existing laws—are tested in the courts, and their interpretation widens. That is a fact, and it is one of the concerns expressed by the intelligence agencies, the police and others. If Government Members think they are above listening to those people, I am very sorry about that.

There are questions, too, about the role of investigations and inquiries set up by the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland. I was alarmed by the Minister’s earlier answer to a question about the need to reveal information about intelligence agency sources in that context. These are the reasons that my party proposes an amendment, informed in part by the Government’s own proposed amendment back in January, to give control of secret material back to service leaders, who are rightly then accountable to elected Ministers, in not only the intelligence services but the armed forces, the National Crime Agency and counter-terrorism policing.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

One of the hon. Gentleman’s former colleagues went to Downing Street just a month ago with a letter that says he believes he was misled by his own Department when he was the Secretary of State for Defence, so why on earth is the hon. Gentleman arguing this particular case? If Defence Secretaries are misled by their Departments, I do not really understand his faith in leaders of intelligence services and others not being able to hide the truth purely to defend their own Departments.

[Nick Timothy]

I think the hon. Lady, whether it is by design or by mistake, misunderstands my point. Of course, there should be accountability and transparency, and there are many ways in which we can do that, but there are ways of doing it that do not jeopardise the operations of the most sensitive organisations in the country by revealing their sources, their methods and their technological capabilities.

There are also serious flaws in the proposals to create a new duty to prevent death or serious injury and the new crime of misleading the public. Senior police officers are concerned that the new duty will have a chilling effect on operations. Police officers may be deterred from taking vital split-second decisions to give chase or to restrain, for fear of being sued or charged, placing their careers and livelihoods in jeopardy. Those employed in other parts of the public sector, such as the welfare system or the health service, might also be affected. These measures also risk snarling up the police and others in time-consuming and costly litigation.

There is also a serious risk that the new crime of misleading the public could stifle legitimate political disagreement and debate, criminalise honest mistakes, or punish people for making statements that we only later learn are wrong when the facts change. That is why a lock on such prosecutions, with a requirement for the Attorney General to approve them, is absolutely essential, and we invite hon. Members to support our amendment to ensure that this evening.

15:00

No one denies that there have been tragedies, abuses and cover-ups in the past—I have worked to expose some of them myself. Official cover-ups are always completely unacceptable, but where matters of national security and safety are at stake, responsibility for sensitive information must remain with operational leaders who are accountable to their elected bosses. That is something the Government once accepted. As I have said, we can have a serious discussion about the ways in which the accountability of agencies and others can be improved, and I would be happy to talk to Ministers in a responsible cross-party manner about my own thoughts, based on my own experience. But what the Government propose today does not get close to getting the balance right between transparency and accountability on one hand, and the necessarily secret work that is done to keep us safe on the other.

To seek to make major changes to laws affecting the safety and security of our citizens in the dying days and hours of a premiership, and without sufficient thought or scrutiny, is irresponsible. It is not leadership; it is reckless. The first duty of any Government is to place the safety and security of the British people first—above politics, above pressure, and above the hopes of a short-lived Prime Minister looking for a legacy. That is why, if the Government do not listen to us today, we will make the same argument in the other place. They should take responsibility and they should listen.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clauses 5 and 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). I welcome the Prime Minister’s remarks, and I am relieved that the Government have listened, so that the duty of candour will apply in full to members of the security services, and the Bill will finally reach the statute book.

I pay tribute to all those who have fought so long and so hard for this Bill, including the families, the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, and my fellow Merseyside MPs, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I also thank Pete Weatherby KC, Elkan Abrahamson, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who introduced the first Hillsborough law Bill in 2017, after addressing the 20th anniversary in 2009 when he was Culture Secretary.

I was stood on the Kop that day, when a lone voice shouted out “Justice”, and it then turned into a chorus of voices that was the catalyst for the Hillsborough independent panel. The report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct in December recounted once again the horrifying events that took place, and the disgraceful attempt to blame the victims and hide the truth, as well as the appalling response to the report from South Yorkshire Police Federation. It showed exactly why this legislation is so desperately needed, and why new clauses 5 and 6 are so important.

In the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, MI5 was found by a public inquiry not to have given an accurate picture of the key intelligence that it held on the suicide bomber who carried out the attack. New clause 6 would mandate that the duty of candour and assistance applies to the intelligence services as it does to other public authorities. However, it establishes safeguards for sensitive information, and adjusts individual reporting obligations for intelligence personnel, routeing candour requirements through agency record-keeping arrangements and the head of the organisation. New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent report annually. That would serve as a formal oversight mechanism to monitor compliance with the statutory duties outlined in the Bill.

The passage of the Bill has been too long delayed, and we have finally reached this point only because of the strength and bravery of the families of the 97 who died as a result of what happened on 15 April 1989. I am particularly thinking today of my constituents Keith McGrath, who died aged just 17, and Andrew Devine, who was 22 when he suffered horrendous injuries that day, and who died as a result of them in 2021 aged 55, after being cared for devotedly in the years after the disaster by his family, in particular his parents.

The families of the 97 who died have continued to fight for accountability and justice, despite the years of official denials, and the deliberate attempt to hide the truth of what occurred that day. They have fought for a Hillsborough law worthy of the memory of the 97, but not just for them, which shows their decency, resilience, and wider sense of public spirit. They refused to accept legislation that would have allowed an exemption for the security services because of their concern for others who have suffered injustice: the families of victims and survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing, the Grenfell Tower fire, nuclear test veterans, the Post Office Horizon scandal, and so many other tragedies where it has taken far too long for the truth to emerge.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston said in her intervention, there are still points to address. For example, the Bill does not provide for full equity of arms, funding, and legal resources for public authorities and bereaved families. Nevertheless, it is important that the Bill will finally pass into law before the summer recess. The families of all those who died or were injured at Hillsborough should not have had to wait 37 years for this legislation. They have been cruelly denied accountability and justice, but they have fought with incredible courage to ensure that in future other families will never have to fight for decades, as they have had to fight for the truth to come to light. This is their day, and I pay tribute to them once again. Justice for the 97.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I wish to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name on behalf of my party. Up and down the country, those who have been failed by state institutions, unheard and ignored for years, will today be relieved that this hurdle has been cleared and the Hillsborough law can finally progress. I pay tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are with us in the Gallery, for their courage and perseverance through years of campaigning, and for never saying, “That’ll do”, and instead making sure that the Hillsborough law was delivered in full.

This is known affectionately as the Hillsborough law, but it represents many victims and their loved ones. Be it the Post Office scandal, the Manchester Arena attack, the contaminated blood scandal, Grenfell Tower, nuclear weapons testing veterans, the pelvic mesh scandal, LGBT veterans, or any of the many others, those individuals have stood up for the voiceless and demanded change. These are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods, or suffered life-changing injuries.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

My constituent Gary is one of the victims of the infected blood scandal. He was a pupil at Treloar’s College, and 120 boys from Treloar’s were given contaminated blood. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those boys who have fought so hard for justice, and does she agree that it has taken far too long?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, and she is right to highlight how long it has taken to get here. I commend the Government for ensuring that we eventually got to this point.

These scandals have been uncovered despite the best efforts of public institutions to keep them buried. Institutions that should have been transparent and accountable instead used public money to protect their reputations and deflect blame. Every single victim deserved better. The efforts of campaigners are what have brought us to the point at which we can begin to level the playing field and address the imbalance between the power of the state and that of the ordinary individual. That is why we Liberal Democrats have, at every stage, welcomed the provisions in the Bill, but it was clear at the beginning of this year that there were major gaps in relation to the carve-out for the security services that needed to be addressed.

Campaigners rightly pointed to the role that the intelligence services have played in the past in covering up mistakes and failing to take accountability. Last week there were reports that MI5 had lied in court about Agent X, who had violently abused his partner. Likewise, last year we had the Stakeknife inquiry—Operation Kenova—which raised serious questions about the running of, and collusion with, British informants, while once again highlighting the immense difficulties of obtaining information from the security services. It is clear that these organisations have at times suffered from the same protectionist, inward-looking faults that other public organisations have suffered from. It would have been completely unacceptable for there to have been a carve-out, especially considering that mechanisms already exist to allow for information with national security implications to be heard behind closed doors.

The breakthrough announced over the weekend is welcomed by the Liberal Democrats and will come as a relief to all those wanting to see this Bill progress. I commend Members on the Government Front Bench who secured it, and those no longer there, particularly the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who worked so hard to get the legislation to the place it is today. I know from her contributions in debates, her willingness and openness to meet me and Liberal Democrat colleagues to hear our concerns, and her engagement with campaign organisations and families, that she has fought to deliver the Hillsborough law as it was intended by those involved in the campaign.

The Bill Committee took place eight months ago, so it was fun going through all the notes to remind myself exactly what was said. I pay tribute to hon. Members from across the House who scrutinised the legislation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I know they sought to ensure that victims and their loved ones remained at the centre of the Bill and that their concerns regarding the drafting were heard. We have worked alongside them to ensure that no stone has been left unturned in seeking to secure the best possible outcomes in this legislation. Our amendments are all aimed at tightening the gaps that we can see in the legislation.

First, there is the importance of whistleblowers, who, in many of the tragedies mentioned today, have provided vital information at great personal risk for the public good. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger whistleblowing protections to ensure that wrongdoing within organisations and public bodies is swiftly exposed and brought to justice. Amendment 3 ensures that public authorities involved in an inquiry or investigation demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure that individuals can safely disclose information relevant to that investigation.

Amendment 6 would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information about to whom a person can make a protected disclosure and how that person will be protected. The Minister talked about additional guidance being provided with the legislation, so will she, when she sums up, set out whether there will be an expectation that that will include how to make a protected disclosure? We would have liked this Bill to go further on whistleblower protection, but much of what we proposed was considered out of scope for the Bill. I urge the Government and the new Administration to look more widely at what can be done to protect those who attempt to expose wrongdoing in the future.

A statutory duty of candour in the NHS has existed since 2014, yet we know that there remains a culture of retiring or firing staff who dare to speak up. Our new clause 2 would create an offence for anyone who wilfully destroys relevant records after a major incident that could lead to an inquest or inquiry. New clause 3 is aimed at providing a national oversight mechanism through the publication of an annual independent report on compliance with the Act, as has been mentioned multiple times already in the debate. Many hon. Members spoke of the need to have an overnight mechanism, and similar amendments have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).

Amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that the legislation is fully up to date with modern investigations by making it clear that digital messages must be provided as evidence to investigations. The Bill includes provisions for the inclusion of subcontractors under the duty of candour, but we do not believe that they go far enough. Amendment 4 would therefore extend those provisions to all subcontractors throughout the chain of provision. We need only look at the way local authorities subcontract to understand that most working within the public sector are subcontractors of subcontractors of subcontractors. We believe that the scope needs to be extended to include those.

The extension of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests is also long overdue and greatly needed. For too long the system has been weighted against ordinary people seeking justice. Those attempting to bring these scandals to light have faced well-resourced and highly motivated public bodies intent on protecting their reputations, but we do not believe that the provisions go far enough and we will be seeking to amend them in the other place. Amendments 11 and 12 would ensure that public officials do not escape their responsibilities when they cease to hold public office, and that they remain accountable for their actions even if they have since resigned, retired or been shuffled out.

15:15

The Hillsborough Law Now group has raised the lack of command responsibility within the Bill. Amendment 5 addresses that by placing responsibility for breaches of the duty of candour on the chief executive of the relevant public body. Amendment 9 ensures that the Act comes into force immediately upon Royal Assent, save for a small number of sections that require supporting codes. We see no reason for any unnecessary delay in the process.

Finally, I would like to mention the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), which places privatised water companies under the duty of candour. It serves as an important reminder of the harms caused by companies on which the public are wholly reliant.

For too long, victims and survivors of horrendous tragedies across the country have been prevented from receiving the justice that they deserve. They have been denied the truth, denied accountability and denied the confidence that what happened to them will not happen to someone else in future. I hope that today will be a day of celebration for many of those families, who have fought tirelessly—not for their own gain, but to ensure that nobody else suffers in the way they have. I am pleased that we have reached an important milestone in the journey of this legislation, and I look forward to seeing the Bill return from the other place in the strongest form possible.

[Derek Twigg]

I support the Bill and the amendments put forward by the Government. Back in May 1998, when I first spoke in a debate about the Hillsborough disaster, I could never have imagined that 28 years later I would be debating new legislation to address the state’s failings in respect of that disaster. My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) was there with me. She and I first uncovered the altered statements in the House of Commons Library; she played a very important role in getting to the stage we did and in getting justice for the Hillsborough families.

I speak from a unique position, in that I was at the Hillsborough disaster, I have worked closely with the Hillsborough families to obtain justice and there are families in my constituency who lost loved ones or were injured at the Hillsborough disaster and in the Manchester Arena bombing. More recently, I have become a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has oversight of the intelligence community. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), also a member of the ISC, in his place, although unfortunately he is unable to speak in today’s debate because he co-chaired the Bill Committee.

I will keep my comments primarily to aspects of intelligence and controversies around the Bill. Our intelligence services keep us safe every day. Our intelligence officers and agents do difficult and sometimes dangerous work so that we can live safely. They deserve our sincere thanks and praise for the job that they do and it is right that we hold them to the highest standards. As a member of the ISC, which has oversight of the intelligence services, I been involved in trying to find a way forward with colleagues in addressing the concerns about the impact of the Bill on the intelligence services.

I support the Government amendments and the Bill as a whole. It is welcome that the Government have listened to the campaigners and the ISC. I particularly praise Pete Weatherby KC, who has always been available to talk to me and others about the issues, and help us get to the point where the legislation gives clear protections. As I say, we have listened to the campaigners and the ISC has accepted a way forward that addresses the concerns raised in respect of the security services. However, I believe that could have been achieved much earlier, and I would like to make a few comments about that.

I genuinely believe that if the ISC had not got involved in these matters, we would not be discussing the Bill today. That is not to take anything away from all those who had been working so hard on the Bill before that, but it had reached an impasse. I praise the work of the ISC Chair, Lord Beamish, and the Deputy Chair, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is in his place.

It is the view of the ISC that the concerns about the Bill could have been addressed much sooner, as I have said. There has been a lack of direction and grip, with no one taking control. It seemed all too difficult for some, and that has caused the lengthy delays that we have endured. We should not ignore the fact that that has added to the anxiety and concerns of the families and campaigners.

As I stated earlier, the ISC has oversight of the intelligence community. If it felt that the Bill did not address the concerns aired about the impact on the intelligence services or threatened the safety of agents or officers and the security of our country, we would say so—and I, for one, would not vote for it. I do not believe that that is the case; I believe that this Bill, with its amendments, addresses those concerns. Establishing a new duty of candour is key, but I am particularly pleased that the Bill will also bring forward the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade, so that any family facing the might of the state will no longer have to beg and borrow to afford a lawyer, as the Hillsborough families know too well from the early stages of their campaign.

Many of my colleagues have made important contributions to the Bill and ensured that we got to this stage; my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) have been instrumental in that. I put on the record my thanks to them. There has also been support from the Prime Minister. Whatever the problems faced by the Government in getting to this stage, they clearly wanted the Bill to go through and have worked very hard to try to do that. It could have been done better, but I believe that, in the long run, we will look back on the tenacity and drive of the families as being what got us to this stage.

Today is a landmark day for the Hillsborough families and other campaigners. It will help to ensure that the truth will out in the future. The state will not be able to repeat the appalling cover-up that we saw with Hillsborough. This landmark Bill will have a profound influence in helping prevent future injustices.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), my colleague on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I agree with everything that he has said.

It is important to begin by recognising the remarkable determination of everyone who has sought to translate immense personal pain into an improvement in the way in which the state treats its citizens. That applies to the families who have campaigned so hard and to Members of this House who have applied their own determination to that task.

As the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood and many who have spoken in this debate have said, the obstacle to delivering this legislation has really very clearly been the extent to which the duty of candour should apply to the intelligence services and to others for whom full candour may be inconsistent with professional duties, as well as the additional safeguards and modifications that would need to apply to the Bill to enable it to safely cover such people without preventing them from doing their vital work effectively.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government asked members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, including me, to become involved in the process of resolving that challenge. As the House would expect, we engaged with that process as diligently as we could, with no partisan politics, in an effort to make good law in the pursuit of greater state transparency while preserving our national security equities. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, we spent many hours on the task, engaging with both the Government and those representing the Hillsborough families.

It probably would not be right or practical, in the time available, to go into the detail of all the positions taken over many months, but it is fair and important to say that throughout that time, those representing the Hillsborough families have maintained that measures and protections in existing law would prevent national security from being jeopardised if the duty of candour applied to the intelligence services. The Government, for their part, have maintained throughout this period of many months both consistently and robustly that that is not so.

The Government have maintained that the only way to protect national security is to build additional safeguards, protections and exemptions into the Bill. That appeared still to be their position until very recently. Even yesterday, Government amendment 147, which gives the head of an intelligence agency the right to withhold information altogether in certain circumstances, appeared in the amendment paper for the Bill, as it had done in many previous iterations of that document. In today’s version of the amendment paper, for the first time, that amendment has disappeared and been replaced not with the detailed compromise that Intelligence and Security Committee members, who have been engaged with this process, have been working towards, along with many others, but with Government amendment 157.

Government amendment 157 says, in effect, that protections already existing in the law are good enough after all—the Minister made that clear in what she said—and that no substitute further protections or exemptions need to be built into the Bill. That is a remarkable change of position, and a remarkably fast one. It is up to the Government to decide what legislation they propose to this House, and it is perfectly within their rights to propose amendments to their own legislation. We can all cynically speculate about the reasons why this sudden about-turn has taken place this week, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who spoke from the Front Bench, said earlier, it is our job to scrutinise this legislation and to ensure that whatever we put in place does justice to the determination of the Hillsborough families and everybody else to put in place a law that does not just sound good, but does good—makes real change and sticks in that task.

I simply have to observe to the Minister and the House that, after all the painstaking work and hours spent, until late last week, on the basis that further safeguards were required—all the amendments drafted, redrafted and redrafted again—the Government have suddenly said that none of that is necessary. What on earth is going on? It seems to me that there are two possibilities. The first is that, for whatever reason, the Government have now cobbled together a rushed compromise that does not adequately protect our national security and that, inevitably and logically, does the job less effectively than their previous amendments sought to do. The Minister has been very clear that that is not the case. I want to take her at her word, because this is an important subject.

That leaves us with the second possibility, which is that the settlement before us—a settlement that effectively replicates what the advocates for the Hillsborough families have been saying for months—could have been delivered to this House a very long time ago. That needless delay has brought a waste of ministerial time, official time, the ISC’s time, frankly, and the time of the intelligence agencies. That time could certainly have been better spent. But, far, far worse than any of that, it has brought an additional, agonising wait for the Hillsborough families and others for the law that they were promised—an additional wait that, it seems, they did not need to endure. I appreciate that the Minister has come to this matter reasonably late, but, whatever else she may need to answer, I am afraid she needs to explain all that to us and to the Hillsborough families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Select Committee.

[Andy Slaughter]

I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it and bringing it back to the House before the summer recess. It is the result of years of committed campaigning, led by the families of the victims and survivors of Hillsborough. Many of the worst corporate miscarriages of justice, from infected blood to Grenfell, would have been exposed years or even decades ago, had the Bill become law sooner. We should celebrate a landmark piece of legislation that—like the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, introduced under the last Labour Government—gives power to the citizen and makes the state accountable.

I will focus my remarks on two new clauses that I have tabled, which build on growing calls for a national oversight mechanism. This would be a new, independent public body that collated, analysed and followed up on the conclusions and recommendations made after official investigations into deaths and state failings, in order to improve oversight and implementation of them. At present, there is a critical gap in accountability between the issuing of a report or recommendation and its eventual implementation. It can be extremely difficult for bereaved families, victims and the general public to get information on what changes have actually been made following the identification of failings.

15:30

In her last annual report for 2024, the chief coroner noted that 713 prevention of future death reports had been issued. Those reports identify key issues that contributed to someone’s death and need rectifying to prevent the same thing happening again. There is a duty to respond to those reports, but evidence from the charity INQUEST and others, such as the independent advisory panel on deaths in custody, has shown that responses are often absent or delayed. Further, as the previous Justice Committee said in 2021,

“there is no follow-up to see if coroners’ reports have had the desired impact.”

It is often the case that no change has in fact been made by a public authority. That has drawn serious concern from coroners and inquiry chairs.

My new clauses are supported by INQUEST and over 40 organisations, including the Law Society, Amnesty International UK and JUSTICE. The need to improve systems for monitoring action on inquests and inquiries has been raised repeatedly during debates on this Bill. The Prime Minister himself stated on Second Reading that

“when there are inquiries, there needs to be a better way of ensuring that they are followed through.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 654.]

However, despite Government interest in this area, there has been no formal commitment to implement this proposal. My new clauses would ensure that the Bill extends to the aftermath of inquiries. There needs to be candour and transparency in how public authorities respond to, and act on, findings and recommendations by improving central oversight; otherwise, these costly, lengthy legal processes are futile.

A further step that the Government may want to consider is creating and maintaining a database, so that all information gathered by coronial investigations is recorded and analysed to prevent future deaths. Dr Georgia Richards from King’s College London has been doing vital work in that area, and I recommend that the Government use her expertise to find a solution for how to harness all the information gathered by coroners to protect public health. Beyond that, the coronial service needs to be more responsive and proactive, as successive reports from the Justice Committee have urged.

In the light of the number of people who wish to speak, I do not have time to go through the other amendments and new clauses that I support, but I will mention new clause 1, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and calls for the independent public advocate to have a greater role. Earlier in the year, the Select Committee interviewed the current—and first—independent public advocate, Cindy Butts. She is an excellent appointment, but she needs more powers and resources to ensure that she can play her full role in making sure that the provisions of this Bill come into effect. I will also mention amendment 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which deals with the role of subcontractors. In my view, the lack of provisions on subcontractors is an omission from the Bill; it is worth noting that during the Horizon scandal, Fujitsu relied heavily on subcontractors to maintain and operate its services.

Finally, I will mention amendment 25, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison). It would extend the offence of misleading the public to

“a public authority or public official providing misleading information to a recognised news publisher.”

South Yorkshire police defamed the Hillsborough families and survivors, but it did not do so alone—its lies and smears were promoted by several newspapers. It was the culture and the connections between the newspapers and the police that enabled that to happen, and there is no evidence that this has changed. Just as South Yorkshire police was protected by The Sun after Hillsborough, the Metropolitan police was responsible for astonishing oversights in the investigations into phone hacking at the News of the World. This Bill’s focus on the role of public officials is welcome, but the Government should also look at collaboration between public officials and the media.

Finally, may I say what a relief it is to see a compromise reached between the Hillsborough families and the Government on the application of the duty of candour to the security services? While I understand the Government’s desire to strike a balance in this area, a carve-out would erode the effectiveness of the Bill. As we have seen on multiple occasions, including in the investigation of the Manchester Arena bombing, the Stakeknife case in Northern Ireland and the Attorney General v. the BBC—the “Beth” case, as it is known—it is vital for public confidence and accountability that there is transparency in cases where there have been failings in the conduct of the security services. In the Attorney General v. the BBC, I note that MI5 was found to have provided false evidence to the courts, and it paid damages to “Beth”, alongside giving an apology, but that was only after repeated interventions by the BBC and the courts. That demonstrates the importance of the duty of candour applying to the intelligence services.

[Tessa Munt]

Can the hon. Member spot the irony in the fact that today, while the Government are considering this legislation, which is designed to prevent public bodies from obstructing the truth, the Ministry of Defence is in the High Court in London, trying very hard to silence the Chinook families by saying that they are out of time in seeking an independent inquiry on why their loved ones were allowed to board a Chinook helicopter that the Ministry of Defence knew was unairworthy, positively dangerous and not to be relied on in any way? There is surely an irony in that. It is absurd. I know that the hon. Member was talking about the intelligence services, but the Bill surely has to cover the Ministry of Defence and how it behaves, too, because it is utterly inappropriate.

[Andy Slaughter]

I know that case means a huge amount to the hon. Lady as a constituency MP, and I thank her for all the work she does on the Justice Committee. I think we have only begun to scratch the surface. This Bill will be a transforming piece of legislation.

I will make one final comment. Several Members have welcomed, as I do, the huge increase in the provision of legal aid that will come, but for that to be effective, we have to look at legal aid rates and the availability of legal aid practitioners. Simply having the funding available does not ensure that there will be representation and equality of arms, which I think we all wish for.

[Tessa Munt]

My sense is that we could have some equity in the amount of legal aid given to families and individuals fighting big organisations, such as public bodies. If the rates of the specialists and professionals who are supporting the public bodies came down, and matched the rising rate of legal aid for the support of those individuals and families, we might be in a situation where could be some equity. That would make investigation much simpler for the courts and inquests dealing with such cases, because they would have people who understood the process better.

[Andy Slaughter]

I think I have taken enough time, but I thank the Member for that intervention. This afternoon, the Justice Committee signed off a new major report on legal aid, which will be published on Friday. Those who are interested can read more there. In conclusion, this is a landmark piece of legislation, which we should all welcome, and I commend it to the House.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I will speak to two amendments, but first, I pay tribute to the Hillsborough families, and to two people in particular, with whom I have dealt personally. The first is Margaret Aspinall. As a new Culture Secretary in 2010, I made some ill-chosen comments about the Hillsborough tragedy, and I met Margaret Aspinall afterwards. I apologised, and she graciously accepted that apology. I have always been struck by not just her tenacity, but her dignity and decency. Today has been a long journey, but if the Bill saves lives, as we all want it to, she will deserve more credit than any politician, as will every one of the families of the 97.

I also want to mention Bishop James Jones, who was chair of the independent panel. He gave the world the phrase that summed up more than any other what went wrong: the patronising disposition of unaccountable power. What is remarkable about Bishop James is that he did not hang up his hat after publishing the report in 2012, but went on to advise successive Home Secretaries on how to implement his recommendations, and then chaired the Hillsborough families’ experiences review panel. I asked for his help in chairing the Gosport independent panel, and he went on to chair the Gosport family forum, from which he has just stepped down for health reasons. To me, he exemplifies Senator John McCain’s famous words about

“the honor we earn and the love we give if at a moment in our lives we sacrifice for something greater than self-interest.”

I know that the whole House will want to mark his public service.

Let me turn to my new clause and amendment. New clause 11 addresses a profound failure in the way that the duty of candour works in the NHS. In 2014, I put in place the regulations that applied that duty to the NHS, and when I tell the House what those regulations require of the NHS, Members will immediately see why they are failing so badly. They state that if severe harm or death is caused to a patient, the hospital must tell the patient or their family promptly, or as soon as is practically reasonable. It must give a truthful account of what is known and what happened, and it must offer a sincere apology. As witnesses to countless subsequent inquiries affecting the constituents of many Members here have said, that simply does not happen. Families have to fight for years to find the truth about what happened to a loved one, and all too often, they find that mistakes are ignored or covered up. When a tragedy is covered up, it is then repeated time after time, which is precisely what those families are campaigning to stop.

Why do those cover-ups happen? There are many reasons, but one in particular is that trust lawyers advise trusts not to say anything at all when there is a risk of legal action. Let me tell the House about baby Ben Condon, who died at eight weeks old in 2015, when I was Health Secretary, after delays in giving him antibiotics. His father Allyn says that consultants apologised to him privately, saying that they had got it wrong, and then said the exact opposite at an inquest a few months later. I believe that that was a breach of the duty of candour regulations that were already in place, and that lawyers, even today, are giving unlawful advice to clinicians and trusts. As a result, the duty of candour in the NHS is being widely bypassed, and that will continue until we deal with this loophole. New clause 11 requires the Department of Health and Social Care

“to ensure that legal services provided to NHS bodies…are consistent with the statutory duty of candour and the principles of openness”.

It requires the Department or designated body to ensure that those standards are met, and that the situation be dealt with appropriately when they are not.

Amendment 150 does a different job. The Bill requires people working for public bodies to tell the truth to those conducting investigations or reviews, but it does not require them to tell the truth to families, who then have to wait, often for years, until the review is published. The amendment requires that information to be provided to a person or family who has, or may have been, harmed.

I recognise that the House will not divide on either the new clause or the amendment, so neither will become law as part of this Bill. My request to Ministers is that they include them in the Health Bill; they would be in scope, and would have a dramatic impact in preventing the anger of NHS-bereaved families, which is absolutely the equal of the anger of the Hillsborough families that we are trying to address today. My reason for wanting to do that is straightforward. A Health Secretary can pass new laws, introduce new technology and bring down waiting lists, but the only real change that stands the test of time is culture change. Culture change means replacing cover-ups, buck-passing and a blame culture with openness, trust and learning, but there will not be trust if patients and families are not told the truth. We will never learn from mistakes if we cover them up. We need real change—culture change—to put that right.

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I started my speech on Second Reading in November last year by saying:

“This has been a long time coming.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 681.]

Even more time has passed since then, but thanks to the determination, strength and effort of many survivors and campaigners—some of whom are in the Gallery today—and of those on the Labour Benches, and to the support of a number of dedicated people in this place, we are here at last, with the finish line in sight again.

15:44

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). I have a lot of sympathy for his new clause 11, and I heard him make the same point to the Health Secretary this morning. I hope that a time and a place can be found for such a provision, because what he says is important. He expressed it very well and with passion, and I certainly support him in that.

I welcome the Government amendments, and I also welcome the fact that, importantly, they have the support of the families and campaigners. I am assured by the comments that we have heard from members of the ISC, and I am certain that they will continue to keep a close eye on the Bill as it progresses and in its implementation.

I will keep my remarks relatively short, because I have spoken on this topic several times and I know that a lot of colleagues want to speak, but some things need to be said. We need to remind ourselves that this Bill and its provisions are here before us because, after suffering incredible trauma and when faced with a wall of lies, ordinary people decided to say no, including the families affected by Grenfell, the Manchester Arena attack, Primodos, Orgreave, the infected blood scandal, the Post Office/Horizon scandal and many more, such as maternity scandals in the NHS. This is their Bill, not Westminster’s Bill.

Not least among those people are the Hillsborough families and campaigners, some of whom I have had the privilege to meet. I have met lots of remarkable people in both my personal life and my professional life in politics, and I have no hesitation in saying that I have never met a group of people who have shown such bravery and resilience in the face of so many obstacles, so many lies and so much profound injustice. It is because of the efforts of families and survivors that people will be helped in the future. The truth will be easier to find, and justice will be easier to secure. We all owe the campaigners our deepest thanks.

To all those who have made this Bill possible, and to all those who have worked so hard and for so long to make the case, to reach a consensus and to win the argument, I say thank you. I hope the House will forgive me if I say once again to the Hillsborough families and campaigners in particular: you have my utmost respect, you have my deep gratitude, you are the best of us. You have been a light in the darkness. You’ll never walk alone.

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

I wish to speak to amendment 25, which has been tabled in my name, among others. Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, Windrush, Grenfell and the Manchester Arena are all tragedies that everyone across the country knows too well, because the campaigners, the survivors and the families of those who have been lost have bravely made sure that we will never forget what happens when the state not only ignores them, but actively works against them to protect its own interests.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the journey to this point has been far too long for the Hillsborough families. It is 14 years since the independent panel finally confirmed that public officials had hidden the truth. It was a day of hope that, finally, we might see justice be done. I remember sitting in Liverpool’s council chamber after the news broke. I remember the joy and relief that spread throughout that room, and the way that councillors from all parties came together to unite behind the families and campaigners who fought so hard, and for so long, to get that verdict. But there were more blocks and heartbreaking moments to come.

This Bill has taken far too long to get here, but it is really important to acknowledge Members from across the House and in the Government, especially the Prime Minister, in getting us to this point. I know how much has been said about legacy over recent weeks—especially by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy)—but I genuinely believe that this a legacy worthy of any incumbent in No. 10. Today, it is long overdue.

What has been achieved by the families and all the campaign groups pushing for this legislation is nothing short of astounding. To take the most unimaginable heartbreak, and the most unimaginable grief and suffering, and turn it into positive action that will not only make our country safer and more just, but make the legacy of the 97 synonymous with a country that protects its people and gives them a true level playing field in the eyes of the law, is quite simply remarkable.

It must not be forgotten that the campaigners and families worked so hard to find common ground to progress this Bill, and that needs to be celebrated. The campaigners at Hillsborough Law Now have worked relentlessly to push the Government to the position they have reached, and I am sure the whole House will join me in applauding them. This Bill will change the way that this country works and operates. A legal duty of candour on all public authorities will bring groundbreaking change not only legally, but culturally, and a cover-up culture will no longer thrive.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and I analysed the Bill in detail and learned how true accountability could and should be built into institutions. It became clear that command responsibility over corporate liability was badly needed, and that no organisation should be exempt from the duty of candour, no matter how secret, important or unique their role in our society may be. I was proud to support the amendments put forward by Hillsborough Law Now to ensure that the Government properly addressed these issues.

It also became clear that there were other gaps. For example, we believed that the issues of wilfully destroying records and the provision of legal aid were not sufficiently addressed. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) has tabled new clauses 2 and 4, to make the legislation watertight. I believe other gaps still need to be filled, so I have tabled amendment 25, which outlines explicitly that a public authority or public official providing misleading information to a recognised news publisher would be an offence of misleading the public.

We all in this House know well how intertwined the relationship is between the state and the media. There is a continuous cycle of give and take, and it is vital that this is not misused or abused. The impact of the briefings given to the press by the police and senior politicians and advisers after Hillsborough is still felt today. It was a despicable smear campaign that demonised communities and a whole city, and even worse, it made the victims of the disaster appear to be at fault and somehow to blame for what happened. All those responsible for that disgraceful act will never be forgiven. This situation can never be allowed to happen again, and amendment 25 would ensure that misleading the press has direct consequences under the legislation.

This Bill still has many stages to undergo in the other place, but today we can truly celebrate in the knowledge that we are one giant step closer to justice. We see a future where people are protected from the powers of the state when the state fails our residents and moves to protect itself over those it should serve. We see a future where victims are cared for by the state, not treated as villains. We see a future where lies and deceit can no longer cover up public scandals, and where public officials are empowered to do the right thing. Today belongs to the 97 and their families, and I could not be prouder of them.

[Maria Eagle]

Before he leaves the Chamber, I say to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) that I agree very much with what he said about transparency and its importance. He made the point that lawyers are sometimes a problem. Obviously, the legal system, in which I used to be a participant, is adversarial. A bit like in this Chamber, we have the defence and we have the prosecution, and it is not the fault of the lawyers themselves if they are perhaps not as helpful as they could be.

My new clause 1 tries to deal with some of the issues that are outwith the scope of the Bill, but it also reminds right hon. and hon. Members, and the Ministers charged with making this Bill work, that something else happened to get us to the truth of Hillsborough, and that was the Hillsborough independent panel report. That was not a legal action; it was about transparency, freedom of information and being open.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has his frustrations about the fact that his well-intentioned health reforms are not operating as he would have wished. He mentioned Bishop James Jones, who led the Hillsborough independent panel report process so well. I believe there has to be something alongside the Bill which enables families, should they wish in the aftermath of a public disaster, to choose a transparency and freedom of information way forward, rather than just lining up to get lawyers. I am sure that each family would have a lawyer, but lawyers operate within a legal system that is adversarial and is not necessarily there to get to the truth. Each advocate supports the side they have been instructed by, for their best interests. That has led to problems in the aftermath of disasters such as Hillsborough.

My new clause 1 relates to the Independent Public Advocate, which was legislated for. I do not believe that the role has sufficient powers or resource. It has been established and set up, and the appointment of Cindy Butts has been made. She has already started to operate and was called upon in the aftermath of the attack on the Heaton Park synagogue. She does not have the powers that I envisaged in the Public Advocate Bill, which I promoted in this House from 2016. It has been promoted in the other place by Lord Wills since 2014, so Members can work out who wrote it—it was not me.

The powers in the Public Advocate Bill, which I hope my new clause will enable us to consider alongside those in the Bill before us, would enable the families, should they wish, to embark on a transparency and freedom of information process. That would be something like the Hillsborough independent panel, but at a much earlier stage in the aftermath, in order to ensure that the full gamut of possible responses that might work for the families can be pursued.

Although such powers are not in this Bill, because it is too narrow in scope for them to be included, I hope that my new clause 1 on producing a report within 12 months of the passing of this Bill on how the Independent Public Advocate is working and the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence—a public advocate with such powers to help families can increase public confidence as well—will lead to a conclusion that she needs more powers and resource, as she has very little at the moment, so that there will be another option that some families, in the aftermath of disasters, may choose to go to, rather than just having to have a series of legal actions that may succeed and then fail, followed by appeals and different kinds of actions. That is what happened to the Hillsborough families. We must bear in mind not only the inequality of arms, but the length of time taken to get through the legal actions, even if they proceed swiftly and well. In considering that measure alongside the duty of candour and the provisions in the Bill, I hope it may, in future, aid families who get caught up in public disasters to choose the best way forward for them.

One key thing about the Hillsborough families was the way in which they organised themselves. They got themselves together, set up the Hillsborough family support group and had a democratic procedure so that the families themselves could decide the next steps. One or two families peeled off when they did not agree with the conclusions and ploughed their own furrow, sometimes very successfully. Anne Williams springs to mind. She wanted to focus very much on overturning the inquests. She was right in the end. She knew absolutely what had happened to her son, because she went and found out. She knew that the inquest verdicts were wrong, so she wanted to focus on that. But on the whole the families kept together and were able to decide how they would go forward.

Any public advocate has a role in facilitating that kind of process, to give families the collective strength to decide how they wish the aftermath of a disaster to be dealt with. Each family will have a lawyer to advocate for them, but that does not necessitate their getting together and deciding what to do among themselves in so far as they can. I think a public advocate who is looking at establishing a process like the Hillsborough independent panel could facilitate that and could assist in some instances.

15:59

Obviously, I am glad that the Bill has come back and that it is going to complete its Commons stages today. I am relieved about that. I think the duty of candour is a good thing, if it can be made to work effectively—it cannot be a bad thing. If this duty of candour already exists, it will help to focus minds, hopefully at an early stage, in the aftermath of any disaster in a way that the common-law duty that has, one assumes, always existed did not really do at the time of Hillsborough. This is, therefore, entirely good.

I am glad to see that the problem of being between a rock and a hard place that has delayed the Bill has been resolved between the campaigners and the Government. I know of and commend the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee in trying to get to a resolution of that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) has done a lot of work on that, as has the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I used to be on that Committee, so I know how hard it works, and I for one am willing to take at face value their assurances about what will and what will not work for the intelligence community.

I welcome the fact that that problem has, one hopes, been solved, and that the Bill can now complete its Commons stages and go off for consideration in the other place, where I am sure it will be looked at fairly closely. There are a number of people in the other place with experience of disasters—Hillsborough and Grenfell in particular—who, I know, will want to submit the Bill to some serious scrutiny. We will no doubt see how that goes in due course.

In addition to getting the Bill on to the statute book, I hope that some serious consideration will be given, perhaps through the mechanism that I suggest in new clause 1, to whether a non-legal approach might be an option for some families, should they choose to take it. I do not believe that we should just say to families in the aftermath of a disaster, “Here’s some legal help—off you go.” If we can cut short the many years and decades that many families have to endure in the aftermath of public disasters by finding a way to circumvent that, I believe we will have provided an additional option for those families that will be well worth some of them taking.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I rise to speak as a member of the Bill Committee and principally in support of amendment 20 in my name, which seeks to provide a necessary layer of democratic parliamentary scrutiny of the actions of the intelligence services.

I listened very carefully to what the members of the ISC present—the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)—had to say. Ultimately, behind my amendment was the fact that democratic accountability does not lie with a High Court or with the head of an intelligence service, but here, with us. We are where the buck of democratic accountability stops. That is why I gave prominence to the ISC in my amendment.

Before turning to my amendment, I must acknowledge the work of the Hillsborough families and their supporters for their courage, tenacity and determination over the past 37 years, which has brought us to this point today. We in the SNP and the Scottish Government fully support the aims and objectives of this legislation so that never again will people face lies, injustice and wilful cover-ups by public bodies without accountability under the law. That is why tonight, with the exception of new clause 3, which we will support, we will vote with the Government in support of this legislation.

That said, I cannot let today pass without making some reference to the fact that, considering the long journey that we have been on—considering the meetings; considering the way in which the Bill Committee was forced to truncate its work into a very limited period; considering the negotiations that followed; considering the pulling of the Bill, the series of amendments and the counter-proposals—the indecent haste of the Government these past 24 hours to push this legislation through is actively working against proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is my view.

Amendment 20 has not been selected for a vote tonight. The intent of the amendment, which is supported by Members from a wide range of parties across the House, was to ensure that we here in Parliament, who are elected by the people, would, through the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House, have had oversight of any decision by the head of an intelligence service to hide information from public scrutiny under the cover of national security.

I have concerns not about the Bill’s use today but about the possibility that a future right-wing Government of this country—perhaps even a far-right Government—might use this legislation as it currently stands to escape the scrutiny that we all seek and support. It is not scaremongering to say that. We should learn the lessons of history. I have seen in my own lifetime, in the land of my birth, how information can be hidden in the name of national security when in fact the interest is not that of the nation but of the Government of the day. That is why I believed that amendment 20 was important, and I am glad to say that 24 MPs from across the House agreed with me.

Before I conclude, I have to make reference to something that the Minister said earlier. She talked about stress-testing elements of the Bill and said that a full timetable would be brought forward in due course. It sounded to me as if, even if the Bill passes through all its final stages, some of these elements will still be subject to a future timescale. Perhaps she might address that point in her closing remarks.

The only other thing I want to say before I finish is the old French saying, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”. We need to be careful about the implementation of this law, so that we do not see the repeat of these mistakes at some point in the future.

In conclusion, I reiterate our support for this legislation. I commend the work of the many determined and tenacious individuals who have brought us to this point, not least the Hillsborough families, who suffered the terrible loss of their loved ones and the industrial-scale cover-up that followed. Today is about them and everyone who will benefit from their efforts.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

It is very welcome to see this Bill back in the Commons to complete its final stages, even though we all expected to see it on the statute book by now. While I understand why there have been frustrations and concerns about the last-minute nature of the Bill’s reintroduction, it is important that we do not let process take precedence over substance.

Fundamentally, in this debate we are considering amendments to the Bill, so it is important that we address those, but I think we should start as we always should: by recognising the unwavering determination that the Hillsborough families and campaigners have shown to this point. We should continue to recognise that they have fought so hard over decades not just to get the truth and justice for their loved ones but to bring about a structural change in the way that the state operates to ensure that public interest is paramount and is not placed behind institutional reputation.

I am delighted to see that the Government have found a way through the problems that halted the Bill’s progression earlier this year. I know that it will bring my constituents great relief that we have found a way to amend the Bill to deliver on the commitment that we made to the Hillsborough families. I welcome the amendments that the Government have put forward. The fact that they have been welcomed by the Hillsborough Law Now campaign is testament to the hard work that has been put in by so many people to get this Bill to the right place. I thank the campaigners, the Minister and the former Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—and my many hon. Friends, many of whom have spoken today, who have worked closely with the Government to get the legislation to where it is today.

When this Bill was introduced, I said to the House that the standard against which it must be held is “Never again”. It is clear that in most areas the Bill had already met that standard, as it was welcomed by campaigners, but it is clear that there were still concerns about the way that the Bill treated members of the security services and the potential for them to be absolved of the duty of candour.

That is particularly important given the concerns raised by victims’ families in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing about the security services not providing an accurate picture of the key intelligence they held on the bomber. Not including those officers would weaken the Bill’s central duty of candour. The Government amendments, if accepted by the House, will ensure that the security services will no longer be exempt from the duty. However, being bound by that duty, it is necessary that there are safeguards to ensure that secret and sensitive material is handled securely and that the safety of individuals working at those authorities is protected. That is an important balance to strike as it will ensure accountability and transparency in investigations while not compromising national security.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in detail how the amendments will work in her opening comments. However, when she winds up the debate, will she explain a little more about how amendment 157 will operate in practice—particularly the application of subsection (2G)—and who comes within the ambit of representations that will be made to the Minister?

Many concerns have been expressed both publicly and privately about how this duty might impact the workings of the security services, but I do not think for a minute that any Member in the Chamber would want to pass legislation that would, by accident or design, risk national security. I am delighted that we have found a formula that assures most hon. Members that that balance has been struck.

There have also been concerns about how the duty will impact relations with countries with whom we share information, but I took particular heart from the evidence that Pete Weatherby gave to the Bill Committee. I add my thanks to him for his work on the Bill. He said:

“The more candid that we can make this, the better the relationship with international partners.”––[Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 9, Q9.]

I found that a helpful way to look at things.

More than anything, the Bill will set new expectations for what it means to be a public servant. The vast majority of those working in our state institutions will not require the provisions of this legislation—they are already acting in this manner—but the Bill makes it clear that the duty of candour is not an optional extra; it is a core tenet of public service. Too often in the past, we have seen institutions forming a ring around people, more interested in their own reputations than in finding the truth and acting in the public interest. As we know, the Hillsborough independent panel found that 100 statements made by junior police officers had been deliberately altered by South Yorkshire police. That is as clear an example as there can be of institutional cover-up and a festering culture that we must never see again.

We have seen that culture far too often, as hon. Members have referred to: in Grenfell, Manchester Arena, the Post Office Horizon scandal, contaminated blood, Windrush, Cammell Laird, Orgreave, the Shrewsbury campaign and many others. We have all recognised in those scandals the similar patterns of institutional defensiveness, delayed disclosure and an inequality of arms. The Bill will end that pattern and culture once and for all. As the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) reminded us, the law does not change things—it is the culture that needs to change—but the law gives us the basis on which we will see that change.

As hon. Members have recognised, it is incumbent on us to ensure that once the Bill gets on the statute book, it does not stay static. We must regularly ensure that it is working as intended. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) said, there is more work to do, particularly on how it works in practice. I am concerned that the legal aid provisions may not mean that we get parity of arms in reality, but let us welcome where we are, because I believe that the Hillsborough families have waited far too long to see justice.

On days like today, I think in particular about the families of Christopher Edwards, James Delaney and Jimmy Hennessy, who left Ellesmere Port on 15 April 1989 to watch a game of football and never returned. We remember all those who died and we repeat our vow: never again.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I start by paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have got us to this point, and to the many hon. Members across the House who have shared personal testimonies and those of their constituents from many different disasters, including Hillsborough.

If the House will allow me, I will change the context of the debate a tiny bit and talk about amendment 149, tabled in my name, which seeks to include water companies in the scope of the code of conduct and duty of candour.The amendment has been sponsored by 33 Members from across the House. Under the Bill, privately owned water companies do not have to follow the same code of conduct as publicly owned water companies in Scotland or Northern Ireland, which is absurd. Although privately owned water companies operate under the Water Industry Act 1991 and are designated as statutory undertakers, they exercise public functions of fundamental importance to health, the environment and daily life; they hold exclusive regional monopolies, meaning that consumers have no alternative provider; and they benefit from statutory powers and privileges normally associated with public authorities.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

We actually have examples of water companies lying. We had South East Water coming to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in January and giving false evidence—so much so that the Chair considered bringing it back for being in contempt of Parliament.

16:15

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have seen docudramas such as “Dirty Business”, in which water companies have sought to evade scrutiny. This amendment would correct that anomaly.

The companies are supposed to perform the same public functions with the same public impact, but without the discipline of market competition. In the Bill, publicly owned water companies such as those that exist outside of England and Wales must follow standards of ethical conduct, including following the principles of integrity, accountability and openness. They must adopt a code that sets the standards expected for those who work at the authority, and make people aware of the consequences of failing to act in accordance with it. There must be a clear way for people not working at the authority to complain about their conduct. Requiring companies in England, such as Thames Water, to adopt such a code of conduct by law is one clear and immediate way the Government could reduce the problems we currently see with such companies.

Constituents of mine tell me just how much they struggle to raise a complaint with Thames Water and are often ignored when they do so. They include Judy Washington, whose case I raised directly with the Prime Minister at PMQs. Time and again, we have seen Thames Water prioritise its own shareholders and debt, taking more from consumers in bills and delivering less in quality of infrastructure and water. These actions would simply not be acceptable under the code of conduct in this Bill. There would be ethical standards for these companies to follow and clear consequences for subverting these goals.

By holding these companies to the same standard, we can reinforce the public interest obligations inherent in their statutory role and ensure consistent ethical standards across all providers of essential services. If the Government are serious about holding the water companies to account, they must close the loopholes that allow them again and again to escape judgment for their wrongful actions. It should not be one rule for them and another for everyone else.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I rise in support of new clauses 5 and 6, and Government new clause 8, and I would like to declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. As we all know, Hillsborough stands as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen.

I want to start by joining my colleagues in recognising the strength and resilience of all those who have got us to this point today, including, first and foremost, the families who fought for decades to expose the truth. Some of them have joined us in the Chamber today. They kept the flame burning for 37 long years to get us to this point. I say to them: your refusal to give up the fight for truth and justice has been a guiding light for so many in times of darkness, and today you have succeeded in making sure that other families facing the unthinkable will not have to face the same obstruction, lies, deceit and blame that you had to endure. This Bill will provide families with the certainty that state actors and those in power will be held accountable for their actions. This victory belongs to you and to the 97 who were unlawfully killed in 1989, and who we remember today.

For me, as a very proud Scouser, today is an emotional day. For the people of Liverpool, the fight for justice is deeply personal, born out of tragedy, betrayal and an unbreakable demand for truth. We are a city that knows what institutional failure looks like, and what courage, solidarity and persistence can achieve in the face of it. Too many have campaigned to get us to this point, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for his amazing job in championing the Hillsborough law campaign in Parliament and for refusing to give into pressure when it looked like the duty of candour would be watered down.

[Nadia Whittome]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly emotional speech. I know, from the Nottingham maternity review, the harm and hurt that is caused when people with knowledge and involvement in institutional failures are allowed to dodge accountability and scrutiny. Does she agree that it is therefore vital there is no exemption from the duty of candour, including for the security services, and that campaigners, including our hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), have been right to fight for so many years for a Hillsborough law that is worthy of the name and that can truly end cover-ups?

[Kim Johnson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that no one should be exempt, and I pay tribute to everybody who has got us here today.

I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), who has campaigned over so many years in Parliament, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), whose relentless campaign for justice for the Hillsborough 97 has helped get us here today. I have no doubt that he will do everything he can to get us across the line. The Hillsborough Law Now legal team, Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby KC, fought very hard to ensure that the duty of candour in the Bill was strengthened and not watered down. This would not have been possible without all their tireless endeavours, and we owe them the biggest debt of gratitude.

Today is not just about the past; it is also about preventing future cover-ups, corruption and police wrongdoing. Today we ensure that no worker, family or community is ever left to fight the state alone. I add my support to new clauses 5 and 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and supported by Inquest, which would establish a national oversight mechanism for inquests and inquiries. The amendments are vital to ensuring that recommendations do not sit gathering dust on shelves, and that we establish a body responsible and accountable for implementing them to prevent future harms.

For too long, working-class communities and the families who should have been given the dignity of being able to grieve their loved ones in peace were instead left to deal with industrial-level cover-up. The Bill is a legacy for the victims of Hillsborough. Never again will families have to endure that level of corruption and cover-up and the fundamental failure of police who blamed victims. Never again will police and state actors be allowed to go unchallenged.

Today brings hope to the families affected by other state miscarriages of justice: the victims and survivors of Grenfell; those impacted by the infected blood, Windrush and Post Office Horizon scandals; the nuclear test veterans, who are still fighting for justice; the Cammell Laird 37; the descendants of the Chinese seafarers deported from Liverpool in the 1940s, who are still fighting for truth and an apology; the survivors of the “educationally subnormal” scandal, who are yet to be given the dignity of an apology and compensation for what they were put through; or those black families who are still seeking justice for those who died as a result of police interactions—it is a bitter injustice that, just like Hillsborough, no one has ever been held to account for, and all the police involved walked free. I fully support the campaign to have the former chief superintendent of South Yorkshire police stripped of his knighthood and to have his Queen’s policing medal rescinded.

This Bill has taken far too long to get here, but the fight is not over. More work has to be done in the other place and on implementation. For the victims and so many others, the fight goes on for the justice they deserve but for far too long have been denied. No justice, no peace.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

Back in 2015, I had the number 96 tattooed on my wrist. It was not simply a tattoo; it was a promise. It was a promise that whenever life became difficult, I would never forget one simple truth: I was one of the lucky ones. I walked away from Hillsborough, but 96 did not. Today we remember the 97. That number on my wrist and the people it represents has become my compass. Every time I look at it, I think of those who never came home. I think of their families and of survivors like my dad, who was seriously injured. I think of every campaigner who has spent decades refusing to accept the lies, refusing to surrender to injustice and refusing to allow the truth to be buried. They have shaped my life far more than they will ever know. I owe them more than I could ever repay.

In the years after Hillsborough, one question followed me everywhere. It is a question every survivor knows—every survivor of Grenfell knows it; every survivor of a public disaster knows it. It arrives uninvited in the silence of the early hours of the morning: “Why did I get to walk away when others didn’t?” For years, that question haunted me. What responsibility do you carry when your survival comes at such a terrible cost to others? What do you owe those who never got the chance to live the life you have lived?

I began to find my answers long before I entered this place. In 2009, after finishing an early shift at my printing factory, I went with my dad and my mates—people who had stood beside me at Hillsborough—to the 20th anniversary memorial service at Anfield. We stood shoulder to shoulder with thousands of people. We remembered. Then came the chant that echoed around the stadium: “Justice. Justice. Justice.” Not because it was a slogan, but because it was all we had left. For two decades we had been lied to, families had been ignored, survivors had been smeared. Those who should have protected ordinary people protected themselves instead, and this House—with honourable exceptions—too often looked the other way. That is a stain on our democracy that I will never forget.

But that cry for justice could no longer be ignored. It forced this place and the country to confront the truth and, ultimately, it led to the Hillsborough independent panel. At last, the truth broke through. It confirmed what the people of Liverpool had always known: the supporters were innocent. The lies were exposed, the cover-up was exposed, and the culture of unaccountable power was exposed.

The families, the survivors and the people of Liverpool will never forgive those who deliberately vilified innocent people and orchestrated that cover-up. They will never forget what Rupert Murdoch, Kelvin MacKenzie, The Sun, Norman Bettison and South Yorkshire police did not only to the victims and survivors, but to an entire city. The wounds they inflicted went far beyond any newspaper headline; they damaged lives, reputations and trust in our institutions. That is why I will continue to campaign for Leveson part 2 and for Bettison to be stripped of his knighthood.

The new inquests in 2016 finally recognised what should have been stated from the very beginning: the victims of Hillsborough were unlawfully killed. Those words mattered because the truth matters. But truth without accountability is never enough. Truth without justice leaves a wound only partially healed. The families deserved justice. The survivors deserved justice. We never got it for Hillsborough.

Then, Bishop James Jones gave us not just a report, but a warning that should echo through every public institution in Britain:

“The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.

Those six words alone should be studied by every public authority in this country, every Minister, every chief constable, every permanent secretary and every senior public official, because if we do not learn those lessons, we will carry on repeating them. Few reports have ever described the British establishment with such devastating accuracy. When power is unaccountable, truth becomes negotiable, justice becomes optional and ordinary people are sacrificed.

The Hillsborough law was born from that understanding. Its purpose is simple: never again should a grieving family have to fight the state simply to discover the truth. In 2021 I was asked by my friend, now my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), to carry the baton for a Hillsborough law in Parliament and to bring the voices of the families and survivors into Parliament, to make sure no family ever again goes through what the Hillsborough families and survivors went through. There are moments in politics that define why we are here—why we have been given this privilege. This was mine. I never saw this as my campaign. It always belonged to the families; I was simply trusted to carry their voices into this House.

16:30

I cannot lie: there were moments when this journey tested me in ways I could never have imagined. There were moments when compromise was presented as victory; moments when those more powerful than me said, “Take this or leave it”; and moments when I wondered whether we would ever get here. But every time that happened, I thought about the Hillsborough memorial at Anfield. Every time I walk past it, those 97 names remind me who this fight has always been for.

I thought about the families. I thought about the survivors. I looked down at that number on my wrist. It reminded me that I was one of the lucky ones. It reminded me why compromise could never, ever be an option—not just for Hillsborough, but for Grenfell, for the infected blood campaign, for the Post Office Horizon families, for Primodos, for Truth About Zane, for the nuclear test veterans, for the Chinook families, for the Manchester arena families and for every family forced to spend years fighting the very institutions that should have stood beside them: different tragedies and different families, but the same fight for truth and justice. This law has never belonged to politicians. Politicians did not build this movement—families did. It belongs to the people. It belongs to every family that has ever buried a loved one while the state watched on and buried the truth.

Today I feel something I was not sure I would ever feel: hope. For so many years, this place was part of the problem. Today, I believe it can become part of the solution. Today is not the end of a campaign; it is the start of doing things differently. It is about people in power telling the truth. It is about public bodies remembering who they exist to serve, and it is about making sure that no family is ever again left to fight the state on their own. That is the promise before us today, and we must not waste it.

To the families of the 97—those still with us and those we have sadly lost along the way: you will never, ever be forgotten. You carried a burden that should never have been yours. You fought with dignity when others showed none. You taught this country that ordinary people can overcome the most extraordinary abuse of power. To every survivor, I hope today brings some measure of peace, not because it can erase the past—nothing ever will—but because your suffering has brought about lasting change for generations to come.

For decades, I asked myself why I survived. Today, I think I understand—not because I have done anything extraordinary, but because I was given the privilege of standing here and carrying the voices of people who could no longer speak for themselves. If, in some small way, I have honoured the memory of the 97, if I have been worthy of the trust that the families and survivors have placed in me, if this Parliament finally ensures that no grieving family ever again has to fight the state simply to uncover the truth, then every setback, every disappointment and every sleepless night will have been worth it.

This law is about far more than Hillsborough. It is about the kind of country we choose to be—a country where power tells the truth, where public servants serve the public, where justice is not delayed until campaigners grow old, and where no family is ever left to walk alone. If we pass this law in the spirit in which it was conceived, the greatest legacy of the 97 will not simply be that they are remembered; it will be that, because of them, this country has finally, finally learned the lessons of Hillsborough. Every time I look at the number on my wrist, I will not simply remember those we lost; I will remember that they changed this country for the better. Never again! [Applause.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Alex Davies-Jones.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is more than a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and to speak in support of the Government amendments and in favour of the Bill as a whole. This law represents far more than legislation; it represents a promise—a promise that the suffering endured by the Hillsborough families, and all those who have been sadly failed by the state, will never be repeated. It is a promise that no bereaved family will ever again be forced to spend decades fighting and fundraising to challenge the very institutions that should have been helping them to uncover the truth.

For far too long, we have seen a devastating pattern emerge after major public tragedies. Families are left grieving the loss of those they love, only to find themselves caught in secondary trauma, battling against secrecy, defensiveness, delay and denial. Instead of compassion, they encounter obstruction; instead of openness, they face silence. Instead of truth they are met with half-truths—or worse, with lies, missing evidence and institutional self-protection. That is why the duty of candour matters.

A duty of candour is not about punishing honest mistakes. It is about ensuring that public authorities and officials understand that their first duty is not to protect reputations or institutions; it is to protect the truth. Because when institutions close ranks, ordinary families pay the price. When evidence is concealed, justice is delayed, and when facts are distorted, truth is destroyed. When those in positions of power fail to tell the truth, confidence in our public institutions is eroded for generations.

The Hillsborough families know that better than anyone. For 37 years they have carried a burden that should never have been theirs. They have fought not only for the memory of the 97 people who lost their lives, but for something much bigger: the principle that no institution is above accountability, and that no grieving family should ever have to fight the state simply to establish the truth about what happened to their loved one. Their courage has changed this country. They have exposed failures that many hoped would remain hidden. They challenged narratives that should never have been allowed to stand, and they refused to give up, even when the odds were stacked against them.

The Hillsborough families’ determination has become a beacon of hope for countless other families seeking justice. We owe them so much more than our admiration—we owe them action. We cannot stand here, praise their courage and thank them for their persistence, only to fail to deliver the very reforms that they have spent decades fighting for. If we do, what message does that send to every family still waiting for answers? What does it say to those affected by Grenfell, the infected blood scandal, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Manchester Arena terror attack—and so on, sadly—and to every future family who may one day find themselves seeking truth after tragedy? It says that lessons are spoken about but not learned.

The duty of candour is the mechanism by which we begin to rebuild trust between the public and the institutions that serve them. It changes the culture from one of defensiveness to one of openness; from protecting organisations to protecting people; from asking families to prove the truth, to requiring public authorities to tell it from the very beginning. That is not, and should not be a radical principle or idea. It is the minimum standard that the public should expect from those who exercise public power. That is why I support the Government amendments, as they finally allow the Bill to have the worthy title of “the Hillsborough law”. The amendments stand as a testament to the families, victims and survivors who would never give up—the Manchester Arena attack victims, nuclear test veterans, the Chinook disaster families, and anyone who has had to fight for the truth against the army of the state, and then the intelligence services on top.

If we are to have a true principle and a true duty of candour, then that principle must be applied consistently. It cannot be the case that we champion transparency and accountability with one hand while creating an exemption with the other. A duty of candour that applies only when convenient is not a true duty at all.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

One of the things that has always struck me about this law is how we can change accountability. Just a couple of weeks ago, Donna Ockenden’s report about the Nottingham maternity scandal set out the fact that public officials did not come forward to tell the truth about those tragic incidents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill addresses issues that go far wider than the Hillsborough disaster and that although the Hillsborough families have had to go through so much, many other families have suffered and endured as well?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. She is making a powerful point about the Nottingham maternity scandal, and I know that the Hillsborough families have been supporting those families in their fight for truth, justice and accountability. That is why this law is so important: it is so much more and has become so much more than just being about the Hillsborough families. It has encompassed everything that we know that we need regarding our public institutions and the duty of candour. That is why the Government amendments regarding the intelligence and defence services are so vital.

I recognise, of course, that the work of our security and intelligence services is unique. They perform an essential role in protecting national security, keeping our citizens safe and responding to some of the most complex threats that our country faces, some of which we will never and should never know about. I know from first-hand experience that this has not been an easy position for the Government to reach. It has been difficult to try and meet the necessary balance of maintaining and securing information that must remain confidential to protect ongoing operations, intelligence sources and national security.

I place on the record my sincere thanks to the whole army of amazing, dedicated public servants who have fought to bring the legislation to this place today, so that we are able to take forward this Bill with the Government amendments intact; and to the families who never gave up, even when the process of developing this legislation took an emotional, physical and mental toll on them. I say to the Hillsborough Law Now campaigners, and to all the campaigners and organisations who have become part of that wider family: you have been bonded by grief, trauma and the failure of the state to provide you with truth and justice, so thank you for adopting me into that family and for giving me support, friendship and inspiration to drive forward this meaningful change.

The principle at the heart of the legislation is that public authorities must act honestly, must not mislead, must not conceal wrongdoing and must co-operate fully with investigations and inquiries when, sadly, tragedy strikes. Those principles should not cease to exist simply because an institution operates in a field of national security. Indeed, where public power is exercised most extensively, the need for accountability is arguably at its greatest.

Public trust in our institutions is not strengthened by blanket exemptions. It is strengthened when the public can be confident that every institution, regardless of its status, influence or function, is subject to the same fundamental expectation of honesty and integrity. The Hillsborough families did not spend decades fighting for a culture of accountability only for Parliament to decide that accountability should have limits. They campaigned for a principle that no public body should ever be able to place institutional reputation above the truth. That principle must be universal, because once we begin carving out exceptions, we risk undermining the very foundation on which this legislation rests. We risk creating the perception that some institutions are accountable while others are not, and that candour is expected from some public servants but not from others. That cannot be right.

If the duty of candour is a moral obligation, as I believe it is, then it must be a moral obligation that applies across the whole public sector. Appropriate safeguards for national security can and should exist—and they do exist, as we have heard from the Minister. Sensitive information can and should be protected where necessary, but those safeguards must not become a shield behind which truth, accountability and justice can be denied.

All the families who have fought for this law have spent decades challenging the idea that powerful institutions should be allowed to mark their own homework. They have taught us that accountability is not a threat to public confidence; it is the foundation of it. We honour their legacy not by creating exemptions from candour, but by embedding candour as a universal principle—a principle that says no institution is above honesty, no authority is above accountability and no family should ever be denied the truth because of the organisation they happen to be seeking answers from.

If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will reflect on the words that have come to symbolise not only my beloved Liverpool football club, but the Hillsborough families’ extraordinary campaign for truth and justice—“you’ll never walk alone”. For millions, that is an anthem sung from the Kop before kick-off, but for the Hillsborough families it has become something far deeper. It has become a promise that, even in the darkest moments, they would not face their fight in isolation. It was a reminder that when institutions failed them, communities stood beside them. When others sought to rewrite the truth, it was ordinary people who refused to let their voices be silenced. When grief threatened to overwhelm them, they found strength in one another. That spirit has carried them through more than three decades of heartbreak, resilience and determination.

16:45

Those words—“you’ll never walk alone”—must not remain simply a song that we sing, or a sentiment that we admire; they must become a principle that shapes how the state treats bereaved families. No family should have to walk alone through years of legal battles because public bodies refused to tell the truth. No family should have to walk alone against institutions with vastly greater resources and power. No family should have to walk alone in the search for answers, after losing someone they love. That is why the Hillsborough law matters, why the duty of candour matters, and why this legislation must apply wherever public power is exercised. No institution should be beyond accountability when the truth is owed to grieving families. If we truly believe in the words “you’ll never walk alone”, we must ensure that they are reflected not only in our compassion, but in our laws.

The Hillsborough families have walked an unimaginably long road. They have carried the weight of grief, while shouldering the burden of securing justice for generations that follow. Their courage has changed the country for the better, and today, in this place, it is our turn to finally walk alongside them. We honour the memory of the 97 not only by remembering them, but by ensuring that no family is ever left to fight alone again. That is the promise of the Hillsborough law. That is the promise of a true duty of candour. That is how we ensure that the words “you’ll never walk alone” are no longer simply an anthem of remembrance, but a lasting commitment from this Parliament to every family who seek nothing more than the truth.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

Before I speak to the Government’s new clauses and amendments, which ensure that there is no carve-out from the duty of candour for the intelligence and security services, I put on record my utmost respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have been relentless in pushing this Bill forward. However, it is the Hillsborough families and campaigners, who have fought doggedly through their pain and heartache, who deserve all our respect. In memory of their loved ones, through their courage and refusal to be silenced or ground down, they have fundamentally changed the relationship between the state and the public, ensuring the services that are there to protect and serve us are always accountable.

There is something deeply wrong in our country that caused us to need to legislate for these services to tell the truth, and to face criminal sanctions if they do not. Telling the truth should have always been their position, not something that they were forced to do. The rest of us face reprisals for not telling the truth. At the very least, we should expect that from the state.

Chloe and Liam, the children of my dear friends and constituents, Lisa and Mark Rutherford and Caroline Curry, were killed in the Manchester terror attack. They sat through utterly agonising years, months, days and hours of inquiry hearings, which revealed that MI5 had not given an accurate picture of the key intelligence held on their children’s murderer. The chairman of the public inquiry also found that MI5 missed a significant opportunity to take action that might have prevented the attack. Lisa, Mark and Caroline were signatories to the Hillsborough Law Now campaign letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister earlier this year. That letter says:

“Despite MI5 lying to a public inquiry in this way, no one has been held to account. This lack of accountability needs to change. Creating a full duty of candour responsibility on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ is the clearest route to creating this change.”

The letter went on to say:

“Every security and intelligence officer should be required to tell the truth, and the leaders of the organisations should also bear full responsibility.”

That is absolutely right, and I am relieved today that the Government have listened.

Caroline, Lisa and Mark are not in the Gallery today. They told me that they feel that by not being here, they are letting their children down. They are not. Their loved ones will know that they, like everyone who has fought so hard and has been involved in getting us here today, have never, ever given up. They have fought with every breath, every single minute of every day since their loved ones were so brutally taken from them. This law will not be retrospective; it cannot right past wrongs. However, it will send a very clear signal to the state, and in doing so will instil a culture in which the truth, not the cover-up, is the primary focus. This is so important for everyone who is fighting for justice—the nuclear veterans, Chinook, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, the covid-19 bereaved families, and many others.

As MPs in this place, it is now our job to make sure that this Bill becomes an Act, to make sure that every single word of it is fully adhered to, and that the people we represent are never again treated in such a despicable way. In a democracy like ours, truth and justice should never have taken decades; it should never have been this hard, this relentless or this painful. It is a real honour to have met all those involved with the Hillsborough law campaign, although I wish I had met them under different circumstances. I thank all of them. We all owe them, and I sincerely hope that now they have got Parliament to this stage, they are able to find some small element of peace.

[Sarah Russell]

I join my many colleagues in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families—those in the Gallery today, and those who, for very understandable reasons, felt that they could not be here. Your quest for justice is truly inspirational to all of us, and I thank you so very much for your perseverance and everything you have done. I do not doubt that it will make the country a better place.

Many people have raised concerns about the duty of candour in this legislation, and its application to the security services. I am sure that when the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) raised this issue in the Chamber, he did so in good faith, but no one who has raised those concerns has been able to point to any case in which the existing law protecting the security services and the secret information that they hold has actually failed, or to any problems resulting from the existing arrangements. Those concerns seem to be entirely hypothetical. Giving the security services a huge carve-out from the duty of candour when there were known problems with, for example, the evidence given to the inquiry on the Manchester Arena bombing seems completely unsustainable and unreasonable. There is literally no evidence to suggest that this Bill presents any risk to national security. I join my colleagues in saying that if there were evidence to suggest that the existing arrangements had ever failed us, many of us would think again about the drafting of this Bill, as it has been presented by the Government. We would all put the country first, but I cannot see anything that should prevent this law from going ahead as drafted.

It is so important to get to the truth, and I hope that the duty of candour will help to move things forward significantly. We owe it to the Hillsborough families, and the many families affected by the many other disasters that we sadly hear about too often in this place, to ask the other question: what comes next? That is why I rise to speak in support of new clauses 5 and 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), through which he calls for a national oversight mechanism that follows up on the actions taken by public authorities in response to the conclusions and recommendations of inquests and inquiries. We must get to the truth, and we must have recommendations on how to avoid future catastrophes, disasters and unnecessary risk, but we then have to do something to stop those things happening again.

At the moment, prevention of future death reports and inquiry reports are all too often not followed up—or not followed up consistently across the board. All too often, including after the Ockenden report and the maternity scandals, systemic change has not followed from inquiry recommendations, despite the considerable resources and effort put in by individuals to improve systems. We think about justice for the Hillsborough families, the Grenfell families and many other families who have sadly lost loved ones in terrible circumstances, but we must make sure that we bring into play the mechanisms that ensure proper follow-up after all these disasters. We must follow through on inquiry outcomes, and ensure that the right mechanisms are in place.

I thank very much everyone who has worked to get us to where we are today—the many families, but also the Members of Parliament who have worked across party and for a great deal of time on bringing this legislation forward. Let us keep this work going.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a true privilege to have been present for this debate, and to have heard some of the most incredible contributions that I have ever heard in this place.

I will be mercifully brief. I recognise that it is to the Prime Minister’s considerable credit that he has fulfilled his manifesto commitment and got the Bill to this point within a year of his remarks at the Labour party conference in Liverpool last year. I also put on record my recognition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) for his persistent work on this subject for many years. Principally, however, it is the families of Hillsborough victims, the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, Pete Weatherby KC, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and many others who have to be recognised for not letting the matter rest, and for their tireless determination to get us to where we are today. We must not forget the Manchester Arena victims, the Grenfell families, the Chinook families, the contaminated blood families, the British nuclear test veterans, and all those who have been part of this campaign.

The duty of candour on the NHS did not deliver for the families of my constituents Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore, and many others who died in the scandal at the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys mental health trust. I have welcomed confirmation of a public inquiry, and the information that applications have been received to chair it, but families need that inquiry to be up and running. I hope that the Health Secretary can progress that urgently this summer.

We are being asked to support dozens of Government amendments today that were tabled with little notice, and without our having been able to scrutinise them in detail, but I am led by the families to support those amendments. I recognise the calls for oversight and monitoring mechanisms, such as those set out in new clause 5, tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), and in new clause 1, by my old friend and doughty campaigner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). Those measures would assure us that the new Government amendments will function effectively and, among other things, allow us to hold to account police officers and members of the armed forces and the security services, as we are led to believe.

I sense that many Members across this House would like to hear more from our Front Benchers about commitments made to ensuring oversight and monitoring. Perhaps the Minister can address that when she responds to the debate. The expectation of honesty and transparency is not, and never can be, a threat to national security. Will the Minister set out how the application of the duty of candour and the prevention of carve-outs will be applied to the work of the Northern Ireland Legacy Commission, which is being established by the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government will table amendments to that Bill, or can otherwise provide guarantees that the measures in the Bill cover the families who have suffered so much in Northern Ireland.

The common characteristics of these appalling human tragedies are the most unimaginable trauma, pain and grief, and the demands are the same. They are for truth, justice and accountability, and today provides the means to deliver on those demands. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member from Liverpool, West Derby: if anything tells us why we come to this place to change the country for the better, surely it is what we are doing today, and I very much welcome this landmark legislation.

17:00

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). I share his views about the need for action on the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys inquiry.

When I first considered running for public office, my wife said to me that she was sure that at some point I would end up voting for things with which she did not agree, but that I must promise her that I would do one thing, and that was never to engage with The Sun. That is one small snapshot of the depth of feeling in her family, who are from Wavertree and Kirkby, and in families across the Merseyside region. They are well represented today by all my colleagues from that part of the world, but in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), whose speech was one of the finest I have heard in this place—and outside it as well.

I also, of course, pay tribute to the Hillsborough families whose courage and determination have brought us to this point. For decades those families were forced to fight not only with their grief, but against institutions that should have served them. They faced delay, denial and the closing of ranks. They were made to prove the truth again and again, while those in positions of authority avoided responsibility. No family should ever have to endure that. It is a credit to them that they did not give up, and their campaign has changed our country’s understanding of public accountability.

The duty of candour in the Bill makes it harder for public bodies to hide the truth, mislead the public, or obstruct those seeking answers. It says that public service must mean honesty, especially when things have gone badly wrong. I pay tribute to the Ministers who have led the Bill through the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who is sitting in front of me and who also made an excellent speech. It takes great bravery for the Executive to agree to restrict their own power, and I think that applying the offence they have created of misleading the public to senior members of the Government is a courageous thing for a Government to step up and agree to do. I therefore support clause 11, but I also feel strongly that it ought to apply to all of us as politicians, and I am grateful to the more than 30 Members on both sides of the House who supported my amendments 13 to 18 to that effect. In the age of disinformation and the rise of autocracy, politicians who intentionally or recklessly engage in serious or repeated dishonesty on a matter of significant public concern must face consequences, and I hope to hear more from the Minister about that.

None the less, I am firmly in support of the Bill. Nothing can bring back those 97 people who went to watch a football match on a sunny afternoon, or return the years taken from the families in their long struggle for truth, but we can learn from that injustice. We can support bereaved families at inquests, and we can ensure that future families do not face the same walls of silence and obstruction. I pay tribute again to all those who have campaigned for justice, and I am pleased to support the Bill today.

[Clive Efford]

I decided at a very late stage to speak in this debate, because I chair the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood and I wanted to add my voice on behalf of all the people who campaigned on that scandal and express their appreciation for the work of the Hillsborough families and what they have achieved for our country. Ordinary people up and down the country will have a power to take on the state in the future and not to be crushed, as the state has attempted to do in respect of so many other scandals that have been mentioned today.

I pay tribute to the MPs from the north-west—not just Liverpool—who, over the many years that I have been in this House, have campaigned consistently on this issue, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg). I should also acknowledge Steve Rotheram, who spoke out very powerfully on behalf of the Hillsborough families, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who spoke so passionately earlier. I pay tribute to all of them, but it tells us something: in spite of the fact that some very fine Members of Parliament have been raising this issue over a very long period of time, it has taken this long to get to where we are today.

That shows us how important it is that we are tenacious and stick with our campaigns, and also that we have oversight of the Government and can hold them to account, to make sure that they do not treat people in the way that they have attempted to do. The cover-up, and the opposition to the campaigns for justice, tells us that we can never drop our guard in holding people and the state to account, so I really welcome the fact that we will pass this Bill today.

I could stand here and read out many examples of the way that individuals were treated by the state in the contaminated blood scandal, but one particularly springs to mind. At the age of 18 months, a baby was experimented on, without anybody being told. The baby was infected with hepatitis, but this was not discovered until the baby became a teenager. The parent found out, and the state made her believe that she had given consent for her baby to be experimented on at the age of 18 months. That parent went on to attempt suicide. It just shows the scale and depth of the cruelty that people have had to endure in that scandal and others. It is one of the most powerful testaments that I have come across, and it shows why we need to fight for justice in this place for the people who suffered in all the scandals that we have spoken about.

I will discuss two issues. First, I see the duty of candour as part of a framework that we need to put in place, and we must have a national compensation body. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority, the independent body for the contaminated blood scandal, is a unique body that has been set up to pay out compensation. It is learning a lot about how to go through this process, and it would be wrong to have to relearn the process all over again with every subsequent scandal where compensation is paid out. We should set up a national body for compensation to perform that task, to ensure that we keep in place the knowledge and expertise that has been learned and do not lose it.

Secondly, we need a national body for oversight of the recommendations of inquiries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has set out in his new clauses 5 and 6, which I fully support. We have had over 400 recommendations from inquiries since 2024, but who has oversight of those recommendations and how the Government are responding to them? Sir Brian Langstaff, who chaired the contaminated blood inquiry, reported in July 2024, but he deliberately kept his inquiry open because he wanted to see how the Government reacted to his recommendations. In 2025, he reconvened that inquiry, took further evidence and gave further recommendations because of the tardy way in which the Government were responding to his recommendations. We cannot be in that position again, and we cannot rely on the Sir Brian Langstaffs of this world to be that guarded and to protect our rights in that way every time. We must have a body that is independent of Government, and that will scrutinise how they behave and how they react to the recommendations of public inquiries that we the public pay for.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the Hillsborough families. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.

[Catherine Atkinson]

With the leave of the House, it is an honour and a privilege to close today’s debate. This Bill exists because people refused to be silent, and because families who had lost everything were told to move on, stop asking questions and accept half-truths at best, bare-faced lies at worst. Instead, they chose to fight. For too long in this country when a disaster has struck, the balance of power has lain with the state, not with the people who suffered harm. The people it should have protected were left to battle institutions with limitless resources, lawyers paid for from the public purse and a culture focused on defending reputations rather than discovering the truth. This Bill will finally put that imbalance right. It shifts the system away from secrecy and defensiveness towards openness, honesty and accountability.

I want to thank Members from all parties who have contributed so passionately today and throughout the passage of the Bill. I am so grateful for the way they have worked with us constructively and collaboratively, rightly challenging us, but always with a shared purpose. That is this House at its very best, coming together to rise above party political advantage for justice and the good of the British people. That is what we have done with the Hillsborough law, and it means that we have been able to bring forward amendments that genuinely strengthen this Bill, not water it down.

I will address the points made in the debate. First, on national security, this Bill was paused to ensure we get it right. This legislation is about addressing the wrongs we have seen at Hillsborough and in so many other scandals. The duty of candour is about being honest when things go wrong; it is emphatically not about changing assessments of whether national security information can or cannot be disclosed publicly in legal proceedings, and it is a mischaracterisation to suggest that it does so. The families and campaigners have never wanted information to go into the public domain that would put people at risk. Certain types of legal proceeding can compel national security information—that happens now—and law and practice have been developed over time to protect information.

The Bill and the amendments repeatedly make it clear that the Bill does not override existing laws, but instead draws on existing safeguards. We have always had the tools in law to protect national security information—for example, restriction orders and public interest immunity applications. Determining what and how sensitive information could be published was my main area of practice as a barrister for many years before coming to this place. Nothing in this Bill takes those away, and we have used the past months to stress-test these provisions rigorously and ensure that is the case.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) asked about the time taken and if our position had changed. The Government have been consistent that the risk comes from individuals who may not be aware of the full picture, and it has therefore been essential to be able to address that. The shadow Justice Secretary’s amendment and the Government amendments are based on the same premise: that there needs to be a corporate check on national security information going from an individual employee to an inquiry, because individuals may not know the full sensitivity. But the Government amendments provide a more precise process for what the head must do with that information, using existing national security safeguards, and so avoid the broad discretion that had caused Members concern.

17:14

Our intelligence services are best placed to assess the sensitivity of information—they do that every day. That is why we have crafted the amendments as we have, so that any information held by individual employees that may be engaged by the provisions of the Bill is routed through the service corporately, so that those proper assessments of sensitivity can take place, and so that intelligence information held by other public bodies cannot be released by other bodies, but only by the intelligence service that is able to make a proper assessment of sensitivity. All that is current practice now, but the Bill is clearer in making it law. That provides more assurance, not less, to our citizens and partners.

Concerns were raised about candour in relation to health. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for his contribution. We do not disagree with the intent of his new clause 11 and amendment 150. Our concern is that the detail is not necessary on the face of the Bill and that it would be disproportionate to do so. The Bill requires public authorities to set out how a professional duty of candour must be met with clear professional sanctions. We will work with organisations on how best to fulfil those obligations and ensure full implementation.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am afraid I will not. To respond to as many points raised as I can, I do not have time to take interventions.

The Bill is about the duty of candour to an inquiry or investigation, and the onward disclosure of information will be determined by each inquiry, inquest or investigation as to what is appropriate and relevant. I would be eager to meet the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash to discuss what more can be done through the implementation of the Bill and separately to achieve the culture change that we want to see.

Other Members raised the Nottingham maternity review, which I have followed closely, as I have the work of the Government’s maternity adviser, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), because of my experience in Nottingham when I was giving birth to my eldest son in 2014. Each contraction meant that his heartbeat stopped and what began as a normal labour suddenly turned to panic and ended with an emergency caesarean to save his life. I was one of the lucky ones, because I got to take him home. I will always hold in my mind the 500 mothers and babies who suffered potentially avoidable harm or death around that time in Nottingham. The message that we are sending with this legislation is that cover-up culture is over and that women and families must be listened to. Public bodies, including NHS trusts, must be open and candid when things go wrong. We are clear that we will apply the duty of candour to the Leeds and Sussex maternity reviews.

On the national oversight mechanism and the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), we have taken steps to improve transparency in how we respond to inquiry recommendations. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently considering how the implementation of recommendations resulting from future public inquiries should be scrutinised. We welcome that and will continue to work with the Committee on next steps. The Office of the Chief Coroner is also continuing work to improve access to the prevention of future death reports while the Government seek to strengthen arrangements for responding to the concerns raised through them, including better and more strategic use of technology.

On the Independent Public Advocate, I welcome the contribution and work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). I thank my right hon. Friend and the others who have raised this, and I take on my right hon. Friend’s points. Legislation requires that there be a review on the role within 18 months of the IPA being stood up, and that is in train. The Ethics and Integrity Commission will also be developing guidance on the code of ethics and will have a role in monitoring and overseeing it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) raises in his amendments some serious concerns about disinformation and the risk of eroding trust in our institutions and weakening our country. While Back-Bench MPs are not included in the new offence, as they are responsible for scrutinising the decisions of the Government of the day, Parliament does already have processes for determining whether Members have misled the House and has its own arrangements for ensuring truthfulness and accuracy from Members. However, I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend to look at how we strengthen matters in relation to his concerns.

On whistleblowing and amendments 3 and 6, the Bill provides safeguards for sensitive information and whistleblowers, and the code of ethics must contain information on whistleblowing policies. We are actively exploring opportunities for reform, as set out in the anti-corruption strategy 2025, and a consultation on whistleblowing will be launched this summer.

We have heard many contributions about placing water companies under obligations of a code of ethical conduct, and although the code of conduct provisions do not apply to private water companies in England and Wales, the Bill contains a power to extend this. The Government will consult on that in due course.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) raised concerns about the additional work needed and the additional measures coming into force being put in place as soon as possible. We are conscious that families have waited long enough for this law. Putting commencement dates on the face of the Bill could cause practical difficulties, but we are doing all we can to ensure that it is in place as soon as possible.

Members have also spoken about amendments relating to former public officials. To be clear, those individuals will remain subject to the duty of candour, provided that an investigation or inquiry relates to their former role, and the offence of misleading the public will also still apply, even if they have retired.

On subcontractors, the main contractors will be accountable for their subcontractors’ performance. The Government are open to exploring further measures to strengthen accountability and candour through supply chains.

Concerns about journalism have also been raised. The Government have already narrowed the journalism exemptions and made it clear that the offence covers misleading recognised news publishers. Sufficient safeguards are provided through the requirement for consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions before any prosecution can proceed.

I wish to thank a number of people before I conclude. I pay tribute to all those who have shaped the Bill, ensured that it delivers as intended, held us to account and made sure that we got to this point. I thank the families and campaigners for their courage and for sharing their experiences, often at great personal cost. They have challenged successive Governments and worked constructively with us, and without them we would not be here today.

I also thank the Members of this House who have stood alongside the families and campaigners over many years, championing their cause and helping to strengthen this Bill. In particular, I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Attorney General. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for all his assistance and expertise on the Government amendments on the security services. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), whose contribution was so powerful. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), whose passion for this matter long predates his return to this House.

Nothing can bring back those who were lost, and we can never undo the suffering that so many families have endured. But what we can and must do is ensure that the truth is never again buried by institutions whose first instinct is to protect themselves. That is what the Bill is designed to combat, and I am incredibly grateful to all involved that we have been able to bring the Bill back before the House.

As Victims Minister, I am determined to see the Bill deliver the lasting cultural change that families have fought for over so many years. I hope that in years to come it will be remembered not only for the duties and offences it creates, but because it helped to change the relationship between the state and those that it exists to serve.

We have listened, and we have acted. We will continue to listen as the Bill makes its way through the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Abolition of common law offence: Northern Ireland

“(1) The offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland is abolished.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to—

(a) any act which was done before the coming into force of this section, or

(b) any act which began before the coming into force of this section and continues after its coming into force.

(3) Subsection (1) does not affect—

(a) the liability of any person for an offence other than the offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland, or

(b) the civil liability of any person for the tort of misfeasance in public office.”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This new clause provides for the abolition of the offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2

Duty of candour and assistance

Amendments made: 151, page 2, line 25, leave out “likely to be” and insert “that is”.

This amendment clarifies that information must be provided under the duty of candour and assistance if it is relevant to the inquiry or investigation concerned.

Amendment 152, page 2, line 30, leave out “likely to be”.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 151.

Amendment proposed: 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.”—(Jess Brown-Fuller.)

This amendment requires public authorities or officials who are assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

17:27

Division 56

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 93

---

Liberal Democrat: 52
Labour: 8
Scottish National Party: 7
Green Party: 5
Independent: 4
Reform UK: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Your Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Noes: 323

---

Labour: 321
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Clause 3

Section 2: further provision

Amendment made: 153, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, at end insert

“(and see also paragraph 4(2A) of Schedule 1)”.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 179.

Clause 6

Security and intelligence information

Amendments made: 26, in clause 6, page 5, line 37, after “applies” insert “(subject as follows)—

(a)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 155 and 157.

Amendment 154, in clause 6, page 5, line 37, leave out “an intelligence service” and insert “a relevant public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 157.

Amendment 155, in clause 6, page 5, line 38, at end insert—

“(b) to a person who works for a relevant public authority as it applies to other public officials.”

This amendment clarifies that the duty of candour and assistance applies to persons working for relevant public authorities (as defined by Amendment 168) in the same way as that duty applies to other public officials, subject to certain safeguards dealt with in the rest of clause 6 (as amended by Amendment 157).

Amendment 28, in clause 6, page 5, line 39, leave out “But”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.

Amendment 156, in clause 6, page 5, line 40, leave out “an intelligence service” and insert

“a relevant public authority (other than the head of that authority when discharging obligations on behalf of it)”.

This amendment clarifies that the obligation under clause 2(3) to give a notification applies to the head of a relevant public authority when acting on its behalf.

Amendment 157, in clause 6, page 6, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) to any other public official, or to a public authority other than a relevant public authority, where compliance with the obligation would result in the provision of protected information.

(2A) Subsection (2B) applies where—

(a) a public authority (‘the recipient authority’) is in possession of protected information provided by a relevant public authority, and

(b) the recipient authority would, but for the application of subsection (2)(b), be required to give a notification under section 2(3) that would result in the provision of that information.

(2B) The recipient authority must inform the relevant public authority that it has relied on the exemption in subsection (2)(b) in relation to the information (and the relevant public authority must act in accordance with section 2(3)).

(2C) Where, in compliance with the obligation under section 2(4), a person who works for a relevant public authority (other than the head of that authority) would be required to provide protected information to an inquiry or investigation, the person complies with that obligation by providing the information to the head of the authority.

(2D) Where the head of a relevant public authority receives information by virtue of subsection (2C), they must (subject to subsection (2E)) provide that information to the inquiry or investigation—

(a) by such time as the person leading the inquiry or investigation may require by virtue of section 3(5)(a), or

(b) where no such requirement is imposed, as soon as reasonably practicable.

(2E) The duty imposed by subsection (2D) on the head of a relevant public authority to provide information does not apply if, or to the extent that, either of the following conditions is met before the head would otherwise be required to provide the information to the inquiry or investigation.

(2F) The first condition is that an application is made, by virtue of any enactment or rule of law, for the information to be subject to restrictions on disclosure in accordance with that enactment or rule of law.

(2G) The second condition is that representations are made to a Minister for the inquiry or investigation to become an inquiry established under the Inquiries Act 2005 (in cases where it is not being held under that Act).

(2H) Where an application is made in accordance with an enactment or rule of law as mentioned in subsection (2F), information must be provided to the inquiry or investigation if, and to the extent that, the enactment or rule of law so requires for the purposes of the application being determined.

(2I) A person leading an inquiry or investigation must suspend it if—

(a) representations are made to a Minister as mentioned in subsection (2G) in relation to the inquiry or investigation, and

(b) the Minister requests the person to do so on the ground that the matters to which the inquiry or investigation relates are likely to be adequately investigated by an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 that is being or is to be held.

(2J) Subsection (2I) does not apply in relation to an investigation under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (see instead paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to that Act).”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment provides for limited circumstances in which the duty to give a notification under clause 2(3) to the person leading an investigation or inquiry does not apply and provides for certain safeguards in relation to the provision of protected information under clause 2(4). The terms “protected information” and “relevant public authority” are defined in clause 8 as amended by Amendments 167 and 168.

Amendment proposed: 199, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) Where, in compliance with the obligation under section 2(4), a person who works for an intelligence service, a military intelligence service, the National Crime Agency, Counter Terrorism Command, or one of the armed forces, would be required to provide security or intelligence information, the obligation applies in respect of that information only if the head of the service or agency consents to it being provided.

(2B) The head of an intelligence service, the head of military intelligence service, the head of the National Crime Agency, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing UK, or the head of one of the armed forces may withhold consent under subsection (2A) only if it appears to the head that either of the following conditions is met.

(2C) The first condition is that it is necessary for consent to be withheld in the interests of national security or otherwise for the purposes of the proper exercise of the functions of the service.

(2D) The second condition is that the information would not be of assistance to the inquiry or investigation in meeting its objectives.

(2E) Where the head of an intelligence service, the head of military intelligence service, the head of the National Crime Agency, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing UK, or the head of one of the armed forces withholds consent under subsection (2A), the head must notify the person leading the inquiry or investigation of that fact.”—(Nick Timothy.)

This amendment ensures that the duty of candour and assistance may require a person who works for an intelligence service, military intelligence, the NCA, Counter Terrorism Command or the armed forces to provide security or intelligence information with the consent of the head of their service.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

17:41

Division 57

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 102

---

Conservative: 90
Reform UK: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Independent: 2
Restore Britain: 1

Noes: 409

---

Labour: 329
Liberal Democrat: 52
Scottish National Party: 7
Independent: 5
Green Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Your Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Clause 6

Security and Intelligence Information

Amendments made: 32, page 6, line 4, at beginning insert—

“For the purpose of securing compliance with the obligation under section 2(3),”.

This amendment clarifies that the arrangements referred to in clause 6(3) are for the purposes of ensuring that the obligation to notify an inquiry or investigation under clause 2(3) is complied with by intelligence services or those that work for them.

Amendment 158, page 6, line 4, leave out “intelligence service” and insert “relevant public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 157.

Amendment 159, page 6, line 4, leave out second “service” and insert “authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 157.

Amendment 160, page 6, line 5, leave out “service” and insert “authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 157.

Amendment 161, page 6, line 6, leave out “service’s” and insert “authority’s”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 157.

Amendment 162, page 6, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment removes a previous obligation on the part of intelligence services in relation to records of information that is considered unnecessary as a result of other amendments being made.

Amendment 163, page 6, line 10, leave out “service” and insert “authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 157.

Amendment 164, page 6, line 11, leave out “service” and insert “authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 157.

Amendment 165, page 6, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) For the purposes of this section—

(a) references to a person who works for a relevant public authority include a person who used to work for such an authority;

(b) “Minister” has the same meaning as in the Inquiries Act 2005 (see section 1(2) of that Act) but, in relation to an investigation under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, also includes the Lord Chancellor”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 157.

Amendment 33, page 6, line 13, leave out subsection (4).—(Catherine Atkinson).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 166.

Clause 8

Interpretation of this Chapter

Amendments made: 166, page 6, line 28, at end insert—

““head” , in relation to a relevant public authority, means—

(a) in relation to the Security Service, the Director General of the Security Service;

(b) in relation to the Secret Intelligence Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service;

(c) in relation to the Government Communications Headquarters, the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters;

(d) in relation to Defence Intelligence, the Chief of Defence Intelligence;

(e) in relation to the National Crime Agency, the Director General of the National Crime Agency;

(f) in relation to a police force (other than the National Crime Agency), the relevant senior officer of the metropolitan police force;”

This amendment defines the meaning of “head” for the purposes of the amendment made to clause 6 by Amendment 157.

Amendment 167, page 7, line 7, at end insert—

““protected information” means information that—

(a) relates to security or intelligence, within the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989;

(b) is information relating to defence produced or held by Defence Intelligence, the disclosure of which would be damaging (and “defence” and “damaging” have the meanings given by section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1989);

(c) relates to the exercise by the National Crime Agency of its criminal intelligence function, within the meaning given by section 1(5) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013;

(d) relates to the exercise by a police force (other than the National Crime Agency) of its counter-terrorism and other national security functions;”.

This amendment defines the term “protected information” for the purposes of the amendment made to clause 6 by Amendment 157.

Amendment 168, page 7, line 9, at end insert—

““relevant public authority” means any of—

(a) an intelligence service;

(b) Defence Intelligence;

(c) the National Crime Agency;

(d) a police force (other than the National Crime Agency), in the exercise of its counter-terrorism and other national security functions.

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) references (in the definitions of “protected information” and “relevant public authority”) to the “counter-terrorism and other national security functions” of a police force are to any functions carried out under a collaboration agreement made under section 22A of the Police Act 1996 for the purpose of addressing, on a collaborative basis with other police forces, threats posed to national security;

(b) the reference (in the definition of “head”) to the relevant senior officer of the metropolitan police force is to the officer of that force, of the rank of a Commander or above, with overall responsibility for the conduct of the arrangements made under that collaboration agreement.

(1B) In the application of subsection (1A)(a) to the Police Service of Scotland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve, the reference to a collaboration agreement made under section 22A of the Police Act 1996 is to be read as a reference to any memorandum of understanding or other agreement made for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1A)(a).”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment defines the term “relevant public authority” for the purposes of the amendment made to clause 6 by Amendment 157.

Clause 9

Expected standards of ethical conduct

Amendments made: 37, page 8, line 7, leave out “code” and insert

“standards of conduct expected of them”.

This amendment is to include cases where some or all of the standards of conduct expected of a person who works for a public authority are contained in legislation or otherwise than in the authority’s code of ethical conduct.

Amendment 38, page 9, line 5, at end insert—

“(11A) For the purposes of this Chapter—

(a) a person who works at a school maintained by a local authority in England or Wales is to be treated as working for the proprietor of that school rather than for the authority;

(b) a person who works at a designated institution in England or Wales is to be treated as working for the governing body of the institution rather than for any other body;

(c) a person who works at a grant-aided school in Northern Ireland is to be treated as working for the Board of Governors of the school rather than for any other body.

(11B) In subsection (11A)—

“designated institution” means an institution that is a designated institution for the purposes of Part 1 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

“grant-aided school” has the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/594 (N.I. 3));

“proprietor” has the meaning given by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996;

“school maintained by a local authority” has the same meaning as in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (see section 142(1) of that Act).”

This amendment ensures that the duties under clause 9 to adopt codes of ethical conduct that fall upon governing bodies of schools, and on the governing bodies of designated institutions in the further education sector, will be adopted for people who work at the school or institution but are employed by a body other than the governing body.

Amendment 39, page 9, line 7, at end insert—

“(b) references to a person who ‘works for’ a public authority are to be read in accordance with subsection (3) of section 23 as if paragraph (h) of that subsection were omitted.”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment ensures that public authority codes of conduct are primarily required to cover those with employment or contractual relationship with the authority, excluding from scope individuals who exercise functions on behalf of the authority but may not be directly accountable to it.

Clause 11

Offence of misleading the public

Amendments made: 40, page 10, line 2, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment, together with Amendment 70, provides for clause 11 to extend and apply fully to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Amendment 41, page 10, line 10, after “conviction” insert “in England and Wales”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 40 and 70.

Amendment 42, page 10, line 11, at end insert—

“(aa) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(ab) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment provides for penalties for offences under clause 11 committed in Scotland or Northern Ireland, in consequence of amendments 40 and 70.

Amendment proposed: 19, page 10, line 23, at end insert—

“(7A) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.”—(Dr Mullan.)

This amendment requires the Attorney General to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

17:57

Division 58

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 104

---

Conservative: 92
Reform UK: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Independent: 2
Restore Britain: 1

Noes: 412

---

Labour: 331
Liberal Democrat: 52
Scottish National Party: 7
Independent: 5
Green Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 4
Your Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

18:35

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 3 November 2025).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 12

Seriously improper acts

Amendments made: 43, page 11, line 22, after “must” insert “be directed to”.

This amendments clarifies that a jury must be directed to have regard to certain matters when considering whether an act is seriously improper for the purposes of the offence under clause 12.

Amendment 44, page 12, line 4, after “section” insert

“—

(a) in England and Wales,”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 45, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“(b) in Northern Ireland, may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Northern Ireland.

Clause 13

Breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury

Amendments made: 46, page 12, line 24, after “section” insert

“—

(a) in England and Wales,”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 47, page 12, line 25, at end insert—

“(b) in Northern Ireland, may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 48, page 12, line 28, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

“(7) In this section—

“critical harm” means death or serious injury;

“serious injury” means—

(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, grievous bodily harm within the meaning of the Offences against the Person Act 1861;

(b) in Scotland, severe injury (including psychological injury).”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Clause 14

Territorial application of sections 12 and 13

Amendments made: 49, page 12, line 33, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 50, page 13, line 2, leave out “England and Wales” and insert “the United Kingdom”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 51, page 13, line 2, at end insert—

“(3) Where an offence under section 12 or 13 is committed outside the United Kingdom—

(a) proceedings for the offence may be taken at any place in the United Kingdom, and

(b) the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as committed at any such place.

(4) In the application of subsection (3) to Scotland, any such proceedings against the person may be taken—

(a) in any sheriff court district in which the person is apprehended or is in custody, or

(b) in such sheriff court district as the Lord Advocate may determine.

(5) In subsection (4) “sheriff court district” is to be read in accordance with the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (see section 307(1) of that Act).”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Clause 15

Holders of public office

Amendments made: 52, page 13, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 53, page 13, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 20.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 54, page 13, line 21, leave out “or (4)”.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Clause 16

Abolition of common law offence of misconduct in public office

Amendments made: 55, page 13, line 23, leave out

“common law offence of misconduct in public office”

and insert

“offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of England and Wales”.

This amendment is consequential on NC9.

Amendment 56, page 13, line 30, leave out “common law”.

This amendment is consequential on NC9.

Amendment 57, page 13, line 31, after “office” insert

“under the common law of England and Wales”.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on NC9.

Clause 18

Parity etc at inquiries and investigations

Amendments made: 58, page 14, line 35, leave out from “members” to end of line 36 and insert

“where a public authority is, or is represented by, an interested person at an inquest or a participant in a Scottish inquiry.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 142.

Amendment 59, page 14, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—

““inquest” means an inquest held under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (and the reference to an “interested person” at such an inquest has the same meaning as in that Part of that Act);”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 142.

Amendment 60, page 14, line 43, at end insert—

““Scottish inquiry” means an inquiry held under the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (asp 2) (and the reference to a participant at such an inquiry is to be read in accordance with section 11(2)(b) of that Act);”.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 142.

Clause 22

Regulations

Amendments made: 61, page 16, line 32, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment, together with amendments 62, 63, 64, 93 and 94, make technical changes in relation to Welsh statutory instruments that are consequential on the commencement of section 1 of the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.

Amendment 62, page 16, line 33, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations under this Act made by the Welsh Ministers are to be made by Welsh statutory instrument.”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 61.

Amendment 63, page 17, line 9, leave out from “procedure,” to end of line 11 and insert

“they are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure (see section 37E of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4));”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 61.

Amendment 64, page 17, line 12, leave out from “procedure,” to end of line 14 and insert

“they are subject to the Senedd approval procedure (see section 37C of that Act).”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 61.

Clause 23

General interpretation

Amendments made: 65, page 18, line 16, at end insert

“, and

(b) a children’s hearing within the meaning of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 1) arranged by virtue of, or for the purposes of, that Act or any other enactment;”.

This amendment provides that the definition of “court” includes a children’s hearing within the meaning of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, in addition to any tribunal or body exercising the judicial power of the State.

Amendment 66, page 19, line 31, at end insert

“, or

(iv) Healthcare Improvement Scotland established under section 10A of that Act;”.

This amendment provides that Healthcare Improvement Scotland will come within the definition of an “NHS body”.

Amendment 67, page 20, line 28, leave out “maintained school” and insert

“school maintained by a local authority”.

This amendment ensures that the definition of “school” includes maintained nursery schools and pupil referral units.

Amendment 68, page 20, line 29, leave out “20(7)” and insert “142(1)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 67.

Amendment 69, page 20, line 31, leave out from “Academy” to end of line 32 and insert

“school or an alternative provision Academy”.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment provides that alternative provision Academies are included within the definition of a “school” in relation to England.

Clause 24

Extent

Amendments made: 70, page 22, line 23, leave out

“Part 1, Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 2”

and insert “Parts 1 to 3”.

This amendment provides for clause 11 (offence of misleading the public) and Part 3 (misconduct in public office) to apply and extend to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Amendment 71, page 22, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) Part 4 extends to England and Wales and Scotland only.”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 70 and also on the provision made by Amendment 142 about legal aid for bereaved family members in Scotland where a public authority is a participant in an inquiry into a death.

Clause 25

Commencement

Amendment made: 72, page 23, line 5, after “Schedule 1” insert

“or Part 5 of Schedule 6”.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 142.

Schedule 1

Application of duty of candour and assistance

Amendments made: 169, page 24, line 15, leave out from “that” to end of line 17 and insert

“the following condition is met.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 170.

Amendment 170, page 24, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) The condition is that—

(a) the person’s acts are relevant to the inquiry or the person otherwise has information that is relevant, and

(b) where the person is an individual, compliance with their obligations imposed by virtue of the direction would assist the inquiry to meet its objectives.”

This amendment (together with Amendment 169) clarifies that the duty to give a compliance direction to an individual applies only if the chair of the inquiry considers that compliance with the direction will help the inquiry to meet its objectives.

Amendment 171, page 24, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert—

“(c) must include a description of the matters or issues to be covered in complying with the direction and may specify further requirements to be complied with (and may specify the form and manner in which, and the period within which, obligations imposed by virtue of the direction are to be complied with);”.

This amendment requires a compliance direction to include a description of matters or issues to be covered when complying with the direction.

Amendment 172, page 25, leave out lines 23 to 29 and insert—

“(10) A compliance direction that would require the provision of protected information from an individual—

(a) in a case where the information concerned relates to security or intelligence (within the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989), may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for an intelligence service;

(b) in any other case, may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for a relevant public authority,

and an individual is not required to provide any protected information in response to a direction given in contravention of this subsection.

(10A) Before the chair of an inquiry gives a compliance direction to an individual who works (or used to work) for a public authority (and so far as the direction relates to the individual’s work for the authority), the chair must consult the authority for the purpose of ensuring that compliance with the obligations imposed by virtue of the direction will assist the inquiry to meet its objectives.”

This amendment, together with Amendment 157, enables a compliance direction to be given requiring the provision of protected information (subject to certain safeguards) to a public official who works for a relevant public authority in place of the previous prohibition on the giving of such directions. The terms “protected information” and “relevant public authority” are defined in clause 8 (as amended by Amendments 167 and 168).

Amendment 173, page 25, line 37, at end insert—

““protected information” ;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.

Amendment 174, page 25, line 39, at end insert—

““relevant public authority” ;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.

Amendment 175, page 26, line 36, leave out from “that” to end of line 37 and insert

“the following condition is met”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 176.

Amendment 176, page 26, line 37, at end insert—

“(2A) The condition is that—

(a) the person’s acts are relevant to the inquiry or the person otherwise has information that is relevant, and

(b) where the person is an individual, compliance with their obligations imposed by virtue of the direction would assist the inquiry to meet its objectives.”

This amendment (together with Amendment 175) clarifies that the duty to give a compliance direction to an individual applies only if the chair of the inquiry considers that compliance with the direction will help the inquiry to meet its objectives.

Amendment 177, page 27, line 12, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

“(c) must include a description of the matters or issues to be covered in complying with the direction and may specify further requirements to be complied with (and may specify the form and manner in which, and the period within which, obligations imposed by virtue of the direction are to be complied with);”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 171.

Amendment 76, page 27, line 32, leave out “(1) and (2)”.

This amendment applies section 17(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 (duty on chair to act with fairness and avoid unnecessary cost) to non-statutory inquiries to which the duty of candour and assistance applies.

Amendment 178, page 28, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (11) and insert—

“(11) A compliance direction requiring the provision of protected information from an individual—

(a) in a case where the information concerned relates to security or intelligence (within the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989), may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for an intelligence service;

(b) in any other case, may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for a relevant public authority,

and an individual is not required to provide any protected information in response to a direction given in contravention of this sub-paragraph.

(11A) Before the chair of an inquiry gives a compliance direction to an individual who works (or used to work) for a public authority (and so far as the direction relates to their work for the authority), the chair must consult the authority for the purpose of ensuring that compliance with the obligations imposed by virtue of the direction will assist the inquiry to meet its objectives.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 172.

Amendment 179, page 30, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) The duty to comply with the obligation under section 2(3) in relation to the inquiry does not apply to—

(a) a Minister of the Crown, a government department, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland devolved authority, or

(b) an individual who is a public official by virtue of working for, or otherwise holding office under, a public authority within paragraph (a).”

This amendment removes the requirement for Ministers and officials in Government and the devolved administrations to notify local authority inquiries of the matters in clause 2(3) of the Bill. The Bill already provides that such inquiries may not demand materials produced or provided by or on behalf of the Government or a devolved administration.

Amendment 78, page 30, line 40, leave out “sub-paragraph (11)” and insert “sub-paragraphs (11) and (11A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 183.

Amendment 180, page 31, line 3, leave out from “that” to end of line 4 and insert

“the following condition is met”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.

Amendment 181, page 31, line 4, at end insert—

“(3A) The condition is that—

(a) the person’s acts are relevant to the inquiry or the person otherwise has information that is relevant, and

(b) where the person is an individual, compliance with their obligations imposed by virtue of the direction would assist the inquiry to meet its objectives.”

This amendment (together with Amendment 180) clarifies that the duty to give a compliance direction to an individual applies only if the chair of the inquiry considers that compliance with the direction will help the inquiry to meet its objectives.

Amendment 182, page 31, line 18, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

“(c) must include a description of the matters or issues to be covered in complying with the direction and may specify further requirements to be complied with (and may specify the form and manner in which, and the period within which, obligations imposed by virtue of the direction are to be complied with);”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 171.

Amendment 79, page 31, line 38, leave out “(1) and (2)”.

This amendment applies section 17(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 (duty on chair to act with fairness and avoid unnecessary cost) to local authority inquiries to which the duty of candour and assistance applies.

Amendment 80, page 32, line 33, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 183.

Amendment 183, page 32, line 39, at end insert—

“(11A) A compliance direction requiring the provision of protected information from an individual—

(a) in a case where the information concerned relates to security or intelligence (within the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989), may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for an intelligence service;

(b) in any other case, may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for a relevant public authority,

and an individual is not required to provide any protected information in response to a direction given in contravention of this sub-paragraph.

(11B) Before the chair of an inquiry gives a compliance direction to an individual who works (or used to work) for a public authority (and so far as the direction relates to their work for the authority), the chair must consult the authority for the purpose of ensuring that compliance with the obligations imposed by virtue of the direction will assist the inquiry to meet its objectives.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 172.

Amendment 184, page 34, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert—

“(c) must include a description of the matters or issues to be covered in complying with the direction and may specify further requirements to be complied with (and may specify the form and manner in which, and the period within which, obligations imposed by virtue of the direction are to be complied with);”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 171.

Amendment 185, page 34, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 35 and insert—

“(9) A compliance direction requiring the provision of protected information from an individual—

(a) in a case where the information concerned relates to security or intelligence (within the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989), may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for an intelligence service;

(b) in any other case, may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for a relevant public authority,

and an individual is not required to provide any protected information in response to a direction given in contravention of this subsection.

(9A) Before a senior coroner conducting an investigation gives a compliance direction to an individual who works (or used to work) for a relevant public authority (and so far as the direction relates to their work for the authority), the senior coroner must consult the authority for the purpose of ensuring that compliance with the obligations imposed by virtue of the direction will assist the investigation to meet its objectives.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 172.

Amendment 186, page 35, line 15, at end insert—

““protected information” ;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 185.

Amendment 187, page 35, line 17, at end insert—

““relevant public authority” ;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 185.

Amendment 188, page 36, line 4, at end insert

“and, where the person is an individual, of the matter in subsection (3A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 189.

Amendment 189, page 36, line 9, at end insert—

“(3A) The matter is that compliance with the person’s obligations imposed by virtue of the direction would assist the inquiry to which the investigation relates to meet its objectives.”

This amendment (together with Amendment 188) clarifies that the duty to give a compliance direction to an individual applies only if the procurator fiscal considers that compliance with the direction will help the inquiry to meet its objectives.

Amendment 190, page 36, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert—

“(c) must include a description of the matters or issues to be covered in complying with the direction and may specify further requirements to be complied with (and may specify the form and manner in which, and the period within which, obligations imposed by virtue of the direction are to be complied with);”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 171.

Amendment 191, page 37, leave out lines 25 to 31 and insert—

“(13) A compliance direction requiring the provision of protected information from an individual—

(a) in a case where the information concerned relates to security or intelligence (within the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989), may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for an intelligence service;

(b) in any other case, may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for a relevant public authority,

and an individual is not required to provide any protected information in response to a direction given in contravention of this subsection.

(13A) Before the procurator fiscal gives a compliance direction to an individual who works (or used to work) for a relevant public authority (and so far as the direction relates to their work for the authority), the procurator fiscal must consult the authority for the purpose of ensuring that compliance with the obligations imposed by virtue of the direction will assist the inquiry to which the investigation relates to meet its objectives.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 172.

Amendment 192, page 37, line 39, at end insert ““protected information” ;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 191.

Amendment 193, page 37, line 41, at end insert ““relevant public authority” ;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 191.

Amendment 194, page 39, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert—

“(c) must include a description of the matters or issues to be covered in complying with the direction and may specify further requirements to be complied with (and may specify the form and manner in which, and the period within which, obligations imposed by virtue of the direction are to be complied with);”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 171.

Amendment 195, page 40, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert—

“(9) A compliance direction requiring the provision of protected information from an individual—

(a) in a case where the information concerned relates to security or intelligence (within the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989), may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for an intelligence service;

(b) in any other case, may be given only to a public official who works (or used to work) for a relevant public authority,

and an individual is not required to provide any protected information in response to a direction given in contravention of this subsection.

(9A) Before the coroner gives a compliance direction to an individual who works (or used to work) for a relevant public authority (and so far as the direction relates to their work for the authority), the coroner must consult the authority for the purpose of ensuring that compliance with the obligations imposed by virtue of the direction will assist the inquest to meet its objectives.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 172.

Amendment 196, page 40, line 16, at end insert ““protected information” ;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 195.

Amendment 197, page 40, line 18, at end insert ““relevant public authority” ;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 195.

Amendment 91, page 41, line 24, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 198.

Amendment 198, page 41, line 38, at end insert—

“(5A) Subsection (10) of section 23A of the Inquiries Act 2005 (which provides for safeguards in the case of compliance directions requiring protected information from public officials) (as inserted by Part 1 of this Schedule) applies to a compliance direction given by virtue of regulations under this paragraph as it applies to a compliance direction given under that section.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 172.

Amendment 93, page 42, line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) they are subject to the Senedd confirmation procedure (see section 37D of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)), and

(b) they cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the Welsh statutory instrument containing them is made unless, during that period, they are confirmed by a resolution of Senedd Cymru.”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 61.

Amendment 94, page 43, line 31, leave out “this paragraph” and insert

“sub-paragraph (2)(b), (3)(c) or (5)(b)”.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 61.

Schedule 2

Meaning of “public authority” and “public official” etc

Amendments made: 95, page 46, line 8, leave out “or (11)” and insert “, (11) or (11A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 97.

Amendment 96, page 46, line 8, at end insert—

“(ca) being appointed as a member of the Children’s Panel in accordance with section 4 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 1);”.

This amendment provides for an exclusion from the definition of “public official” for those appointed as members of the Children’s Panel in Scotland.

Amendment 97, page 46, line 32, at end insert—

“(11A) This sub-paragraph applies if the local authority is a local authority in Scotland and the individual is, in relation to the authority—

(a) a convener elected in accordance with section 4(1) of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994,

(b) a depute convener elected in accordance with section 4(2) of that Act, or

(c) a councillor designated by the authority for purposes relating to the payment of remuneration, in accordance with regulations made under section 11 of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 (asp 9), as—

(i) the Leader of the Council,

(ii) the Civic Head, or

(iii) a senior councillor.”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment provides that certain elected officials of local authorities in Scotland will fall within the definition of a “public official” and therefore be subject to the duty of candour and assistance.

Schedule 3

Offences under Part 2: related provision

Amendments made: 98, page 47, line 38, leave out from “Kingdom” to “unless” in line 2 of page 48.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 40.

Amendment 99, page 48, line 7, after “5” insert “or 11”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 40 and 70.

Amendment 100, page 48, line 21, after “5” insert “or 11”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 40 and 70.

Amendment 101, page 48, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 40 and 70.

Schedule 4

Holders of public office

Amendments made: 102, page 49, line 35, at end insert—

“1A A member of the Scottish government (see section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998) or a junior Scottish Minister (see section 49 of that Act).

1B A member of the Welsh Government (see section 45 of the Government of Wales Act 2006).

1C A Minister or junior Minister within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (see sections 7(3) and 19 of that Act).”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 103, page 49, line 36, leave out paragraph 2.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 104, page 50, line 4, leave out from “State” to end of line 10.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 105, page 50, line 11, leave out “The condition is that” and insert

“A person does not fall within sub-paragraph (1) if”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 106, page 50, line 16, at end insert “(aa) the Scottish Ministers,”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland.

Amendment 107, page 50, line 17, at end insert—

“(c) a Northern Ireland devolved authority.”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 108, page 50, line 23, at end insert—

“4A (1) A member of the Scottish Parliament.

(2) A member of the staff of the Scottish Parliament within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998 (see paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 2 to that Act).”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 109, page 50, line 26, at end insert—

“5A (1) A member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(2) A member of the staff of the Northern Ireland Assembly within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (see paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 5 to that Act).”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 110, page 50, line 33, after “body” insert

“, within the meaning given by section 101 of the Police Act 1996”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 111, page 50, line 34, at end insert—

“7A (1) A constable of the Police Service of Scotland, within the meaning of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.

(2) A member of the police staff within the meaning of that Act.

7B (1) A police officer, within the meaning of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (see section 77(1) of that Act).

(2) A person who is a member of the police support staff, within the meaning given by section 4(6) of that Act.

7C A person who is a member of or works for the Northern Ireland Policing Board.”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 112, page 51, line 28, at end insert—

“(3) A person appointed under section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847.

(4) A person appointed to be a constable under Article 19 of the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/426 (N.I. 1)).”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 113, page 51, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) A member of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

(1B) A member of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board.”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 114, page 51, line 34, leave out “fire and rescue authority” and insert

“body mentioned in any of sub-paragraphs (1) to (1B)”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 115, page 51, line 37, after “exercises” insert “core”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 117, clarifies that, in respect of persons exercising functions at places of state detention, only persons who exercise custodial or escort functions, or functions involving the provision of healthcare or education, are subject to the provisions of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office).

Amendment 116, page 51, line 37, leave out from “detention,” to end of line 39.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 117, page 51, line 39, at end insert—

“(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “core functions” means—

(a) custodial or escort functions, or

(b) functions involving the provision of healthcare or education, so far as carried out at a place of state detention.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), a person is in state detention if the person is compulsorily detained by a public authority within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

(4) A person is not in state detention at any time when they are detained in circumstances amounting to a deprivation of liberty by virtue of any of the following—

(a) sections 4A(3) or (5) or 4B of the Mental Capacity Act 2005;

(b) the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (asp 4);

(c) Part 2 of the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (c. 18 (N.I.)).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 115 and on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 118, page 52, line 2, at end insert—

“(2) A member of the Parole Board for Scotland.

(3) A Parole Commissioner for Northern Ireland.”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 119, page 52, line 3, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—

“16 (1) A member of an independent monitoring board, appointed under section 6 of the Prison Act 1952 or section 10 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (c. 18 (N.I.)).

(2) A member of a Visiting Committee, appointed under section 152 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

(3) A prison monitoring co-ordinator appointed under section 7A of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 or prison monitor appointed under section 7C of that Act.

(4) A person approved under Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 2008 (S.R. (N.I.) 2008 No. 427).”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 120, page 52, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (1).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 121.

Amendment 121, page 52, line 11, leave out from “person” to “is” in line 12 and insert “who”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 123.

Amendment 122, page 52, line 13, at end insert—

“(aa) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales;”.

This amendment adds the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales to the list of holders of public office for the purposes of Part 3 of the Bill.

Amendment 123, page 52, line 17, at end insert—

“(ca) the Lord President or Lord Justice Clerk of the Court of Session;

(cb) a judicial office holder, within the meaning of Part 2 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 (asp 6) (see section 43 of that Act);

(cc) a member of the Scottish Tribunals, within the meaning of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 (see section 13(3) of that Act);

(cd) a member of the Children’s Panel appointed in accordance with section 4 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 1);

(ce) a member of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland or Scottish Land Court (including the Deputy Chairman of that Court);

(cf) the President of, or a member of, the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland;

(cg) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland;

(ch) a Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland;

(ci) the holder of an office mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;

(cj) the Chief Coroner or a Deputy Chief Coroner appointed under Schedule 8 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009;

(ck) a senior coroner, area coroner or assistant coroner appointed under Schedule 3 to that Act.”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland and also makes drafting refinements.

Amendment 124, page 52, line 20, at end insert—

“(f) any other member of a court or tribunal in which legal proceedings may be brought.”

This amendment ensures that persons exercising judicial functions are subject to the misconduct offences in Part 3 of the Bill even if the office they hold is not specifically mentioned.

Amendment 125, page 52, line 20, at end insert—

“(3) Any other person (other than a person employed in the civil service of the State) who—

(a) works for a person within sub-paragraph (2) in relation to the exercise of that person’s judicial functions, or

(b) works for a court or tribunal in which legal proceedings may be brought in relation to the exercise of the judicial functions of that court or tribunal.”

This amendment ensures the persons who work for a judicial office holder or court (other than civil servants, who are caught by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill) are subject to the misconduct offences in Part 3 of the Bill.

Amendment 126, page 52, line 21, leave out paragraph 18.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 123.

Amendment 127, page 52, line 29, leave out from “authority” to end of line 31.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 128, page 52, line 32, leave out “in England”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 129, page 52, line 32, at end insert—

“(2A) Sub-paragraph (1) includes—

(a) in relation to a London borough council, a district council or a county council in England, an elected mayor within the meaning of Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000;

(b) in relation to a county borough council or a county council in Wales, an elected mayor within the meaning of Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000.”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 130, page 52, line 34, leave out from “school” to end of line 3 on page 53.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 131, page 52, line 35, at end insert—

“(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (3) to a person who works for a school includes a person who works—

(a) at a place mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of “school” in section 23(1), or

(b) at a public school in Scotland within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (see section 135(1) of that Act).”

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 132, page 53, line 18, leave out “or” and insert “, the Scottish Ministers,”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Scotland.

Amendment 133, page 53, line 18, at end insert

“or a Northern Ireland devolved authority”.

This amendment is consequential on the extension of Part 3 of the Bill (misconduct in public office) to Northern Ireland.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

Schedule 5

Part 3: consequential amendments

Amendments made: 134, page 54, line 18, leave out

“in subsection (11), omit “England and Wales or””

and insert “omit subsection (11)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC9.

Amendment 135, page 54, line 19, at end insert—

“Investigatory Powers Act 2016

4 In section 1 (overview of Act), omit subsection (5)(b)(v).”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment is consequential on NC9.

Schedule 6

Conduct of public authorities at inquiries and inquests

Amendments made: 136, page 60, line 38, after “authority” insert

“or any of the following persons”.

This amendment and Amendment 137 provide for Part 4 of the Bill to apply in relation to inquests where a public authority is represented by its head or another person, if the authority is not itself an “interested person” at the inquest.

Amendment 137, page 60, line 39, at end insert—

“(a) a chief constable;

(b) a Provost Marshal of a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit;

(c) the Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct;

(d) a person who is an interested person by virtue of section 47(2)(l) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Act (persons appointed by a Government department).”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 136.

Amendment 138, page 61, line 20, at end insert—

““chief constable” means—

(a) a chief officer of police, within the meaning given by section 101(1) of the Police Act 1996;

(b) the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland;

(c) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

(d) the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;

(e) the Chief Constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;

(f) the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 136 and 137.

Amendment 139, page 62, line 4, leave out

“who has made an application”

and insert

“to whom the legal help may be provided”.

This amendment is to clarify the meaning of this amendment of legal aid regulations.

Amendment 140, page 62, line 10, leave out

“omit the words after paragraph (c)”

and insert

“for the words from “any” to the end of the regulation substitute “civil legal services other than—

(a) acting as a mediator or arbitrator, or

(b) issuing or conducting court proceedings.”

This amendment enables the additional legal services being made available to bereaved family members at inquests to be dealt with together for the purposes of administration of legal aid.

Amendment 141, page 62, line 21, at end insert—

“Exercise of other powers in relation to legal aid

7 Nothing in this Part of this Schedule affects—

(a) the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by section 9(2) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in relation to Schedule 1 to that Act, or

(b) any other power of the Lord Chancellor to make orders or regulations under Part 1 of that Act.”

This amendment makes clear that nothing in Part 4 of Schedule 6 to the Bill affects the exercise of the Lord Chancellor’s powers to make orders and regulations about legal aid.

Amendment 142, page 62, line 21, at end insert—

“Part 5

Legal aid at inquiries in Scotland into fatal accidents and sudden deaths

Amendment of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986

7 (1) The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 36 (regulations), in subsection (3), after paragraph (bb) insert—

“(bc) is participating, or seeking to participate, in inquiry proceedings within the meaning of the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (see section 11(2)(a) of that Act);””.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This amendment enables regulations to be made to extend legal aid to bereaved family members where a public authority is a participant in an inquiry in Scotland into a fatal accident or sudden death.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified.

18:10

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I usually have to ask the King for consent, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I still remember the first time I met the Hillsborough families with Bishop James Jones. That was nearly 15 years ago, as the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was a humbling experience, and I was taken aback by their courage. To be able to campaign after such unimaginable loss—it floored me. As a father of teenagers who come to watch football with me, I do not think I could do that myself. To then keep going and going, as the state deployed all its power to obstruct justice and truth—that is a stain on our history. Yet keep going they did, and we are here today because of them. Some of them are with us in the Gallery today, and they were with me in No. 10 just this afternoon.

Indeed, that has always been the motivation for this Bill. The Hillsborough families fought so that no family like them should ever have to endure and suffer what they went through. What they have done will protect individuals and families whom they will never know and will never meet, but who will never have to go through what they went through. In my view, that is incredibly inspiring and humbling. This is not just a Bill for the 97, although it is that. It is a Bill for every single working person in this country, because let us face it: there is a class element to this. Time and again the cry for justice has been ignored by the British state because of who the victims are—because they are working class, because they are black, because they are women and girls.

I come here today not to take credit for this Government or this House, but as Prime Minister, to put on our national record exactly where the credit belongs. It belongs to the families and to the campaigners, and I pay tribute to every one of them: the Hillsborough families, Hillsborough Law Now, Inquest, Grenfell United, the Manchester Arena families—some of whom were with me again this afternoon and are here today—victims of the grooming gangs, the Horizon scandal, the infected blood campaigners, the Truth About Zane campaign and all the families who engaged with us to share their deeply personal and painful experiences. I thank them all for their time and, most of all, for their courage. While these are different tragedies, they represent the same demand repeated across decades: for truth, justice and accountability to belong equally to every single person in this country.

I am grateful to every Member of this House and in the other place from across the political divide who worked constructively with us to get us to this point and turn this long-denied cry for justice into the law of this land. It is long, long overdue. I pay credit to everybody who has fought so hard for this every single step of the way and thank them for what they have done.

This Bill has been too long coming, but now, as we reach Third Reading, we stand on the precipice of change. This is a moment of real significance for our country. We arrive here with a Bill that is stronger and, above all, worthy of those who fought for it. It is a law that will always carry their name: the Hillsborough law. I commend this Bill to the House.

18:16

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Let me begin, as I have throughout the passage of this Bill, by placing at the forefront my admiration for the campaigners—the families and friends of the 97 who lost their lives in the Hillsborough tragedy. On 15 April 1989 their lives were changed forever. Nothing could be done to bring back their loved ones after they were gone. Anyone who has lost someone close to them suddenly like that knows the experience of their world changing in an instant, when at one point the person they care deeply about is there, and suddenly, in the next moment, they are not. Afterwards, everything—everything else—is different.

While those deaths could not be undone, what could have changed and what could have been different was the truth about what happened to their loved ones being told to them, and it was not—not just as an act of omission, but as part of a deliberate cover-up by the police and others to protect themselves from the consequences of their failings. What might have been solely a tragic experience of grief that would of course never leave them, with a gap in their lives where their loved ones were supposed to be, was in addition turned into decades of torment as they fought so hard for that truth that was kept from them.

The Bill is born of that fight and of that torment, and it is a tribute to their determination. That is why, when I faced the Prime Minister across the Dispatch Box eight months ago, I made clear the good-faith desire of the Opposition to engage constructively with the Government on this Bill. I have sought to live up to that throughout its passage, not just for the Hillsborough families, but for the many others let down by the state and its institutions—the postmasters, the infected blood scandal victims, and those lost in the Grenfell Tower fire and other tragedies and scandals, as Members across the House have highlighted throughout the passage of this Bill.

I feel still the keen interest of the families as we reach Third Reading, but it is our job—mine, the Opposition’s and all MPs’—to both hold in one hand, sincerely and clearly, the experiences of all those people who have suffered so greatly and, on the other, our duty and responsibility to legislate carefully and in a considered way. I am deeply disappointed that this Prime Minister and this Government have made that task much, much more difficult than it needed to be. [Interruption.] I would challenge any MP—[Interruption.] Any MP, no matter—[Interruption.] I would challenge—

[The Prime Minister]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Dr Mullan]

No. I would challenge any MP— [Interruption.] Not yet, not yet. No matter how supportive of this legislation, with far-reaching—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] No, I will finish this moment. With far-reaching consequences—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Minister must be heard.

[Dr Mullan]

I would challenge any MP, no matter how supportive of this legislation—which has such far-reaching consequences for the operation of the Government—to say that its progress, particularly over the last 24 hours, is anything like careful and considered.

[The Prime Minister]

I just want to record that these families, and families across the country affected by the Bill, have waited years and years too long. I made a promise to these families. I looked them in the eye and said that I would bring this forward as soon as I could. I have kept that promise, and I am proud that this Labour Government are bringing this Bill in.

[Dr Mullan]

If the Prime Minister wanted to truly live up to that promise, he would not have introduced legislation with less than 24 hours’ notice on an issue of national security. As the House has alluded to, I would have wanted the opportunity to make this moment a purely positive one, but I am afraid that the Prime Minister has made it impossible for me to fulfil my duties to the House. To give less than 24 hours’ notice for consideration of a Bill before its Third Reading is simply unacceptable. The House, those families, this Bill deserve greater respect than that. There is simply no excuse for the series of mistakes made by the Prime Minister’s Government that have led us here—led us to a place where those of us who engaged in good faith, as I did, cannot possibly be expected to have any trust left on a Bill that has trust at its heart.

The Prime Minister announced this Bill at his party conference in 2024. The media were briefed and told that the Bill and how it would operate had the full support of campaigning families and their legal advisers. They were so supportive, in fact, that they had released statements to that effect—and we now know that that was not true: they had already explained their misgivings. Then, after the introduction of the Bill, a Minister told me directly that the families were entirely happy with how the Bill was being legislated. And that also was not true.

[Maria Eagle]

The Conservatives were in power for 14 years and could have introduced the Bill. Why did they not do so?

[Dr Mullan]

I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that point. It was on that basis that I sought sincerely to engage properly with the Bill, and the Ministers and officials who met me repeatedly would be able to attest to that. That cannot be sustained when a Government bring forward legislation with 24 hours’ notice of important matters of national security.

The Government say that they have now resolved the central tension that led to the Bill being pulled. After months of negotiations, the central claim made by their Ministers that it needed particular safeguards for the agencies working in national security has now disappeared—apparently no longer needed. A Government who have wilfully misled us repeatedly on this Bill now want us to set aside—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think that the shadow Minister needs to be very careful in his use of language.

[Dr Mullan]

A Government who have, inadvertently, repeatedly misled us on this Bill now want us to take them on trust. I heard personally and directly from Ministers and officials repeatedly that independent safeguards were needed, and now, apparently, they are not. Supposedly, over the weekend, those concerns have evaporated, and that is totally unacceptable. We are suddenly setting aside in a matter of days what the security services have told us for 18 months, in consistent, sober, professional warnings, which coincides perfectly with the Prime Minister coming here to give his final speech on this matter. Are we really going to suggest that that genuine professional opinion has changed overnight? I do not think that it has.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

As an Opposition MP myself, I must say that my party and I have been critical of the handover of power that has taken place in the Labour party, but this particular moment, on Third Reading, should belong to the families. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] We can do our party political point-scoring whenever and wherever we like, but does the hon. Member not agree that this moment should belong to the families?

[Dr Mullan]

If the Government were so concerned about this Bill passing, they should have organised it. We have just listened to a raft of amendments to the Bill being nodded through in this House, with absolutely no scrutiny. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will hear the shadow Minister. I appreciate that temperatures are running very high, but it is important that voices are heard in this House.

[Dr Mullan]

As I have said, this could have been a Bill that we supported without reservation, but I am afraid that we maintain reservations about it, entirely as a result of its mismanagement by the Prime Minister.

I want to conclude by saying that none of this takes anything at all away from the families. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear this. It does not take anything away from the Members who have done so much to bring this legislation forward, but what is clear is that the Bill is the legacy of the campaigners and MPs—nobody else is responsible for our being here. I welcome their campaigning over many years and thank them for it.

18:25

[Andy Burnham (Makerfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I feel tempted to start this speech by saying, “As I was saying 10 years ago in this place,” but it feels fitting to be here tonight, and particularly to be with my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister. I remember very clearly that at the conclusion of the second Hillsborough inquest, he worked with me, as part of the shadow Health team back then, to draft the original Bill that was presented to Parliament. Tonight, it is before this House.

Tonight, it feels like life is coming full circle. In passing this momentous piece of legislation, which will change the way this country thinks about and works towards justice, we are truly rewiring the state and passing power from the authorities to the hands of ordinary people. It is happening because of the Prime Minister’s commitment to a country based on justice and fairness, and we thank him for that. He has honoured his commitment to the Hillsborough families, and what this House will do in passing this Bill tonight is rebalance the scales of justice so that we have justice for ordinary people going forward. That is some legacy indeed.

We have all recognised that we simply would not be here tonight were it not for the dignity and determination of the Hillsborough families, who are with us in this Chamber this evening. They have been supported by the wider group of campaigns as part of Hillsborough Law Now. I want to recognise their lawyers, Pete Weatherby KC and Elkan Abrahamson KC, who are with us this evening; INQUEST’s Deborah Coles, who is with us as well; and all the people who supported the campaign. That is the reason we are here, but we are also here because of the city of Liverpool, which is represented so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has been the parliamentary lead on this Bill and has been entirely true to the people of his city, as has my friend Steve Rotheram, a former Member of this House and now the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, who also carried the campaign to this point.

I cannot describe my pride in being in the House tonight to see this Bill plant the values of the city of my birth at the heart of this country. That is something of huge and profound significance that has been brought about by the Hillsborough families. We recognise the significance of that tonight.

As Steve Rotheram has said, the Hillsborough law cannot do any more for the Hillsborough families. It will do much more for those who come after them, but that is what makes their campaign so special. They have done this for others, not for themselves. It is important to remind the House of the other campaigns, which we hope will now be lifted by this legislation as we pass it this evening.

We do think this evening, as the Prime Minister said, of the Grenfell survivors and families—I am sure all London Members will want to echo that—who are still waiting for justice and accountability over nine years after the Grenfell fire. We think tonight of the Primodos families, who have fought so hard for fairness, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East—

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

Bolton South and Walkden.

[Andy Burnham]

I have been away for a while, but I will get there in the end.

I know that other Members in this House have supported those who have suffered other treatment disasters—sodium valproate, mesh, PIP implants. These are still ongoing campaigns, and we need to recognise these campaigns in the House tonight, as we do that of the Chinook families, who were in court today—only just now, I was speaking about that to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) in the Lobby—and we pay tribute to them this evening.

Let us not forget in this list, and I know they have support from across the House, the servicemen who served this country in the post-war period in the south Pacific—our nuclear test veterans. How often in this House do we praise our veterans, and how in this case have we left those veterans without truth and justice about what happened to them all those years ago? I think this House needs to hear their call for a special tribunal, which is entirely consistent with the aims of the Bill we are passing tonight.

This Bill advances all of these just causes, and the campaign for truth and justice does not stop here; indeed, it accelerates from here. I hope it ends the cover-up culture that has failed so many ordinary people in this country. We can never forget that for 20 years an entire English city was crying “Injustice!” correctly, yet this place ignored those people for all that time. We cannot forget that, and we cannot take away the hurt that that caused. We cannot forget that postmasters and mistresses serving communities up and down this country were branded as petty thieves, and carried that stigma with them for years. Likewise, those infected by infected blood were blamed for having brought it on themselves through their lifestyle. We cannot forget that.

Let me finish where I started, with the Liverpool supporters who were blamed for harming their own fellow supporters at a football match. That is what was done, and that was left to stand for all those years. The families here tonight had to live with that for all those years. Imagine what that must have felt like. We have had a situation in this country where people suffered the trauma of the initial bereavement—the incident that took their loved ones away—and then were retraumatised by the behaviour of the state. We cannot take that hurt away tonight, but we can put decency back at the heart of the British state, and that is what this Bill does. I finish by again praising the Prime Minister for making it happen. This truly is his legacy.

18:33

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I begin by echoing the words of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) in paying tribute to the Hillsborough campaigners. Our whole country owes them a debt, and I want to speak about that, but I want to do so in the spirit of cross-party support and working that this moment demands.

I want to pay tribute personally to the Prime Minister for the work that he has done on this, having to overcome the difficulties, as we know, with the security issues. I also want to pay tribute—I hope this is not the last time—to the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is welcome back in this House. He has for many years paid a very personal role in this campaign, so it is very fitting that he is in the House tonight to see this law passed. I echo the tributes that he has paid, and that others will no doubt pay, because people have campaigned for many years for this moment. The enormous debt of gratitude we owe them for their courage, tenacity and determination is one that I hope this historic moment gives proper credit to.

But let us remember, as others have said, that it is not just the Hillsborough scandal; it is Grenfell, it is Windrush, it is Horizon, it is Orgreave, it is infected blood, it is covid, it is the nuclear test veterans, and the other scandals that have been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Makerfield was right to add Primodos to the list. I hope, by the way, when he takes the office we expect him to take soon, that he will put right those scandals. We will hold him to that in a cross-party manner.

There are many tragedies and scandals that have been compounded by state cover-up. This is an issue of rights between the state and individuals: victims, survivors and families having to fight for years or even decades just to expose the truth and win the justice they should have had straight away.

All too often, when things have gone wrong, we have seen a tendency to cover up mistakes, to close ranks, to protect institutions and, so often, to lie. Victims and families have spent years campaigning tirelessly against a system and an establishment that have tried to find countless ways of saying no. Thanks to those campaigners, we now take a big step closer to ending that culture of cover up, ensuring that no one has to fight so long and so painfully to get truth, justice and accountability.

There is more to do, and not just on the individual scandals but on the need to protect whistleblowers. That is an issue the Liberal Democrat party has raised and we want to work cross-party with the Government to ensure that we set up an independent office for whistleblowers, so that people come forward to expose scandals and ensure justice happens more quickly.

Many of the people who will benefit from this law will not recognise and will not even know how hard—how painfully hard—the campaigners have had to work over so many years. It is important that we remember that. It is truly remarkable, having suffered so much pain and injustice, that they kept going. What has been achieved in the Bill is something that will change the very nature of power in our country. It will make the lives of so many people better.

I thank the campaigners. I say to them, from the bottom of my heart, thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over extension)

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 136 days until 29 January 2027.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21 May 2026 (Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Programme):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Claire Hughes.)

Question agreed to.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 3

Sunset for exercise of principal transfer powers

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

18:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 18.

[Chris McDonald]

It is a pleasure to be back in the House today to see through the final stages of this Bill. The Government support all the Lords amendments before us.

I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Minister Leong for so expertly guiding the Bill through its passage in the other place. I also wish to place on the record my thanks for the constructive approach taken by peers to the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the upper House, including the constructive and careful consideration from His Majesty’s official Opposition, Liberal Democrat peers and Cross-Bench peers. I thank them for their contribution.

We have a responsibility to act now to secure the future of the UK steel industry. This Bill will assist in that by ensuring that steel production is secured, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and supporting the Government’s economic growth plans where the public interest test is met.

The Lords amendments before us strengthen the Bill in several ways. Amendment 1 ensures that the sunset power in the Bill may be extended only by increments of two years. This means that the Government would have to seek parliamentary approval at regular intervals to keep the principal transfer powers on the statute book.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the costs that are likely to be associated with the exercise of the principal transfer powers, ensuring that such costs are considered in any decision making over the use of these powers.

Lords amendments 4 and 5 upgrade the parliamentary procedure relating to continuity obligations and enforcement, ensuring that Parliament has increased scrutiny of these matters.

Lords amendments 6 to 18 all relate to the appointment and role of an independent valuer and ensure that key considerations around environmental and health and safety liabilities are taken into account during any valuation exercise.

A final decision on the use of the powers in the Bill has not been taken. Any decision to exercise the powers in the Bill will be subject to satisfaction of the public interest test, based on the relevant facts at the time of the decision.

Steel has shaped our nation’s history, and this Bill is an opportunity to ensure its long-term success. The Bill enables decisive action for a strategically vital industry, defending our national security and supporting our critical national infrastructure, our economy and our national interest. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members to support the Lords amendments before us today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I am grateful to their lordships for their work on the Bill. We support the amendments before the House.

Let me be plain from the outset: our objection has never been to steelmaking, or to the men and women who make steel; it is to a Government who have crashed around and used blunt instruments without ever having a detailed plan. Hope is not a strategy, and a blank cheque is not a plan. Nationalisation is a bad idea, and nothing that has yet been said at that Dispatch Box has told the House where the spending stops. The Government are taking us down a fast and expensive road with no idea where the exit lies. Even members of the Government concede in private that they rushed into something that they now repent at leisure.

Let us look at what we have learnt over the passage of the Bill. The Government and their Lib Dem little helpers in the Lords voted against a Conservative amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hunt to limit support to £2.5 billion over three years. That is almost £2.3 million every single day. The cap was not plucked from thin air—that £2.5 billion was the Government’s own figure. In their refusal to accept a cap, the Government concede that the figure is likely to be more. That could have been 35,000 new police officers, eight brand-new hospitals or more than double what the Chancellor raised over the course of this Parliament by destroying the livelihoods of British farmers.

18:45

We support Lords amendment 1, which limits by two years the power for Ministers to bring further steel businesses into public ownership without coming back to this House. Powers this sweeping should never have been handed to Ministers without limit. We support Lords amendments 2 and 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would require the Secretary of State to weigh the likely costs before making share transfer or property transfer regulations. That is a modest ask, and it is hugely damning that it had to be forced on the Government.

We support Lords amendments 4 and 5, which were laid on a cross-party basis. They shift the regulations governing continuity obligations and their enforcement from the negative procedure to the affirmative. If Ministers wish to bind steel undertakings and their suppliers, let them do so in daylight, with the consent of this House—not by regulations that slip through unseen without the scrutiny of Parliament.

We welcome the Government’s Lords amendments 6 to 18, which would require, rather than merely permit, the compensation scheme to provide for an independent valuer and would set out plainly the role that the valuer must perform. When the Government listen and act sensibly, we support them—and we have. It is a pity that the Government did not extend this House the same courtesy on the one amendment that mattered the most: the cap on an otherwise unlimited bill for the taxpayer.

For all the hours we have now spent debating the future of steelmaking in the UK, the Government still refuse to confront the real issue—they know what it is, but they refuse to confront it. It is the Secretary of State for Energy and his addiction to ruinously high energy prices. It is not me who says that but Unite the union’s general secretary, who described this as a “noose around the neck” of job creation.

There is no path to profitable steelmaking of any kind in the UK while energy prices here are four times higher than in many of our competitor nations. There is no tariff damaging enough to manufacturers and steel users to compensate for that, even though the Government’s botched attempts are clearly already causing manufacturing jobs to shift offshore.

The Government will talk about their British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is welcome, but it is just a sticking plaster on a gaping wound—and the Minister knows it. It is nonsense to claim that their strategy is one of security of supply when the same Government refused to open a coking coal mine, meaning that every furnace is reliant on imports, without which they would close in a matter of hours.

Only the Conservatives have a plan to get Britain drilling and reduce energy costs. We will remove legal obstacles blocking new oil and gas projects like Rosebank and Jackdaw and scrap the energy profits levy to make them viable. We will increase private investment in oil and gas extraction, and we will scrap the carbon taxes and industrial levies that expensively subsidise intermittent renewables that do not generate when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine.

We will not stand in the way of these amendments. Many of them are ours, and the rest improve a flawed Bill, but let no one mistake improvement for endorsement. The amendments warrant our support, but the so-called plan and the botched decisions behind them do not.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

We have a duty to stand by the steel sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse, more jobs to be lost, or the risk of our last blast furnaces going cold.

That is why the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector. I am particularly glad that the Government have accepted Liberal Democrat amendments that will require the Secretary of State to have regard to the costs of nationalisation before they table regulations to nationalise a company, as well as amendments that would ensure the consideration of environmental liabilities. Those Liberal Democrat amendments will strengthen the legislation, ensuring that these measures—and indeed the Government’s broader steel strategy—move us in the right direction to set the industry on a truly sustainable footing for the long term, while providing taxpayers with real value for money.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 ensure that if the Secretary of State is to exercise the principal transfer power, the Government must consider the expected cost to the taxpayer. That is important not only for business and industry to have certainty over the nationalisation process, but for taxpayers, who need to know that their money is not being wasted or paid to foreign owners who will leave our industries high and dry.

I am glad that the Government have also agreed to Liberal Democrat amendments that will strengthen the treatment of environmental liabilities in relation to the steel undertaking and ensure that they are explicitly identified and accounted for before compensation payments are made. On top of those legislative concessions, we are glad that the Government accepted other Liberal Democrat calls, including holding a debate in each House within 12 months of Royal Assent and requiring any future chair of a nationalised company to appear before the Business and Trade Committee. Those significant improvements to the legislation promote parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

We also welcome the Government’s having listened to Liberal Democrat peers and introduction of written ministerial statements on the day of acquisition, which will be repeated every three months until we reach a year from nationalisation. Again, that change boosts transparency, enabling Parliament to scrutinise the measures’ impact on local communities and jobs. Lastly, we are glad that the Government adopted Liberal Democrat proposals to strengthen the UK Steel Council and its role in facilitating nationalisation within the context of the steel strategy.

Steel is a vital sector, bringing far-reaching benefits across the UK. It provides key materials for our national infrastructure from defence to renewable energy, and creates thousands of good jobs across the UK. The Liberal Democrats welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect British steel, backing a key plank of our critical national infrastructure. I am glad that the Government have worked constructively with the Liberal Democrats and that Ministers have adopted many of our proposals to improve transparency and accountability around the financial and environmental costs of any forthcoming measures. We will continue to constructively scrutinise the Government as they put these new measures in force to ensure that steel producers, local jobs and British taxpayers are properly supported and treated fairly.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Lords amendments. As hon. Members will know, part of my constituency takes in the Scunthorpe steelworks, and hundreds of my constituents work there. My aim throughout the rather tortuous and long saga about the future of the steelworks has been to ensure that their jobs are retained.

As the shadow Secretary of State outlined, the Bill could have been further improved, but I am delighted that we have at least reached a conclusion. There will be a sigh of relief among my many constituents who rely on the steelworks for their employment.

I look forward to engaging with the Minister as we move forward on the future of the steelworks—because, as I think he is well aware, if energy costs in particular stay as they are, there are future disasters ahead. We must do something on energy costs if we are to maintain any sort of a steel industry and heavy industry in the UK.

I thank the Minister for getting us to this point and look forward to working with him in the future.

[Chris McDonald]

I have listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks and those from the shadow Minister, and I will address them in a moment. I am grateful for the support of the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), and of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), both of whom are unable to speak in the debate as a result of their positions elsewhere in the House.

I opened by remarking on the constructive and careful consideration that the Bill has had in the other place; it is disappointing to see that the shadow Secretary of State is not taking the same approach. I will pick up a couple of the issues he raised. I am acutely aware of the position in which the previous Government left us, with uncompetitive energy prices for industry. If he had been attentive in some of the debates we have been involved in, he would be aware of some of the measures that I have taken to address that. Those include our energy-intensive scheme, increased relief on our supercharger scheme and our British industrial competitiveness scheme. I am determined to do more.

On tariffs, I am not saying that making the decision on tariffs was easy, but the shadow Secretary of State would clearly throw British industry to the mercy of dumped steel on the global market. We will not make that decision. He mentions coal for coking ovens. He may be unaware that there are no coking ovens in Scunthorpe. They were closed on his watch.

This Government are acting decisively and with purpose in the national interest, but the shadow Secretary of State is blinded by his ideological position on nationalisation. We believe that a steel industry, where necessary run by the Government and owned by the people, at least gives the opportunity to attract private sector investment. If the public interest test is met, that is the right thing to do. But if that does not convince the shadow Secretary of State, perhaps I can appeal to his sense of patriotism. I said on Second Reading that the England men’s football team had only ever won the world cup in a year when we had nationalised the steel industry. If he has any sense of duty towards our team and wishes them well, he should support nationalisation this time as well.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 18 agreed to.

Petitions

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

18:56

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of West Bridgford in my constituency, calling for the creation of a new town council. West Bridgford is home to around 40,000 people, making it by far the largest settlement in Rushcliffe, yet unlike almost every other part of the borough it has no town or parish council to represent its local interests. As local government reorganisation concludes this week, many residents are concerned that decisions affecting their community will be taken solely by a large unitary authority, leaving local voices further removed or altogether absent from decision making.

For almost 80 years, West Bridgford had its own urban district council, and there is a strong feeling among residents that a new town council would be beneficial. Indeed, an independent survey carried out earlier this year found exceptionally high engagement. The petition I present today therefore reflects that local desire for greater democratic representation and asks the Government to work with Rushcliffe borough council as the process moves forward.

I am pleased to present the petition, which states:

The petition of residents of West Bridgford in the constituency of Rushcliffe,

Declares that there is a need for a new town council for West Bridgford; further declares that a new town council would have a positive impact on community cohesion throughout the area, which would enhance a sense of place, and support the local environment, its communities, and local distinctiveness.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Rushcliffe Borough Council to create a new West Bridgford town council to support local residents.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003223]

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I rise to present a petition alongside a corresponding online petition signed by hundreds of my constituents in North East Hertfordshire calling to ban housing developers from donating to political parties. Developers are some of the largest donors in politics, pouring in massive sums to tilt the planning system ever further in their favour. Cash for access leaves the impression that the same developers are wrecking nature and failing to deliver affordable homes. Those profiting from low-quality, overpriced housing are also writing the rules. This cements inequality at the heart of democracy because the people living with the consequences of a profit-driven housing crisis never get a seat at the table.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that housing developers are among the largest donors to political parties and donate massive sums of money in an attempt to tilt the planning system further in their favour; further declares that cash-for-access leaves the impression that the same developers profiting from low-quality, overpriced housing are also helping to write the rules; and further declares that the corrupting influence of big money should be removed from the planning system and politics should be refocused on genuine solutions to the housing crisis that bring down housing costs for ordinary people and give local communities more of a say over their future.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ban housing developers from donating to political parties.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003225]

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I rise to present a petition, alongside a corresponding online petition, which has been signed by more than 4,000 UK residents, calling for a ban on political donors getting contracts from Governments they helped to fund. Big money donors do not give out of kindness; they pay for access and influence. The evidence shows that it is a smart investment, because the firms have landed billions in Government contracts. If we want to build a better country, we need a better kind of politics, and tackling the corrosive influence of big money is the first step to rebuilding public trust. The petitioners

“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ban political donors from receiving public contracts with Governments of political parties”

to which they have donated,

“And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that companies which donate to political parties have gone on to receive billions of pounds in public contracts; and further declares that this creates a perception that political decisions are shaped by cosy relationships with super-rich donors, instead of a sole focus on delivering better living standards and services for millions of people.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ban political donors from receiving public contracts with Governments of political parties they have donated to.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003226]

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

With 28 world records, the Crystal Palace national sports centre is the spiritual home of UK athletics. It is also an incredible community asset. Residents across Beckenham and Penge speak fondly about using its facilities growing up, or remember their children and grandchildren learning to swim in the Olympic-sized pool. However, in recent years, the centre has become a boarded-up relic of the past—in 2014, the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, even tried to demolish the athletic stadium and turn it into an unwanted free school—but thanks to the work of Fran Bernstein, Ben Woods, the Crystal Palace Sports Partnership and many others, the centre now has a lifeline. The £130 million transformation of the centre, backed by funding from our Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, will see the reopening of the Olympic-sized pool and diving boards, a revamped athletics stadium, and new facilities for other sports, too. I will be campaigning to bring world-class athletics back to Crystal Palace park once again. The petitioners

“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with the Mayor of London and other relevant partners to support the delivery of the transformation of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Beckenham and Penge,

Declares that the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre is a nationally significant sporting and community facility; further declares that plans have been submitted to transform the site, including refurbishment of the Grade II listed building, a revamped Olympic-sized pool and athletics stadium and new multi-sport and parasport facilities; and further declares that this transformation would benefit residents of Beckenham and Penge for generations to come.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with the Mayor of London and other relevant partners to support the delivery of the transformation of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003227]

Future of Thames Water

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Hughes.)

19:01

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I will discuss the future of Thames Water, starting with Thames Water’s record of pollution and environmental failure, and how it impacts everyone in my Witney constituency. Thames Water serves the constituency and embodies the systemic failure of the national water sector. Last year, Thames Water pumped sewage into rivers and lakes for 107,822 hours.

West Oxfordshire is very much ground zero for sewage. We have the Thames, the Evenlode, the Windrush, Shill brook and the Cole. We also have WASP, or Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which has been so active in going after Thames Water’s bad behaviour. It has mapped the illegal sewage spills at Thames Water sewage treatment works and found that, between 2021 and 2025, there were 1,231 illegal spills just in the Witney constituency, and 271 illegal spills in just one sewage treatment works, Faringdon.

West Oxfordshire district council has done great work in trying to hold Thames Water to account, as has WASP, which inspired the Channel 4 programme “Dirty Business”, which many hon. Members will have seen, so well done to Peter, Ash, Geoff and Vaughan. Despite Thames Water’s appalling record, residents have seen their bills skyrocket. I have constituents whose bills have gone up by 50% and 70%; I even have one whose bill has gone up by 93%. That is outrageous, but those bill hikes are not making the situation any better. That is because Thames Water’s financial situation is disastrous. Thames has nearly £20 billion of debt.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his speech, because this is hugely important. Residents in Harlow are also fed up with their bills going up because of what appears to be Thames Water’s incompetence. Does he agree that that should not be the case, and that if Thames Water is so incompetent that it cannot sort out this problem, the Government need to step in and do something about it?

[Charlie Maynard]

I completely agree, and Thames Water’s full-year accounts are out at 7 am tomorrow morning. We will see just what they tell us. It is going to be ugly, not least because the company’s equity is worthless. The largest equity shareholders wrote down their shareholding to zero value and withdrew their board members more than two years ago. When Thames Water’s creditors sought to take on another £3 billion of debt last year, I was given permission to intervene in the High Court and speak for the interests of Thames Water’s 16 million customers, who are paying all these outrageous costs and interest expenses, but would otherwise have had no voice in court.

This Labour Government have slow-peddled for the last two years, and have refused to draw a line under decades of Tory bad behaviour by putting Thames Water into special administration. This approach is costing customers an absolute fortune. Thames Water paid £338 million just in interest expenses in the six months to September 2025. That is £133 million more, just in interest expenses, than it paid in the same period the previous year.

Labour is taking this hands-off approach despite the company’s multiple breaches of its operating licence. Let me illustrate some of those breaches. As I have stated, the company has carried out more than 1,000 illegal spills over four years. It must hold two investment-grade credit ratings as a condition of its operating licence, but it last held any investment-grade credit rating two years ago, in July 2024, and it has undergone a change of ultimate controller; yet the Minister, the Secretary of State and Ofwat have repeatedly refused to answer on that point.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

We have a similar problem with South East Water, which is probably the second-worst water company in the United Kingdom after Thames Water. With South East Water, too, this Labour Government have been too timid. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government, by acting, or not acting, in the way that they are, they are privileging shareholders over consumers?

[Charlie Maynard]

Absolutely. The consumers are getting the raw deal, and there is no end in sight.

To qualify as an ultimate controller—it is a defined term—a party need only have material influence over Thames Water. The creditor consortium right now is negotiating bilaterally with the company, and has put in £3 billion, but somehow that does not make it meet the criterion. It is ridiculous, and frankly, seeing this failure play out was probably the single moment when I most despaired of government and the rule of law. I repeatedly ask the same question, and repeatedly do not get an answer. I find it really, really bad.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Residents in Wokingham are absolutely sick of the failures of Thames Water’s management. In 2025 alone, Thames Water committed 74 sewage spills, for a duration of 684 hours. That means that Thames Water dumped sewage for the equivalent of 456 football matches, and there were certainly no clean sheets. No waterway in Wokingham is safe—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that interventions should be short, spontaneous and perhaps not pre-typed and three pages long.

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Rather than having customers pay hundreds of millions of pounds of debt at ludicrous interest rates of nearly 10%, Thames Water should be taken into a special administration regime, which is commonly known as bankruptcy on insolvency grounds. I urge the Government to pursue a SAR on the basis of insolvency, as this is a more straightforward way to secure special administration than on a performance basis, and it will give the special administrator additional powers and a stronger position in relation to the creditors.

The Water Industry Act 1991 sets out triggers linked to financial insolvency. Among them is the company being unable, or likely to be unable, to pay its debts. The Secretary of State and Ofwat both have discretion to apply to the High Court for a special administration order if that condition is triggered. I understand that the Government currently do not have, and have refused to publish, a SAR assessment policy. That is despite the Cunliffe review concluding that there is a need for

“broad, judgement-based tests within a clear policy, that has been set out in advance, of how the regulator will assess failing companies against these tests, the factors it will take into account and the indicators it will consider.”

That is from paragraph 793, recommendation 59, of the final report. Clarity around those tests and when a SAR will be used would benefit the water sector and its investors. Importantly, it also increases the Government’s negotiating leverage with the class A creditor consortium by further increasing the credibility of the threat of a SAR. I am interested to hear from the Minister why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is so reluctant to publish those tests.

A SAR process would allow Thames Water’s debt to be written down substantially, very likely into single-digit billions. This write-down is crucial, and it is not punitive. The write-down should be sufficient for the company to leave the SAR with a balance sheet that is strong enough to manage the huge spend that will be required over the next decade or so on treatment works and pipe networks.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need Thames Water to go into special measures, so that it can invest in infrastructure? In my constituency, Thames Water has closed a road for three weeks in Horsell because it has not invested, and it dumped over 1,115 hours-worth of sewage last year into our River Wey. That lack of investment is why we need what he is calling for today.

[Charlie Maynard]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what is going on up and down the catchment writ small, with treatment works deferred despite being crucially needed. In Aston, we have sewage running down the street year after year, and it is the same in Standlake. It is just disgusting, and there is no end in sight.

A SAR process would allow the Government to use the period while Thames Water is in a SAR to put much of the good work from the Cunliffe review into new legislation, and to do the legwork to enable the company to exit as a mutual. Crucially, a SAR would not ultimately cost the Government anything—this really matters—because they will recoup all the funding spent on a SAR, as this new funding injected by the Government would be super senior to all other funding. I am very grateful to the former DEFRA Secretary, Steve Reed, for setting out in a letter to the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman means to say, “the former Secretary of State for DEFRA, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed).”

[Charlie Maynard]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for setting out in a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in June last year that

“we expect that any Government funding required during a SAR would be recouped after the conclusion of the administration”.

The current Secretary of State set out the same point in a parliamentary debate on 16 June. It is also worth noting that the Tories—there are not any in the Chamber—continue to refuse to acknowledge this, and that Teneo, Thames Water’s own expert adviser, stated the same in its report to the High Court in December 2024.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does he agree that the Government’s reluctance to take a company that is clearly now technically insolvent into a SAR is loading costs on to consumers who use other water companies, by creating a moral hazard that means that companies are incentivised to take on ever more debt, with the debt providers being protected by the Government? Instead, the Government should allow companies to fail, if they are going to fail, and to be taken into a SAR, so that there can be investment in the infrastructure that my hon. Friends referred to.

[Charlie Maynard]

I agree 100%, and that is what is so depressing; by continuing to demonstrate that the regulators have no teeth, we create a bigger and bigger problem for ourselves.

The alternative to a SAR—a deal with the creditors, which, extraordinarily, seems to be the Government’s preferred option at this point—should not be countenanced. Giving these businesses, now operating as London & Valley Water consortium, yet more control of the company at ludicrously high interest rates would allow this downward spiral to continue. The Government must and can change course by using their power to ask for a SAR under existing legislation.

There is now the opportunity for Thames Water to exit special administration as a mutual, owned and run in the interests of its customers, and to break the cycle of financial mismanagement and egregious environmental failings once and for all. Legislation sets out that a water company insolvency SAR can conclude in two ways: rescue, whereby the company is restructured, debts are written down or converted, and the existing legal entity continues in a modified form; or transfer, whereby the regulated undertaking is sold or transferred to a new owner. That does not require a competitive auction, as the legislation provides for a transfer approved by the Secretary of State and Ofwat.Nothing in the legislation states that either route requires a competitive sale, as the overriding objective in a SAR is continuity of public service, not maximising creditor returns.

The Government could therefore set out at the point of SAR entry, or shortly after, that a mutual is the preferred exit route for Thames, and make that clear in the special administrator’s mandate. Work would need to be done in parallel with the SAR process to incorporate and put in place the governance framework for a new mutual, as well as more broadly updating water regulations to take into account the Cunliffe report’s recommendations. Ofwat could then work towards a licence transfer to the mutual, rather than running a market sale.

In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister. If she is unable to answer them now, I would appreciate an answer in writing if possible. Have the Government sought legal advice on the SAR process from a specialist law firm? I appreciate that FTI Consulting has been instructed for many months, but that is not a substitute for legal advice. A proper, specialist understanding of the SAR as a legal process, and of the litigation risk—perceived or actual—of applying for a SAR, is critical.

Will the Government commit to publishing a SAR assessment policy, and does the Minister agree that the creditors consortium has material influence over Thames Water, and therefore meets the ultimate controller test? Will the Minister act with Ofwat to enforce the appropriate penalties on Thames Water for having undergone that change without having given notice, and will she provide an update on the negotiations between Ofwat and Thames Water? Will the Minister now take the London & Valley Water deal off the table, and work with the Secretary of State to apply to the court for Thames Water to be put into special administration? Finally, in response to a question about whether she would consider the Liberal Democrat call for water companies to be mutually owned public benefit companies, the Minister said:

“I would be happy to see more mutual ownership of water companies, but the question is how we get there.”——[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 728.]

Given that, will she confirm her Department’s position on mutual ownership models for water companies? What are the Department’s plans for exploring how we get there?

19:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for inviting me to respond to his concerns about the future of Thames Water. I have listened with his interest to his comments, and I hope I will be able to add some facts to the debate. I also accept his sympathy and anger on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, they must feel very angry about the fact that water was left in such a state, and that the Environment Agency’s budget was cut by half by the coalition Government, who also introduced self-monitoring. The Environment Agency was unable to fulfil its duties during the time of the coalition Government, and the regulators did not put forward forceful accountability for the water companies. It was left to this Labour Government to clear up the mess left by the coalition Government and 14 years of the Conservatives. I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares my anger about that—I certainly felt angry about it when I came into government and saw the mess that we had been left to clear up.

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman exactly what we have done. We introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 within six weeks of entering government, to raise standards, enforce accountability, and make pollution cover-ups a criminal offence. We banned more than £4 million in bonuses, and unlocked money in private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure. Just last week we introduced automatic penalties. There is more I could mention, including 10,000 water inspections, which is many more than happened after the slash and burn of funding for the Environment Agency by the coalition Government. We have restored to the system the accountability that has been missing for so long.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

My constituents are cheering on the work that the Government have done by getting a grip of this situation after the Environment Agency was left to mark its own homework, and the self-monitoring and regulation framework failed. Will the Minister say more about the dedicated supervisory teams in the White Paper, which will be working to stop this happening again and ensure that Thames Water changes in future?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out how self-monitoring, which was introduced by the coalition Government, was such an utter mistake that has done so much damage to the water industry. It is why we are in the current situation. The purpose of the supervisory regime is to be able to intervene earlier, and it works alongside the performance improvement regime so that we can hold companies to account. That is why we are abolishing Ofwat—

[Charlie Maynard]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I have heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman, so I would be most grateful if he would not mind giving someone else a chance. We are looking at introducing the performance regime for the same reason, because we want to ensure that we can intervene early to stop the abject failure that we saw under the coalition Government.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Every week in my surgeries I hear about the consequences of Thames Water’s failures. An elderly widowed constituent was left without running water after it failed and botched the installation of a water meter, and she was forced to shell out hundreds of pounds on an emergency plumber to remedy the situation. Will the Minister confirm that she understands the anger of constituents like mine with regard to Thames Water and its continued failing? Will she confirm that she will keep all measures under review?

[Emma Hardy]

It is true that I feel angry on behalf of all our constituents who have been so badly let down by the system that we inherited, and that is exactly why we have taken the action that we have. There is, of course, lots more to do—nobody is saying there is not—but we have to acknowledge the dire straits and the mess that we inherited. We are going to bring forward a clean water Bill to deliver on our promise to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, and not just for today but for generations to come. The reforms will create a single powerful water regulator to act, and we will ensure that it has teeth in the way that the current regulator does not.

Turning to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Witney about the consortiums proposal, regarding the recapitalisation proposal being negotiated between Thames Water, London & Valley Water Consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—and Ofwat, I reiterate that this Government will always act in the national interest. Before I turn to the proposal itself, it is important to be clear about the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved, because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding out there. I welcome the opportunity to at least introduce a few more facts into the argument about the proposals.

Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, is responsible for assessing that proposal and deciding whether it meets the relevant regulatory and statutory requirements, including whether it is appropriate to take the proposal forward for consultation. However, section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a duty on both Ofwat and the Secretary of State to exercise their respective relevant functions in the manner best calculated to further or achieve certain objectives. This includes protecting customers, securing the proper delivery of water and sewerage services, ensuring that companies can finance those services and that statutory obligations are properly carried out.

[Mike Martin]

Does the Minister think that the Secretary of State exercised those duties well when, under the Blair Government, Macquarie was allowed to come into Thames Water and South East Water and asset strip those companies?

[Emma Hardy]

Quite clearly, some of the behaviour that we have seen in the past from water companies shows that the regulatory system did not work, and that is exactly why we are changing it. Of course, between Blair and the current Government there were 14 years of Tory Government and five years of coalition Government during which those Governments could have taken the actions that we are taking today.

On 16 June, the Secretary of State gave her preliminary views on the consortium’s proposal to Ofwat, with reference to section 2 duties of the Water Industry Act 1991. She was clear that she does not believe that the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment. She cited three particular concerns in line with her duties: unfair costs to customers, delays to infrastructure investment and delays to environmental improvements.

However, the decision on how to assess the proposal and whether to proceed with consultation ultimately rests with Ofwat as the independent regulator. It is therefore important that the Government respect those boundaries. While the Secretary of State may express views in accordance with her statutory duties, it would not be appropriate for the Government to direct Ofwat’s decision making, prejudge the outcome of its assessment or be seen to exert undue influence on an independent regulatory process.

We are working closely with Ofwat, which will engage with the consortium on any revised proposal. It is important to be clear that it is ultimately a matter for Ofwat to decide whether to consult on the consortium’s proposal. However, I reassure the House that while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities and the Secretary of State takes her duties very seriously.

I will also use this debate as an opportunity to address some of the misconceptions that have developed about special administration. Too often, SAR is presented as a simple lever that the Government can pull whenever there are concerns about a water company’s performance, but that is simply not the case. The reality is that there is a high bar for the imposition of a special administration regime. A company can enter into a SAR only if it becomes insolvent, or if there has been such a serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is no longer appropriate for the company to retain its licence.

Where performance is concerned, any application for a special administration regime would have to be supported by a robust and compelling body of evidence and would ultimately need to satisfy the courts. Bringing a case forward without sufficient evidence would not only risk the failure of that case, but waste a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. For any case brought forward, the Government and Ofwat would need to be convinced that there was a robust and compelling body of evidence. That is quite different from what is presented out there too often—that this is just a button the Government can press at will.

[Calum Miller]

I am glad the Minister has moved on to the substance of DEFRA’s case. Will she clarify for my residents whether she considers a company that is spending 33% of the income it gets from customers on servicing its debt and paying a 10% premium on that debt is actually viable as a company? Will she set out for the House what she considers to be the measure of insolvency for a privately held monopoly?

[Emma Hardy]

As I have just said, on the issue of performance, cases have to be brought forward to court, and the court must be convinced that the company is not performing—I will move on to insolvency.

This issue is why regulators start by using the full range of supervisory and enforcement powers available to them where appropriate. Companies must be held to account, put forward credible plans to improve and deliver for customers on the environment. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we are introducing a new performance improvement regime through the clean water Bill.

The performance improvement regime will help to prevent poorly performing companies from falling into a cycle of decline, allowing regulators to step in before a company approaches the point of failure. It will strengthen accountability, support improvements in performance and provide a clearer pathway for intervention long before special administration may be required.

Let me address another misconception about special administration. Some suggest that placing a company into special administration would simply allow the Government to take over and run the company directly. That is not how the regime works. A special administrator is appointed by a court and has specific legal duties and objectives. It must manage the company’s affairs, businesses and property for the statutory purposes set out in the Water Industry Act.

The special administrator’s primary responsibility is to ensure the continued delivery of essential water and waste water services while securing a long-term solution for the business. Depending on the circumstances, that could mean rescuing the company, such as through a restructuring, or transferring it as a going concern to new owners. That is why the special administration regime exists to protect customers and maintain vital public services while providing a framework for recovery or transfer. Customers continue to receive their services throughout the process, and the special administrator operates under the supervision of the court and within a clear legal framework.

I know the hon. Member for Witney is particularly concerned about whether the consortium meets the criteria of acting as the ultimate controller of Thames Water. Let me use this opportunity to address his concerns. The classification of ultimate controller is a matter for Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, by reference to the terms of the company’s licence. Ofwat has given a detailed explanation of why it does not consider the creditors to be the ultimate controllers of the company in its letter to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), dated 8 September 2025.

Ofwat has stated that one of the reasons why it does not believe creditors are in a position to materially influence the company’s policies or affairs is that it does not have the right to appoint directors to the board, and it does not hold any governance or veto rights over the Thames Water business plan or other strategic decisions that the company’s board is making. I am reassured that it has reviewed the matter and that the ultimate controller of the company has not changed—

[Charlie Maynard]

How is that possible?

[Emma Hardy]

This is the thing with the hon. Gentleman: he makes many assertions in this House when he stands up to comment, but then he refuses to allow me to address and answer them. I am still answering his point about the ultimate controller. If he wants to ask me a question, he should have the decency and respect to listen to the answer.

I am also reassured that Ofwat will continue to keep the position of Thames Water’s ultimate controllers under review, and that it has made clear to the company its expectation that the company will continue to monitor whether there is, or may be, a change to the ultimate controller position.

I hope that what I have said has introduced a few facts to what can otherwise be quite an inflamed conversation. This Government are serious about tackling water company failure, acting on behalf of customers and protecting the environment. We have demonstrated this with the action we took on our very first day in office, and the action we have taken every day since. I am always happy to discuss issues related to special administration. I have held a private briefing with the hon. Member for Witney before. I would do so again, but what I do not like is when things are presented to the House in a way that is—I am not allowed to say dishonest, so how can I put this?—incorrect. This Government will always act in the national interest, and while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities, including being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

19:30

House adjourned.

Employees Travelling Outside the UK: Expenses Rate

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered expenses rates for employees travelling outside the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am calling on the Government to ensure that serious consideration is given to reassessing the scale rates for expenses and subsistence paid to employees who by nature of their work are required to travel outside the UK. My constituency of Crawley is home to Gatwick airport and many workers, including pilots and cabin crew, who are required to spend considerable time abroad with the flights they crew. That can last from several hours to several days for those working long-haul flights.

Time spent away from home in foreign cities, without access to kitchens or other domestic utilities, can be overwhelmingly expensive, particularly for junior members of the cabin crew, whose salaries, according to the National Careers Service, begin at around £19,000. It is right, therefore, that employers pay tax-deductible subsistence payments to their employees, to cover the costs associated with travel necessary to do their jobs.

Under the previous Government, to save companies having to check every single receipt that an employee accrues while abroad, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs introduced a benchmark expenses rates for employees travelling outside the UK. Those were first published on the Government’s website in 2013, with unique rates produced for almost every one of the world’s major cities, setting out the average cost of drinks, breakfast, lunch and dinner, a night in a hotel room and even the journey from hotel to office. Each city had also been given broader non-specific subsistence reimbursement rates. Demarcated across specific time boundaries, that is a rate for when employees spent more than five hours in a given city, with another for when they spent more than 10 or 24 hours there.

The detailed task of producing those rates over a decade ago is evidenced by the fact that HMRC went to the effort of making unique assessments city by city, and that the increase in reimbursement between five, 10 and 24 hours is not only non-linear but unique to each city. Despite the time and effort put into producing those bespoke rates, they have been upgraded significantly only once in the past 13 years—in October 2014, a year after they were first produced—and that only included a fraction of the cities listed.

Despite assurances that the Government keep under review all taxes, including overseas subsistence rates, if we check their website, we see that rates payable to an employee who has travelled to Zagreb for work are listed in Croatian kuna, even though Croatia joined the euro on 1 January 2023. The subsistence rates for at least 15 European capitals, including Athens, Madrid, Lisbon and Dublin, have never received an update. Due to more than a decade of inflation, those benchmark values have been eroded in real terms.

Ahead of this debate, using the total residual rates produced in 2013, and nation-specific consumer price index inflation figures from the World Bank Group, we have calculated today’s expected subsistence rates for European destinations. Amsterdam’s total residual rate in 2013 was set at €71; a year later it was raised to €72, where it remains today. According to World Bank Group data, prices in the Netherlands in the 12 years since have risen by an average of 2.6% a year. That compounds to a 36% increase over that period. Had the 2013 rates for Amsterdam increased in line with inflation, workers who had spent more than 24 hours in the city would now receive more than €96. The fact that those rates have been ignored for so long means that cabin crew and pilots—including constituents of mine and those in adjacent areas—are losing out on subsistence payments of more than €25.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I represent Horsham, an adjacent constituency, and very much experience the same problems, so the issue is not rare. I have many cabin crew in my area who say the same thing. One of the people affected is trying to get leave to remain, but the visa application is made extremely complicated by going back and forth out of the country, so I very much support the hon. Member and emphasise to the Minister that it is not a small problem.

[Peter Lamb]

I take that fully on board. I am delighted that the hon. Member is here for this debate.

There are cities in Europe where the situation is even more pronounced than in Amsterdam. In Budapest, the total residual rate set in 2013 and unchanged since 2014 has been eaten away by a compound inflation rate of 67% in Hungary. The current payment of 16,000 forints is well over 10,000 forints, or 40%, lower than it should be. The worst example among European capitals, however, is in Ankara. In the years since the overseas subsistence rates were first set, Turkey has experienced huge inflation. Prices have risen at an average of 22.5% every year. Despite that, Ankara’s residual rate remains at 240 lira, as set in 2014. If it had increased with inflation, it would be over 2,500 lira today, which represents an unrealised tenfold increase.

In these situations, as a direct result of the Treasury not having revisited those rates over the last 12 years, airlines and other organisations are able to justify under-compensating their staff by pointing to what is essentially Government guidance. When I wrote to the Treasury with those concerns last year, the then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), informed me that in situations where expenses rates do not cover the actual costs of needing to eat, drink and sleep while abroad for work, the employers can instead choose to “pay actual expenses incurred”. Unfortunately, not every company chooses to do that for their employees, with many of them instead choosing—I do not think this will be a surprise to any of us—to pay the lower rate, the Government’s fixed rate.

The issue has a real and detrimental impact on the working lives of cabin crew. A constituent of mine working for an airline operating out of Gatwick airport was blunt about this, telling me that the fact that the rates are so far behind reality means that they have been forced to “miss meals” while abroad for work.

Another constituent stated that

“current scale rate allowances do not reflect the real costs we face on these trips”,

and reiterated that

“the allowance provided does not cover even the most basic meals.”

It is evident, therefore, that overseas scale rates must be raised. That is why I was delighted when, in his written statement, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury committed to reviewing and uprating them last month. This has been a long time coming. While simply increasing the 2013 rates in line with inflation would be welcome, I hope the Treasury takes the opportunity to undertake a full review of how subsistence rates can be systematically improved.

Having secured this debate, I was contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which, among other things, raised concerns that there are some destinations where the current rate might not reflect the full cost of subsistence for an individual visiting or living in the city. For instance, it provided the example of Lagos where safety restrictions require pilots and cabin crew to remain in their hotels and rely on higher cost room service or onsite dining. It is its view—one that I share—that any review should give consideration to those concerns and ensure that safe accommodation is made affordable under new rates.

I am well aware that questions related to tax pose difficult decisions for Governments, particularly in times of global economic uncertainty such as these. But I would hope that we would all accept that people should not go without meals while undertaking travel essential to their work, particularly where those individuals might already be on a very low wage. I will closely follow the outcome of the Treasury’s review of overseas scale rates, and I hope that the various issues I have highlighted today are reflected in its outcome.

16:08

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for raising this important issue today and for the work that he and neighbouring MPs, on a cross-party basis, have been doing to highlight the concerns that their constituents have raised with them.

I can see that hundreds of people in the Crawley constituency have signed the petition. It is similar in Horsham and people near Heathrow and other major airports have signed it, too. The issue clearly affects many staff who work in the airline industry and, as my hon. Friend points out, particularly affects those who are on lower wages. Yes, they might enjoy and love the travel and going to visit so many different places as part of their work, as well as the benefits that come from a job working in the sky and working for airlines, but there are costs associated with being away from home. It was right to have the overseas scale rates system in place back in 2014, but it is not right at that the system has not been updated since then.

The OSRs play an important role in reducing administrative burdens when employees incur subsistence costs while travelling overseas, and the key thing is that they provide a practical alternative to reimbursing and evidencing every single expense. As a result, if they were abolished at any point in the future, that could place a significant burden on airlines, which is certainly something we want to avoid.

As my hon. Friend set out, the rates have remained more or less frozen since 2014. I was doing the maths earlier today in preparation for the debate, and I came up with a similar figure to him. If they had been uprated in line with inflation in the UK, they would have increased by 40% since 2014. Of course, inflation rates vary across the globe, but that gives us a sense of the size of the gap that has opened up over the last 12 years.

The Government have been listening to representations made by airlines, individuals and Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend. As we announced just a few short weeks ago, we will review both the OSRs and the benchmark scale rates, which are the domestic equivalents that set out the scale rates for lunches and dinners that employees may have when they are in the UK on business.

We will also look not just at uprating the rates but at whether there is scope to simplify the OSRs. We want to engage in detail with businesses on such a proposal, and officials in HMRC have already begun that work. Rather than having hundreds of individual rates for individual countries that need to be updated in a painstaking and administratively costly way, and that are also difficult for businesses to administer, we may find that having buckets or bands works better for employers and employees. That is something we will want to look at as part of this review, so I would really welcome representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on what changes their constituents would like to see.

Let me be clear: we have not taken any decisions on where we would like to go, and our mind is not made up. We are convinced that we want to review the rates to make the system better, but we want to consider the issues carefully and gather evidence from those who are affected before a decision is made. Just last week, I met the CBI, which represents some of the large airlines, and it welcomed the announcement of a review. I look forward to receiving further representations from the private sector.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is important for the Government to strike the right balance between supporting businesses and maintaining fairness in the tax system, while also protecting the Exchequer to ensure that, in the round, we raise the necessary revenue to fund and put right our public services after the last 14 years, when too many were cut back. We also need to ensure that any administrative arrangements such as these remain straightforward and proportionate.

Of course, there is political change in the air, but I hope that this review will conclude in time for the Budget. We do not want to be in a place where, in years to come, we are still waiting for these changes. I hope that we can make swift progress in the coming months, so that my hon. Friend’s constituents, as well as employees of airlines across the country, can see some improvement.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham for his intervention. I will take the strength of feeling in their representations back to the Department, for as long as I will be there.

Question put and agreed to.

16:14

Sitting suspended.

Support for Pig Farmers

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for pig farmers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank Members for coming to the debate. To say that the UK’s pig industry is worried is a gross understatement. The sector has always experienced ups and downs, but the current trough and range of difficulties faced by our pig farmers is sustained and significant, and there seem to be few routes to stabilising the sector.

The current downturn is considered to have begun back in the autumn of 2025, and has been driven by a combination of factors, including an oversupply of pigs, stagnant demand and falling prices in Europe, which have put downward pressure on UK pig prices. The situation has been exacerbated by constraints in the processing sector and by rising costs. Next came the substantial backlog of pigs at the start of 2026; at its peak, as many as 100,000 pigs were left on-farm.

Although the worst of the backlog cleared, the standard pig price fell markedly and has remained low: it has fallen from about 208p per kilo in August 2025 to 178p per kilo now—a 15% fall. In the context of profit margins across agriculture that are sometimes only 1%, it is understandable why the fall in price over such a sustained period is causing issues for the sector.

However, it must be acknowledged that the standard pig price is very much an average price metric. Many producers are receiving significantly less than that—sometimes in the region of just 130p to 140p per kilo, which is significantly below the farm’s break-even point. Indeed, a farmer I recently met in my constituency is losing about £50 per pig, and across Scotland, the industry has lost £5.7 million since January. Unless farmers are paid a price that at least covers the cost of production, there can be no future in the sector. It is as simple as that.

Lower welfare standards and the attractiveness to UK retailers of the flood of cheap pigmeat from the European continent is a key factor dictating the low UK price. Here lies a significant problem: the undercutting of UK pig farmers by retailers, food manufacturers and providers, be that in the food service sector or in local authority procurement, is making the viability of the UK pig sector even tougher. While I absolutely understand and appreciate the fine margins in hospitality, not least due to rising costs and seemingly ever-increasing taxation, and the tight budgets of our local authorities, more needs to be done to ensure that local British produce, be that pork, beef, lamb or other farm outputs, can be prioritised and offered to British consumers.

Fairness in the contracts for independent pig farmers is also a well-voiced concern. I recognise that the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025, which are designed to improve fairness and transparency across the UK pig supply chain, will come into effect for the sector next month. The regulations were introduced in recognition of the imbalance in bargaining power between individual pig producers and the relatively small number of large processors and purchasers. The changes will include principles such as mandated written contracts, a clear pricing mechanism, mutually agreeable term lengths and fair notice periods.

Those regulations will not immediately resolve every challenge facing the sector. The industry still has concerns, and has requested that the Government undertake an assessment of whether the fair dealing regulations are truly robust enough to address the pricing and margin concerns of producers when dealing with processors. Is that something the Minister would consider?

Biosecurity concerns are never far away from the pig sector. Indeed, the outbreak of African swine fever in Spain and elsewhere on the European continent and the impact that that had on the export market, including to China, is partly responsible for the oversupply and depressed prices we are currently seeing. There is real and growing concern about the emergence of diseases such as African swine fever and about foot and mouth entering the UK and infecting our livestock—no one needs reminding of the devastation that the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak had. Every possible effort must be put into ensuring that these diseases do not arrive on our shores.

In winding up, I ask the Minister to comment on what proactive and robust steps the Government are taking to ensure that diseases like African swine fever do not spread to the UK, because more robust checks are needed. His answers to my recent written parliamentary questions and a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) in the main Chamber last week show that these robust provisions are not in place. It feels like we have been lucky not to see cases of African swine fever, foot and mouth or any other significant livestock disease enter the UK. The UK’s biosecurity system cannot rely on luck, because the consequences of any of these diseases entering the UK and our livestock is hard to overstate.

Before I conclude, I want to reflect briefly on the situation in Scotland. Although I appreciate that agriculture is devolved, a robust agricultural sector and supply chain and strong food production and biosecurity controls are relevant UK-wide. Indeed, the UK pig industry, of which Scotland plays a significant part, is worth £2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales and, considering food service and export values, £14 billion in total. As I said, Scotland does contribute to that. The Scottish pig industry is facing even more acute pressures than those in England. With just one single processor in Brechin and distances too large to transport the pigs for processing south of the border, Scottish pig farmers are seeing an even lower standard pig price than their English counterparts.

According to data that I have seen, the price being paid has barely got above 140p a kilo since April. At present, Scottish pig farmers have no formal contracts, so there is no guarantee that their finished pigs will even be taken. Having spoken to pig farmers in my Gordon and Buchan constituency—most recently just yesterday—there is genuine fear for the future of the sector. Just since January, Scotland has lost 15% of its pig herds and the average price per kilo has fallen by more than 20%. The pig sector in Scotland is down £5.7 million since January this year, with continued losses almost guaranteed if prices remain suppressed. Almost half of those losses—more than £2.5 million—are in my constituency.

In closing, I want to ask the Minister just a single question, in the hope that it will be the most beneficial way to help the sector to address the challenges it is facing. My understanding is that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last met the National Pig Association or the pig industry in November 2024. Will the Minister commit to meeting the NPA and, when he does, making sure that there is a substantial package brought forward that can help support the sector? The best way to support the sector, which is complex and facing a wide range of issues, is to meet those who know most about it. That is the best way that we can support our pig farmers going forward.

16:37

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

My constituency spans Doncaster and North Lincolnshire—two very proud agricultural areas with a long and important connection to British pig farming. We are part of a region at the heart of British pork production. Yorkshire and the Humber accounts for around 40% of England’s pig population. Pigmeat contributed £499 million to the region’s agricultural output in 2024. The Isle of Axholme also has deep roots in the farming and food traditions of Lincolnshire. Few products symbolise that heritage more clearly than the Lincolnshire sausage, yet consumers cannot always be sure that a product carrying a Union flag, British branding or a traditional British name actually contains pork from pigs born, reared and slaughtered in the United Kingdom. We must address that problem.

Unprocessed pork must already carry origin information, but once that meat becomes bacon, ham, sausage or gammon, the picture becomes far less clear. Pork can be imported and then cured, sliced or packaged in Britain, while the finished product is presented to shoppers as British. The place where food is packaged is not the same as the origin of the food itself. For pork, the origin is where the pig was born, reared and slaughtered. That is the information that consumers want to know and should be able to see clearly.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making a really important point about the need for consumers to be clear about where their food is produced and reared. I draw his attention to my private Member’s Bill on that very topic. I hope that he and others across the House will support it.

[Lee Pitcher]

The hon. Lady has my full support—and, I am pretty sure, that of my farmers.

My farmers have told me how much this issue matters to them. When consumers can easily identify British pork, they actively choose to buy it. That supports British farms, British jobs and our rural communities, while rewarding producers who meet the high standards of animal welfare, environmental stewardship and food safety that we rightly expect. There is nothing wrong with imported food being sold in Britain, provided it is labelled honestly. What is wrong is allowing the true origin of the meat to be hidden behind British branding. The principle should be simple: the Union flag on a pork product should mean British pork, not simply British packaging.

I therefore ask the Minister to genuinely consider—I was going to say genu-swine-ly, but I will not do that—extending mandatory country-of-origin labelling to processed pork products, requiring that information to appear clearly on the front of the packet, and ensuring that unqualified claims that a product is British are reserved for pork from pigs born, reared and slaughtered in the United Kingdom.

Pig farmers do not need another expression of sympathy; they need practical action that helps consumers to identify British produce and choose it with confidence. When shoppers pick up a packet carrying the Union flag or drawing on the proud reputation of UK farming, they should not have to search through the small print to discover where the pork came from. British branding should mean British farming.

16:41

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this important and timely debate.

Pig farming is an important part of our rural economy in West Dorset. Alongside several family-run pig farms, we are home to a large integrated producer and businesses that support local employment, veterinary services, feed supplies, agricultural engineering, haulage and food processing. We are also fortunate to have Dorset’s last remaining independent abattoir, which processes around 100 pigs a week and provides a vital local route to market for small family farms.

Since August 2025, the standard pig price has fallen from around 208p per kilogram to approximately 178p. However, many independent producers have said that they are receiving far less—in some cases, only 130p to 140p per kilogram. Some farmers are losing as much as £50 on every pig they sell. That is unsustainable. Once again, it is independent farmers who have borne the greatest burden. Around half of the UK’s pig herd is owned by independent producers. If they disappear, rebuilding the capacity will take many years. We should remember that the United Kingdom is only about 58% self-sufficient in pork. We should never accept a situation where British farmers, who produce to some of the highest welfare standards anywhere in the world, are undercut by cheaper imports produced to standards that would not be permitted here.

No future trade agreement should weaken UK food safety, undermine British farmers or lower our animal welfare standards. West Dorset farmers are proud of the standards they have achieved. Every farmer I have spoken to wants to see further improvements in animal welfare. I want to see, as they do, an end to farrow crates and to inhumane or distressing methods of slaughter, such as carbon dioxide stunning for pigs, through the implementation of DEFRA’s 2025 recommendations by the end of this Parliament.

We should work together to prevent unnecessarily painful practices in farming, but it must be properly funded. Farmers operating on small, or in many cases, non-existent, profit margins cannot absorb further mandated changes unless they are properly funded and accompanied by practical support. One pig farmer in my constituency told me that they fully support moving towards better systems, but estimate that a realistic transition could take up to 15 years. For many family farms already carrying debt from previous reforms, unfunded regulation is not an option. If we move too quickly without proper support, we risk reducing British production and replacing it with imported pork products produced to lower welfare and food safety standards.

Small and medium-sized abattoirs continue to disappear at an alarming rate, with fewer than 200 now remaining across the United Kingdom. Rising inspection costs, energy prices, waste disposal costs and increasing regulatory burdens have all contributed to their decline. For independent pig farmers in West Dorset, our local abattoir is essential infrastructure. Without it, transport distances increase, haulage costs rise and farmers lose access to local markets. Supporting local processing capacity is therefore every bit as important as supporting primary production.

Farmers manage more than 70% of our land. They underpin our food security and sustain the economies of rural communities such as West Dorset. All they are asking for is fair markets, fair treatment, practical regulation, acknowledgment of all their hard work and the confidence to invest in their future.

16:44

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Around one in five pigs in the country are reared in my part of the world: Norfolk and Suffolk. That means that when we talk about the future of the pig sector, we are not talking about an abstract issue; we are talking about thousands of local jobs, family farms, and a sector worth billions to our local economy. The industry faces plenty of challenges. Rising costs, global competition and pressure on farm incomes have been covered, so I want to focus on the one issue that could undo everything else if we get it wrong: biosecurity.

African swine fever remains the single biggest threat facing our pig industry. It has spread across Europe and Asia, but thankfully has never been detected here in the UK. We have a window of opportunity to keep it that way, but only if we take border biosecurity seriously. If ASF got into this country, the consequences would be devastating for farmers and could cost the industry an estimated £100 million. Once it is here, we cannot simply rewind the clock, so prevention has to come first. What consideration has the Department given to providing the public with more information about the risks of bringing meat products into the UK, strengthening checks on personal imports and introducing measures such as amnesty bins before customs clearance?

The previous Government created what many in the industry see as a weakness in our border arrangements by moving customs checks to Sevington, over 20 miles inland from Dover. That leaves a significant stretch between the port and the inspection site. Will the Minister look again at whether that arrangement provides the level of biosecurity our farming sector deserves? I would suggest that it does not.

Good biosecurity is not just about stopping disease at the border; it is also about making sure that farms are as resilient as possible if the worst should happen. The animal health and welfare pathway is a good example. It provides funded veterinary visits, including dedicated biosecurity advice, yet I understand that uptake remains at only about 7%. What more is being done to ensure that farmers know about the scheme and feel confident in accessing it?

Finally, I want to touch on vaccines. When witnesses from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I asked about the resilience of veterinary vaccine supply chains. Their evidence highlighted the risk posed by manufacturing disruption, changing demand and wider global shocks. What is the Department doing in support of international efforts to develop an effective ASF vaccine and to ensure that, when one is available, we have resilient supply chains capable of getting it to farmers when they need it?

Our pig farmers produce world-class food to some of the highest welfare standards anywhere. They deserve a Government who match their effort by taking biosecurity just as seriously. If we get this right, we will protect livelihoods, strengthen food security and avoid an entirely preventable crisis. I hope the Minister will continue to make that his priority.

16:48

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing the debate. We do not hear about pig farming as much as we hear about other farming sectors, but it is essential to our food system and rural economy. While this debate concerns the UK sector, I want to focus on the pressures facing producers in Scotland.

As we have heard, the Scottish pig sector is under enormous strain from low market prices, rising costs, processing constraints and competition from imports. Many farmers are now selling pigs well below the cost of production. NFU Scotland estimates that Scottish members of the United Pig Co-operative lost around £2.7 million in the first four months of this year alone. Some producers were losing up to £37 per pig, while a typical 500-sow unit could face annual losses approaching half a million pounds. Those figures are unsustainable for family farming businesses.

The consequences extend beyond individual farms. Scotland’s pig sector contributes around £300 million to the economy and supports around 2,200 jobs, as well as haulage firms, feed merchants, vets, processors and other rural businesses. Once that critical mass is lost, it will be exceptionally difficult to rebuild. In my constituency, farmers such as Adam Marshall in Berwickshire have spent decades investing in high-quality Scottish pork and adding value through local enterprises, including Reiver Country Farm Foods and Oink. That entrepreneurial spirit should be encouraged, but even innovative, well-run family businesses cannot absorb sustained losses indefinitely. If businesses such as Adam’s are struggling despite doing everything right, that should alarm us all.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s recognition of the crisis through their £2 million emergency package for independent producers, but the industry is clear that it does not go far enough; the losses being sustained are far greater than the support on offer. Further assistance will be needed to protect Scotland’s pig sector, rural jobs and domestic food production.

The UK Government must act too. Ministers should urgently convene an industry roundtable and resume regular engagement with the National Pig Association. It is concerning that no bilateral meeting has taken place since November 2024. The Government should review whether the fair dealing obligations are providing the protection that producers were promised, and farmers must not be left carrying an unfair share of commercial risk. We should also strengthen country-of-origin labelling, particularly in food service, so that consumers can support Scottish and British pork produced to high welfare and environmental standards.

Finally, biosecurity must remain a priority. African swine fever poses a serious threat, and robust border controls and disease preparedness are essential for protecting food security and the rural economy. Our pig farmers are resilient and innovative. They are asking not for special treatment, but for fair markets, sensible regulation, meaningful engagement and support proportionate to the crisis. I hope the Minister will listen and act.

16:51

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.

I am very proud of the more than 500 farms in my constituency. Since I was elected, I have been delighted to meet with more than 100 of them. Many of them are predominantly arable, as one might expect in Norfolk, but we also have plenty of farms that include pigs as either a significant or a smaller part of their operations. Farmer Ed Lankfer, based at Wereham in my constituency, was kind enough to host an NFU roundtable that covered a whole range of issues facing the farming industry. It has been said that there are more pigs than people in Norfolk, so when there are issues in the industry—as there currently are—communities like mine very much feel the impact.

The UK pig sector is going through a difficult period due to an oversupply of pigs, stagnant demand and falling EU prices that have put a downward pressure on UK prices. At the same time, there are rising costs, exacerbated by the conflict with Iran, as well as the constant risk of disease such as African swine fever. We may not have seen the worst of it yet. As I highlighted at DEFRA oral questions last week, the National Pig Association anticipates that by November we could see 10,000 to 15,000 pigs per week without an outlet to be sold, placing a significant financial burden on farmers and risking animal welfare issues.

Sadly, as in so many aspects of farming, there is a huge unfairness in the pig industry. That unfairness in the supply chain is hitting independent pig farmers, including those in my constituency. Independent producers are responsible for roughly 50% of the pig herd in the UK, and very often they lose out first and are the most financially squeezed in the industry.

So often when I meet farmers, we talk about issues that directly connect with my Labour values, particularly around fairness and justice. I urge the Minister to consider those values when discussing what can be done to support the pig industry. There is a huge power imbalance in the supply chain, and a lack of credible contractual relations between far too many pig sellers and buyers. Specifically, will the Minister review whether the fair dealing obligations are being upheld and whether they are robust enough?

Tackling the power imbalance, not just in the pig industry but in farming more generally, needs to be at the forefront of this Labour Government’s fightback to support British farming. The commitment to co-operatives included in the farming road map could support a change in that direction, and I very much welcome that approach, but we need to move quickly to achieve the change we seek. Smaller family farms are increasingly being squeezed out of operation, and we must act before it is too late.

We should do this not just because we recognise the importance of food security, but because of our commitment to achieve economic growth in every postcode, including in rural communities like mine. There is huge growth potential in rural areas, and so often it is the family farm that underpins that growth. If the farm is doing well, it will invest in new machinery, undertake repairs and maintenance to buildings, and reinvest in the local environment. The lack of profitability and weakened resilience in the industry is hampering that growth and, by default, diminishing the prosperity of rural communities.

Later today, the Labour rural research group, which I am proud to be a member of, will publish its latest report, “The Future of the Rural Economy”. I will not give too much away, but it confirms that there is huge public support for farming, and for the Government to do more to support the industry, and it recognises that food security is national security. Some 87% of respondents to our survey agreed that it is very important to sustain a strong UK farming industry, and 77% welcomed increased Government investment in the farming sector. As a Labour Government, we have an opportunity to do much more to support the pig industry, farming more generally, and our rural communities. I look forward to the Government grasping that opportunity.

16:55

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.

Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Melksham and Devizes, I have been extremely fortunate to visit a number of farms, including pig farms, and meet many outstanding local farmers, including Cameron Naughton at West End farm, an independent pig farm with an attached farm shop. Cameron recently wrote to me to share his thoughts and to ask me to represent him, as an independent farmer, in this debate. He told me that his business is losing about £5,000 a week. Operating a high-welfare, outdoor-bred, RSPCA-assured farm like Cameron’s inevitably carries a much higher cost of production, but what he finds incomprehensible is that prices to the consumer keep rising while the supermarket supply chains continue to make substantial profits that are not reflected in what farmers are paid.

Independent producers like Cameron are bearing the brunt of a market that has been declining since 2025, driven by a combination of factors: an oversupply of pigs, stagnating demand and falling prices to the farmer. With the UK pig breeding herd at a historic low, high-quality British products like Cameron’s risk being replaced by lower-welfare imported meat, which brings with it a heightened risk of diseases such as swine fever and foot and mouth disease. The European Food Safety Authority has reported a 76% increase this year in African swine fever outbreaks among pigs in the EU.

I urge the Government, and particularly the incoming Prime Minister, not to forget our farmers and our rural communities. I ask them to sit down with the industry, particularly with independent farmers like Cameron, to determine what can be done to secure the survival of this vital sector and to help secure our country’s vital food security.

16:58

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate, Sir Christopher, and to have the Minister in his place.

I agree with practically every word that has been said by colleagues across the House about the importance of the pig industry. It is the largest agricultural output of Yorkshire and the Humber and worth more than half a billion pounds a year, but as colleagues have set out, there has been a gradual concentration into what is now no more than about four major processors across the United Kingdom. That puts up the costs of transport. More importantly still, it means a loss of competition and the potential for that imbalance in market power to be used in a way that is counter to fairness—as the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) mentioned when talking about Labour values—and to the interests of the consumer. If there is one thing the Minister needs to do, aside from keeping our pig industry safe from biohazards, it is ensure that there is healthy competition in the market so that the consumer is well served.

Earlier this afternoon, I spoke to a local Holderness pig farmer who was at the Great Yorkshire Show. She told me that she has had notice on contracts for the processing of the pigs, and she no longer has anywhere to send her pigs from 13 August. The pigs are literally going to be backing up on the farm, with nowhere to go.

[Harriet Cross]

13 August is obviously a very important date, because it is when the fair dealing regulations come in. There have been warnings from the sector that that sort of thing will happen and about why it is so important. I ask the Minister for a proper review of these obligations to assess how they are working for the sector, so that we do not have situations like the one that my right hon. Friend has just mentioned.

[Graham Stuart]

I have represented pig farmers in Holderness for 21 years—it has always been volatile, and the farmers accept the volatility, but never has there been quite such a concatenation of issues all at the same time, including the introduction of the regulations and the closure of abattoirs. Scotland was hit first, as my hon. Friend will know, with the closure of abattoirs there. The abattoir at Spalding has now gone. This is a very serious issue, which I hope the Minister will be able to look at.

Processors are also buying out the independents. Again, looking at the raw political elements of this situation, the truth is that independents who are struggling to find anywhere to have their pigs processed become more vulnerable and can be bought out, in which case competition will be further reduced.

I ask the Minister to use his good offices to get his officials to engage with major processors to ensure that no independent farmer is left unable to have their pigs processed, because that would create not only an animal welfare crisis, but a financial crisis for farmers, making them easy meat—pardon the language, Sir Christopher—for others to buy them out.

This genuinely is a crisis; the danger is that one hears that word too often, but this situation absolutely is one, not only for pig farmers, who are very important to my constituency, but for consumers in the long term. I hope the Minister will take that very seriously on board and will look to intervene, to ensure that every farmer has somewhere to have their pigs processed.

17:01

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this debate. The financial pressures facing pig farmers—indeed, farmers in every sector of our rural economy—are serious. Independent producers have seen prices collapse and contracts withdrawn, and it is important that we take time to recognise those challenges.

I will focus on something that is fundamental to the future of the pig industry and indeed to the health of our nation: biosecurity. Last month I asked DEFRA whether it had met the National Pig Association since the last recorded meeting, more than nine months ago, the response confirmed that Ministers have not met the NPA directly for a bilateral meeting. Perhaps if they had, they would be more aware of the NPA’s stark warning that the UK remains poorly protected when it comes to biosecurity.

An outbreak of disease here would devastate British agriculture and our supply chains, impacting the taxpayer to the tune of billions of pounds. We must learn from the past. The 2001 foot and mouth outbreak cost the public and private sectors the equivalent of almost £15 billion in today’s money. An outbreak of African swine fever would immediately close export markets worth around £500 million each year. Yet despite those risks, the NPA warns that large volumes of illegally imported meat continue to enter the UK from countries where those diseases are present.

I hope that the Minister recognises the severity and urgency of this matter. I urge him to set out what steps the Department is taking to ensure that staff at borders and checkpoints are appropriately resourced and trained to manage the risk of imports, and how DEFRA Ministers are working with colleagues from across Government, including the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, to ensure a cohesive and joined-up approach.

As the Government negotiate a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union, we need reassurances from the Minister that the Government will not cave in any way on our world-leading biosecurity standards in an attempt to placate and pacify the EU. Reduced border checks under any future SPS agreement could undermine our market and increase the risk of animal diseases entering the UK.

Does the Minister recognise that risk? Would he consider providing multi-year funding for the Dover Port Health Authority and other agencies that protect our borders, to strengthen enforcement and deter criminal activity? British pig farmers have shown real leadership: they have reduced antibiotic use by almost 70%, invested in higher welfare standards and continually improved animal health. They are doing their part. DEFRA must now step up, match their commitment to our food security and wellbeing, and act accordingly.

17:05

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for setting the scene incredibly well.

It is a pleasure to champion a sector that is not only vital to my constituency, but a cornerstone of the entire economy of Northern Ireland: our fantastic, resilient yet deeply struggling pig industry. When we talk about agriculture in Northern Ireland, we are talking about the lifeblood of our rural communities. There are some 27,000 family farms across the province and our intensive sectors, particularly pork and poultry, punch vastly above their weight. Northern Ireland holds the highest density of pigs and poultry anywhere in the United Kingdom, and for a nation of some 1.9 million, we produce more chickens and pigs than Scotland and Wales combined—that is not to boast, but it is a fact of life and a statistic I want to put on record. We feed millions of people across the United Kingdom and the globe with world-class, top-quality, traceable pork products. As I stand here today, however our independent pig farmers are facing an existential crisis.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

As the hon. Member knows, small abattoirs are at breaking point in almost every imaginable way. One big issue is contradicting and inconsistent inspections. Does he agree that the Government urgently need to set out a clearer plan to streamline the regulation system?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. That is one of the things that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan and others have asked for, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Sadly, pig farming cannot simply be switched on and off like a tap. It requires immense long-term investment, precision and dedication, but it has been squeezed to the absolute limit. Our farmers have battled skyrocketing input costs: feed, energy and fertiliser prices have gone through the roof. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which has been forced to hold emergency meetings with major processors such as Sofina Foods at its Cookstown site, because of severe contract reductions and reductions in weekly slaughter volumes. Our independent family farms are being left adrift in a sea of commercial uncertainty and Ulster Farmers Union has had to take those concerns directly to major retailers.

I ask the Minister in his speech to take up the issue of cost, and specifically what farmers are getting for their products and what Tesco—I name it—and other large supermarket chains are getting. The supply chain is simply broken, and we need intervention. The Northern Ireland Executive have to deal with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home, but macroeconomic stability, supply chain legislation and national food security are firmly the responsibility of this Government.

Our family farms need protection from immediate financial ruin and the Government must engage with the major supermarket giants to ensure that they are paying fair and reasonable prices. If we do not support our pig farmers right now, we will see generational family businesses shut their gates forever. Let us remember this one thing: if there are no farmers, there is no food.

17:08

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this timely debate.

I grew up on a sheep and beef farm, and when I was about 11 years old, I bought 13 pigs from market to take home. They became more like pets; I used to play football with them—

[Graham Stuart]

You used to kick them around?

[Dr Chambers]

No, I used to play football matches with them. They were a lot of fun, and I learned that of all livestock, they are potentially the most intelligent and certainly some of the most affectionate animals. I had a particularly interesting visit to Sparsholt agricultural college in Winchester with the National Pig Association. I used to love going there when I was a vet to treat the animals; now I go there as an MP to look at its teaching and facilities. It has a fantastic indoor, high-welfare unit that delivers piglets without the use of farrowing crates, and I pay tribute to the staff there for their teaching and the welfare standards that they maintain.

To touch on something that many Members have spoken about today, one of the top issues threatening the pig industry is biosecurity at the border. I have been to Dover and met the vets and border inspectors there who look at the potentially illegal meat coming in and the tonnes of it that get seized. The crazy thing is that currently, if I were caught smuggling meat into the UK, I could not be arrested and my vehicle could not be seized, but the meat would be confiscated and my vehicle would have to be cleaned, because it would be a biosecurity risk. The only deterrent to trying to smuggle illegal meat into the UK would be that I might get my van cleaned for free at the taxpayer’s expense. That is absolutely ridiculous. I totally understand that enforcing biosecurity at such a busy border is difficult and comes with huge challenges, there are not even suitable deterrents in place for people who get caught. I urge the Minister at the very least to look at implementing some.

One thing that the pig industry has done phenomenally well is to reduce antibiotic use by 72% since 2015—just over 10 years. That is hugely important, not only for animal welfare, but for public health. Antimicrobial resistance is like a slow pandemic; it never gets media attention, but it will kill 39 million people by 2050 if we do not take action. It is important that we do not undercut our high animal welfare and farming standards with products from countries that have lower standards. Countries that use antibiotics as growth promoters are not only farming with lower welfare standards, but contributing to this huge public health crisis, so we must do our bit to tackle that issue.

The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned labelling. It is hugely important that we can identify where meat has been produced. Consumers are currently being hoodwinked; they believe that they are buying products from animals reared in the UK, but it turns out that they were only processed in the UK. They want to support British farmers and high animal welfare standards, so it is completely wrong that they are being hoodwinked into buying products that potentially undermine UK standards.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made a very important point about the lack of small abattoirs in the UK. Their closure is a huge animal welfare issue, as animals have to be transported further than necessary to be slaughtered, and a huge economic problem too.

I urge the Minister to see how the Government can work with the pig industry to move away from the CO₂ stunning of pigs. It is a big welfare concern, and the British Veterinary Association and others are keen for the industry to make a sustainable transition away from it. It causes a lot of concern to a lot of constituents, and it really upsets me as a vet.

Finally, I urge the Minister to meet the National Pig Association as soon as possible to look at supporting UK farmers, maintaining high animal welfare standards and improving our nation’s food security.

17:13

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.

The British pig sector is in crisis, and our pig farmers need our help. My hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and Buchan and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly spoke the challenges north of the border. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) rightly called on the Minister to ensure that no independent farmer is unable to have their pigs processed. That is absolutely the crux of the issue.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. The British pig sector contributes about £14 billion to our economy—£2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales, and exports to 88 counties worth almost £500 million. It is a major part of our farming industry, and we cannot afford to let the current financial challenges go any further.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right to outline the exports from the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, we export almost 80% of our product, so it is even more critical for us.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. There must be a UK-wide approach.

The warning signs have been there for months. Since last autumn, the sector has been hit by oversupply, stagnant demand, falling European prices, factory disruptions and rising costs all at once. At one point earlier this year, around 100,000 pigs were backed up on British farms. That backlog has largely cleared now, but not without cost. The standard pig price has fallen by around 30p a kilogram, from roughly 208p to 178p.

That is only part of the picture, because the vast majority of independent farmers will be receiving much less than that, as was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan. No market can survive on those terms. Without urgent action, the sector faces being pushed towards collapse. It is our independent producers who are bearing the brunt of the pressures faced by the sector, with thousands now seeing their contracts terminated early by major processors. Somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000 pigs a week are affected by notices being served on producers.

The Government simply cannot stand on the sidelines and hope that the market corrects itself, because by autumn, the industry fears that up to 10,000 to 15,000 pigs a week could have no market at all. If nothing changes, we know what follows—more farm closures, more herds reduced and more businesses walking away from the industry altogether.

The fair dealing obligations for pig contracts were brought in to fix the problem exposed by the last crisis—unequal bargaining power, poor contracts and a lack of fairness between producers and processors. We can all agree that those were worthwhile aims but if, during the implementation period, producers are still seeing contracts terminated early in record numbers and our farmers are still losing money on every pig they sell, the Government have to ask whether the regulations are doing what Parliament originally intended. Will the Minister commit today to an urgent assessment of whether the regulations are fit for purpose?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) noted, there are also longer-term challenges. The threat from African swine fever and foot and mouth disease is real and ongoing. Protecting our borders from illegal meat imports and strengthening our disease defences must be a priority. What are the Government doing to work across Departments, including with the Home Office, to make sure that these live issues are addressed?

The industry also needs a sensible workforce strategy. Like much of agriculture, pig farming is struggling with labour shortages. It needs a strategy that builds a workforce based on domestic skills and apprenticeships.

We must also address the issue of transparency. Customers want to buy British and retail labelling has come a long way, but food services still rely heavily on imported pork, often with far less clarity about where that pork comes from. British producers deserve a level playing field and British consumers deserve to know what is on their plate.

That is why the Conservative party has proposed closing the loophole that lets imported food, once merely processed or packaged in the UK, carry branding that many shoppers reasonably mistake as British. What progress has been made since the Government’s response on the food labelling consultation? Do the Government intend to strengthen country of origin rules?

British pig farmers are not asking the Government to solve every single commercial challenge, but they are asking for regulations that genuinely protect producers rather than leave them exposed. Above all, they are asking the Government to recognise the strategic importance of British food production before more independent producers simply disappear for good.

We cannot lose more of this vital industry. For the sake of our farmers, our rural communities and our country’s long-term food security, the Government must engage with key stakeholders. It is disappointing to hear that the last bilateral meeting between Ministers and the National Pig Association was back in September 2025. I call on the Minister to have an urgent meeting—I understand there may be one tomorrow. If that is the case, will the Minister guarantee that those meetings will continue at pace and at regular intervals with the British Pig Association, so that we can make sure that this vital industry is protected long into the future?

17:19

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this incredibly important debate, and on the constructive manner in which she contributed this afternoon.

I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate and for the thoughtful way in which they have raised a number of concerns currently facing the pig sector and their constituencies. As my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) passionately alluded to, the pig sector is woven into the fabric of the UK’s food system, underpinning food security, sustaining rural communities and driving agricultural productivity across the country. Beyond its economic importance, pork has long held a place at the nation’s table, from cherished regional specialities and traditional Sunday roasts to the everyday meals enjoyed by millions of families. As both a source of nourishment and a part of our culinary heritage, British pig production remains integral to what we eat.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk said, however, this is a moment of considerable pressure for the sector. Pig producers are navigating a period of profound difficulty, confronting a range of economic and structural challenges across all nations of the UK. I thank my Scottish and Northern Irish colleagues for their contributions this afternoon.

Recent reports have highlighted concerns about processors seeking to reduce pig numbers and producers—particularly independent producers—receiving notice that their contracts will be terminated. Those developments reflect a difficult market environment. A combination of increased production in recent years, changing consumer patterns and wider pressures in European pork markets has resulted in excess supply across parts of the sector. We recognise that this market adjustment is creating uncertainty for producers, particularly those affected by changes to supply arrangements.

That is why the Government will continue to engage with the industry as it responds to the challenges it faces. I personally assure all Members that I have prioritised meeting with the sector and, indeed, am meeting with the National Pig Association tomorrow to discuss the pressures that the sector is facing. I also note the NPA’s request for ongoing dialogue in its briefing for today’s debate. I hope tomorrow is the start of that relationship.

Turning to intervention powers, in the event of exceptional market disruption, the Government have powers under section 21 of the Agriculture Act 2020 to provide support to farmers in England. Agriculture is a devolved matter, and there are similar powers available to devolved Governments should they consider intervention in the sector appropriate. The powers under the Agriculture Act in England are intended to deal with unforeseen short-term shocks to agricultural markets, where there is a significant adverse effect on price achievable for one or more agricultural products. Section 21 powers were previously used during the exceptional disruption faced by the pig sector in 2021, when a combination of reduced processing capacity, the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, interruptions to CO₂ supply and a shortage of skilled butchers led to a substantial backlog of pigs on farm.

We recognise the challenges facing the sector today, but our assessment is that the circumstances are materially different from those seen in 2021. The current pressures reflect broader market conditions rather than a breakdown in processing capacity or market function. As such, the threshold for intervention in England under section 21 of the Agriculture Act is not currently met. As it is a devolved matter, it is for devolved Governments to take a judgment on intervention.

[Graham Stuart]

I congratulate the Minister on the meeting he will have tomorrow and his offer to engage. I gently press him on reaching out. He has made it clear that he does not think that the current situation matches that of 2021. I accept that, but could he reach out and use his good offices to ensure that no farmer is left with pigs backing up on their farm? Could he lean, in the most genial manner possible, on the processors to ensure that farmers get those pigs off the farm and processed? They would be very grateful if the Minister could do so.

[Stephen Morgan]

I am very alive to the issues. That is why engagement with the sector is very important. I have powers available to me, if necessary, but we are keen to monitor the situation. That is why today’s debate has been so important.

We are aware that the sector experienced a temporary backlog on farms earlier this year. The industry took action to address the issue, including through increasing processing capacity, and the backlog has now been cleared. Although that was a welcome development, wider pressures remain and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Turning to points made by Members about Government actions to strengthen fairness and resilience in the pig sector, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan rightly raised the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025. They are designed to end unfair contract practices and give British pig farmers greater transparency and certainty in their commercial relationships. I will reflect on her points. The regulations will be fully in force from 13 April this year, when all contracts for the purchase of pigs will need to be compliant. While we are aware of some processors serving notice on their producers or reducing contract volumes, our understanding is that these notices are being issued in line with contractual provisions. The fair dealing regulations are enforced by the agricultural supply chain adjudicator, which producers can contact if they are concerned that their contracts are not compliant with the regulations. I assure the hon. Member that the regulations will be subject to statutory review processes that will assess their effectiveness and whether any changes may be required in future.

Alongside the UK-wide fair dealing obligation regulations, support is also available to pig farmers in England through the animal health and welfare pathway. Pig farmers can receive £648 for a vet on-farm to look at general animal health and welfare issues and carry out testing. Farmers can receive up to £1,087 for further testing and advice if their farm has PRRS. In 2026, £50 million was made available through the farming equipment and technology fund to help farmers in England to improve animal health and welfare, productivity and slurry management.

On the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, the ambition of our farming road map is not simply to help farmers weather immediate challenges, but to create the conditions for a farming sector that is productive, resilient and profitable for generations to come. That means backing innovation, improving animal health and welfare, strengthening fairness across the supply chains and ensuring that farmers are better equipped to respond to changing and challenging markets. A strong domestic pig sector has an important role to play in delivering food security, supporting rural growth and maintaining the high standards that British consumers rightly expect.

By investing in productivity and resilience today, we can help to ensure that British pig farming remains competitive and successful in the years ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan raised the important issue of African swine fever. I assure her that to help to prevent the uncontrolled movement of meat products into the United Kingdom, DEFRA has introduced safeguard measures that prohibit personal imports of pork into GB from the EU. The commercial import of pork from areas under African swine fever controls is not permitted. We are also funding the Port of Dover to ensure that illegal movement of meat into England does not take place. Since 2022, we have provided over £14 million of operational funding to the Dover port association.

I thank Members again for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. The concerns they raised have reinforced the importance of continuing to work closely with producers, processors and the wider industry. Our commitment is clear: to support a farming sector that not only is able to withstand future shocks, but is confident, profitable and able to seize the opportunities that lie ahead.

17:27

[Harriet Cross]

Given that there is a Division in the House, I will keep this very short. I thank everyone for participating in the debate. I hope the Minister’s meetings will be constructive. I ask him to go in with an open mind and listen to what the NPA is saying. It is not sounding a false alarm; it is genuinely very worried about the future of its sector.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for pig farmers.

17:28

Sitting adjourned.

Written Corrections

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Corrections

Tuesday 14 July 2026

Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Corrections

Transport

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Corrections

East Midlands Railway Collision

The following extract is from the statement on the East Midlands Railway Collision on 22 June 2026.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the tragic collision between two passenger trains on Friday 19 June… I was particularly moved to hear of a ticket inspector on the Corby train who, despite being injured, radioed in to close the rail line while checking that everyone else was okay. As I have said before, I truly believe the best of us show up in the worst of times, and that was the case here.

[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 43.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander):

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the tragic collision between two passenger trains on Friday 19 June… I was particularly moved to hear of a train manager on the Corby train who, despite being injured, radioed in to close the rail line while checking that everyone else was okay. As I have said before, I truly believe the best of us show up in the worst of times, and that was the case here.

Business and Trade

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Corrections

Business and Trade Questions

The following extracts are from Business and Trade Questions on 2 July 2026.

[Richard Baker]

The EU is a key trading partner for Scotland, accounting for almost 40% of Scotland’s international exports. Can the Minister reassure my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife that while we wait for a new date for the EU summit, this Government will press ahead with plans to align with more areas of the single market, so that we can continue to remove barriers for our businesses to trade with Europe?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because in the most recent figures, our trade in goods with Europe has fallen by 2% in the last year, whereas our trade in services has grown by 7%.

[Official Report, 2 July 2026; Vol. 788, c. 1008.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because in the most recent figures, our exports in goods with the EU have fallen by 2% in the last year, whereas our exports in services have grown by 7%...

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?

[Chris Bryant]

We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 73% of all steel imports into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue…

[Official Report, 2 July 2026; Vol. 788, c. 1022.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):

[Chris Bryant]

We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 74% of all steel imports by value into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue…

Other Correction

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Corrections

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

The following extract is from the Backbench Business debate on Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness on 8 July 2026.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I refer Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my participation in a parliamentary delegation to Ukraine in February with the UK friends of the armed forces.

[Official Report, 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 365.]

Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst):

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I refer Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my participation in a parliamentary delegation to Ukraine in February with the UK Friends of Ukraine.

Written Statements

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

Tuesday 14 July 2026

Deepening the UK’s Trade Relationships

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)]

Trade remains central to this Government’s mission to drive sustainable economic growth and to ensure that UK firms can access the opportunities presented by a rapidly evolving global economy.

This Government’s trade strategy places international partnerships at the heart of that ambition. We are focused on strengthening the UK’s position as a base for businesses to connect with global markets, while supporting high-value jobs, boosting investment and reinforcing our economic resilience. A key aspect of this pattern of international trading relationships is our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

Today, I am announcing the launch of a public consultation to inform the next phase of the United Kingdom’s trade relationships with four global partners—Indonesia, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay—as we explore how the UK should respond to accession talks with certain CPTPP candidate countries.

Parties to the CPTPP, including the UK, established an accession working group with Uruguay in 2025, and on 26 June 2026, CPTPP parties announced the start of preparatory discussions on accession with Indonesia, the Philippines and the UAE: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-06-29/hcws154 Uruguay’s accession working group is now well under way, with meetings scheduled



The Government therefore want to hear views on the opportunities, priorities and considerations associated with deepening the UK’s trading relationships with these economies. CPTPP accession represents the most likely route to deepening trading relationships with the majority of them, but the call for input does not assume a single route and also invites views on other appropriate trade policy mechanisms, including bilateral free trade agreements where applicable and relevant.

This consultation marks an early but important stage in the process of assessing future trade opportunities. The call for input published today provides businesses, civil society, consumers and individuals across the UK with the chance to share their insights and priorities, ensuring that any future negotiations are informed by a strong evidence base and reflect the needs of the UK economy.

The Government will carefully consider all responses alongside further economic and policy analysis. This will inform decisions on the UK’s overall approach to engagement with these partners. The call for input closes on 14 September 2026 and can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/deepening-uk-trade-relationships-with-indonesia-the-philippines-the-united-arab-emirates-and-uruguay

 

I will keep Parliament closely informed as this work progresses. Further updates will be provided in due course, including ahead of any decision to progress to an accession working group or other negotiations.

[HCWS235]

Horizon Family Members Redress Scheme: Registration

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

On 19 March, I updated the House about this Government’s preparations to launch a redress scheme for family members of postmasters most affected by the Horizon scandal.

As we approach the anniversary of the publication of volume 1 of the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry report, which recommended that financial redress should be provided to close family members of those most adversely impacted by the Horizon scandal, I want to reassure those awaiting updates that this scheme is progressing and that we remain committed to helping this group.

I am happy to announce that the Horizon family member redress scheme will open for registration on 16 July 2026. This will allow potential applicants to come forward and begin the process by submitting information that will support the assessment of their applications later this autumn. Applicants will be able to access the registration form, alongside further information about the scheme, here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/horizon-family-members-redress-scheme

Guidance for prospective applicants is also available at that link, setting out the type of documents that will be required to demonstrate eligibility once we start to consider claims. This guidance will help applicants to prepare the relevant documents in advance, so they are not unduly held up demonstrating their eligibility.

Processing of cases is expected to begin in the autumn of this year, once the Department has completed the necessary procurement steps to appoint an external supplier to manage this work.

At that point, cases will be dealt with in the order they were received. Those who register now will be among the first to have their cases examined. Those who are unable to register now or wish to wait until a later date are free to do so and this will not impact their cases other than them being considered slightly later.

[HCWS232]

Insolvency Service Annual Plan

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

The Insolvency Service is the Government agency that delivers public services to those affected by financial distress or failure by providing frameworks to deal with insolvency and the financial misconduct that sometimes accompanies or leads to it.

The Insolvency Service plays a key role underpinning confidence in our financial markets: maximising economic returns to creditors from insolvency situations, supporting those in financial distress, helping them to return to economic activity, and tackling financial wrongdoing through its investigation and enforcement work. Its enforcement role is increasing substantially to meet the Government’s ambitions to tackle economic crime.

This year, the Insolvency Service has reinforced its commitment to supporting businesses and citizens. They are supporting the delivery of the Government’s priorities in supporting regulatory reform, reducing administrative burdens on businesses, and driving forward economic growth, putting more money in people’s pockets and helping to rebuild Britain. This will ensure that the UK is a key destination for investment, with a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose and achieves value for money for the taxpayer. I have asked it to focus on:

Pro-active review of the key regulatory requirements which are placed on the insolvency profession, both to reduce burdens and to enable and facilitate use of new and emerging technologies.

Developing policy proposals to specifically support small and medium-sized businesses and ensure proportionate enforcement action that better supports growth.

Continuous improvement of its service delivery and interface with businesses through investing in and modernising its systems and processes.

The Insolvency Service’s agency plan for 2026 to 2027 will be published in full on gov.uk.

[HCWS231]

Sixth Assimilated Law Report

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

Today the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament pursuant to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and published it on gov.uk. This report updates the House in line with the obligations under section 17 of the REUL Act, which requires a report to be published and laid before Parliament every six months until 23 June 2026 detailing all revocations and reforms of assimilated law. As this is the final (sixth) report being laid before the House, section 17 of the REUL Act removes the requirement to set out the Government’s future plans to revoke and reform assimilated law.

The report today summarises the data on the assimilated law dashboard, providing the public with information about the amount of assimilated law there is and where it sits across Departments. The dashboard was updated for the final time on 14 July 2026 and reflects the position as of 23 June 2026, showing a total of 6,921 instruments of REUL/assimilated law concentrated over approximately 400 unique policy areas. Since the previous update to the dashboard, 133 assimilated law instruments have either been revoked or reformed. In addition, Departments have undertaken further analysis and amended their record of assimilated law. As a result, a net figure of 2,700 instruments have been revoked or reformed in total. Section 17 of the REUL Act does not require the dashboard to be updated beyond the final reporting period of 24 December 2025 to 23 June 2026. As such, tracking and reporting of assimilated law, including publication of the assimilated law dashboard, will now end. After a six-month post-publication period, the dashboard will be taken offline and replaced by a downloadable version of the last dataset on gov.uk.

These steps are deemed proportionate as there is no clear policy rationale for continuing to track assimilated law once the statutory requirement expires. Any reforms to assimilated law would be made to truly support Government priorities.

The report provides details of 46 statutory instruments which were made by the Government using powers under the REUL Act and other domestic legislation since the end of the last reporting period. These statutory instruments amend assimilated law to deliver the Government’s priorities. This includes, for example, The Provision of Services (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026, which support this Government’s pledge to cut the administrative burden of regulation to business by 25% by the end of this Parliament. This statutory instrument supports an open, transparent, and proportionate licensing regime to reduce costs for business.

On 23 June 2026, the majority of REUL Act powers expired. The Government can continue making changes to assimilated law to support the national interest through other domestic legislation. Looking ahead, the Government will progress reform, where desirable, of assimilated law to ensure regulation creates the conditions for sustainable growth whilst upholding consumer and environmental protections.

[HCWS233]

National Resilience: Annual Statement

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)]

On 8 July 2025, the Government published our resilience action plan, committing to update Parliament with an annual overview of the UK’s resilience. Today I will fulfil that commitment alongside publishing an annual update on the implementation of both the resilience action plan and biological security strategy.

This resilience work is informed by the national security risk assessment, the Government’s assessment of the most serious risks facing the UK. Today we published a version of this document, the national risk register, which includes a summary of all but the most sensitive, classified risks. Ninety-five risks are listed in total.

For example, conflict in the middle east and Russia’s war in Ukraine have exposed the vulnerabilities in global energy supply chains and driven up energy prices, and the increasing sophistication and proliferation of artificial intelligence not only brings huge opportunities, but threats too if it is weaponised by criminals against us. This could include novel ways of developing or carrying out hostile cyber-attacks against businesses and our critical infrastructure.

As we saw with temperatures across the UK breaking records in May, only to be exceeded again in June, the risks we face from climate change cannot be underestimated, from our infrastructure, food and water systems or people’s immediate health. Climate change is also exacerbating the spread of high-consequence infectious diseases, alongside the changing boundaries of the human-animal interface. The incidence of highly pathogenic avian influenza, Ebola, and Andes hantavirus are examples from the last few months alone.

As we set out in the resilience action plan implementation report, also published today, having resilient public services and infrastructure is how we safeguard our national security. Under this Government, defence spending will rise to almost £80 billion a year by 2029—the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the Cold War. We have also accelerated our home defence planning, including updating the Government war book and increasing the emphasis on aligning military and civilian efforts if international hostilities affect the UK. We will rigorously test these plans through the largest UK home defence exercise in several decades in 2027, to ensure that should the worst ever happen, we will always be ready.

Later this year, we will publish an energy resilience strategy to strengthen the resilience of our energy system in the UK and a transport resilience strategy, setting out how we will work across these sectors to deliver secure and resilient systems for the UK public.

While Government will do all it can, we can all play our part to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe. As the storms earlier this year showed, extreme weather events can cause significant and prolonged disruption to the essential services on which we all rely.

Today, I can announce that the Government will launch a national resilience public awareness campaign later this year, in order to inform the public of the small but important steps they can take to be prepared in case of emergencies and disruption—be that severe weather or a cyber-attack which can impact access to power, water, phone signal or local shops to get food.

The public sector resilience system is key and must continually evolve to the changing risk landscape. For over two decades, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 has supported a consistent, co-operative approach to emergency preparedness and response across the UK, but it must keep pace to meet future challenges. To ensure this legislative framework remains strong and as relevant as possible today, we are launching a call for views on the Act’s implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to gather evidence from across the resilience community on where it may need updating to reflect the modem world we live in.

Turning to the UK Government’s biological security strategy, the biological security landscape has continued to evolve and the threats we face are more likely, diverse and interconnected. A future pandemic or the risk that hostile actors use biological weapons could permanently scar the UK’s social and economic resilience. Over the last year, we have made strong progress against our commitments on biological security, including:

delivering Exercise Pegasus: the largest tier 1 pandemic scenario simulation in UK history;

establishing a network of national biosecurity centres, backed by £1.83 billion of investment to ensure a rapid, holistic “One Health” response to future crises;

securing critical infrastructure with Moderna’s new mRNA vaccine manufacturing centre;

publishing a new pandemic preparedness strategy, supported by an additional £1 billion in health protection measures, and a new UK strategic approach to bio surveillance, to ensure that we are better positioned to detect biological threats; and

operationalising a biothreats radar to provide real-time data on biological incidents, while pioneering new approaches to monitoring the near-term convergence of AI and biology.

Today, I have published the biological security strategy implementation report, setting out further commitments to ensure that, by 2030, the UK is resilient against a spectrum of biological threats and a world leader in responsible innovation.

Copies of the following documents have been made available on www.gov.uk

today:

The UK Government Resilience Action Plan: 2026 Implementation Report

The UK Government Biological Security Strategy: 2026 Implementation Report

The National Risk Register and supplementary guidance

A Call for Views for Civil Contingencies Act 2004 Post Implementation Review

[HCWS244]

National Security and Investment Act 2021: Annual Report 2025-26

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)]

I am today laying before Parliament the annual report covering the operation of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 for the period 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026. This fulfils the requirements under section 61 of the NSI Act and a copy of the report will also be published on gov.uk.

The Government are committed to ensuring the NSI Act supports growth by facilitating investment into our most sensitive sectors in a way that protects our national security. It must also do so as effectively, efficiently, and transparently as possible. This will give investors the certainty they need to promote ongoing growth across the UK.

The report shows that the Government took a decision on whether to call in or clear all notified acquisitions within the review period’s statutory 30 working days, and the vast majority were cleared to proceed within this period. Of the 1,220 notifications reviewed, 95.6% were notified that no further action would be taken, and 4.4% were called in. In this reporting period, nine final orders were issued and four called-in acquisitions were withdrawn before a decision was made.

This report shows that notifications, call-ins, final orders, withdrawals, and final notifications covered many different sectors and acquirers’ countries of origin.

[HCWS238]

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: July 2026 Delivery Update

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

The Government are introducing a carbon border adjustment mechanism from 1 January 2027 which will ensure that highly traded, carbon-intensive goods which are imported into the UK face a comparable carbon price to what is paid by manufacturers producing the same goods in the UK.

Following Royal Assent of the Finance Act 2026, which provides the legislative framework for the UK CBAM, the Government consulted on CBAM secondary legislation in early 2026. After considering the responses to the consultation carefully, the first tranche of secondary legislation has been laid today, setting out the majority of the detailed design and administrative framework for CBAM.

Further secondary legislation, confirming details on how to monitor, report and verify emissions, will follow. Comprehensive guidance will also be published later in the year, which will further assist businesses in complying with CBAM.

The scope of CBAM remains unchanged, with the sectors included being iron and steel, aluminium, fertiliser, hydrogen and cement.

The Government recognise that stakeholders are keen to know more about the UK’s approach to setting default values. The Treasury is carefully considering the methodology for setting these values.

The Government will set out specific values in the autumn; ahead of that, I can reassure interested parties that in line with schedule 17 of Finance Act 2026, the Treasury’s guiding principle in setting default values will be to ensure liable persons do not gain an advantage from using default values over determining the actual embodied emissions of imported CBAM goods.

This means that default values will not be set as a simple global average, but will instead be based on a trade-weighted average. In order to best reflect the imports most likely to rely on default values rather than actual emissions, we will look to exclude data from jurisdictions with robust mandatory MRV systems such as the EU. Where appropriate, we will consider applying additional mark-ups to ensure the environmental integrity of CBAM.

The Government committed previously to consider the feasibility of moving to an alternative approach in future, and will set out more detail on future plans for default values in the autumn, alongside the full list of default values for 2027.

[HCWS245]

Naval Base Infrastructure

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

I am today announcing the largest investment in the United Kingdom’s naval bases since the end of the cold war.

As set out in the strategic defence review, improving readiness and strengthening our ability to generate maritime forces at pace is central to the Government’s approach to national security in an increasingly uncertain world. Our naval bases are critical national infrastructure, and their condition directly affects the availability, credibility and effectiveness of the Royal Navy.

As confirmed in the defence investment plan, I can announce today that the Government are delivering Project Royal Oak, which is the collective name we have given to the extensive strategic investment we have committed for improvements to His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde in Faslane, His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport, and His Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth. Collectively, this represents approximately £26 billion^[1] of investment over the next 10 years to increase the readiness, availability and lethality of the Royal Navy.

Investments at HMNB Clyde are governed by the Clyde Transformation Programme. This will see a multi-decade, multibillion-pound transformation of the site covering everything from dock infrastructure to training and accommodation facilities. It will also include Programme Euston which will see three new floating docks and shoreside infrastructure for submarine maintenance with a renewed focus on asset management that will sustain infrastructure over the long term. There will also be a separate, offsite engineering facility established to boost maintenance capacity. This comprises £15.1 billion over the next decade.

In the south-west, forecast investment of £7.1 billion over the next decade at HMNB Devonport will deliver major upgrades and new and replacement infrastructure across the naval base and dockyard. Devonport is the UK centre for submarine deep maintenance and supports the continuous at-sea deterrent, submarines, ships, sailors and the Royal Marine Commando Force. The programme includes upgrades to 15 Dock, modernisation of 10 Dock and work on 14 Dock to enable submarine defueling to recommence, and wider renewal and maintenance across the site. This reflects both previous under-investment in infrastructure and a changing operational requirement.

On the Solent, forecast investment of £3.9 billion at HMNB Portsmouth will ensure recovery from years of disinvestment alongside vital modernisation to meet the emergent demands of a hybrid Navy which is maximised for warfighting readiness. This includes Project Bentham to upgrade jetties, berthing and support systems; a capability accelerator to support the hybrid Navy and fast-track technological development; a skills development centre for apprentice and adult learning; and expansion of the Royal Navy warfighting centre.

Taken together, these projects will modernise docks, jetties and engineering facilities and support infrastructure across the naval estate, ensuring our bases are resilient, capable and fit to support current and future fleets.

In these uncertain times, this investment will ensure that the Royal Navy is better placed to meet the challenges it faces, strengthen deterrence, and protect the United Kingdom’s security and interests at home and overseas. The House will be kept informed as these projects progress.

^[1]Some of this funding sits within the nuclear ringfence.

[HCWS236]

Armoured Cavalry Programme

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

I am releasing this statement to the House today to provide Parliament with a further update on the armoured cavalry programme, commonly known as Ajax, following issues raised on Exercise Titan Storm in November 2025.

Since Exercise Titan Storm, there have been a number of reports and investigations undertaken to understand the causes of the issues presented. I can now provide an update on the status of each of these reports and the associated next steps:

Army Safety Investigation Team investigation—as I outlined in my previous statement to the House on 28 Apr 26, the ASIT investigation has concluded, and found that there was no single causal mechanism, but rather a combination of multiple factors. Work is already under way to progress the findings of this investigation.

Defence Accident Investigation Branch investigation—the DAIB undertook initial investigations at the scene in the immediate aftermath of the incident and passed responsibility for the further investigation to ASIT.

A ministerial review was conducted to examine the quality of advice given to Ministers, senior officials and military leadership—I provided an update on this in my statement to the House on 22 Jan 26, and on 28 Apr 26 advised that a further review had been commissioned. This further review will be chaired by Jonathan Simcock and will evaluate the four previous reviews, looking specifically at the events leading up to the declaration of initial operating capability. Jonathan Simcock has significant experience of Government major projects, having led the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, as well as holding a portfolio of non-executive and advisory positions across Government. This review is due to complete by the autumn. I will provide a further update to the House on this review in due course.

Ajax independent expert panel review—I can confirm that this review has now concluded and the findings have been provided to Ministers. The panel comprised 51 independent subject matter experts from defence, science, medicine and industry. The panel agreed with the ASIT report that the platform is safe when operated and maintained within the correct parameters, but noted that further action is required to improve the user experience. The report made 41 recommendations, which are categorised into four groups: technical and maintenance; training considerations; environment, motion sickness and psychological factors; and vibration and noise. All priority recommendations have been agreed in principle and work is under way to align with extant ASIT activity. This will be completed in the summer, including a timetable for resulting actions. We are also considering whether any of the recommendations have broader applicability against other programmes and platforms, as a precautionary measure. I will report back to the House on progress against the recommendations in due course.

The strategic case for Ajax remains extant. The capability is critical to a fully networked, persistent and lethal capability that sits at the heart of the British Army’s recce strike complex.

We have resumed acceptance of the Ajax vehicles, with 16 vehicles accepted. Trials have now restarted and Army training is planned to commence shortly.

The safety of our service personnel remains paramount throughout this process, and we continue to work closely with General Dynamics to deliver the vehicle that provides the world-leading capability they need. I will continue to keep the House closely updated on the progress of the programme.

[HCWS237]

Unpaid Carers: Cross-Government Action Plan

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

The Government are today publishing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers.

This action plan delivers on the Government’s commitment to strengthen support for unpaid carers across England. It sets out a co-ordinated programme of cross-Government activity to improve the visibility of unpaid carers, improve access to support, and ensure caring responsibilities are better recognised across public services and the workplace.

The plan has been developed collaboratively across Government with input from delivery partners. It responds to the need for more joined-up information and advice, improved data sharing between services, and stronger recognition of unpaid carers in workforce planning and service design. It also reflects the diversity of carers’ experiences, including the specific needs of young carers.

The action plan is structured around three core themes: recognise, refer, and reach.

Under the recognise theme, we will improve the identification and visibility of unpaid carers across health, education and employment settings. Key actions include developing “my carer” functionality within the NHS app to support self-identification and care management; improving the identification of young carers in education settings; embedding carer identification within personalised care planning; supporting NHS staff with caring responsibilities; and commissioning further research to better understand barriers to identification and improve data collection and employer support.

Under the refer theme, we will make it easier for carers to access the right support at the right time. This includes developing a cross-Government information and guidance resource bringing together support on finance, employment, health and wellbeing; exploring the use of digital notification systems such as NHS Notify and Diagnosis Connect to support targeted communications; promoting best practice on involving carers in hospital discharge planning; increasing awareness of employment rights and benefits; and improving transitions for young carers moving from children’s to adult services, including through initiatives such as the Local Government Association’s “No Wrong Door” memorandum.

Under the reach theme, we will support unpaid carers to reach their full potential alongside their caring responsibilities. This includes promoting flexible working and supportive workplace practices; reviewing the effectiveness of carer’s leave; supporting small and medium-sized enterprises to better support employees with caring responsibilities; strengthening and promoting carer passports; improving support for young carers in education; and ensuring carers’ needs are reflected across wider health, social care and employment reforms.

The action plan is underpinned by governance and oversight arrangements to ensure clear accountability, regular reporting, and ongoing review. This will support transparency on delivery and allow the plan to evolve in line with wider Government priorities and implementation milestones.

I am grateful to colleagues and officials across Government who have contributed to the development of this action plan, particularly in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Department for Education. I am also grateful to delivery partners for their valuable contributions in shaping this plan. Delivery of this agenda depends on sustained cross-Government collaboration and continued close working with our delivery partners.

[HCWS234]

Quality Strategy for NHS-funded Care in England

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

I am pleased to inform the House of the publication of our new quality strategy for NHS-funded care in England, developed by the National Quality Board, which sets out a clear and ambitious approach to improving the quality of care across the NHS in England, and represents delivery of a key commitment from our 10-year health plan.

The strategy reaffirms that quality must, once again, be the organising principle of the NHS. It sets a clear national objective that high-quality care should be available to everyone, everywhere, regardless of who they are or where they live.

The strategy makes clear that quality is defined across three inseparable and equally important domains: patient safety, clinical effectiveness and patient experience. While patient safety rightly remains the foundation, the strategy marks a renewed and explicit focus on the other domains of quality, so that our efforts drive improvements in outcomes and ensure a consistently high standard of care and experience for all patients.

The need for this renewed focus is clear. Too many people still experience variation in outcomes, fragmented care, and unequal access to high-quality services. The strategy responds directly to these challenges, with a strong emphasis on reducing unwarranted variation and tackling health inequalities across all three domains of quality.

Rather than introducing a new set of policies, the strategy provides a coherent framework for delivery, bringing together existing commitments from the Government’s 10-year health plan. It aligns national priorities and clarifies how improvement will be led, overseen and delivered across the system. It is a call to action for leaders, clinicians and staff across the NHS to treat quality as their primary purpose, to use data transparently, and to adopt value-based approaches that direct resources to the interventions delivering the greatest benefit for patients and communities.

The strategy sets out how the NHS will focus its efforts on the areas where improvements will have the greatest impact on outcomes, experience and value, including major conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and severe mental illness. It also reinforces the importance of improving maternity and neonatal care, patient safety, and the consistent delivery of evidence-based care. The National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce will be taking forward work to improve the safety, effectiveness, and experiences of maternity and neonatal care.

We are also placing a renewed emphasis on transparency, accountability and leadership. Quality must be owned at every level of the system: providers are accountable for the care they deliver, integrated care boards must commission on the basis of quality and population need, and national bodies must provide clear leadership and oversight.

Importantly, the strategy also places the patient voice at its centre, recognising that listening to and working with people and communities is essential to improving services and ensuring care is responsive, person-centred, safe and effective.

Delivery will be supported by a clear set of system enablers, including improved accountability, better use of data, and the wider adoption of innovation and technology. At its heart, quality is underpinned by leadership, culture, and a shared commitment to deliver high standards. The strategy is a clear call to action to collectively create the conditions needed for sustained improvement across all parts of the NHS.

I am pleased to confirm that delivery of the strategy is already under way, with the modern service framework for sepsis also being published today, and the MSF for cardiovascular disease having been published on 7 July. MSFs are intended to support the NHS in providing consistent, high-quality, high-value and equitable care across key clinical pathways. Where appropriate, they will span both health and social care services, including the points where services join up. In addition to the two MSFs already delivered, development is well under way on further MSFs covering severe mental illness, palliative and end-of-life care, frailty and dementia, and children and young people—this is one of the ways we are ensuring that the principles set out in the new quality strategy are translated into practical improvements for patients across the NHS.

[HCWS239]

National Policing Response to Antisemitism

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Recent attacks on our Jewish communities are completely unacceptable. An attack on our Jewish community is an attack on us all, and we must take the safety of our Jewish community very seriously. Jewish people must feel safe and Government will strain every sinew to ensure that is the case.

The rise in antisemitism is a scourge on our society. In the year to March 2025, there were 2,873 religious hate crimes against Jewish people—106 per 10,000 of population—the highest proportion for any group by some distance. In the Community Security Trust’s recent antisemitic incidents report, for the first time ever, the CST recorded over 200 cases of anti-Jewish hate in every calendar month in 2025. Shockingly, the CST also found that the terror attacks in Heaton Park and Bondi Beach triggered immediate spikes in antisemitism, ranging from face-to-face taunting to antisemitic social media posts. The Government have heard loud and clear the experiences of Jewish people in our communities in recent weeks and months.

While tackling this hatred requires a whole of Government response and a whole of society response, the police have an important role to play. This Government have already invested an additional £25 million into policing patrols and protective security to support Jewish communities.

I can also confirm today that we are providing additional funding of £251.1 million for the police to tackle antisemitism in our communities over the next three years. Alongside the investment in protective security, this brings total funding for protecting Jewish communities to £309.5 million.

This will fund:

a recognisable, permanent policing presence in key Jewish communities across the country;

a national surge capacity to ensure all Jewish communities, wherever they live, can be protected;

stronger national co-ordination and specialised capabilities to deliver a consistent approach, with specified funding to deliver antisemitism training for all police officers in England and Wales and a centralised online hate crime investigations hub; and

additional protective security and other capabilities to be deployed by Counter Terrorism Policing, in recognition of the threat from state actors and proxies to Jewish communities.

The majority of British Jews in England and Wales live in London, which has the highest concentration of synagogues and Jewish schools in the country, and this community has faced significant threat in recent months. We are therefore providing £85.8 million to the Metropolitan Police Service to fund around 300 officers to support increased policing in Jewish communities. They will increase specialised capabilities, strengthen intelligence, investigative and co-ordination functions, all of which will allow for better operational deployment in response to specific threats. This is in addition to the £18 million uplift the Government announced in April.

A further £65.9 million will go to forces outside of London with a significant Jewish population to provide a permanent presence in Jewish communities and ensure they are equipped to provide the communities with the support they need. Of this funding, £22.5 million will be provided to Greater Manchester Police to sustain the increase in policing presence in response to the tragic attack in Heaton Park last year. The £43.4 million will be distributed across seven other forces with significant Jewish communities: Hertfordshire, Essex, Northumbria, Sussex, Thames Valley, West Midlands and West Yorkshire.

In recognition of the need to ensure consistency of policing responses to antisemitism across England and Wales, £40.8 million will be provided to support national policing co-ordination and capabilities. Jewish people and communities should feel confident that antisemitic crimes will face the full force of the law wherever they live. We will fund antisemitism training for officers in England and Wales and ensure surge resources are available to all forces to protect Jewish communities, during events or times of increased threat. This is in addition to the £2 million uplift the Government announced in April.

Finally, Counter Terrorism Policing will receive a further £58.6 million over the three-year period to provide further security to vulnerable communities, places and people.

Our Jewish community is an integral part of this country. To be antisemitic is to be anti-British. We will continue to do everything in our power to protect Jewish people, communities and places, and to bring those who seek to cause them harm to justice. This additional funding aims to establish a sustained police presence in Jewish communities, provide a national response to the threat of antisemitism, and most importantly reassure Jewish communities across the country at a time of great fear and concern.

[HCWS246]

Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences: Part Two

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dame Angela Eagle)]

My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint), has today made the following written ministerial statement:

I am pleased to inform the House that the Home Office is today publishing Jonathan Fisher KC’s second and final report from the independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, Fraud in the Digital Age. The report examines the effectiveness of the current fraud framework and the barriers that inhibit the detection, investigation and prosecution of fraud committed against individuals and businesses.

I would like to record my thanks to Jonathan Fisher KC for this significant and authoritative contribution, and for his sustained leadership of the review across both phases. This includes his earlier report, Disclosure in the Digital Age, to which the Government has responded.

Together, the two reports reflect extensive engagement across the criminal justice system, law enforcement, regulatory bodies, academia and the private sector, and provide a comprehensive assessment of how fraud is now perpetrated and how the system should respond.

This second report lays bare the scale and seriousness of the challenge. Fraud now accounts for nearly half of all surveyed crime, making it the most prevalent offence faced by the public, including businesses. It is not a victimless or technical crime: it strikes directly at personal autonomy, causes profound emotional harm to victims, imposes significant costs on businesses and the wider economy, undermines public trust, and poses a growing threat to our national security and economic resilience.

The report identifies a set of structural and systemic factors that have allowed fraud to proliferate. It describes an age-old crime that has been supercharged by digital technology: offenders can operate at scale, at distance and across borders; and the likelihood of detection and prosecution remains low. Lengthy investigations, the growing complexity of digital material, limited specialist capability and fragmented responsibilities have combined to weaken deterrence and to create the perception among criminals that fraud is a low-risk, high-reward activity. The report is clear that the Government must match criminals’ innovation with their own.

Against that backdrop, the report emphasises that enforcement alone will not be sufficient. It makes 47 recommendations which collectively argue for a decisive shift in posture: from a system that is predominantly reactive and post-harm, to one that is proactive, disruptive and preventative. The recommendations are grouped around strengthening upstream disruption; improving public-private partnership and data sharing; increasing corporate accountability; responding to emerging technologies; and ensuring that consequences for fraud and fraud-enabling conduct are swifter, more certain and more visible, in order to increase deterrence and reinforce public confidence.

As set out in the Government’s fraud strategy 2026-29, we are already strengthening the tools available to disrupt fraud earlier and at scale, including through the exploration of civil penalties and international sanctions against high-harm overseas fraud actors. We are expanding international co-operation, sponsoring the Global Fraud summit 2026, to tackle fraud as a transnational threat.

Alongside this, through the Online Safety Act 2023, we are ensuring that tech companies are responsible for preventing fraudulent content and adverts from appearing on their platforms. We are deepening public-private partnerships by launching the online crime centre to disrupt online and volume cyber-fraud at scale, and to make the UK a harder place for criminals to commit fraud.

We are also working to improve the sharing and use of economic crime data, including through a recent call for evidence, and will consider the effectiveness of whistleblower incentivisation as part of the Government’s broader approach to strengthening the detection, prevention and enforcement of economic crime. Trusted reporting channels can play a vital role in surfacing information on fraud, corruption, sanctions evasion and other illicit activity, enabling earlier intervention and more effective disruption.

The report’s recommendations cut across the responsibilities of multiple departments, agencies and sectors. The Government will now consider them carefully and will respond in due course.

Tackling fraud requires sustained collaboration between Government, law enforcement, regulators, industry and civil society. This Government are determined to build momentum in the fight against fraud: to support victims, to pursue those who profit from deception, to strengthen deterrence, and to make the UK a safer place to live, work and do business.

The report is being presented to Parliament today as a Command Paper (CP 1600) and will be available on gov.uk.

[HCWS240]

Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences: Government Response to Part One

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Today the Government publishes “Modernising the Criminal Disclosure Regime”, setting out our response to recommendations made by the independent review of disclosure and fraud offences and the independent review of the criminal courts on the operation of the criminal disclosure regime.

We are grateful to Jonathan Fisher KC for his thorough independent review of disclosure and fraud offences which has been published in two parts. This Government response refers to part one of his independent review: “Disclosure in the Digital Age”. The Government response to part two on fraud offences will be published in due course.

Disclosure is a statutory regime that applies to all criminal proceedings in England and Wales and is central to the right to a fair trial. It governs how material gathered in criminal investigations is recorded, reviewed, retained and shared, ensuring that relevant material capable of assisting the defence or undermining the prosecution is identified and disclosed.

Part one of this review reflects extensive engagement across the system and offers a practical package to raise standards, embracing appropriate technology, strengthening case management with an intensive disclosure regime for the most complex cases, and consolidating guidance and learning so that good practice is embedded consistently.

We also thank Sir Brian Leveson for his work on the independent review of the criminal courts, which included proposals related to disclosure, set out in chapter 5 of part 2 of his independent review. Our response considers Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals, alongside Jonathan Fisher KC’s proposals, which have enabled the Government to evaluate and implement disclosure reform collectively, drawing on the findings of both reviews. The Government’s full response to Sir Brian’s independent review of the criminal courts will be published separately in due course.

The Government response to these recommendations sets out how we will improve the disclosure regime while preserving its core legal safeguards. In summary, it supports the responsible and transparent use of advanced technology to manage large volumes of material more efficiently; strengthens learning, training and consistency across law enforcement and prosecutors; and considers improved court processes, including exploring a pilot of the proposed intensive disclosure regime to support earlier, more focused engagement between the prosecution and defence in the most serious and complex cases.

Taken together, these measures are designed to reduce unnecessary administrative burden on police and prosecutors, improve the speed and accuracy of disclosure, support victims, and uphold the right to a fair trial. This will deliver a disclosure regime that is transparent, modern and fit for the future.

This response has been developed jointly with the Ministry of Justice, owners of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and its code of practice, and the Attorney General’s Office, which owns the Attorney General’s guidelines on disclosure. I am very grateful to the Solicitor General, the Courts Minister and officials across all three Departments for their close collaboration in producing a coherent, system-wide response.

The response is being presented to Parliament today as a Command Paper (CP 1601) and will be available on gov.uk.

[HCWS241]

UK Covid-19 Inquiry: Module 5 Report

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

The chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry has today published the inquiry’s module 5 report, which examined the procurement and distribution of key healthcare equipment and supplies, including personal protective equipment, ventilators, and testing equipment.

The chair finds that the lack of preparation ahead of the covid-19 pandemic meant that the UK’s stockpile of PPE was in a perilous condition, with shortages and expired stock. The chair adds that there were no proper plans for the procurement and distribution of key healthcare equipment in an emergency. Health and social care workers were therefore left without adequate PPE to protect themselves, and those for whom they cared.

The chair acknowledges the logistical challenges of simultaneously obtaining the same supplies as other Governments across the world. Those involved in the emergency procurement of healthcare equipment had to act under pressure with extraordinary speed, and were confronted with unenviable choices.

The inquiry identifies 11 recommendations to ensure that the UK is better prepared ahead of a future healthcare emergency.

I would like to thank Baroness Hallett and her team for their thorough work on this report. The Government will carefully consider the findings and recommendations of the report and respond in due course.

I have laid a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.

[HCWS242]

Revised Telecommunications Security Code of Practice

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital Economy, Baroness Lloyd of Effra.

The Government have today issued the revised telecommunications security code of practice, under sections 105E and 105F of the Communications Act 2003.

The draft revised code of practice was laid before Parliament on 3 June 2026, and the statutory period required under section 105F of the Communications Act 2003 has now ended without either House having resolved not to approve it.

The UK telecoms supply chain review 2019 identified the need to establish an enhanced legislative framework for telecoms security. In response, the Government established a stronger telecoms security framework, which consists of:

The Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021—primary legislation which established new duties on public telecoms providers to prevent security compromises within their networks and services.

The Electronic Communications (Security Measures) Regulations 2022—secondary legislation setting out specific cyber security requirements with which the public telecoms providers must comply.

The Telecommunications Security Code of Practice 2022—technical guidance on how providers can comply with the requirements set out in the regulations.

The UK’s future prosperity rests on the public electronic communications networks and services—PECN and PECS—that provide our telecoms and internet connectivity. It is important therefore that the telecoms security framework keeps pace with the scale of the threat to UK telecoms networks and services, adapting to evolving threats to network security and new innovations in telecoms technology.

This revised code updates some areas of the technical guidance provided within the “Telecommunications Security Code of Practice 2022” to:

Provide further clarity on specific security measures: in response to feedback from providers, the revised code includes updates intended to give clearer direction to support compliance with legal duties in the legislation. This includes clearer guidance on the use of privileged access workstations, approaches to security testing, and the encryption and protection of data.

Reflect evolving technology: since 2022, increased use of certain technologies warrants updated technical guidance to support safe adoption. The revised code includes new security guidance on the secure use of public cloud, automation, and application programming interfaces.

Reflect emerging security threats: recent hostile state linked attacks underline growing risks. Guidance to public telecoms providers must evolve to help ensure providers respond appropriately. The revised code includes updates to reflect the need for providers to take appropriate and proportionate steps to protect their networks against such threats.

The issuing of the revised code represents an important step in ensuring the UK’s telecoms security framework remains robust and effective in the face of rapidly evolving cyber threats and technological change. By providing clearer and more up-to-date technical guidance, the revised code helps telecoms providers to comply with their statutory duties, strengthen the security and resilience of the UK’s public electronic communications networks and services, and protect citizens, businesses, and critical services that rely on them.

[HCWS229]

Equal Pay and Pay Discrimination

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

The Government have today published a consultation on equal pay and pay discrimination.

In our manifesto and plan to make work pay, we committed to strengthening equal pay provisions and eliminating pay discrimination. This is an important milestone in the Government’s wider plan to break down the barriers to opportunity and make work pay for women across the country, address racial inequalities, and champion the rights of disabled people.

The UK’s prosperity and long-term economic growth depend on a national renewal that is grounded in the principles of equality and opportunity. This includes reinforcing our commitment to upholding the fundamental right to equal pay for equal work. This Government’s ambition is to remove barriers to opportunity, provide greater certainty for employers, and reduce the burden on business and the justice system through less protracted litigation.

Concerns have been widely expressed by employers and employees that the existing law on pay equality has become excessively complex, costly, and protracted. With tens of thousands of claims stuck in the system and cases taking a decade or more to resolve, workers are trapped in endless litigation and employers face intractable uncertainty. No one benefits from this.

We know what the problems are: a system that fails to provide the data and tools needed to reliably and efficiently identify discriminatory pay practices; that places too much of the burden for enforcing the law on individuals; that incentivises arguments over minor details of a dispute, multiplying time, stress and expense; and that does not do enough to protect women or others who need it, such as ethnic minority and disabled employees and outsourced workers.

It is therefore crucial that we address the issues raised by workers, businesses, and the justice system, ensuring the pay discrimination framework works effectively for everyone.

This consultation seeks input from stakeholders regarding policy proposals designed to deliver the following commitments:



make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people;

establish an equal pay regulation and enforcement unit with the involvement of trade unions;

ensure that outsourcing of services can no longer be used by employers to avoid paying equal pay.

In addition to these commitments, the consultation seeks input on the proposed introduction of allied pay transparency measures where the evidence shows that these are proportionate and effective in supporting a preventive approach to pay equality.

In April 2025, the Office for Equality and Opportunity launched a call for evidence on equality law which invited feedback on areas of existing equality legislation and possible equality law reform. This included questions on the equal pay commitments outlined above, as well as possible related pay transparency measures. The responses received, as well as Government-commissioned research on the socio-legal and lived experience impacts of the equal pay scheme, demonstrate a need for serious reform of the current system before broadening protections to address inconsistencies in the law.

That is why we are consulting on a phased and future-facing approach to reform which commits to fixing the system first, before broadening protections to ethnic minority, disabled and outsourced workers. In doing so, we would seek to protect employers from unforeseen liabilities for historic practices. We want to get this right, working in partnership with businesses, civil society and trade unions to make sure that our reforms account for all parties’ needs and circumstances. We also invite views from stakeholders on whether they think there are alternative ways to achieve our objectives. The launch of this consultation will inform how we can change the law for the better.

Specifically, the consultation includes proposed measures designed to proactively prevent pay discrimination, ensure enforcement agencies are empowered to drive good practice, and simplify the resolution of disputes when they arise. It also includes proposed measures to address gaps and inconsistencies affecting ethnic minority and disabled employees and outsourced workers. These measures are intentionally proportionate, prioritising targeted action that minimises administrative burdens and simplifies compliance.

As a result, these measures will support the Government’s ambition to remove barriers to opportunity, make work pay, provide greater certainty for employers, and reduce the burden on business and the justice system through less protracted litigation.

The consultation will be open for 15 weeks. In connection with the above, my Department has made the following documents available on gov.uk:

An independent analysis of the responses to the pay discrimination sections of the call for evidence on equality law, undertaken by an external contractor.

Independent research commissioned by OEO.

I will also deposit a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS243]

Office for Nuclear Regulation: Annual Report and Accounts 2025-26

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

The Office for Nuclear Regulation’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2025/26” is being laid today. This document will also be published on the ONR website.

I can confirm, in accordance with paragraph 25(3) of schedule 7 to the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published document on the grounds of national security.

[HCWS230]