Commons Chamber

Tuesday 14th July 2026

(began 1 week, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
None Portrait Q12. What progress his Department has made on ensuring that incidental findings from the Lung Cancer Screening Programme are followed up. (901005)
-

OK. So say. Exercise those days. He's getting good. >> Mr Speaker sorry. >> It's Tuesday. >> From the football. Who's dealing done.
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:42
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a total humiliation and embarrassment for the government. Yesterday, they published an emergency change to government business in order to ram the Hillsborough law through this House with no notice and an absolute minimum of scrutiny. Now they have backtracked again on their own business and cancel the opposition day, which they themselves had scheduled. Now, why is that, Mr. Speaker? Let me read the motion that caused so much consternation in the whips office and in number ten, that this House calls on the government to bring forward a motion to change the date.

It adjourns to Monday, 20th of July to enable the new Prime Minister to make a statement about his plans

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for government. Hear, hear. In other words, the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In other words, the government changed the business. It refused even to delay the activity of this even to delay the activity of this House by one day in order to permit the Prime Minister, as he will be, the Prime Minister, as he will be, to take a statement and to answer questions as to his intentions and plans. The government has a majority of more than 150, Mr. Speaker, and it could not trust its MPs to vote the right way on that motion, and it could not bear the idea of a new Prime Minister facing any scrutiny before September.

A Prime Minister, let me remind us all who has been chosen by a coronation, not a contest with no known platform, almost no known policies and no idea of his priorities or indeed his Cabinet team. They pushed us, Mr. Speaker, to take an opposition day tomorrow. They cannot bear the scrutiny, and now they are cancelling it. And to do so hiding under the, I'm afraid, thoroughly distastefully under the news, the very distressing news that's happening in Iran, when they could have when they could have framed a statement today from a Minister or tomorrow on this issue is, I think, completely disreputable.

They are not even cancelling it, Mr. Speaker, for legislation. They could have kept the Representation of the People Act. They're cancelling it for a general debate with no votes. Mr. speaker, it's the worst possible exit for a Prime Minister. The desperate attempt to create a legacy, as though this could alter two solid years of failure. And it is the worst possible start for a new Prime Minister. People across this country will see what has happened, and they will conclude that this is a man who is running scared of public scrutiny, running scared of public scrutiny before he can even take office.
12:45
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may introduce some facts into the introduce some facts into the situation, I do, first of all, appreciate the frustration of members when businesses change at short notice and debates are short notice and debates are postponed, but members will appreciate the importance of the House being able to discuss the escalating and fast moving situation situation in the Middle East before the recess. I think the right hon. Gentleman of whom I. He knows I hold in high regard.

May may want to take away the word distasteful and just have another. Think about that, Mr. Speaker, because what is distasteful is the crisis which is erupting once again in the Middle East and the the the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to update the House and for members to give their views on this matter at the earliest opportunity. He reads out, Mr. Speaker, a motion which he tells us was to be tabled, to be tabled for tomorrow. I have to say, it's the first I've heard of the words of a motion because no such, no such.

No, Mr. Speaker, no such motion was tabled for the opposition tomorrow. It was not tabled for tomorrow. We did not see the words of the motion. A decision was made on whether or not the House should debate an unfolding international crisis or not. He talks about what might or might not happen on Monday. He had the opportunity yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to raise the question of whether or not the future Prime Minister comes to the House on Monday. Others did.

He didn't. He didn't raise that issue. He he did. He did not raise. He might. Yes, yes, he might have. He he might have raised it in the Daily Mail. But he didn't raise it. He didn't raise it. He didn't raise it. Mr. speaker, in the business statement yesterday. Unlike others across the House, he didn't do it. And as for his suggestion that there should be a statement tomorrow, I would remind him that if the business if the business was as he's asking it to be tomorrow, there would be no statement.

You don't you don't you don't you don't have you do not have statements on opposition days.
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:24
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
Switzerland agreement. But in keeping with many FTAs of that era, it was primarily focussed on trading goods. This, by contrast, is the most significant trade agreement for services that the UK has concluded so far, including the UK's most ambitious digital chapter and most comprehensive business travel commitments in an FTA, along with high ambition outcomes across services and investment. It especially plays to our strengths as a pre-eminent services superpower. It includes some of the strongest services commitments we've ever secured, while creating opportunities in the eight core growth sectors of our industrial strategy, including financial and professional services, life sciences and digital technologies.

Our trade strategy, published one year ago, underscored what everyone with an eye on trade already knew that our services sectors are the most powerful engine of our growth and prosperity, and that it was high time to put services trade out of the margins of trade discussions. And 83% of UK workers are employed in services from regional employers such as capital law. In Cardiff, the Edinburgh founded Skyscanner to large firms with multiple offices across the UK, like Julius Baer, with the regional office in Newcastle, KPMG with offices in Leeds and elsewhere to thousands of smaller firms across the country.

We have worked hard to ensure that this deal really works for them. Switzerland is already the UK's sixth largest services export market. Bilateral services trade was worth more than £30 billion last year, and this agreement is estimated to increase UK services exports to Switzerland by £5.2 billion annually in the long run, whilst supporting jobs across the UK, including the 1170 1400 already supported by exports to Switzerland. On top of this, we know Swiss owned businesses employed around 150,000 people in the UK in 2024, and bilateral foreign direct investment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stood at £87 billion at the end of 2024. The. Agreement we have reached. Ensures that. Job creation and investment will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Job creation and investment will continue to grow as our bilateral trade grows. The UK and Switzerland have agreed that future improvements to access in certain sectors are locked in. This is the first time Switzerland has agreed to adopt this approach. This gives to adopt this approach. This gives UK firms a more stable business environment and greater to plan and environment and greater to plan and invest. The agreement permanently protects the rights of UK lawyers, for instance, to advise on foreign and international law in Switzerland without requalifying.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this includes the most comprehensive digital chapter Switzerland has agreed to in an FTA. Over 70% of UK Swiss services trade is delivered digitally and so it was absolutely critical to us that we laid out provisions that supported the free flow of data while ensuring privacy remained protected, and I am glad to say we have been successful. Our digital chapter modernises the digital trading environment through commitments on electronic contracts, signatures and invoicing, prevents customs duties on electronic transmissions and restricts unjustified data localisation requirements, all of which will make digital trade easier and more appealing for businesses, whether they are based in Birmingham or in Bern.

This FTA locks in the commitments of the UK Swiss Services Mobility Agreement that was due to expire in 2029, protecting an estimated £700 million in UK services exports and allowing British professionals to supply services in Switzerland for up to 90 days each year without a work permit. I should add that this is the first UK FTA to cover Gibraltar from day one, ensuring Gibraltar's business people will continue to be able to supply services to Switzerland for up to 90 days a year without a permit.

But perhaps the real power in this agreement, Mr. Speaker, is the statement of intent for future cooperation between our two nations. We know, for example, that the UK and Switzerland are global leaders in life sciences. It is in both our nation's interests for our best and brightest, to be able to work together, which is why we've included ironclad intellectual property and data protection provisions. The outcomes of the deal will supply, will support the discovery and development of new medicines, and it does not change UK legislation or practice maintaining the existing balance between supporting pharmaceutical innovation and the NHS.

Access to lower cost generic medicines. The generics and biosimilar industry support this deal, and have said that it safeguards the NHS access to affordable generic medicines. As another example, the agreement establishes an innovation working group bringing together business, academia and government with the goal of finding the biggest opportunities and challenges facing our generation. The group is designed to keep pace with emerging technologies and global conditions, keeping our agreement focussed on the future and helping both the UK and Switzerland stay on the front foot in an ever changing world.

To that end, the agreement also strengthens our cooperation on climate change development and gender equality. This, Mr. Speaker, is an FTA that is designed to evolve, survive and thrive over the long term. One of the key asks of UK businesses was to improve business mobility alongside the FTA. Switzerland have announced that UK nationals will soon be able to use E-gates at Swiss borders, in line with Schengen requirements. They will be able to exit via E-gates at Zurich Airport from as soon as the end of this year, and Switzerland is also working towards allowing entry via E-gates, particularly at Zurich, Geneva and Basel airports, and will set out a timetable very shortly.

The agreement will benefit all nations and regions of the UK. It will support services firms from major financial and professional services employers in London and Leeds to specialist SMEs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. My department's focus now is preparing the treaty for signature and implementation, and we will, of course, update the House as soon as this can happen. I am immensely grateful to my counterpart for our Edward Argar, with whom I had direct several assertive conversations. That's an understatement. And to my officials, especially Rob Whiteway and James Clark and Georgia Taylor from my private office, Mr.

speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, when it comes to trade, the primary role of government is to pave the way for UK businesses by taking down barriers that prevent them from exporting their goods and services around the world. Of course, we also have to protect key sectors and we will never compromise on animal welfare or food standards just to get a deal. This last year, this government has made good on that responsibility. We secured the best deal with the USA of any country in the world.

We took the India deal from signature to entry into force tomorrow in record time, we secured a significant upgrade to our deal with the Republic of Korea. We concluded an agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council worth £3.7 billion. We started discussions with China about a services agreement. We secured ratification of our membership of the Cptpp with Canada and Mexico and started accession talks with Uruguay, the UAE, the Philippines and Indonesia. And we are pursuing a new strategic partnership with the European Union.

These deals are all about building a stronger and more resilient UK economy. They will be felt up and down the land in enhanced job prospects and better pay, and I was delighted to mark the conclusion of negotiations at KPMG with some of the graduates and apprentices. There are decisive actions are helping make a difference to young people's lives as they build their careers. They also proved that free trade can deliver the goods for British goods, for British jobs and livelihoods, that the rules based order is still in fine fettle, and that free and fair trade can enhance our lives.

But in the end, Madam Deputy Speaker, an FTA is just a piece of paper. Unless businesses seize the opportunities it affords them, we will play our part in informing and supporting businesses to do that. But it's British entrepreneurs, risk takers, innovators and dealmakers who will be the real heroes, real heroes of this era of UK trade. For all those reasons, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
13:32
Andrew Griffith Portrait Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
-
-
I call the Shadow Secretary of State, Andrew Griffiths. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We conservatives warmly welcome this excellent agreement and congratulate the Ministers and officials that delivered it. I was. I was pleased as City Minister to have been part of the team behind the forerunner. Burn burn, burn. If he'd listen for a moment, the burn financial services agreement with Switzerland, which was signed by the then Chancellor, hunt.

That was one of our first ever post-Brexit agreements based on mutual recognition of each country's regimes and conservative Ministers, such as the Member for Saffron Walden and the Member for Droitwich and Evesham, were involved in the commencement of the planning for this negotiation. The benefits of this deal are what taking back control looks like in practice. British lawyers advising in Zurich without requalifying. British firms winning contracts at an EU customs union would have blocked. And British travellers enjoying e-gate access and lower roaming tariffs.

And, as the Minister said, it joins a growing number of such deals, including our accession to the Cptpp, agreements with Australia, New Zealand, the Gulf, India and the United States. Britain once again charting its way in the world, engaging directly with the leading or fastest growing economies on the planet. Britain could only strike this deal today because of our independent trade policy. Without that, the government could never have launched the consultation this morning on deepening its trade relationships with Indonesia, the Philippines, the UAE and Uruguay all countries with whom the UK should seek closer ties.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the next conservative government will go further and faster on trade. We support deeper trade agreements with the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Following the recent agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council, and we will seek a trade agreement with Mercosur. We will boost, rather than cut the number of Department of Trade boots on the ground in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We will reintroduce a revised investment visa for those seeking to create wealth and jobs here in the UK and as part of a trade first culture change in the Foreign Office.

The shadow Foreign Secretary and I have agreed to make ambassador appointments from leaders in business, the city and former Lord Mayors of London. I would, however, gently point out just one glaring omission in the Minister's otherwise very positive statement about this excellent enhanced Swiss free trade agreement of nearly 1400 words. He didn't mention the words Brexit benefit once, and that is a curious insight, since this deal only exists since and because we left the European Union, a nation inside the customs union.

Cannot, Madam Deputy Speaker, cut its tariffs on sparkling wine. Cannot win tariff free access for British lamb. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications or secure. Better access to Swiss public procurement. So finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to hearing the unabashed welcome for the benefits which will flow to his Maidenhead constituents from the Liberal Democrat spokesman. Had his party's policy been in force. This agreement could not have been struck at all. They are settled. Ambition is to march Britain straight back into a customs union, turning Britain back into a rule taking vassal state with none of the freedoms, for example, that the Canadian Parliament enjoys.

Every benefit that the Minister has just described to this House. His cheerleaders on those benches would have legislated away. So we warmly welcome this deal. No ifs, no buts. A win for Britain, a win for growth and a win for friendship between our two great nations. I've been very generous in praising the government today, and I hope that on what I hope it's not, but on what may be his final outing, I hope the Minister may reciprocate by being honest with the country about why it was possible.

So just one question, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the interest of time. It's a yes or no answer that will suffice. Will the Minister agree that, as a point of fact, it was only Brexit that made this agreement achievable? Thank you very much, madam. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's an enormous delight to put a smile on the hon.
13:37
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
Gentleman's face. I mean, it's such a rare outing to see a smile on his face that I feel my job is done, my work is done. My my legacy will be a smile on the hon. Gentleman's a smile on the hon. Gentleman's face. And it was nice that he actually congratulated us. I think that's what he was doing. He said that it was without any condition, that it was without any condition, but then he sort of said, well, really it was they who started all of this business.

It's exactly what of this business. It's exactly what he said about the GCC deal earlier on this year. He said, oh really? All the work was done by them. But to be honest, it's not where you start, it's where you finish and it's actually getting it over the line. That is the difficult bit. I was standing in Hyde Park, I think ten days ago at a Duran Duran concert when when wild boys calm down. When I rang me and she wondered what was going on in the background, it was actually the Scissor Sisters who were the act on beforehand.

And I was just thinking, I don't know whether we want to dance or not, because we weren't able to get all of this deal over the line yet. The truth of the matter is that the last two weeks are nearly always the most difficult bit. Sometimes it's a degree of negotiating between different departments in government, and I'm enormously grateful to all my other colleagues in government who've made this possible, to get this to the place where we are now. And indeed, I don't want to exaggerate.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't think you're meant to take part in the conversation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I or or repeat, but this may be as significant, the most significant moment of UK, Switzerland iconic moment as when Sean Connery and Ursula Andress met one another in Doctor No back in 1962. And no exaggeration at all of any kind. Look, I am worried about the one one thing he said earlier about how he's going to appoint ambassadors. I would just say that the appointing of ambassadors in unusual circumstances hasn't gone very well for this government.

And I and I wouldn't urge him to do it himself. And then just this issue about Brexit dividend. I didn't use the term Brexit dividend. It is factually accurate that we wouldn't have been able to have had these negotiations if we if we were still if we were still in the European Union. That is factually accurate, however, and of course, I'm 100% up for exploiting every opportunity that we have. And that is precisely what we're doing, which is why I think we've we've had a pretty good record.

Most of the FTAs that were agreed by the previous government were basically cut and paste ones from EU ones. They were cut and pasted into UK legislation, whereas we are making things that are a bit more bespoke. It's great to see the European Union following suit, for instance, in India. And he makes a very fair point about Mercosur. I would like us to be able to start that process fairly soon. I think that that will be a matter for the new team, whoever they may be, in a week's time.

And but but I would just say to him that the losses that we have occurred by virtue of leaving the European Union are very, very dramatic. And the single most important trade deal that we could do at the moment would be with the European Union, not just to sort out space, but to provide what he used to promise day in, day out, which was frictionless trade with the European Union, our single biggest trading partner. And that's precisely what we have to secure. Byrne.
13:40
13:41
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful to the chair of the Select Committee, who I look forward to seeing later today and forward to seeing later today and then again tomorrow in two different sessions. He's absolutely right that this is a very important deal. And of course, it's not just done by the politicians involved, the teams both in our embassy in Switzerland and in our in our respective departments. And I would include other departments as well, such as the Home Office, DESNZ and DEFRA and so on.

It's all part of the team that gets a deal over the line. And he makes an important, important point about intellectual property. Of course, intellectual property is frequently now a key part of any FTA, because you want to look at how you can make sure you're protecting UK IP. We are an IP superpower, and that's a key part of any of our services negotiation and certainly digital trade as well. And I can confirm that this is this this deal will do no harm to either the NHS.

Far from it. It will mean that our life sciences industry, working closely with Swiss life, life services, life sciences, industry and pharmaceuticals will be able to deliver not only groundbreaking new drugs more quickly to NHS patients, but also generics as well. And I'm not worried in any shape or form about the the some of the anxieties that have been raised by some campaigning groups. I think that they have taken some they have abstracted from a couple of figures and ended up with the worst possible estimation of what might happen.

And I think that they that that fear is misguided.
13:43
Joshua Reynolds Portrait Mr Joshua Reynolds MP (Maidenhead, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Democrat spokesperson Joshua Reynolds. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, Liberal Democrats want a closer, more sensible relationship with our sensible relationship with our European friends and neighbours. So there is plenty to welcome here, and I would like to congratulate the Minister and his team for being able to secure some of the things that we see today scrapping the mobile roaming charges, obviously, which had to be changed when we left the European Union, will significantly boost support for consumers and the small businesses who do trade across Europe.

I know that the Minister is aware about the European Union and how our biggest single trading partner when it comes to services, 37% of our services trade is European Union. And so repairing our relationship with the European Union would be the biggest single thing that we could do to boost trade in our financial and our professional services. And I know the Minister agrees with this. When he was in front of the Select Committee recently, he told colleagues that he, if he had his choice, would rejoin the European Union.

So it is. It is disappointing that the government has not moved more when it comes to the European Union and followed the Liberal Democrats plan for Defence and Growth partnership, cutting the red tape and the barriers that British business face because, according to the UK, since 2019, exports of financial services has declined 5.9%, at least in part due to Brexit frictions. Madam Deputy Speaker I would, however, like to ask the Minister specific question in relation to E-gates. We welcome the news about the changes to E-gates, but can the Minister tell the House, when our constituents can expect the same clarity and certainty for airports across the European Union, given the serious risks, disruption with the entry and exit systems so that we can really make a positive change.
13:44
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
Now, you see, he's always got a smile on his face every single day smile on his face every single day of the week. And I think sometimes the way he's managing to keep it going for at least half an hour now, going for at least half an hour now, so that's a good thing. Look, the honest truth is we, I think, all want to achieve the same thing, which is we want to be able to increase our trade in services and goods across the European Union.

We want to. And it is, I think, a shocking sadness that 16,000 businesses in the UK have stopped exporting into the European Union. The figures for last year are actually slightly different from the figures that he gave. So our services exports into the European Union rose by 7% and. But our goods exports into Europe fell. And he, like many other members, I think, will have had concerns expressed from people who who export small goods, who are suddenly facing an additional charge, which they didn't have to previously, because the de minimis rules being changed, also being changed by the United States of America, of course.

So, look, I want to achieve as frictionless trade as is possible with the European Union, and I will strive to do so as as fast as we possibly can. I don't have personal responsibility for e-gates across the whole of Europe, so he he can't hold me to account, I'm afraid, on that particular issue. But in relation to Switzerland, it's not. It's not as simple in Switzerland as it might be in some other countries, because some of these issues lie with cantonal governments and.

But I've worked very closely with her, and she's made a lot of headway in trying to get us to a place where British businesses, British business, folk and others will be able to use E-gates and both in and out in the very near future. And he's quite right to raise the issue around roaming. It's another issue where we need to kind of finalise the details over the next few months, because it requires some changes in in Switzerland in particular. But we have a very strong commitment that we're going to achieve that.

I think most British people who travel to Switzerland will be very, very clear, will be very happy to see that.
13:46
13:47
13:48
13:48
13:49
13:50
13:51
13:51
13:52
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:54
13:55
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
Well, one of the great things about Northern Ireland, of course, is it gets the double benefit of is it gets the double benefit of being in the single market and being in the in the UK's single being in the in the UK's single market. And and that has undoubted benefits. If I just point to one tiny area where, having left the European Union has produced an enormous headache for us this year, it is in relation to steel. It seems bizarre in the end that the UK and Europe, who are not one another's problem for steel production.

Other countries in the world are where there is overproduction and unfair subsidy are that we should have to negotiate and access between one another. It would make much more sense if we were able to achieve some kind of shared deal. Madam Deputy Speaker, since this is perhaps my last appearance as Minister for trade, who knows? Well, who knows? Anyway, I just want to thank my private office because I think every single Minister would know that their private office is the only way that you ever get anything done.

So I want to say an enormous thank you to, to all of everybody in my team. So to Alicia, to Josh and Josh, there are two Joshes senior and junior to Lola, to Georgia and to Tariq and enormous. Thank you. I would we wouldn't have got any of these deals over the line if it hadn't been for them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If that is the end of the statement on UK, Switzerland and Enhanced Free Trade Agreement. If the front bench wish to shuffle the front bench wish to shuffle over, they should do so now. We come to the presentation of bills come to the presentation of bills presentation of Bill Katie Lam.
14:00
14:00
14:01
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and to provide that the sovereign, the Royal Family, the Royal Household, the Royal Archives and the Duchess of Cornwall and Lancaster are public authorities for the purposes of that act and for connected purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to be Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to be given the chance to introduce this Bill alongside cross-party colleagues, and I am very grateful for the breadth of support across for the breadth of support across so many parties in this House for the measures it contains.

It shows how much members of this House recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in public office. Madam Deputy Speaker, today the people of France celebrate Bastille Day 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'd 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 she couldn't be their friend anymore. However, 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 this were up to. To be clear, at this stage, I don't think 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 from the public, from the General Committee of the Labour International CLP and from the National Union of Journalists. Madam Deputy Speaker, to me, the two questions we must ask in connection with the Royal Family and freedom of information are under our Constitution, which needs modernising in so many ways.

Are the Royal family public servants or not? And if they are, is it reasonable for one set of public servants to have such a blanket exemption from the rules 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 was built in the spirit, but despite meeting the criteria of a public body, despite the royal family unarguably being public servants, the monarchy has its own special exemption carved out in the Freedom of Information Act itself.

Can this in any way be right? Madam Deputy Speaker, some of my honourable and right honourable colleagues may be concerned that this Bill is not perfectly reasonable in what it will ask for, but I can assure them it is providing the bare minimum of accountability to the Royal Family, closing loopholes, loopholes which I think we can all agree should not be carved out just for members of one privileged lineage. The bill I propose will start with section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This section gives a more or less blanket exemption to communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family, not just the King. This too often prevents these communications from being released and of freedom of information requests to other public authorities in practice. Practice. The section 37 exemption has meant perfectly reasonable questions about trips on the RAF's royal flight have been refused, including who flew with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor when he was not only a member of the royal family, but also employed as our trade envoy.

We now have a former Prime Minister pressing for information about whether Andrew used taxpayer funded jets or RAF bases to meet with the paedophile and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein. And there are countless other questions along these lines that should have been answered long ago. Andrew Lownie, the biographer of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has seen the exemption at work time and time 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. All this really is one arbitrary and absurd rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us. And therefore my bill will remove section 37 from the Freedom of Information Act completely. Madam Deputy Speaker, in its second part, my Bill will also add a number of relevant institutions to the list of public authorities in the act. That is because none of the main royal institutions are currently listed in the Act, and so cannot even have any Freedom of information requests made to them directly.

My bill proposes to fix that by adding the Royal Family, the Royal Household, the Royal Archive and the ex officio Royal Duchess of Cornwall and Lancaster to the list of public authorities covered by the act, we should be able to ask questions to these. Undoubtedly public authorities listed currently in the Act schedule. Our institutions, including the Advisory Board on the registration of Homeopathic 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 who owe us the Nolan duty of openness in exchange for our funding, patronage and respect. And so should this family. To all the usual exemptions would still apply relating to junior staff, for example, and national security. 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 archive, and why this must be included in the schedule to the act under the Public Records Act 1958, UK government departments must identify records of historic interest and release all possible content to the national archive. Many closed government records have been made public this way through the 30 year. Now the 20 year rule MI5 now declassifies and releases historical records to the National Archive after 50 years.

But the Royal Family operates with no such rule around its own archive. The Royal Archive operates broadly reign by reign. But even nearly four years after the death of the late Queen Elizabeth the Second, still no historic records since 1952 can currently be accessed there, and even when records are unlocked within the archive, 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 in the Freedom of Information Act, history should not be curated, but the preservation of royal image, even many years after 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, this sounds like a bill only for Republicans, but monarchists, I believe, should be its most fervent supporters. No one has damaged the reputation of the monarchy in this country and abroad more than Drew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was able to carry on his nefarious activities in the comfort of knowing 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 preventative. If he had had to be open, would he have been as bad? We will never know. I therefore ask this House for leave to present

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As may I say, I may say I of Bill. As may I say, I may say I of the country, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and bring in the bill? Ian Byrne. Rachael Maskell. Tom Gordon. Pete Wishart. Kirsty Gordon. Pete Wishart. Kirsty Blackman. Claire Hanna. Jeremy Corbyn. Ellie Chowns. Hannah Spencer, Liz, David Davis and myself. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Lavery, if you. Marvellous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Freedom Freedom of Freedom of Information Freedom of Information Act Freedom of Information Act 2000. Amendment bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment bill. Second Reading. What day? Friday the 13th of November.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 13th of November. Friday the 13th of November. The clerk will now proceed to be the order of the day. Public Office Accountability

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Public Office Accountability Bill, as amended in Committee to be considered. Now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will begin with government new clause eight, with which it will be convenient to consider will be convenient to consider other new clauses and amendments as listed on the Selection Paper. In the circumstances following the the circumstances following the late change to today's business, Mr. Speaker has selected amendments tabled after what would have been tabled after what would have been the usual deadline. I call the Minister to move new clause eight

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Madam Deputy Speaker. It is.
14:11
14:12
Catherine Atkinson Portrait Catherine Atkinson MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Derby North, Labour)
-
-
and families not against them. For and families not against them. For too long, that has not been the experience for too many people in experience for too many people in this country. Bereaved and traumatised, families forced into traumatised, families forced into exhausting, heartbreaking battles to uncover the truth. Institutions 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 they needed its support most.

This bill seeks to put an end to that. It will drive the culture change this country so desperately needs, so that when public bodies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fail, the response is candour, not cover up. The hon. Lady. I am going to make some progress,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am going to make some progress, but I absolutely will give way. Because it is absolutely essential Because it is absolutely essential that there is accountability, not denial. And so those affected get denial. And so those affected get the support they need, not obstruction. Madam Deputy Speaker, obstruction. Madam Deputy Speaker, we often refer to this bill as the Hillsborough Law, and without the determination of the Hillsborough families, we would not be debating this legislation today. A determination driven by the selfless belief that no other families should ever go through the ordeal that they have suffered again.

But their story is sadly 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. This bill began with the Hillsborough families, but in the last decade, their fight has become a movement, a coalition of families and campaigns, and those searching for the truth. This bill belongs to every one of them, and I am sure 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, many other campaign groups and many, many other individual cases that fall outside of those campaigns. I'm just going to make some progress and then I will take interventions. Many have graciously and often at huge personal and emotional cost, shared their experiences with us to shape this bill, the changes it brings forward are so needed, and it is down to their campaigning, their perseverance, and their willingness to work with us to find solutions that this bill is back before the House today.

And it is not only this House, but this country that owes them a debt of gratitude. I know that some of them are in the gallery with us today. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I turn to the government amendments, I must also pay tribute to the work of my predecessor, the hon. Friend, the Member for Pontypridd. I was on the bill committee and I know how hard she has worked to get us here to this point. I would also like to 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 this bill back before the House today.

Madam Deputy Speaker, from the start, we have been clear that this is a bill for the families, and that means listening to their views, ensuring the legislation delivers, and that it has their confidence. And it was in that spirit that the Manchester Arena families, their concerns that they raise the duty of candour and how it would apply to the intelligence services. And I want to thank them for doing so. It is absolutely right that when a concern is raised, we pause, take stock and, where necessary, change course.

It has not been easy and it has taken some time, but we had to get it right and assess all possible implications and unintended risks in how the duty would work in practice. And I thank Pete Weatherby KC, the Intelligence and Security Committee, and experts across our National Security Committee, campaigners and members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of both houses. I will give way. I am proud.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am proud. To have sponsored the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby. Original proposal and I salute the Original proposal and I salute the survivors and the victims families, and I am glad that the UK government has listened to them, that this bill reflects the level that this bill reflects the level of accountability required from our public authorities. My party, Plaid Cymru, stands in solidarity with the Hillsborough families and other the Hillsborough families and other families in their long campaign for justice.

Considering the Labour government's reset next week, could she 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?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know this is a highly sensitive debate, but interventions sensitive debate, but interventions must be intervention short and to the point. There are lots of colleagues that want to get into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the debate today. Minister Atkinson. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and she does have my assurance that we are absolutely assurance that we are absolutely clear that this bill needs to apply across the United Kingdom and therefore are working with devolved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nations to make sure that that happens. I will give way. For the Minister. Is making a very passionate and important speech about a long overdue piece of legislation. Freddie Scappaticci was the agent known as Stakeknife within the IRA. He was involved in lots of murders during his time, but the government has yet to unmask him as scappaticci. Would this bill do that? Would have put an end to the ridiculous position that we're in. And would it have stopped MI5 doing everything in their power to prevent the public finding out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about his crimes? Yes, Atkinson. I thank my hon. Friend for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. And we are seeking a full culture change so that we are not looking at we are trying to prevent any kind of attitude to cover things up. But I'm very happy to meet with my hon. Friend further to meet with my hon. Friend further to discuss the specific case that to discuss the specific case that he relates. The. It is absolutely essential and all of the work that has been undertaken has enabled us to find a solution that provides full application of the duty while protecting national security.

The. I'm going to make some progress and then I will take interventions again. The amendments before the House today ensure that the duty of candour and assistance applies to all intelligence officers. Individual intelligence officers, while establishing secure procedures for the disclosure of sensitive information. First, relating to compliance directions, which the Bill as introduced, did not allow to be issued to individual intelligence officers, but instead to the organisation they work for, leading to some concerns that this amounted to effectively a carve out for the intelligence services.

Our amendments now allow compliance directions to be issued to individual intelligence officers, so the duty applies consistently across the public sector. Secondly, the amendments established secure models for sensitive national information to be disclosed. The government's objective has always been clear where information can be disclosed. It should be disclosed, while ensuring that proper protections are in place, and we have therefore adopted the approach proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby, which is to apply existing safeguards to the new provisions when individual working for 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, and existing arrangements for secure inquiries remain available and established practices like the use of security vetted counsel can continue. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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.

Madam Deputy Speaker, while the government supports removing that exemption, nothing in this bill or its practical effect changes our position that national security or the safety of our citizens and public servants must never be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

compromised. I will give way. Really grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Really grateful. To the Minister for giving way. On the matter. Of safety of our citizens. I have been contacted over the last have been contacted over the last couple of years by the family of Major Anthony Formby MBE, who was a victim of the Chinook crash, and it's only today that the MoD are in it's only today that the MoD are in the High Court fighting for them to not have the rights under the duty of candour. Will the Minister step in and ensure that the victims of the Chinook crash are also given the same dignity and respect, with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their case to come under a full public investigation? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. Her intervention, and I'm very happy to meet with her and I'm very happy to meet with her and others, specifically in relation to the Ministry of Defence, and to give reassurance around how this can work and how it will be work worked but done safely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

worked but done safely. The Honourable Minister give way on the point of duty of candour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If it's specifically in relation to security services and to security at the moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Duty of candour. I'll. I think if I can just wait, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Minister. Minister. Minister. I'm on my feet. Minister. Mr. I wish to take an intervention and wish to take an intervention and then do so, or you don't. Please don't continue conversation when members are seated. OK, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. It is important to stress that nothing in this bill or its practical effect changes our position in relation to national security. Many in our public services work in sensitive roles where revealing their identity could put them at risk 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 for 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 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, and the explanatory notes will clarify that it would not be considered reasonably reasonably practicable if that meant a person is at risk of harm in making that notification.

In those rare circumstances, the official must contact their current or former employee 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 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, and it will explain what individuals should do and make 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 eight includes them in the list of relevant public authorities for the purpose of clause six.

We have also made several amendments to ensure the compliance directions operate as intended, and the explanatory notes for schedule one. Clarify that directions should only be made 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 two to make 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 one 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, where 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.

Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 investigative investigatory bodies, and I can confirm that that will extend the duty to investigations into police misconduct, serious healthcare incidents like major maternity reviews such as the Leeds and Sussex Maternity Services review, serious health and safety investigation investigations and key ombudsman investigations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transforming the ability of these investigations to get to the truth. Will the Minister give way. On that? I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that? I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving way, and I pay tribute to everyone Who's pushed and cajoled the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who's pushed and cajoled the government for us to get to this stage. I just wanted to ask the Minister mentioned secondary legislation and looking at that, legislation and looking at that, one of the key areas mentioned in both the Grenfell inquiry from Grenfell United and Justice for Grenfell was around a oversight mechanism to make sure that essentially the government are not marking their own homework when it comes to the recommendation from public inquiries. Will that be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

included in the in the consultation going forward? Mr. Atkinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Atkinson. It is absolutely right that recommendations are tracked and that we ensure that there is a very that we ensure that there is a very clear way of, of of giving everyone confidence that recommendations will be implemented. And I know that the Cabinet Office is doing that the Cabinet Office is doing significant piece of work to ensure that that is put in place. But I and I know that the Cabinet Office and I know that the Cabinet Office will also be happy to meet with my hon.

Friend to be able to share with her the work that is happening, both in relation to recommendations from inquiries, but also in relation to the prevention of relation to the prevention of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future deaths in inquests. I will give way. That she mentioned and responded where she has on the national where she has on the national oversight mechanism. But if this is to have a teeth, if it is to deal to have a teeth, if it is to deal with both inquiries and inquests, do we not need a separate public body to do that? It's a substantial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

body to do that? It's a substantial piece of work. Thank you sir. I thank my hon. Friend for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and the government has already taken steps to improve transparency in response to inquiry recommendations, including launching the new gov.uk dashboards, which demonstrate progress to deliver accepted inquiry recommendations. But the Public and 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. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I've given the government way. I've given the government evidence that hundreds of Send children are avoidably, killing themselves due to public authority, negligence and misconduct, negligence and misconduct, including my constituent Jen British Chorley. Does the Minister agree with me that the first step agree with me that the first step to tackling this problem is knowing how many they are. There are these suicides. There are. And we cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suicides. There are. And we cannot do that unless we have a national oversight mechanism and a preventable death tracker that measures that. Minister Atkinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Chief Coroner's intervention. The Chief Coroner's Office has also continued work to improve access to prevention of improve access to prevention of future death reports. And while the government seeks to strengthen arrangements for responding to concerns raised through them, concerns raised through them, including better and more strategic use of technology. But in addition to the work that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is undertaking, it is it is clear that there is work to be done, and I look forward to working on that, both in relation to inquests, but also in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relation to inquiries and the recommendations that are secured. Clive Efford to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clive Efford to give way. Regarding this independent body that should oversee the government's performance in government's performance in responding to inquiry recommendations. Does she agree with that principle, and does the with that principle, and does the government agree with that principle? And is that the way we're going to go forwards? Because the way that the government, not the way that the government, not just this one, but others in the past, have responded to recommendations from inquiries, has been requiring improvement for a very long time, to say the least.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So can we be assured that there will be independence introduced into that scrutiny process? Consent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consent. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is clear that needs to be public confidence as to what happens to recommendations, what happens to recommendations, where they are made, and therefore this is an area of work that is being considered, and I will be being considered, and I will be happy to ensure that he is kept up to date with the work as it to date with the work as it continues. I will now make some progress. Madam Deputy Speaker, transforming the ability of investigations to get to the truth is essential.

And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope the House recognises how far we have come. At Second Reading, the Prime Minister said that we would only strengthen this bill while affirming that we would always protect national security. These amendments do both, and I will now turn to the government's remaining amendments. First, with regard to legal aid, Madam Deputy Speaker, for too long, families attending inquests have 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.

This bill finally addresses that imbalance, with 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 making 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. Second, to simplify how the legal aid system operates so it is more effective and easier to manage for providers and the legal aid agency.

These amendments mean the expansion will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

operate efficiently from the outset. The hon. Friend give way. I will give way. I'm very grateful to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to. The Minister for giving way. And whilst there's widespread welcome, I think, in the House for the I think, in the House for the expansion of legal aid. Does she agree with me that allowing advocacy to each family only to the advocacy to each family only to the first person who applies, the first person who manages to apply for it person who manages to apply for it might cause some problems subsequent to disasters such as Hillsborough happening. And what is she going to do to try and improve that mechanism for who gets the legal aid? Mr.

Atkinson?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the. My right. My right hon. Friend and grateful for the time that she has spent for the time that she has spent with me in raising this and other issues. Under our proposed issues. Under our proposed expansion, multiple family members will be able to receive Non-means tested legal help to prepare for an tested legal help to prepare for an inquest hearing where a public authority is an interested person, and that includes help with and that includes help with preparing documents to send to the inquest.

But but increasing the the number of legal representatives when it comes to advocacy is an area where of of some concern in. Inquests are fact finding proceedings designed to determine the circumstances of a death and in general, one legally aided advocate, you would hope would be sufficient to support each family through an inquest hearing. But we have heard the concerns that the Right Honourable. My right hon. Friend has made, and I would be very happy to hope for her assistance in continuing to be looking at this as the bill progresses.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the. I will give way and she. She assists me in being able to find my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assists me in being able to find my place again. Thank you. The hon. Lady is most welcome. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My. I'm grateful for all of the amendments that the government has brought forward, but my concern brought forward, but my concern remains that the current legal aid rate for civil legal aid is £40 an hour, and the hon. Lady has hour, and the hon. Lady has referred to security vetted counsel. Is it likely that security vetted counsel are going to be prepared to work for £40 an hour, when those of us who have done legal aid work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know that, frankly, half of the work that you do is also unremunerated at all. Minister, before you respond,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, before you respond, just to point out, many, many colleagues wish to contribute to the debate and hopefully come to your conclusions soon. Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Atkinson. I'm grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention and know that she has been a really passionate advocate, particularly in relation to legally aided work, and I know that she will take every that she will take every opportunity to ensure that she continues to raise concerns in relation to the rates that are applied. These amendments mean that the expansion will operate efficiently from the outset, giving bereaved families the support that they need while avoiding delay. Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me turn to the amendment relating to archivists who play an important role in preserving historical records, but do not account for the actions within them. We have therefore tabled government New Clause eight 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have worked closely with the devolved government on this Bill, and I am grateful for their cooperation and collaboration. We have tabled amendments to ensure that the offences it contains misleading the public.

Government amendments 40, 41, 42 and 70 and the two statutory misconduct in public office offences government new clause nine and amendments 44 to 51 inclusive. Apply on a UK wide basis 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. This will include a power for regulations to establish detailed criteria which will be agreed by the by the Scottish Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, before I close, I will address concerns raised about implementation.

The government is well aware that this bill is long overdue. Families and victims rightly deserve no further delay. But this is about cultural change, and the change of this 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, and we will update this 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 this bill delivers real change. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to fight for it. That is the purpose of this bill. With the hon. Lady. Give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the hon. Lady. Give way. I will give way. Yasmin Qureshi. I thank the hon. Lady for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Madam Deputy Speaker, you are probably aware of the fact that I chaired the all party parliamentary chaired the all party parliamentary group on Primodos for the last 14 years. The Minister may well be aware that earlier in this bill, aware that earlier in this bill, when he was being considered, one of the questions I asked for was a reassurance that independent panels established by Ministers, such as the Expert Working Group report on Primodos, which was set up by the MHRA, which is part of the Department of Health.

Can the Minister point to me on the face of the Bill where this can be found, and if not, will there be reassurances given by other secondary legislation that those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

panels are covered by this bill? The bill allows a Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The bill allows a Minister to extend the duty and allows the flexibility to apply it to reviews where it would be most beneficial. 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 I would be happy to talk to her about how about how this takes about how about how this takes place. Thank you. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is about restoring trust between the public and the state, ensuring that when public bodies fail, they respond with openness rather than defensiveness, with support rather than obstruction.

And 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, and I commend these amendments to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Information contained in public records. The question is that New clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that New clause eight be read a second time, and I call the Shadow Minister, Nick Timothy Jingye.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Timothy Jingye. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was nine years old at the time of the Hillsborough tragedy, and I the Hillsborough tragedy, and I remember listening to the news of the terrible events on the radio, sitting behind my parents in the sitting behind my parents in the car. I was 32 when 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 while I was there. 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
14:43
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
fought for years for justice. I pay tribute to them, and I would like to associate myself with the to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Lady. They've known grief and suffering. None of us would ever wish to experience. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not a debate about the need for transparency. I am 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 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, although their work is by definition often secret, that they need to be accountable. They're only citizens of this country, just like everyone else. And I'm sure everyone here today agrees on the need for accountability. The question is, how should this accountability work? And today we're considering one specific issue.

Among several is the proposal to extend the duty of candour to the intelligence agencies, the military, military intelligence, counter-terror policing, and the National Crime Agency, who 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 and the pain and the emotion that comes from terrible tragedies.

Tragedies that have, in some instances, been compounded by undue secrecy and even outright dishonesty from the state itself. But it's 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're debating today. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's our job in the House of Commons to get this right. It's also the government's job to put its proposed law to us in a timely and responsible manner.

But that is not what Ministers have done. The Prime Minister adopted the Hillsborough law as policy in 2020. In 2022, he put it in his manifesto. In 2024, promising it would be one of his first acts in office. And he 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 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're being asked to approve another motion to extend the carry over motion, because the bill has taken so long. We were supposed to give this bill its Report stage and Third Reading in January, when it was pulled at the last minute because campaigners told the government 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 have 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'd been told to expect. It is, I'm afraid, a shambles, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the reason it's 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'd created this problem, which is why they pulled the bill in January.

But now they pretend there's no problem. Desperate for a legacy and to claim the credit before the right hon. Member for Makerfield takes over. The Prime Minister has chosen. The government has watered down the protections that specifically proposed back in January for MI5, MI6 and Gchq. Today it pretends those protections are not necessary. But in January Ministers believed 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 soldiers and others like those working in counter-terrorism, policing and the National Crime Agency, all necessarily deal in secrets. They have to protect their sources, their methods and their capabilities. They have to protect information provided to them by agencies from allied countries, which are equally concerned to protect 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. This could lead to intelligence that should, for good reasons, remain secret being published, undermining the way the intelligence agencies and others work. I will give way to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He will know, given his background, working in the Home his background, working in the Home Office, that a duty of candour is not the same as the duty to disclose sensitive information. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disclose sensitive information. The two should not be conflated, and he should not be doing so on the floor of the House. But he.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But he. I'm confused by that intervention from the hon. Lady, who was the Minister who was in who was the Minister who was in charge with this bill, and 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. So I was saying that 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 we know the government knows this, because the same people have told Ministers, and we know the government accepted this, because that was why they tabled the amendments in January, that they have since dropped allied military and intelligence partners, most notably the US and other Five Eyes partners, will look at what the government is doing today and they will question what can be done to protect them and their methods.

The Justice Secretary once again

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not here today is a is a. I will give her. Yeah. Could he point to the current

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could he point to the current legislation where there's a gap? That doesn't give the protection to the security services that we all wish to see. We're specifically the current legislation that a gap that does not give that protection to the to the intelligence services.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the to the intelligence services. Harlow. Minister. Thank you. I'm not sure I follow the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure I follow the hon. Member's question. If he wants to if he wants to stand up and and repeat it more clearly, then I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happily listen. They're not protected under the current legislation. Could he say could he say why?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could he say why? Yes. I think the point is that this is a new duty which is backed by is a new duty which is backed by criminal sanction, and that is why what we're talking about is different to the status quo. As I different to the status quo. As I was saying, the Justice Secretary is a privy counsellor. He's the deputy Prime Minister. He was once the foreign secretary, the man to whom MI6 and Gchq were accountable. He knows these sources of intelligence from allies are essential.

They support our national interest, protect our way of life, and they 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, the 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.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. I thank the hon. Gentleman. For giving way. Does he recognise that chairs of inquiries inquests already have the power to hear sessions in closed session in hear sessions in closed session in private, and so if they are looking at sensitive information or information that could potentially information that could potentially risk our national security, they have the ability to hear that in a closed session. Does he recognise that already exists? And therefore that already exists? And therefore the measures that have been brought in do not impact that at all.

We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already do it on a daily basis in inquiries. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I think what the hon. Lady says is not entirely relevant to this proposition, in that this is about proposition, in that this is about this is about this is about the provision of information to provision of information to particular investigations and inquiries. And and we do not know inquiries. And and we do not know the decision making. Indeed, we cannot know the identities of the people who lead those investigations and inquiries. And that is one of the reasons why this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is such a step into into the in the dark. It is. I will give way. I thank the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the. Hon. Gentleman giving way. I used to be a prosecutor before this used to be a prosecutor before this life and dealing with confidential sources, information with informants and others. We were able informants and others. We were able to find perfectly good way of dealing with all of these kind of information. There are procedures information. There are procedures already in place for that kind of informative informant and other sensitive types of information.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government itself brought to this House in January. I will. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and the interventions and. And the Shadow Ministers. Rebecca Harris Secretary of state's responses are indicative of what was said in his earlier comments, which is that we shouldn't be discussing something as technically complex as this that could have wide reaching ramifications with 24 hours notice, and not to the opportunity to have the proper discussion and to raise these points and take them through.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that. My hon. Friend, is exactly right. The Prime Minister said this was The Prime Minister said this was going to be one of his first acts as Prime Minister. It turns out it's going to be his final act as Prime Minister, and he's only doing Prime Minister, and he's only doing that by the skin of his teeth because he's presenting a proposal to the House that none of us even to the House that none of us even got to see.

As you know, even this weekend and those who had been drawn into the consultation process drawn into the consultation process and who had been privately consulted, say this bears no relation at all to what they'd been shown even very recently. So they aren't they are clearly doing this on the hoof, and it is very worrying. It is no exaggeration to say 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

state and British sovereignty itself. Irish. I will give way. On that point. The people who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. The people who lead these inquiries are leading public figures and have usually held significant judicial office. held significant judicial office. Is he honestly suggesting that they're going to be successfully pressured by people who want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

destroy the British state? I'm tempted to say the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the 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,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Irish. Well. Absolutely true. Irish Republicans, Islamist

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Irish Republicans, Islamist extremists, useful idiots deployed by Putin's Russia. They will all by Putin's Russia. They will all see the opportunity in this law. As we know, they've seen the opportunity in examples of lawfare opportunity in examples of lawfare fought elsewhere, including Northern Ireland. These are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns to Madam Deputy Speaker. There's an additional risk that the security services will be tied up in court cases, thanks to differing thanks to differing interpretations of the legislation, or that the scope of the bill and the information that must must be disclosed will be widened over time.

I can hear sighs and complaints from the benches opposite, but they do not seem to understand that new laws, especially when new laws, are to be taken in balance with existing laws, are obviously tested in the courts and their interpretation widens. That is a fact. That is one of the concerns expressed by the intelligence agencies, the police and others. And if they think they're above listening to those people, then I'm 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, and I was actually 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 why 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, not only in the intelligence services but the Armed Forces, National Crime Agency and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

counter-terrorism policing to. I will give way. I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing just that. One of his doing just that. One of his previous colleagues just a month ago went to Downing Street with a ago went to Downing Street with a letter which says that he, as Secretary of State for defence, was misled, he believes, by his own department. So why on earth is it that he's arguing this particular that he's arguing this particular case? Because if if defence Ministers are misled by their departments, I don't really understand his faith in leaders of intelligence services and others not being able to hide the truth purely to defend their own

**** Possible New Speaker ****

department. Prime Minister. I think the hon. Lady, whether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, no one denies there have been tragedies, abuses and cover ups in the past. I've 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, the responsibility for sensitive information must remain with operational leaders accountable to their elected bosses. This is something the government wants accepted. We can have a serious discussion, as I just said, about the ways in which the accountability of the 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 proposes 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, to seek to make major changes to laws affecting the safety and security of our citizens in the dying days and hours of the Premiership, and without sufficient thought or scrutiny is irresponsible. It's not leadership, it's reckless. The first duty of any government is to place the safety and security of the British people first, above politics, above pressure, above the hopes of a short lived Prime Minister looking for a legacy.

And that is why, if the government doesn't listen to us today, we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make the same argument in the other place. They should take responsibility and they should listen. Pippa Heylings. Paula Barker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pippa Heylings. Paula Barker. Hear, hear. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I rise. To support amendments NCC six and NCC seven. In the name of my and NCC seven. In the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick. I welcome the Prime Minister's remarks, and I the Prime Minister's remarks, and I am very relieved that the government has listened so that the duty of candour will apply in full to members of the security services, and that this bill will finally reach the statute book. I want to pay tribute to all those who have fought so long and so hard for this bill.

The families, the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, my fellow MPs on Merseyside and in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, also Pete Weatherby KC and Elkan Abrahamson and my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, who introduced the first Hillsborough Law bill in 2017 after addressing
15:02
Paula Barker Portrait Paula Barker MP (Liverpool Wavertree, Labour)
-
-
the 20th anniversary in 2009 when he was Culture Secretary. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was stood on the Kop that day when a lone voice shouted out justice for it! Then to be turned into a chorus of voices. That was the catalyst for the That was the catalyst for the Hillsborough Independent panel. The report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct in December, which recounted once again the horrifying events that took place. 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, showed exactly why this legislation is so desperately needed, and why the amendments of NC six and NC seven are so important.

So two, the fact that in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, MI5 was found by a public inquiry not to have given an accurate picture of the key intelligence it held on the suicide bomber who carried out the attack. NC six mandates the duty of candour and assistance applies to the intelligence services, as it does other public authorities. However, this establishes safeguards for sensitive information and adjust the individual reporting obligations for intelligence personnel. Bruising candour requirements through agency record keeping arrangements and the head of the organisation and NC seven requires 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 through this act.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the passage of this bill has been too long delayed and we have finally reached this point only due to the strength and bravery of the families of the 97 who died as a result of what happened on the 15th of April, 1989. I'm thinking today, particularly of my constituents. Keith McGraw, who died aged just 17, and Andrew Devine, who was 22 when he suffered horrendous injuries that day and died as a result of them in 2021, aged 55, after being cared for devotedly in the years after the disaster by his family and 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, their resilience, their wider sense of public spirit. They refuse 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 and victims of survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing, the Grenfell Tower fire, the 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.

There are still points to address, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston addressed in her intervention around the bill, not providing for full equality of arms of funding and legal resources for public authorities and bereaved families, for example. But nevertheless, it is important that this 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 for 37 years for this legislation.

They have been cruelly denied accountability and justice, but they have fought with incredible courage to ensure other families in the future will never have to fight for decades, as they have for the truth to come to light. This is their day and I pay tribute to them once again. Justice for the 97. I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller.
15:07
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name and new clauses tabled in my name on behalf of my party, up and down the country. Those that have been failed by state institutions, unheard and ignored for years will be relieved today that this hurdle has been cleared and the Hillsborough Law can finally progress. So I would like to begin by paying tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are with us in the gallery, for their courage and perseverance through years of campaigning and never saying that'll do, and making sure that the Hillsborough law was delivered in full.

And it is known affectionately as the Hillsborough Law, but it represents many more victims and their loved ones, be it the Post Office scandal, the Manchester Arena attack, the contaminated blood scandal, Grenfell Tower nuclear weapons test veterans, the pelvic mesh scandal, LGBT veterans or any of the many others. These individuals have stood up for the voiceless and demanded change. And these are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods and suffered life changing injuries. Happily give way to my hon.

Friend. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. My constituent Gary, is one of the victims of the infected blood scandal. He was a pupil at Treloar's College. 120 boys from Treloar's were given contaminated blood. And I wonder if the hon. Lady will join me in paying tribute to the boys who have fought so hard for justice. And does she agree with me that it has taken far too long? I thank my honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend for her intervention, and she's been a tireless campaigner on. Behalf of her constituents and the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. Contaminated blood scandal. And she's absolutely right to highlight how long it's taken to get here. how long it's taken to get here. And I commend this government for making sure that we did eventually get to this point. And the scandals have been uncovered, despite the best efforts of public institutions 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.

Campaigners efforts are what have brought us to this point today, at which we can begin to level the playing field and address the imbalance between

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the power of the state and that. Of the ordinary individual. It is why we in the Liberal Democrats is why we in the Liberal Democrats have at every stage welcomed the provisions in the bill. But it was clear at the beginning of this year 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 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's clear that these organisations have at times suffered from the same protectionist, inward looking faults that other public organisations have, and it would have been completely unacceptable for there to have been a carve out, especially considering there are already mechanisms that exist which allow for information with national security implications to be heard behind closed doors.

The breakthrough, announced over the weekend, is therefore very much welcomed from these benches and will come as a relief to all those wanting to see this bill progress. I would also like to commend those on the government benches who have secured it, and those no longer there, particularly the Member for Pontypridd, 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 with me and Liberal Democrat colleagues to hear our concerns and her engagement with the campaign organisations and families she has fought to deliver Hillsborough Law as it was intended by those involved in the campaign.

Moving to the Bill Committee, which took place eight months ago. So that was fun to go through all of the notes and remind ourselves exactly what was said. I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Members across the House who scrutinised this legislation, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and for Wells. I know they sought to ensure that victims and their loved ones remained at the centre of this bill and that their concerns regarding the drafting that we 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, and our amendments that we have on the amendment paper are all aimed at tightening the gaps that we can see in the legislation. Firstly, the importance of whistleblowers who, in many of the tragedies mentioned today have provided vital information at great personal risk for the public good. We have long called for stronger whistleblowing protections to ensure that wrongdoing within organisations and public bodies is swiftly exposed and brought to justice.

Amendment three ensures that public authorities involved in an inquiry or investigation demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure individuals can safely disclose information relevant to that investigation. Amendment six requires that a public authorities Code of Ethical Conduct includes information onto whom a person can make a protected disclosure, and how that person will be protected. And I'd appreciate the Minister when she sums up. She talked about additional guidance being provided with the legislation. It would be really helpful to understand if the expectation will be that that will be including 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 there remains a culture of retiring or firing staff who dare to speak up. So we also tabled a new clause two, which creates an offence for anyone who wilfully destroys relevant records after a major incident that could lead to an inquest or inquiry.

New clause three is aimed at providing a national oversight mechanism through the publication of an annual independent report on compliance with the act that's been brought up multiple times already in the debate today, and many members spoke of the need to have an oversight mechanism, and there are similar amendments on the Order Paper tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Garston and the chair of the Justice Select Committee. Amendments one and two ensure that the legislation is fully up to date with modern investigations by making 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 this goes far enough. Amendment four, therefore, extends those provisions to all subcontractors through the chain of provision. You only need to look at local authorities and the way that they subcontract to understand that most are working within the public sector are subcontractors of subcontractors of subcontractors, and we believe that the scope needs to be extended to pull those within it.

The extension of Non-means legal aid to bereaved families at inquests is also long overdue and greatly needed, because 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 seeking to amend that in the other place. We've also tabled amendments 11 and 12 to ensure that public officials do not escape their responsibilities when they cease to hold public office.

These amendments would ensure that they remain accountable for their actions, even if they have since resigned or retired or been shuffled out. A point raised by the Hillsborough Law Now group has been the lack of command responsibility within the bill. Amendment five addresses this by placing responsibility for breaches of the duty of candour on the Chief Executive of the relevant public body. Amendment nine ensures that the act comes into force immediately upon royal assent. So for a small number of sections that require supporting codes, we see no reason for any unnecessary delay in this process.

And finally, I would like to mention the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame, which places privatised water companies under the duty of candour. It serves as an important reminder of the harms caused by companies which the public are wholly reliant on 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 the future.

So I hope 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, no other family, suffers in the way they have. I'm pleased that we've reached an important milestone in the journey of this legislation, and I look forward to seeing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill return from the other place in its strongest form possible. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Derek Twigg.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, of course, support this bill and the amendments put forward by by the amendments put forward by by the by the government back in May 1998. It was when I first spoke in the debate about the Hillsborough the debate about the Hillsborough disaster. And I would never have imagined that 28 years later, I'd be taking part in another debate debating new legislation to address the state's failings in respect to the disaster. And the hon. Friend from Liverpool Garston was there with me and was actually she and myself who actually first uncovered the altered statements in the library of this house.

And she played a very, very important role in getting to the stage we did in terms of getting justice for the Hillsborough families. And I, I
15:17
Derek Twigg Portrait Derek Twigg MP (Widnes and Halewood, Labour)
-
-
suppose I speak at this Report stage in a rather unique position that I was at the Hillsborough disaster. I worked closely with the disaster. I worked closely with the Hillsborough families to obtain justice and have families who've lost loved ones and were injured at Hillsborough and the Manchester Hillsborough and the Manchester Arena bombing. And of course, more recently, I sit on the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has and Security Committee, which has oversight of the intelligence community. I'm also pleased to be joined, as well by the hon.

Member joined, as well by the hon. Member for Bootle, who chaired this bill, but unfortunately cannot speak in this debate because he chaired that bill. So I want to keep my comments primarily to the intelligence aspects. The controversy was around this bill. So as we know, our intelligence services keep us safe. Every day. Our intelligence officers and agents do difficult and sometimes dangerous work so we can live safely. They deserve our severe thanks, sincere thanks and praise for the job they do.

And of course, it's right that we hold them to the highest standards. This is a member of the IOC that has oversight of the intelligence service that I've been involved in, in trying to find a way forward with colleagues in addressing the concerns about the impact of the bill on intelligence services. And I support the government's amendments on the bill as a whole. It's welcome that the government has listened to the campaigners and the I. S and particularly I want to praise to Pete Weatherby KC, who has always been available to talk to me and others about the issues and kept to this very clear point that actually the current legislation gives those protections.

So, as I said, we've listened to the campaigners and the IOC has accepted a way forward that addresses the concerns that are raised in respect of the security services, although I believe this could have been achieved much earlier, and I would have liked to make a few comments on this. I genuinely believe that the IOC had not got involved in these matters. We were not discussing the bill today and that's not in any way to take any, any, any anything away from all those who've been working so hard on the bill before.

But it had reached an impasse. And I praise the work, particularly of the IOC chair, the Lord Beamish, and the deputy chair of Amanda Hack Kenilworth and Southam, who sat on the opposite benches. It's the view of the IOC that the concerns around the bill could have been addressed much sooner. As I've said, there has been a lack of direction and grip with no one taking control. It seemed all too difficult for some and this has caused the lengthy delays we endured and we shouldn't ignore this added to the anxiety and the concerns to the families and campaigners, Madam Deputy Speaker if the IOC was, as stated earlier, has oversight of the intelligence community felt this bill, as it stands today, did not address those concerns.

It had been heard about the impact on the intelligence services or threatened the safety of agents or officers and the security of our country. Then we would say so. And I, for one, would not vote for it. I do not believe that that's the case. I believe this bill and the amendments now address those concerns. Mr. speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, establishing a new duty of candour is key, but I am particularly pleased that also bring forward the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade.

So any family facing the might of the state will no longer have to beg and borrow to afford a lawyer 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 this bill and ensure that we got to this stage today, but it really does. As I said before, the Member for Liverpool Garston and the Member for Liverpool West Derby, of course, have been instrumental in doing that, and I want to put on record my thanks to them.

But of course, also the support from the Prime Minister and whatever the problems is, if the government gets to this stage today, clearly the government did want this bill through and worked very hard to try and do that. It could have been done better, of course, but I believe in the long run, what we'll look back on is it was the tenacity and drive of the families that got us to this stage today. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a landmark date, a landmark day today for the Hillsborough families and other campaigners.

It will help ensure that the truth will out in the future. The state will not be able to repeat the appalling cover up we saw over Hillsborough. It is true to say that this is also a landmark Bill which have profound influence on helping to prevent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future injustices. Yes, sir. Jeremy. I thank you very. Much indeed, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a privilege to follow the hon. Gentleman for Widnes and Halewood. My committee colleague Halewood. My committee colleague and I agree with everything that he has said, and I think it's has said, and I think it's 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. And I think that applies, of course, to the families who've campaigned so hard.

But it also applies to members of this House who have applied their own determination to that task. But as he has said, and there's many who've spoken in this
15:22
Jeremy Wright Portrait Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)
-
-
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 services and to others for whom full candour may be inconsistent with their professional duties and the additional safeguards and modifications that would need to modifications that would need to apply to the Bill to enable it to safely cover such people without preventing them doing their vital work effectively. And as the hon.

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

And it wouldn't be right, and it probably wouldn't be practical in the time available, to go into the detail of all of the positions taken over many months. But I think it is fair. And it is important to say that throughout those representing the Hillsborough families have maintained that there are measures and protections in existing law that would prevent national security being jeopardised. If the duty of candour applied to the intelligence services. The government, for its part, has maintained throughout this period of many months, both consistently and robustly, that this is not so, that the only way to protect national security is to build additional safeguards and protections and exemptions into this bill, and that appeared still to be the government's position until very recently.

Even yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker, Government Amendment 147, giving the head of an intelligence agency the right to withhold information altogether in certain circumstances, appeared in the amendment paper for this bill, as it had in many previous iterations of that document. In today's version, for the first time, it has disappeared and been replaced not with the detailed compromise that the Intelligence and Security Committee members who've been engaged with this process have been working towards, along with many others, but instead with Government Amendment 157, which says, in effect, that protections already existing in the law.

And the Minister made this clear in what she said are good enough, after all, and no substitute. Further protections or exemptions need to be built into this bill. Now, that is a remarkable change of position and a remarkably fast change of position. Now, it is, of course, up to the government to decide what legislation it proposes to this House, and it's perfectly within the government's rights to propose amendments to its own legislation. And we can all cynically speculate about the reasons why this sudden about turn has taken place this week.

But as my hon. Friend who spoke from the frontbench 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 doesn't just sound good but does good, that makes real change, and that sticks in that task. And I simply have to observe to the Minister and to the House that after all the painstaking work done, all the hours spent on the basis that further safeguards were required, all the amendments drafted and redraughted and redraughted again, on that basis, up until late last week.

And now, suddenly, the government says that none of it is necessary. So what on earth, Madam Deputy Speaker, is going on? Well, it seems to me that there are two possibilities. The first is that for whatever reason, the government has cobbled together now a rushed compromise that does not adequately protect our national security and which inevitably, logically does the job less effectively than the government's previous amendments sought to do. Now, the Minister has been very clear that that is not the case, and I want to take the Minister at her word because this is an important subject.

But that leaves us with the second possibility, which is that the settlement before us today. Settlement, which I say again, effectively replicates what the advocates for the Hillsborough families have been saying for months is a settlement that could have been delivered to this House a very long time ago, and that needless delay has brought a waste of ministerial time, of official time, frankly, of the iscs time and, of course, of the time of the intelligence agencies, which 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 weight, that it now seems they didn't need to endure. So for whatever else the Minister needs to answer, and I appreciate, of course, that it's in her case, something to which she's come reasonably late. But I'm afraid the Minister needs to explain all of that to us and to the Hillsborough

**** Possible New Speaker ****

families. Chair of the Select Committee, Andy Slaughter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andy Slaughter. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the bill and thank the government for and thank the government for introducing it and for bringing it back to the House before the summer back to the House before the summer recess. It's a result of years of committed campaigning, led by the families of 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 it become law sooner.

We should celebrate a landmark piece of legislation which, like the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act under the last Labour government, gives
15:29
Andy Slaughter Portrait Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)
-
-
power to the citizen and makes the state accountable. I will focus my state accountable. I will focus my remarks on two new clauses which I have tabled, which build upon have tabled, which build upon growing calls for a national oversight mechanism. This would be oversight mechanism. This would be a new independent public body to collate, analyse and follow up on the conclusions and recommendations the conclusions and recommendations made after official investigations into deaths and state failings to improve their oversight and implementation.

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 of victims and the general public to get information on what changes have actually been made, following the identification of failings in her last annual report for 2020 for the chief Coroner noted 713 prevention of future death reports have been issued. These reports identify key issues which contributed to someone's death and need rectifying to prevent the same thing happening again.

There's a duty to respond to these 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's often the case that no change has, in fact been made by a public authority, which has drawn serious concern from coroners and inquiry chairs themselves.

My new clauses have been supported by inquest in over 40 organisations including the Law Society, Amnesty International, UK and justice. The need to improve systems for monitoring action on inquests and inquiries have been raised repeatedly during debates on this bill. The Prime Minister himself. A Second Reading stated there needs to be a better way of ensuring that inquiries are followed through. However, despite government interest in this area, there has been no formal commitment to implement this proposal. These new clauses ensure the bill extends to the aftermath of those inquiries.

They need to be. 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 the government may want to consider is to create and maintain a database, so that all information gathered by coronial investigations is recorded and analysed to prevent future deaths. Doctor Jorja Richards, from King's College, London, has been doing vital work in this area and I would recommend.

The government uses her expertise to find a solution on how to harness all the information gathered by coroners to protect public health. And beyond that, the colonial service itself needs to be more responsive and proactive. As successive reports from the Justice Select Committee have urged. Now, I do not, in the light of the number of people who wish to speak, have time to go through the other amendments, new clauses that I support here. But I would mention the new one, the.

No, my friend for the Member for Liverpool. Garston, which calls on a greater role for the independent public Advocate. The Select Committee interviewed the current and the first independent public advocate, Cindy Butts, earlier in the year. She's an excellent appointment, but she needs more powers and more resources in order to be able to ensure that she can play her full role in ensuring that the provisions of this, this bill, come into effect. I'd also mention the amendment four in the name of the Liberal Democrats, which deals with the role of subcontractors, which is an omission, in my view, from the bill.

It's worth noting that during the horizon scandal, Fujitsu relied heavily on the extensive use of subcontractors to maintain and operate its services. And finally, I would mention the amendment 25 in the name of the hon. Member for for Cheadle amendment extends the offence of misleading the public, the public to a public authority or public official providing misleading information to recognize news publisher. South Yorkshire Police defamed the Hillsborough families and survivors, but they did not do so alone. Their lies and smears were promoted by several newspapers.

It was the culture and the connections between the newspapers and the police that enabled this to happen, and there's no evidence that that has changed. Just as South Yorkshire Police were protected by The sun after Hillsborough, the Metropolitan Police were responsible for astonishing oversights in the investigation into phone hacking at the news of the world. This bill's focus on the role of public officials is, of course, welcome, but the government should also look at collaboration between public officials and the media. And 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, it would erode the effectiveness of the bill for there to be a carve out, as we've seen on multiple occasions, including the investigation into the Manchester Arena bombing, the Stakeknife case in Northern Ireland and the Attorney General and the BBC. The Bethe case as it is. As is known, it's vitally important 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 and the BBC case, I note that MI5 were found to have provided false evidence to the courts, and they have paid damages to Beth alongside an apology, but only after repeated interventions by the BBC and the courts. This demonstrates the importance of the duty of candour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

applying to intelligence services. So I will. Greatly for giving way. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Greatly for giving way. And I just wondered if he would be able to spot the irony in the fact that to spot the irony in the fact that today, when the government is considering this legislation, it's designed to prevent public bodies designed to prevent public bodies from obstructing the truth. The Ministry of Defence is actually in the High Court in London, trying the High Court in London, trying very hard to silence the Chinook families by saying that they're out of time to seek an independent inquiry into.

While 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 whatsoever. There is surely an irony in that, and this is absolutely. And no, he was talking about the intelligence services. But this surely has to cover the Ministry of Defence as well, and the way in which they behave,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because it's utterly inappropriate. And for her intervention, I know this. That is the case, which means this. That is the case, which means a huge amount to him. And as a constituency MP, and for all the work that she does on the on the Justice Select Committee as well, I think we've only begun to scratch the surface and the effect, and the surface and the effect, and this will be quite a transforming piece of legislation. I make one final comment, which is several final comment, which is several members have welcomed, as I do, that the huge increase in the provision of legal aid that will come through here.

But in order for that to be effective, we have to have look at legal aid rates. We have to look at the availability of legal aid practitioners, because simply having the funding available does not ensure that there will be representation and equality of arms,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which I think we all wish for. I very briefly. Might I suggest to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Might I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that actually my sense is that actually, if there was some equity between legal aid that was given to families and to individuals who are fighting big organisations like public bodies, organisations like public bodies, there is the possibility, as there not that that legal aid bill may equate in that if we brought specialist and professional who are supporting the public bodies, if their rates came down to match those that might rise to support the individuals and families, then we actually might be in a situation where there would be some equity.

And not only that, but those particular investigations would be much simpler for those who the courts and the inquests who deal with this, because they'd have people who understood the process better. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I've taken enough time, but I do thank the Member for that. And I will simply say that the justice committee signed off this justice committee signed off this afternoon a new major report on legal aid that will be published on on Friday. So for those more on Friday. So for those more interested, they can read more there. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this is a landmark piece of this is a landmark piece of legislation which we should all welcome, and I commend it to the Speaker.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. I speak to two amendments, but first, I want to pay tribute to the Hillsborough families and two people in particular that I have personally dealt with. The first is Margaret Aspinall. As a new culture Secretary in 2010, I made some ill chosen comments about the Hillsborough tragedy. I met Margaret Aspinall afterwards, apologized, and she graciously accepted that apology. And I've always been struck not just by her tenaciousness, but also by her dignity and decency. And today has been a long journey.

But if the bill saves lives, as we all want it to, I believe that she will deserve more credit than any politician, as will every one of the families of the 97. And I also want to mention Bishop James Jones, who was chair of the independent panel and gave the world the sentence that summed up more than any what went wrong the patronising disposition of unaccountable power. What's remarkable about Bishop James is that he didn't 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 Experience Review.

I asked for his help in sharing the Gospel Independent panel, and he went on to chair the Gospel Families Forum,
15:39
Jeremy Hunt Portrait Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Hunt MP (Godalming and Ash, Conservative)
-
-
from which he's just stepped down for health reasons. And he is, for for health reasons. And he is, for me, someone who exemplifies Senator John McCain's famous words about the honour you earn and the love the honour you earn and the love you give from sacrifice to something greater than self-interest. And I know the whole House will want to mark his public service. And now to my amendments, service. And now to my amendments, and I start with New clause 11, which addresses a profound failure in the way the duty of candour works in the NHS.

In 2014, I put in place the regulations that applied the duty of candour to the NHS. And if 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 there is severe harm or death to a patient, a hospital must tell the patient or their family promptly or as soon as practically reasonable. They must give a truthful account as to what is known and what happened, and they must offer a sincere apology as witnesses to countless subsequent inquiries affecting the constituencies of.

Many hon. Members here have said, that simply doesn't happen. Families have to fight for years to find the truth about what happened to a loved one, and they find all too often mistakes are ignored or covered up, and when a tragedy is covered up, it is then repeated time after time. Precisely what those families are campaigning to stop. Why do those cover ups happen? There are many reasons, but one in particular is because trust lawyers advise trusts not to say anything at all.

When there is a risk of legal action. And I just want to tell the house about Baby Ben Condon, who died eight weeks old in 2015 when I was health secretary after delays in giving him antibiotics. His father, Alan, says that consultants apologised to him privately, saying they got it wrong and then said the exact opposite at an inquest a few months later. And I believe 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, and as a result, the duty of candour in the NHS is being widely bypassed and those that will continue until we deal with this loophole.

So this clause requires the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that legal services provided to NHS bodies are consistent with the duty of candour and principles of openness, and it requires the department or a designated body to make sure those standards are met and dealt with appropriately when not. My Second Amendment 150 does a different job. The Public Officer Accountability Bill requires people working for public bodies to tell the truth to investigations or reviews, but it doesn't require them to tell the truth to families who then have to wait, often for years, until the review is published.

This amendment requires that information to be provided to a person or family who has or may have been harmed. Now, I recognise the house is not going to divide on either amendment, so they won't become law as part of this bill. But my request to Ministers is to include them in the health Bill, where they would also be in scope and would have a dramatic impact in trying to prevent 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.

And my reason for wanting to do this is straightforward. As Health Secretary, you can pass new laws, you can introduce new technology, you can bring down waiting lists. But the only real change that stands the test of time is culture change. And culture change means replacing cover ups, buck passing, and a blame culture with openness, trust and learning. But there won't be trust if patients and families aren't told the truth. We will never learn from mistakes if we cover them up.

And that's why we need real change, culture change to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

put that right. Yeah. I call David Baines.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been a long time coming. That's how I started my speech during Second Reading in November last year. Obviously, even more time has passed since then, but yet time has passed since then, but yet again, thanks to the determination, the strength, the effort of many survivors and campaigners, some in survivors and campaigners, some in the gallery here today and on these benches as well. And thanks to the support of a dedicated number of people in this place, we are here at last with the finish line in sight again.

It's a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Goodman, and I've a lot of sympathy for his new clause 11. I heard him ask the Health Secretary this morning as well about this at the same point. I do hope time and
15:45
David Baines Portrait David Baines MP (St Helens North, Labour)
-
-
place can be found for for that. I think that's important. What he's saying. I think he he expressed it saying. I think he he expressed it very well and with passion, and I certainly support him in that. I welcome the government amendments. welcome the government amendments. And I also welcome the fact, importantly, that they've got the support of the families and the support of the families and the campaigners. I'm also assured that by the comments we've heard from Honourable, right, hon. Members Honourable, right, hon.

Members from the ISC. And I'm also assured, not just in what they've said today, but in the certainty that they'll continue to keep a close eye on the bill as it progresses, and also in its implementation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll keep my remarks relatively short, because I've spoken on this topic several times and a lot of colleagues who I know want to speak on this, but some things do 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.

Families affected by Grenfell. The Manchester Arena attack, Primodos. Borggreve. Infected blood scandal. The Post Office Horizon scandal and many more, including maternity scandals in NHS. This is the bill. This is Westminster's bill, not least among them, of course, are the Hillsborough families and the campaigners, some of whom I've had the privilege to meet. I've met lots of remarkable people in my life, both in my personal life and in my professional life in politics. And I'm I have no hesitation in saying I've 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's because of their efforts that other families and survivors that people will be helped in the future. The truth will be easier to find. Justice will be easier to secure. We all, each of us, owe the campaigners our deepest thanks to all those who've made this bill possible, and to all those who have worked so hard for so long to make the case, to reach consensus, to win the argument, I say thank you and I hope others will forgive me if I say once again, to the Hillsborough families and campaigners in particular, you have my utmost respect.

You've got my deep gratitude. You are the best of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us. You've been a light in the darkness. You never walk alone. I call Tom Morrison.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, the journey to this point has been far too long for the Hillsborough families. It is 14 years since the independent panel
15:48
Tom Morrison Portrait Tom Morrison MP (Cheadle, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
finally confirmed that public officials had hidden the truth. It was a day of hope that finally we was a day of hope that finally we might see justice be done. And I remember sitting in Liverpool's council chamber after the news council chamber after the news broke. I remember the joy and relief that spread throughout that room and the way councillors from room and the way councillors from all parties came together to unite behind the families and campaigners that fought so hard and for so long that fought so hard and for so long to get that verdict.

But Madam Deputy Speaker, there were more blocks and more heartbreaking moments to come. This bill has taken far too long to get here, but I think it's really important to thank to acknowledge those across the House and in government, especially the Prime Minister, for getting us to this point, and I know how much has been said already, especially by the shadow Secretary of State, about legacy over recent weeks. But I genuinely believe this is a legacy worth worthy of any incumbent in number ten.

And today, it's 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, the most unimaginable grief and suffering, and turn it into positive action that will not only make our country safer and more just, but will also mean that the legacy of the 97 is now synonymous with a country that protects its people and gives them a true level playing field. In the eyes of the law.

It's 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 this needs to be celebrated. The campaigners at Hillsborough Law now have worked relentlessly to push the government to the position it has reached, and I'm sure this 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.

A cover up culture will no longer thrive. Now, during the Bill committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and I analyzed 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 arcandor, no matter how secret, important or unique their role in our society may be. And I was proud to support the amendments put forward by Hillsborough Law.

Now, to ensure the government properly address these issues, it also became clear that there were other gaps, for example, wilfully destroying records and provision of legal aid were not, we believe, sufficiently addressed. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester tabled new clauses two and four to make this legislation watertight, and I also believe there are still gaps that need to be filled. And as such, I tabled amendment 25. This 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.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we all know well in this House how intertwined the relationship between the state and the media is. It is a continuous cycle of give and take, and it is vital that this is not misused or abused. The impacts of the briefing given to the press by the police and senior politicians and advisers after Hillsborough are still felt today. It was a despicable smear campaign that demonised communities and a whole city, and even worse, 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, this situation can never be allowed to happen again. Amendment 25 would ensure that misleading the press would have direct consequences under legislation. This bill still has many stages to undergo in the other place, but today we can truly celebrate knowing we are one giant step closer to justice. We will 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 will see a future where victims are cared for by the state, not treated as villains.

We will see a future where lies and deceit can no longer cover up public scandals, and that public officials are empowered to do the right thing. Madam Deputy Speaker, today belongs to the 97 and their families. I couldn't be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prouder of them. I, Carl Maria Eagle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Carl Maria Eagle. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And before I leave the chamber, can I just say that I agree very much I just say that I agree very much with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Godalming and Ash the Member for Godalming and Ash said about transparency and the importance of transparency. And he also made the point that lawyers also made the point that lawyers are sometimes a problem. Now, obviously, the legal system of which I used to used to be a participant is adversarial, a bit like this chamber.

You have the defence, you have the prosecution. It's not the lawyers themselves. It's not their fault that they're perhaps not being as helpful as they could be. But my new clause
15:53
Maria Eagle Portrait Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP (Liverpool Garston, Labour)
-
-
one tries to bring in a deal with some issues which are out with the some issues which are out with the scope of this bill, but to remind honourable and right hon. Members and those charged Ministers with and those charged Ministers with with making this bill work, that there is something else that happened to get us to the truth of Hillsborough, and that's Hillsborough independent panel report. That was not a legal action. report. That was not a legal action. It was about transparency, freedom of information and being open.

And I know that the right hon. Gentleman has his frustrations about the fact that his well-intentioned reforms in health didn't are not operate as he would have wished. And he mentioned Bishop James Jones, who led the Hillsborough Independent panel report. So process so well. And I believe there has to be something that attaches to this side, side a side with it, that enables families, should they choose, in the aftermath of a public disaster, to choose that way forward, a transparency and freedom of information way forward, rather than just having to line up to get lawyers.

I'm sure that each family will have a lawyer, but lawyers operate within the legal system, and that's adversarial, and it's not necessarily there to get to the truth. It's there to. Each advocate supports the side that they've been instructed by for their best interests. And that has led to problems in the aftermath of disasters such as Hillsborough. And so I think my new clause one is aimed at trying to make sure that the independent public advocate who was legislated for not, I believe, with the sufficient powers or resource she's been established and set up and an appointment has been made.

Cindy Box and she's already operating in, in, in, in the in the aftermath of the of the Heaton Park attacks on the synagogue there. And so she's already been called upon, but she doesn't have the powers that I envisaged in the bill that I promoted in this House from 2016, my independent public advocate bill was promoted in the other place by Lord wills since 2014, so members can work out who wrote It wasn't me, it was my right hon.

Friend the member the Lord wills in the other place, and the powers in that bill, which I hope my new clause one will enable us to consider alongside this bill's operation enables the families, should they wish to, to embark upon a transparency process and for information something like Hillsborough Independent panel. But at a much earlier stage in the aftermath, to make sure that. The full gamut of possible responses that might work for families can be pursued.

And whilst it's not in this legislation, because this bill is too narrow in scope for it to be included, I hope that my new clause one and producing reports into how she's working and producing a report within 12 months of passing of this act into the impact of this act provisions on increasing public confidence, because I think a public advocate with those powers to help families can increase public confidence as well. I hope that this will lead to a conclusion that perhaps she needs more powers.

Perhaps she needs more resource because she's got very little at the moment, and that therefore 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 which may succeed and then fail. And then there's appeals and there's different kinds of actions. This is what happened to the Hillsborough families. It's not only the inequality of arms, it's the length of time that is taken to get through the legal actions, even if they proceed swiftly and even if they proceed well.

So I hope that that us considering this alongside the duty of candour and the provisions in this legislation, may well aid families and future who get caught up in public disasters to choose the best way forward for them. One of the key things about the Hillsborough families was the way in which they organised themselves. They got themselves together. They set up the Hillsborough Family Support Group. They had a democratic procedure within it to decide to. Families decided themselves what the next steps were, and 1 or 2 families peeled off when they didn't agree with the conclusions and and ploughed their own furrows, sometimes very successfully ploughed their own furrows.

And and Williams springs to mind. She wanted to focus very much on overturning the inquests. And she was she was right. In the end, she knew absolutely what had happened to her son because she went and found out. So she knew the inquest verdicts were wrong. So she wanted to focus on that. But the families kept together and and were able all of them together to decide how they were going forward. And I think any public advocate has a role in facilitating that kind of process to give the families a strength, a collective strength about how they would wish to see the aftermath of a disaster dealt with.

And of course, each family will have a lawyer to advocate for them. But that doesn't necessitate that they get together and decide what to do between themselves insofar as they can. And I think public advocate that's looking at establishing a Hillsborough independent panel type process can facilitate that and could assist in some instances. Now, obviously, I'm glad the bill has come back and is going to complete its common stages today. I'm very relieved about that. I think the duty of candour is a good thing.

If it can be made to work effectively, it can't be a bad thing. I think it will help focus minds, hopefully at an early stage in the aftermath of any disaster. If this duty of candour already exists, it will focus minds in a way in which the common law duty that has always existed, one assumes, didn't really focus minds at the time of Hillsborough. And so this is entirely good. I'm glad to see that the that the rock and the hard place problem that has delayed this bill has been resolved between the campaigners and between the government.

I know and would like to commend the work that the Intelligence and Security Committee has done in trying to get to a resolution of that, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood. Has, I know, done a lot of work, as has the Honourable right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, and and I know how hard that Committee works. I used to be on it and and and I'm for one, I'm willing to take absolutely at face value their their assurances about what will work and what won't for the intelligence community.

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

But I hope that in addition to getting this bill onto the statute book, some serious consideration will be given, perhaps through the the sort of mechanism that I suggest in new clause one to look at whether or not a non-legal approach might be an option for some families, should they choose to take it, because I don't believe that. We should just say to families in the aftermath of a disaster, we'll hear some legal help. Off you go. I think if we can circumvent and cut short the many, many years and decades that many families have to have to endure in the aftermath of public disasters, if we can find a way that might work for some to, to, to circumvent that, then I believe that we will have added an additional option for families in the aftermath of a disaster that will be, well, well

**** Possible New Speaker ****

worth some of them taking. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak as a member of the Bill committee and principally in support of my amendment 20, which seeks to provide a necessary layer of democratic parliamentary scrutiny of the actions of the intelligence services. And I intelligence services. And I listened very carefully to what the members of the ISC present here today had to say. But, you know, ultimately what was behind my amendment is that democratic accountability doesn't lie in a high court.

It doesn't lie with the head of an intelligence service. It lies here with us. We're the buck stops of democratic accountability. And in that regard, that was why I gave prominence to the ISC in my proposed amendment. But before turning to it, I must acknowledge the work of the Hillsborough families and their supporters for their courageous tenacity and determination over the last 37 years, which has brought us to this point. Today, we in the SNP and the Scottish Government fully support the aims and the 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 we will vote with the exception of NC3, which we will support, but we will vote with the government in support of this legislation. That said, and I can't let today pass without making some reference to this. That said, considering the long journey that we've been on, considering the meetings, considering the the way in which the Bill Committee was forced to truncate its work into a very limited period of time, considering the negotiations that followed, the pulling of the bill, the series of amendments and the Counter-proposals, considering all of this, the indecent haste of the government these last 24 hours to push this legislation through, is actively working against proper parliamentary scrutiny.

And that is my view now in relation to amendment 20, which has not been selected for a vote tonight. The intent here, as I say, is supported by a very wide range of parties and members from across the House, was to ensure that we here in Parliament, elected by the people through the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House, would 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.

Now, I am concerned, not 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
16:05
Seamus Logan Portrait Seamus Logan MP (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, Scottish National Party)
-
-
to escape the scrutiny that we all seek and support. That is not seek and support. That is not scaremongering. We should learn the lessons of history I have seen in my own lifetime in the land of my 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 security, when in fact the interest is not that of the nation, but of the government of the day. That is why I believe that our amendment why I believe that our amendment was important.

And I'm glad to say that 24 MPs from across the House agreed with me. And before I conclude, I have to make reference to something the Minister said earlier when she talked about stress testing, elements of the bill and the. A full timetable would be brought forward in due course. That sounded a little bit to me like as if even if the bill passes through all of its final stages, that some of these elements will still be subject to some future timescale.

Perhaps in her closing remarks, she might address that. The only other thing I want to say before I finish is that that old French saying Pluto change, plus c'est la meme chose. We do need to be careful about the implementation of this law, and that we don't actually see the repeat of those mistakes at some point in the future. So in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I, I reiterate our support for this legislation. I commend the work of so 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 which followed today is about them and everyone who will benefit from their efforts.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Justin Madders. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is, of course, very welcome to It is, of course, very welcome to see this bill before us to complete its common stages, even though we, its common stages, even though we, of course, all expected to see it on the statute book by now. And whilst I do understand why there whilst I do understand why there have been frustrations and concerns raised about the last minute nature of the bill's reintroduction, I think it is important we do not let think it is important we do not let process take over precedence over substance.

So as we're fundamentally considering amendments to the bill today, it's important 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 to not just 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
16:08
Justin Madders Portrait Justin Madders MP (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)
-
-
public interest is paramount and is not placed behind institutional not placed behind institutional reputation. So I am delighted to see that the government have found a way through the problems that have halted the bill's progression have halted the bill's progression earlier this year. I know that will bring my constituents great relief to see that we have been able to to see that we have been able to find a way to amend the bill to deliver on the commitment that we have made to the Hillsborough families, so I welcome the amendments and and I liked the fact that they've been welcomed by the Hillsborough Now campaign is testament to the hard work that has been put in by so many people.

To get this to the right place, I want to thank the campaigners, the Minister. The former Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd and many, many hon. Friends, many of whom have spoken today who've worked closely with the government to get this to where we are today. And as this bill is introduced, I said to the House that the standard against which this bill must be held is never again, and it is clear that in most areas the bill had already met that standard, as was welcomed by campaigners.

But it was also clear there were still concerns about the way the bill treated members of the security services and the potential for them to be absolved of the duty of candour. This is particularly important given 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 it held on the bomber, not including these officers, would weaken the bill's central duty of candour. So I've accepted by this House the government amendments before us this afternoon will ensure that the Security Service will no longer be exempt from this duty.

It is also necessary that, being bound by this duty, there are safeguards to ensure that secret and sensitive material is handled securely, and that the safety of individuals working at these authorities is protected. This is an important balance to strike, as it will ensure accountability and transparency and investigations, whilst not compromising national security. Now, I'm grateful for the Minister for explaining how these amendments will work in detail in our opening comments, but I wonder if she could just explain when she winds up a little bit more about amendment 157, how that will operate in practice, particularly the application of subsection two G, and who comes within the ambit of representations that will be made to the Minister.

And I know there have been many concerns expressed, both publicly and privately, about how this might impact the workings of the security services, but I do not think for a minute that any member of this chamber would want to pass legislation which would, by accident or design, risk, national security. So I'm delighted that we found a formula that assures most members that that balance has been struck. And I know there have also been concerns about how this will impact relations with other countries with whom we share information.

But I took particular heart from the evidence that Pete Weatherby gave to the Bill committee, and I want to just add my thanks to him for the work he has done on this bill. But he said the more candid that we can make this, the better the relationship will be with international partners, which I found a very helpful way to look at things. But more than anything, this 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 this bill makes it clear that the duty of candour is not an optional extra, but a core tenet of public service. Too often in the past, we have seen institutions ring around people more interested in their own reputations than they are in finding the truth and acting in the public interest. The Hillsborough Independent Panel, as we know, found over 100 statements made by junior police officers have been deliberately altered by the 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. It is a culture that we have seen far too often. As members have already referred to Grenfell, Manchester Arena, the Post Office, Horizon scandal, contaminated blood, Windrush, Cammell Laird, Old Shrewsbury campaign and many, many others. We've all recognised in those scandals the similar patterns of institutional defensiveness, delayed disclosure and inequality of arms. This bill will end this pattern and this culture once and for all.

And as the hon. Member for Godalming and Ash reminded us, the law doesn't change things. It's actually the culture that needs to change. But the law gives us the basis upon which we see that change. So as members have recognised, it actually is important and it's incumbent on us to make sure that this bill, once it gets on the statute book, doesn't stay static. It becomes a document that we regularly ensure is working as it was intended to. And I think there is, as a member for Liverpool, Garston said, some more work to do, particularly in how it works in practice, and I am concerned that the provisions around legal aid may not mean we get parity of arms in reality.

But let's welcome where we are, because I believe Hillsborough families have waited far too long to see justice. And on days like today, I think in particular about the families of Christopher Edwards, James Delaney and Jimmy Hennessy, who left Ellesmere Port on the 15th of April 1989 to watch a game of football and never returned. We remember all those who died and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

repeat our vow. Never again. Freddie Van Mierlo.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Freddie Van Mierlo. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I start by paying tribute to the victims and survivors who of this debate just of this debate just a 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
16:14
Freddie van Mierlo Portrait Freddie van Mierlo MP (Henley and Thame, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Ireland. This is absurd. Although publicly. Although privately owned water companies operate under the water companies operate under the Water Act 1991 and are designed designated as statutory undertakers, designated as statutory undertakers, they exercise public functions of fundamental importance to health, fundamental importance to health, the environment and daily life. They hold exclusive regional monopolies, meaning consumers have monopolies, meaning consumers have no alternative provider and benefit from statutory powers and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

privileges normally associated with public authorities. A I thank you for giving way. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A I thank you for giving way. I mean, we actually have examples of water companies lying. We had South East water coming to the Select East water coming to the Select Committee in January and giving false evidence, so much so that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

false evidence, so much so that the chair considered bringing them back in contempt of Parliament. I think my hon. Friend makes an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. And we've seen from docudramas like Dirty Water, where water companies have sought to evade scrutiny, and this amendment would correct that anomaly. They are supposed to perform the same public functions as 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 standards expected for those who work at the authority, and make people aware of the consequences for 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. For companies in England like Thames Water, requiring them to adopt such a code of conduct by law is one and one clear and immediate way the government can reduce the problems we currently see with companies like Thames Water.

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. Constituents like Judy Washington, whose case I raised directly with the Prime Minister at PMQs. We have seen time and time again Thames Water prioritize their own shareholders and debt and 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 them to follow and clear consequences for subverting these goals. By holding them 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 is serious about holding water companies to account, they must close loopholes which allow them again and again to escape judgement for their wrong actions. It should not be one rule for them and another for everyone else.
16:17
Kim Johnson Portrait Kim Johnson MP (Liverpool Riverside, Labour)
-
-
Here I call Kim Johnson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in support of New clause five and six and new clause number eight in the government's name, and I'd like to declare my interest as chair of the all party parliamentary group on Miscarriages of justice, because, as we all know, Hillsborough stands as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen. And I want to start by joining my colleagues in recognising the strength and resilience of all those who got us to this point today.

First and foremost, the families who fought for decades to expose the truth. And some of them are joined in the chamber today. They kept the flame burning for 37 long years to get us to this point. And 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 the blame that you had to endure.

This bill will provide families 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. And 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.

There are too many who have campaigned to get us to this point, but I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend, the Member for Liverpool West Derby, for his amazing job in championing the Hillsborough Law campaign in Parliament, and for refusing to give in to pressure when it looked

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like the duty of candour would be watered down. My honourable. Friend, I'll.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend, I'll. Give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving away. She's making an incredibly emotional speech, I know from the Nottingham Maternity Review the the harm and hurt that Review the the harm and hurt that is caused when people with knowledge and involvement in institutional failures are allowed to dodge accountability and scrutiny. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it's absolutely vital, therefore, that there is no exemption from the duty of candour, including for security services, and that campaigners, including our hon.

Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, have been right to fight for so many years for a Hillsborough law that is worthy of the name, and that can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

truly end cover ups. I totally agree with my hon. Friend that no one should be exempt, and to pay tribute to everybody that is here today, but I'd also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Garston, who has campaigned over so Garston, who has campaigned over so many years in Parliament, and to the Member for Makerfield, whose relentless campaign for justice for the Hillsborough 97 has helped to get us here today, and I have no doubt that he will do everything that he can to get us across the line.

The Hillsborough Law now legal team, Elkan Abraham and Peter Weatherby KC, who fought very hard for the duty of candour in this bill to make sure it was strengthened and not watered down. This would not have been possible without all of your tireless endeavours, and we owe you all. The biggest debt of gratitude. Today isn't just about the past, though. It's about preventing future cover ups, corruption and police wrongdoing. Today, we ensure that no worker, no family, no community is ever left to fight the state alone.

And I want to take this opportunity. Madam Deputy Speaker, to add my support to new clause five and six, tabled in my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick and supported by inquest, which would establish a national oversight mechanism for inquests and inquiries. These amendments are vital in ensuring that recommendations made do not just sit gathering dust on shelves, but we establish a body responsible and accountable for implementing them to prevent future harms. For too long, working class 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 ups.

This bill is a legacy for the victims of Hillsborough. Never again will families have to endure the level of corruption and cover ups, and the fundamental failure of police who blamed victims. Never again will the 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, of those impacted by the infected blood scandal, Windrush Post Office horizon the nuclear test veterans still fighting for justice.

The Cammell Laird, 37, the descendants of the Chinese seafarers deported from Liverpool in the 1940s, still fighting for truth and an apology. The survivors, the educators of normal scandal who are yet to be given the dignity of an apology and compensation for what they were put through, or those black families still seeking justice for those who died as a result of police interactions. It's a bitter injustice that no one has ever been held to account, just like Hillsborough, that all the police involved walk free.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, I fully support the campaign to have the former Chief superintendent of the South Yorkshire Police be stripped of his knighthood and have his Queen Policing Medal rescinded. This bill has taken far too long to get here, but Madam Deputy Speaker, the fight is not over. More work has to be done in the other place and the implementation, but for those victims and for so many others, the fight goes on for the justice they deserve, but for far too long has been not been denied.

No justice,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no peace. Here I call Ian Burn. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. 2015 I had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. 2015 I had the number 96 tattooed on my wrist. It simply wasn't a tattoo. It was a It simply wasn't a tattoo. It was a promise. I promise that whenever life became difficult, I would never forget one simple truth. I never forget one simple truth. I was one of the lucky ones. I walked away from Hillsborough for 96, didn't. Today we remember the 97. That number on my wrist and the people that represent have become my compass.

Every time I look at it, I think of those who never came home. I think of the families. I think of survivors like my dad who was seriously injured. I think of every campaigner who spent decades refusing to accept the lies, refusing to surrender to injustice and refusing to allow the truth to be buried. They've shaped my life far more than they will ever know.
16:25
Ian Byrne Portrait Ian Byrne MP (Liverpool West Derby, Labour)
-
-
I owe them more. I could never repay. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the repay. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the years after Hillsborough, one question followed me everywhere. It question followed me everywhere. It is a question every survivor knows. Every survivor of Grenfell knows it. Every survivor of public disaster Every survivor of public disaster knows it. It arrives uninvited in knows it. It arrives uninvited in the silence of the early hours of the morning. Why did I get to walk away with another student? 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've lived? Madam Deputy Speaker, I began to find my answers long before I entered this place in 2009, after finishing an early shift of my printing factory, I went with my dad, my mates, people who had stood beside me. Hillsborough to the 20th anniversary memorial service at Anfield. We stood shoulder to shoulder with thousands of people.

We remembered. And then came the chant that echoed around the stadium justice, justice, justice. Not because of the slogan, but because it was all we had left. The two decades of being lied to families have been ignored. Survivors are being smeared. Those who should have protected ordinary people protected themselves instead. And this house, with honourable exceptions, too often look 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 lads were exposed, the cover up was exposed, the culture of unaccountable power was exposed. Madam Deputy Speaker, the families, the survivors and the people 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 headlines. They damaged lives, they damaged reputations. They damaged trust in our institutions. That is why I will continue to campaign for Everton Part two, and for Bettison to be stripped of his knighthood.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, the new inquest 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 truth matters. But truth without accountability is never enough. Truth without justice leaves a Truth without justice leaves a wound only partially healed. The families deserve justice. The survivors deserve justice. We never got off Hillsborough. Then Bishop James Jones gave us not just a report, but a warning that should echo through every public institution in Britain the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

patronising disposition of unaccountable power. Those Fibrates alone should be studied by every public authority in this country, every Minister, every chief constable, every permanent secretary, every senior public official. Because we don't learn those lessons, we'll carry on repeating them. Few reports have ever described the British establishments with such establishments with such devastating accuracy and power is unaccountable. Truth becomes negotiable. Justice becomes optional. Ordinary people are sacrificed. Mr. Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 the right hon. Member of Parliament, for Makerfield, to carry the baton for Hillsborough in Parliament, 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. For the moments in politics that define why you are here, why you've been given this privilege.

This was my. I never saw this as my campaign. It always belonged to the families. I was simply trusted to carry their voices into this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot lie. There were moments when this journey tested me in ways I could never have imagined. Moments when compromise was presented as victory. Moments when those more powerful than me said, take this or leave it. Moments where I wondered if you'd ever get here. But every time that happens, 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 my wrist at that number. It reminded me 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 the truth about dying, for the nuclear test, veterans for families and 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, different families, the same fight for truth and justice. Because 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, today I feel something I wasn't sure I'd 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, it's not the end of a campaign. It's the start of doing things differently. It's about people in power telling the truth. It's about public bodies remembering who they exist to serve. And it's about making sure 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. 97. Those who are still with us and those we have sadly lost along the way, you will never, ever be forgotten.

You carry the burden that should never be in yours. You fought with dignity when others showed no. You told this country that ordinary people can overcome the most extraordinary abuse of power. So every survivor, I hope today brings some measure of peace. Not because it contains the past. Nothing ever will, but because you are suffering as a brought about lasting change for generations to come. Madam Deputy Speaker, for decades I asked myself why I survived. Today I think I understand not because I've 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 wanted the memory of the 97. If I'd be ready to trust the families and survivors have placed in me. If this Parliament finally ensures that no grieving family. Ever have to come to fight the state simply to uncover the truth, then every setback, every disappointments, every sleepless night will have been worth it. Madam Deputy Speaker, this law is 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, then the greatest legacy of the 97 will not simply be that they are remembered. There will be that because of them, this country has finally, finally learned the lessons of Hillsborough. And every time I look at my number on my wrist, I won't simply remember those we lost. I remember the change that they changed this country for the better. Madam Deputy Speaker. Never again.
16:35
Alex Davies-Jones Portrait Alex Davies-Jones MP (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
-
Order! >> Madam Deputy Speaker. It is more than a privilege to follow my hon. Friend, and more than a privilege to speak in support of the to speak in support of the government amendments today and in favour of this bill as a whole. This is a law that represents far This is a law that 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.

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 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, and instead of openness, they face silence.

Instead of truth, they are met with half truths or worse, 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 public officials understand that their first duty is not to protect reputations or institutions. It is to protect the truth, because when institutions close ranks, it is ordinary families who pay the price. When evidence is concealed, justice is delayed.

When facts are distorted, truth is destroyed, and when those in positions of power fail to tell the truth. Confidence in our public institutions is eroded. For generations. The Hillsborough families know this better than anyone. For 37 years, they have carried a burden that should never have been theirs. They 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 refuse to give up, even when the odds were stacked against them. Their 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they have spent decades fighting for. If we. Do, what message does that send

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do, what message does that send to every family still waiting for answers? What does it say to those affected by Grenfell? By the infected blood scandal, by the Post Office Horizon scandal, by the Manchester Arena attack and sadly, Manchester Arena attack and sadly, so on. And every future family who May 1st day find themselves seeking May 1st 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 the public should expect from those who exercise public power. And that is why I speak in support of the government amendments brought forward today. These amendments finally allow the Bill to have the worthy title of the Hillsborough Law.

These amendments stand as a testament to the families, the victims and survivors who would never give up the Manchester Arena attack victims, the nuclear test veterans, Chinook disaster families, 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 it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is convenient is not a true duty at all, I will. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I think one of the things that has always struck me about this law is actually how we about this law is actually how we can change accountability. And just a couple of weeks ago in the Ockenden report, the tragic incidents of the Nottingham maternity scandal was the fact that public officials did not come public officials did not come forward to tell the truth.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that actually this is wider than Hillsborough? The Hillsborough family, they had to go through so much, but so many families have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suffered and endured ever since. Absolutely. I totally agree with my hon. Friend. She is making a my hon. Friend. She is making a powerful point and raises the issue of the Nottingham maternity scandal. And I know the Hillsborough families have been supporting those families have been supporting those families in their fight for truth and justice and accountability, and that is why this law is so that is why this law is so important. It is so much more and it has become so much more than just Hillsborough families.

It has just Hillsborough families. It has encompassed everything that we know and we need regarding our public institutions and a duty of candour, which is why the government amendments brought forward today in this bill regarding the intelligence services and our defence services are so vitally important, because 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 and some we will never and should never know about.

And I know from first hand experience that this hasn't 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 in order to protect ongoing operations, intelligence sources and national security. And I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the whole army of amazing, dedicated public servants who have fought to bring this to this place today so that we are able to bring this bill forward with the government amendments intact to all the families who never gave up, even when the process of developing this legislation took an emotional, physical and mental toll on you.

The Hillsborough law now, and all of the campaigns and organisations that have become part of that wider family, you have been bonded by grief, by trauma and the failure of the state to provide you with truth and justice. 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 this legislation is that public authorities must act honestly, must not mislead, must not conceal wrongdoing, and they must cooperate fully with investigations and inquiries.

When, sadly, that tragedy does strike, 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 upon which this legislation rests. We risk creating the perception that some institutions are accountable while others are not. That candour is expected from some public servants, but not from others.

That cannot be right, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the duty of candour is a moral obligation, as I believe it is, then it must be a moral obligation that applies across all public sector appropriate safeguards for national security can and should exist and do. As we have heard from the Minister today, 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. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will indulge me, I want to reflect on the words that have come to symbolise not only my beloved Liverpool Football Club, but the Hillsborough family's extraordinary campaign for truth and justice.

You'll Never Walk Alone for millions 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. And 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. But those words you'll never walk alone must not remain simply a song 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 the public bodies refused to tell the truth. No family should have to walk alone against institutions with vastly greater resources and power, and no family should have to walk alone in the search for answers after losing someone they love.

That is why the Hillsborough law matters. That is why the duty of candour matters, and that is why this legislation must apply wherever public power is exercised, because 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, then 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 now, 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 Hillsborough law. That is the promise of a true duty of candour. And that is how we ensure that the words you'll never walk alone and no longer simply an anthem of remembrance, but a lasting commitment from this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament to every family who seeks nothing more than the truth. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. I call them a Lowell. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I speak to the government's new clauses and amendments that ensure there is no carve out when it comes to a duty of candour for the intelligence and of candour for the intelligence and security services, I want to put on record my utmost respect for my record my utmost respect for my hon. Friend, for Liverpool, West Derby and all my honourable and right hon. Friends on these benches who have been relentless in pushing this Bill forward.

But it's the Hillsborough families and campaigners who fought doggedly through their pain and their heartache, who deserve all of our respect in memories of their loved ones, through their courage and
16:47
Emma Lewell Portrait Emma Lewell MP (South Shields, Labour)
-
-
refusal to be silenced or ground down, they will have fundamentally changed the relationship between 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 we have needed to legislate for these services, to tell the truth and to include criminal sanctions. If they include criminal sanctions. If they don't, telling the truth should have always been their position, not something they have to be forced to do.

The rest of us face reprisals for not telling the truth. At the very least, this is something we should expect from the state. My dear friends and constituents Lisa and Mark Rutherford and Caroline Currie's children, Chloe and Liam, were killed in the Manchester terror attack. They sat through utterly agonizing years, months, days and hours of inquiry hearings, hearings that 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.

They were signatories to the Hillsborough Law Now campaign. Letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier this year. That said, despite MI5 lying to a public inquiry in this way, nobody 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. They 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.

They were absolutely right, and I am relieved today that the government has listened. Madam Deputy Speaker Caroline, Lisa and Mark aren't here in the gallery today. They told me they feel by not being here they are letting their children down. They are not like everyone who has fought so hard and been involved to get us here today. Their loved ones will know that with every breath, every single minute of every day since the day they were so brutally taken from them that they have never, ever given up.

This law will not be retrospective. It cannot right the past wrongs, but it will send a very clear signal to the state and in doing so will instil a culture where the truth, not the cover up, is the primary focus. This is so important for everyone fighting for justice. The nuclear veterans, Chinook Grenfell, post office scandal, infected blood scandal, the Covid-19 bereaved families and many others as MPs in this place, it is now our job to make sure 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. It should never have been this relentless, and it should never have been this painful. It is a real honour to have met all of those involved with the Hillsborough Law campaign. I wish I had met them under different circumstances. I want to thank all of them. We all owe them and I sincerely hope that now they have got Parliament to this stage, that they are able to find some small element of peace.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Sarah Russell. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to join my many colleagues in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families, including those in the gallery today and those who feel gallery today and those who feel very understandable reasons, perhaps felt that they could not be here. Your your quest for justice is truly inspirational to all of us. And thank you so very much for your perseverance and everything that you've done. I don't doubt that it will make the country a better place.

When we look at this legislation, I know that many people have had raised concerns about the the duty of candour and its application to the security
16:52
Sarah Russell Portrait Sarah Russell MP (Congleton, Labour)
-
-
service, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam, when he raised this in and Southam, when he raised this in the chamber, I'm sure he did so in good faith. But what. No one who has raised concerns about this has been able to point to is any way in which the existing law protecting security services and the secret information that they hold has in information that they hold has in any way ever actually failed or any problems as a result of the existing arrangements.

The concerns have been raised have seemed to be entirely hypothetical, and giving the security services a huge carve out from the duty of candour when there is known problems, for instance, as a result of the evidence that was given at the Manchester Arena bombing seems to me to be completely unsustainable and unreasonable. There is literally no evidence to suggest that there is any risk to national security here, and I would join with my other colleagues in saying that if there was evidence to suggest that the existing arrangements had ever failed us, then many of us would think again about the drafting of this bill as it has been put forward by the government.

We would all stand country first, but there is nothing that I can see that would prevent this law from going ahead in the way it's been drafted. What we also owe, though, to the Hillsborough families, when we are looking, and the many other families from the many other disasters that we sadly hear about in this place too often is it's so important to get to the truth so, so important. And I hope that the duty of candour will help to move that forward significantly.

But then the other question is what comes next? And that's why I stand today to stand in support of new clauses five and six, brought forward by the right hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick, in which he has called for us to have a national oversight mechanism to follow up with respect to the actions of a public authority arising from the conclusions and recommendations of inquests and inquiries, because, yes, we absolutely must get to the truth and then we absolutely must have recommendations for how we avoid future catastrophes and disasters and unnecessary risk.

But we've got to then do something to stop it from happening again. And at the moment when we have prevention of future death reports or we have inquiry reports, all too often we are not seeing that follow up, not consistently and not across the board. All too often we have seen, for instance, in place of the Ockenden report that there have been recommendations from individual inquiries around maternity scandals, for instance, but that actually systemic change does not follow despite the considerable resources and efforts put in by individuals to make those systems be better.

So when we are thinking about justice for the Hillsborough families and the Grenfell families and the many, many other families who have sadly lost their loved ones in these terrible, terrible circumstances, we must make sure that we are going to bring into play the interplay mechanisms that ensure that there is proper follow up after all of these disasters, that those inquiry outcomes are followed through, and that we have the right mechanisms in place to ensure that. So thank you very much to everyone who has worked to to get us to where we are today.

I know there are so many families, obviously, but also members of Parliament. I have worked across party and for for a great deal of time to try and bring this forward. And thank you, everyone involved and and let's keep this work going.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I call Andy MacDonald.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Andy MacDonald. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a true privilege to have been It is a true privilege to have been present in this debate this afternoon to hear some of the most incredible contributions I think incredible contributions I think I've ever heard in this place. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll be Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll be mercifully brief, but I do want to register that it is to the Prime Minister's considerable credit that he has fulfilled his manifesto commitment and has got this Bill to the point within the year of his remarks made at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool last year, and I also wish to put on record my recognition of the work of my friend, the right hon.

Member for Makerfield, for his persistent work
16:56
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
on this subject for many, many on this subject for many, many years. But principally it is the families of Hillsborough victims. The Hillsborough Law Now campaign The Hillsborough Law Now campaign and Pete Weatherby KC and of course, my good friend, the hon. Member for my good friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby and many others who have have to be others who have have to be recognised for their tireless determination not to let this rest and get us where we are today.

And we must not forget the Manchester Arena, the Grenfell families, the families and contaminated blood and the British nuclear test veterans and all those who've been part of this campaign for my own constituents. Madam Deputy Speaker, the duty of candour as it existed for the NHS did not deliver for the families of Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore and many others. Those who died in the scandal at the Tees, Esk and Wear Valley Mental Health Trust. And I've welcomed the confirmation of a public inquiry.

And am I being informed that the applications have been received to chair it? But families need to be need this to be up and running. So I hope the Health Secretary can progress that urgently this summer. And whilst we are being asked to support dozens of government amendments today tabled with little notice and without being able to scrutinise in detail, I am led by the families to support these amendments and I do recognise the calls for oversight and monitoring mechanisms, such as those tabled by the chair of the Justice Committee, my hon.

Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick in New Clause five and by my old friend and doughty campaigner, the Member for Liverpool Garston in New Clause one, which would assure us that these new government amendments function effectively and, amongst other things, holding to account police officers, armed forces and members of the security services as we are to believe. But I do sense that many members across this House would like to hear more from our frontbench about commitments made to oversight and monitoring, and perhaps the Minister can address that in the summing up, because clearly the expectation of honesty and transparency is not and never can be a threat to national security.

And I'd like the Minister to 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 being established by the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. So perhaps the Minister can confirm that the government will table amendments to that Bill or can otherwise provide guarantees that the measures in today's bill cover the families who have suffered so much in Northern Ireland. Madam Deputy Speaker, the common characteristics of these appalling human tragedies are of the most unimaginable trauma, pain and grief, and their demands are the same.

They are for truth, justice and accountability, and today provides the means to deliver on those demands. And I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend from Liverpool, West Derby. If anything tells us why we come to this place to change this country for the better, then surely it is today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I very much welcome this landmark legislation today. Thank you. Luke Meyer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Luke Meyer. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow my constituency. Labour and I share his views about the need for action his views about the need for action on the inquiry. And when I first considered running for public 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 that she end up voting for things that she didn't agree with, but that I must promise to her that I would do one thing and that was never to engage with the Sun newspaper.

One small snapshot, I think, of the depth of
17:01
Luke Myer Portrait Luke Myer MP (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, Labour)
-
-
feeling from her family, who are from Wavertree and Kirby, but also from Wavertree and Kirby, but also the families across Merseyside region, and they are well represented today. From all of my represented today. From all of my colleagues from that part of the world, but in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for West hon. Friend the Member for West Derby, whose speech was, I think, one of the finest that I've heard in this place and outside it as 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, and they face delay and denial and the closing of ranks. They were made to prove the truth again and again and again, while those in positions of authority avoided responsibility. And no family should ever have to endure that. It's a credit to them that they did not give up.

And their campaign has now changed our country's understanding of public accountability. And this duty of candour in this 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've led this bill, including my hon. Friend, the Member for Pontypridd, in front of me, who also gave an excellent speech. And it takes great bravery, I think, for the executive to agree to restrict their own power, and I think the offense that they have brought forward in terms of misleading the public for senior members of the government, is a courageous thing for a government to step up and agree to do so.

I support the offence in clause 11, but I also feel strongly that it ought to apply to all of us as politicians. And so I'm grateful to the more than 30 members from across 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 for that. And so I hope to hear more from the Minister on this matter.

But nonetheless, I am firmly in support of this bill. Nothing can bring back those 97 individuals who went to watch a football match on a sunny afternoon, or returned the years taken from those 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. So I pay tribute again to all those who have campaigned for justice, and I'm pleased to support this bill today.
17:04
Clive Efford Portrait Clive Efford MP (Eltham and Chislehurst, Labour)
-
-
By Bedford. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I decided very late on to make a contribution to this debate because I chair the to this debate because I chair the all party parliamentary Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia and Contaminated blood, and I just and Contaminated blood, and I just wanted to add my voice on behalf of all the people who campaigned on that scandal, that that their appreciation for the work of the Hillsborough families and what they've achieved on behalf of the whole country, ordinary people up and down the our country will have a power to take on the state in the future and not be crushed in the way that that the state has attempted to do over so many other scandals that have been mentioned to today.

And I also want to pay tribute to the MPs from the North West, not just the Liverpool, who, over the many years that I've been in this House, have campaigned consistently on this issue, particularly my friend from Liverpool, Garston, witness in Halewood and I should remember Steve Rotheram as well, who spoke out very powerfully on behalf of the Hillsborough families and of course, Liverpool. West Derbyshire, who spoke so passionately earlier on and I paid tribute to all of them.

But it tells us something about this issue that in spite of the fact that it's a very fine members of Parliament here have been raising this issue over a very long period of time that it has taken this long to get to to where we are today. So we it shows us how how important it is that we have. We we are tenacious. We stick with our campaigns, but also we, we, we have an oversight of the government in, in holding them to account, to make sure that they do not treat people in the way that they've attempted to, not just in covering up, but also in opposing the campaigns for justice.

It tells us that we that we can never drop our guard in terms of the state and holding people to account. So I really welcome the fact that we are going to have this duty of candour. Bill passed today. I mean, just as one example, I could I could stand here reading out examples of individuals of the way that they were treated by the state in the contaminated blood scandal. But just one springs to mind. A baby at the age of age of 18 months was experimented on without anybody being told.

So the baby was infected with hepatitis. This didn't. This wasn't discovered until the baby became a teenager. The parent found out, and the state made the parent believe that she had given her consent for a baby to be experimented on. At the age of 18 months, that parent went on to attempt suicide. It just shows you the scale of the and the depth of of, of cruelty that people have had to endure in that scandal and others. And it's, it's, it's one of the most powerful testaments that I've come across that shows that why we need to, to, to fight for justice in this place, for the people who suffered in all of these scandals that we've spoken about.

So there are two issues that I would like to add, because I see this issue of the duty of candour as being part of a framework that we need to put in place, and part of that has to be that we have to have a national compensation body. We are learning a lot. The Ibca, the the independent body for contaminated the contaminated blood is, is a is a unique body that's been set up to, to, to pay out compensation.

And it is learning a lot about how to go through this process. And it would be wrong to have to relearn that process all over and over and over again with every subsequent scandal that we're compensation is paid out. So we should set up a national body for compensation to perform that task. That keeps that knowledge and that expertise that has been learned in place and that we do not lose it. Secondly, we should need a national body for oversight of recommendations, of inquiries.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick has set out in his amendments that I, I fully support. We've had over 400 recommendations from inquiries since 2020 for 400. And who is that having oversight of those, those recommendations and how the government is responding to it? Sir Brian Langstaff, who chaired the the Contaminated Blood inquiry, kept his inquiry open. He reported in July 2024. But he deliberately kept his inquiry open because he wanted to see how the government reacted to his recommendations.

And then in 2025, he reconvened that inquiry and took further evidence and gave further recommendations because of the tardy way in which the government was responding to his recommendations. We cannot be in that position again. We can't rely on the Brian Langstaff. So this government of this of this world to be that that guarded and to to protect our rights in in that way, every time we have to have a body that is independent of government, that will scrutinise how the government behaves and how the government reacts to the recommendations, recommendations of public inquiries that we, the public, pay for.

So finally, in conclusion, I'd just like to say again, congratulations to the Hillsborough families. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For Minister to wind up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For Minister to wind up. Minister, with the leave of the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to close today's debate. This bill exists today's debate. This bill exists because people refused to be silent because of families who had lost because of families who had lost everything, were told to move on, to stop asking questions, to accept
17:10
Catherine Atkinson Portrait Catherine Atkinson MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Derby North, Labour)
-
-
half truths at best. Barefaced lies half truths at best. Barefaced lies at worst. Instead, they chose to fight for too long. In this country, fight for too long. In this country, when a disaster has struck, the balance of power has lain with the balance of power has lain with the state and not with the people who suffered harm. The people it should suffered harm. The people it should have protected. 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 and towards openness, honesty and accountability. And I want to thank members from all sides of this House who have contributed so passionately today and throughout the bill's passage. I am so grateful for the way that they have worked with us constructively and collaboratively, rightly challenging us, but always with a shared purpose. And that is this House at its very best, coming together to rise above party political advantage for justice and for the good of the British people.

That is what we have done with the Hillsborough Law, and it has meant that we have been able to bring forward amendments that genuinely strengthen this bill, not water it down, and I will address the points being made in the debate. Firstly, in relation to national security. The reason this bill was paused was to ensure that we get it right. This legislation is about addressing the wrongs that we have seen at Hillsborough and 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 into legal proceedings, and it is a mischaracterization to suggest that it does so. The families and campaigners have never wanted information going into the public domain that would put people at risk. Certain types of legal proceeding can compel national security information. That happens now, and there is law and practice that has been developed over time to protect information.

The Bill and the amendments repeatedly make clear that the bill does not override existing laws, but instead it draws on existing safeguards. We have always had the tools in law to protect national security information, and there are, 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 rigorously these provisions and ensure that the right hon.

Member for Kenilworth and Southam asked about the time taken and if our position had changed. The government has been consistent that the risk comes from individuals who may not be aware of the full picture, and it is therefore been essential that we are able to address that. The hon. Member, the the Shadow Justice Secretary 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 avoids the broad discretion that cause members of this House concern before our intelligence services are best placed to assess the sensitivity of information. They do that every day, and that is why we have crafted the amendments as we have, so that any information held by individual employees may be engaged by the provisions of this 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, and that provides more assurance, not less, to our citizens and partners. We have also seen raised concerns in relation to the candour in relation to health, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South West Surrey for his contribution. We do not agree. We do not disagree with the intent of his amendments. In new clause 11 and 150. However, 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, and we will work with organisations on how to best fulfil these obligations and ensure full implementation. I. I am afraid I won't to get and respond to as many as I can. I don't have time to take interventions to get it through. This bill is about the duty of candour to an inquiry or investigation, and onward disclosure of information will be determined by each inquiry, inquest or investigation as to what is appropriate and relevant.

But I would be eager to meet with him about what more can be done through the implementation of this bill and separately, to achieve the culture change that we want to see. Other members have raised the Nottingham Maternity Review, which I have followed closely, as I have the work of the government's maternity adviser. The right hon. Member for Sherwood. Because of my experience in Nottingham, when I was giving birth to my eldest son in 2014, because with each contraction of his heartbeat, 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.

But I was one of the lucky ones because I got to take him home and I will always hold in my mind the 500 mothers and babies who suffered potentially avoidable harm or death around that time in Nottingham, that the message we are sending with this legislation is that cover up culture is over, and that women and families must be listened to and public bodies, including NHS trusts, must be open and candid when things go wrong and we are clear that we will apply the duty of candour to the Leeds and Sussex maternity reviews.

In relation to the national oversight mechanism and the and the contribution of my hon. Friend for Hammersmith and Chiswick. We have taken steps to improve transparency and how we respond to inquiry recommendations and 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, and the Chief Coroner's Office is also is also continuing work to improve access to prevention of future death reports.

While the government seeks to strengthen arrangements for responding to the concerns raised through them, including better and more strategic use of technology in relation to the independent public adviser. I also welcome the contribution and work of the my right hon. Friend for Liverpool, Garstang and others who considered and discussed Liverpool, Garston, gallstones, gallstones. My apologies. I thank all of those who raised this and the points that she has made, and I take on her points in. Legislation requires that there will be a review about the role within 18 months of the IPA being stood up, and this is in train.

The Ethics and Integrity Commission will also be developing guidance on the Code of Ethics and have a role in monitoring and overseeing this in relation to the amendments sought by my hon. Friend for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland, he raises some really serious concerns about disinformation and the risk that those have with eroding trust in our institutions and weakening our country. While backbench MPs are not included in the new offence as they are responsible for scrutinising decisions of the government of the day, Parliament does have processes already for determining if members have misled the House and has its own arrangements for ensuring truthfulness and accuracy from members, but I would be keen to work with him to look at how we strengthen matters in relation to his concern in relation to whistleblowing and clauses three and six.

The Bill provides safeguards for sensitive information and whistleblowers, and the Code of Ethics must contain information whistleblowing policies. We actively are exploring opportunities for reform as set out in the Anti-Corruption strategy in 2025, and there is a consultation on whistleblowing being launched this summer. We have had many contributions in relation to placing water companies under a code of ethical conduct obligations, and although the Code of Conduct provisions do not apply to private water companies in England and Wales, Wales, the Bill contains a power to extend this and the government will consult on this in due course.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East raised concerns about the additional work needed and the and and the additional measures coming into force, needing to be done as soon as possible. And we are conscious that families have waited for long enough for this law. However, putting commencement dates on the face of this bill could cause practical difficulties. But we are doing all that we can to make sure that it is in place as soon as possible. We have also had amendments in relation to public former public officials, and just to be clear, they will remain subject to the duty of candour provided 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 in relation to subcontractors.

The main contractors will be accountable for their subcontractors performance, and the government is open to exploring further measures to strengthen accountability and candour through supply chains. We have also had concerns raised in relation to journalism, and the government has already narrowed the journalism exemptions and made clear that the offence covers covers, misleading, recognised news publishers and provided sufficient safeguards through the requirement for DPP consent before any prosecution can proceed. I have a number of people that I would wish to thank.

Madam Deputy Speaker, before I conclude. Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to pay tribute to all of those who have shaped this bill, made sure that it delivers as intended, held us to account and made sure that we got to this point. Families and campaigners for their courage and for sharing their experiences, often at great personal cost. They have challenged successive governments. They've worked constructively with us, and without them we would not be here today. I also want to thank the members of this House who have stood alongside them over many years, championing their cause and helping to strengthen this bill.

In particular, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Attorney General, the right hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam for all his assistance and expertise on the government amendments on the security services. The hon. Members for Pontypridd, Liverpool, Carson, Garston, Knowsley, Liverpool, Wavertree, Widnes and Halewood, Birkenhead, Liverpool, West Derby, whose contribution was so powerful, Saint Helens North and the right hon. Member for Makerfield, whose passion for this long predates his return to this House.

Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 do and what we must do is ensure that the truth is never again buried by institutions whose first instinct is protecting themselves. That is what this bill is designed to combat, and I am incredibly grateful to all involved that we have been able to bring this bill back before the House. And as victims Minister, I am determined to see it deliver the lasting cultural change that families have fought over for so many years.

I hope that in years to come, it will not only be remembered for the duties and the offences that it creates, but because it helped change the relationship between the state and those it exists to serve. We have listened. We have acted, and we will continue to listen. As this bill makes its way through the House, and I commend this bill to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House today. The question. Is that new clause eight be read

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that new clause eight be read a second time, as many as are of a second time, as many as are of that opinion, say I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question it. The ayes have it. The question is that new clause eight be added to the bill. As many as of that to the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it.

The ayes have it. We come to government. New clause nine. I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move new clause nine formally. I beg to move. The question is that new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause nine be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that new clause nine be question is that new clause nine be added to the bill, as many are as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

With the leave of the House. I call the Minister to move. Government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments 151 and 152 together. Formally. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government amendments 151 and 152 be made as amendments 151 and 152 be made as many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No. I think the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Amendment three has been selected for separate Decision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Decision. I called Jess Brown Fuller to move the amendment formally. For me. The question is that amendment three be made. As many as of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No,
17:28
17:39
17:41
None Portrait Public Office (Accountability) Bill: Report: Division: Page 6 Amdt. 199
-

Is that amendment 199 be made? As many as of that opinion, say I. Of the contrary, no. no Tellers for the ayes. A Lincoln job, and Sir Ashley Fox, the Tellers for the noes. Emma Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right for 102. The noes to the left 409.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noes to the left 409. Turned out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Turned out to wave goodbye. The ayes to the right were 102.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 102. The noes to the left 409. So the noes have it. The noes have it noes have it. The noes have it unlock. With the leave of the house. I call the Minister to move. Government amendments 32 158 to 160

**** Possible New Speaker ****

five, 33, 166 to 168 and 37 to 42. Formally. I beg to move. The question is that government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government amendments 32 158 to 165, 33, 166 to 168 and 37 to 42 be made. As to 168 and 37 to 42 be made. As many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No, I think the Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Amendment 19 has been selected for separate decision. I call Doctor Kieran Mullen to move the amendment formally move. The question is that amendment 19 be made.

As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, no. Division. Clear Is Is that Is that amendment Is that amendment 19 Is that amendment 19 be made. As many as of that opinion,
17:58
None Portrait Public Office (Accountability) Bill: Report: Division: Page 10 Amdt.19
-

say aye. Of the contrary. No. >> Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Tellers for the ayes of Sir Ashley Fox, and the Tellers for the Order, Order, order! Order, order! The Order, order! The ayes Order, order! The ayes to Order, order! The ayes to the Order, order! The ayes to the right Order, order! The ayes to the right 104. The noes to the left 412. The ayes to the right for 104. The noes to the left 412. So the noes have it.

The noes have it unlock. Order the order under the order of the house of the 3rd of November 2025. I must now put the questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration to a conclusion. I call the Minister to move government amendments 43 to 72, 169 government amendments 43 to 72, 169 to 170 seven, 76, 178, 179, 78, 180 to 182, 79, 80, 183 to 190 seven,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

91, one nine, 198 and 93 to 142 formally. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is that government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government amendments 43 to 72, 169 to 170 776, amendments 43 to 72, 169 to 170 776, 178, 179, 78, 180 to 1 8279 80, 183 178, 179, 78, 180 to 1 8279 80, 183 to 197, 91, 198 and 93 to 142 be made. As many errors of that opinion, say I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Consideration completed have it. Consideration completed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third Reading. Now. King's consent. No, not. Now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the Prime Minister to move. Third Reading. Yes. I usually have to ask the King

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I usually have to ask the King for consent. So that was Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the bill be now read for a third time. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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. 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. But then to keep going and going and going. As the state deployed all its power to obstruct justice and truth. And that, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a stain on our history and yet keep going. They did. And we are here today because of them. And some of us, some of them, are with us in the gallery today. And they were with me in number ten just this afternoon.

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 that they'll never know. They'll never meet, but will never have to go through what they went through. That is incredibly inspiring and humbling, in my view. And so 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's face it, there is a class element to this time and again, the cry for justice was ignored by the British state because of who the victims are, because their working class, because they're black, because they're women and girls. And so I come here today not to take credit for this government or this House, but as Prime Minister,
18:14
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
to put on our national record exactly where the credit belongs, because, Madam Deputy Speaker, it because, Madam Deputy Speaker, it belongs to the families and to the campaigners, and I pay tribute to campaigners, and I pay tribute to every one of them. The Hillsborough families, Hillsborough law now families, Hillsborough law now inquest, Grenfell United, the Manchester Arena families who again were with me this afternoon or some were with me this afternoon or some of them and are here today. Victims of the grooming gangs.

The horizon scandal, the infected blood campaigners, the Truth About Zane campaign and indeed all the families who engage with us to share their deeply personal and painful experiences. And I thank them all for their time, and most of all for their courage. Because whilst these are different tragedies, Madam Deputy Speaker, they represent the same demand repeated across decades for truth, justice and accountability to belong equally to every single person in this country. And so I'm grateful to every member of this House.

And in the other place, 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. And it is long, long overdue. And I pay credit to everybody who's fought so hard for this every single step of the way. Thank you for what you have done, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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, a law that will always carry their name. The Hillsborough Law. And I commend Hillsborough Law. And I commend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill to the House. The question is that the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read the third time Doctor Kieran Mullan. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and let me begin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and let me begin. As I have throughout the passage of this bill, by placing at the forefront my admiration of the forefront my admiration of the campaigners, the family and friends of the 97 who lost their lives in of the 97 who lost their lives in the Hillsborough tragedy. On the 15th of April 1989. Their lives were changed forever. Nothing could be done to bring back their loved ones after they were gone. Anyone who's 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're not.

And afterwards, everything, everything else is different. But whilst their deaths
18:17
Keir Starmer Portrait Public Office (Accountability) Bill: Third Reading Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
couldn't be undone, what could have changed? What could have been different is the truth about what happened to their loved ones being told to them. And it wasn't. But 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. So 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 is a tribute to their determination. That's why when I face the Prime Minister across the despatch box eight months ago, I made clear the good they desire of the opposition to engage constructively with the government on this bill, which I sought to live up to 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, those lost in the Grenfell Tower fire, and other tragedies and scandals.

As members have highlighted from across the House throughout the passage of this bill, and I feel still the keen interest of the families as we reach Third Reading. But as our job, mine, the opposition's 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, our responsibility to legislate carefully and in a considered way. And I'm deeply disappointed that this Prime Minister, this government, has made that task much, much more difficult than it needed to be because I would challenge any MP, any MP.

MP. MP, no matter. I would challenge no, I would challenge any MP. Not yet, not yet, not yet, not yet. No matter how supportive of this legislation, with far reaching no. I will finish this moment with far reaching consequences. You've not yet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The Shadow Minister must be heard here. I would challenge any MP, no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would challenge any MP, no matter how supportive this legislation, with such far reaching consequences for the operation of the government to say the progress the government to say the progress of this bill, and particularly over the last 24 hours, is anything like the last 24 hours, is anything like careful and considered. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to record that these families and families across the country affected by this bill have waited years and years, too long, years, too long. I made a promise to these families, look them in the eye and said, I will bring this forward as soon as I could. And I've kept that promise. And I'm proud that this Labour government is bringing this bill in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This position in. A week. If the Prime Minister wanted to truly live up to that promise, he wouldn't have introduced legislation with less than 24 hours notice on an issue of than 24 hours notice on an issue of national security, because, as the House has alluded to, I would have wanted the opportunity to make this wanted the opportunity to make this moment purely a positive one. But I'm afraid the Prime Minister has made that impossible for me to made that impossible for me to fulfill the duties to my house less than 24 hours notice from consideration of a bill before us at Third Reading is simply unacceptable.

The House, those families, this bill, deserve greater respect than that, and there is simply no excuse for a series of mistakes by his government that have led us here, led us to the place where those of us that engaged in good faith, as I did, engaged in good faith, cannot possibly be expected to have any trust left on a bill that has trust at its heart. The Prime Minister, momentarily, the Prime Minister announced this bill at his party conference in 2024, and 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 released statements to that effect, and we now know that wasn't true. They'd already explained their misgivings. And then after the introduction of the bill, the Minister told me directly, the Minister told me directly that the families were entirely happy with how the bill was legislated,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and that also wasn't true. I'm grateful. To the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the hon. Gentleman. opposite. Was. In power for 14 years. And could have been.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And could have been. Why didn't they? I thank her for raising that point, and it was on that basis point, and it was on that basis that I sought sincerely to engage properly with the Bill as as the properly with the Bill as as the Ministers and the Ministers and officials who met with me repeatedly would be able to attest to. You cannot sustain that when the government brings forward legislation with 24 hours notice of important matters of national security, the government.

The government says it has now resolved the central tension that led to the bill being pulled after months of negotiations. The central claim made by their Ministers that the bill needed particular safeguards for the agencies working national security, have now disappeared. They apparently no longer needed a government that has wilfully misled us repeatedly on this. Bill now wants us to set aside, once the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government, the government. Pink the shadow Minister, needs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pink the shadow Minister, needs to be very careful in his use of language here. Mullins has inadvertently, repeatedly misled us on this. Bill now wants us to take them on trust. I heard personally and directly I heard personally and directly from Ministers and officials repeatedly that independent safeguards were needed. And now, safeguards were needed. And now, apparently, they're not. Supposedly, over the weekend, those concerns have evaporated and that is totally unacceptable. The security services have told us for 18 months, with consistent, sober, professional warnings, that we are suddenly setting aside in a matter of days, coinciding perfectly for the Prime Minister to come here and give his final speech on this matter.

I'll be really going to suggest that that genuine professional opinion has changed overnight. I don't think that we have. I want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

believe. Sure. I'm grateful to the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for giving As an opposition MP. Myself, myself and my party have been myself and my party have been critical of the handover of power that has taken place in the Labour Party. But at this particular Party. But at this particular moment in time, at Third Reading, this moment should belong to the this moment should belong to the families. We can do our party political point scoring whenever and wherever we like, but this moment should be a member. Agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this moment should belong to the families. If the government was so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the government was so concerned about this bill passing, clearly they should have organised it. We have just listened to rafts of amendments to this bill being nodded through on this House with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nodded through on this House with absolutely no scrutiny. But, madam. Order! Order! Order! The hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! Order! The hon. Gentleman will sit down as well. I will hear the Shadow Minister. I appreciate. Temperatures are running very high, but it is important that voices are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard in this house. Doctor Kieran Mullan. And so as I've said, what could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And so as I've said, what could have been a bill that we could have supported without reservation is one we maintain reservations on. one we maintain reservations on. I'm afraid entirely as a result of the mismanagement of it by the Prime Minister. But I want to Prime Minister. But I want to conclude by saying is that none of this none of this takes anything at this none of this takes anything at all away from the families. This. They don't want to hear it.

It doesn't take anything away at all from the members opposite who've done so much to bring this legislation forward. But what is clear is it is their legacy, the legacy of the campaigners and the MPs and nobody else that are responsible for us being here. And I welcome their campaigning over many years and thank them for it.
18:25
18:25
18:26
Andy Burnham Portrait Rt Hon Andy Burnham (Makerfield, Labour )
-
-
shadow health team back then to draft the original bill that was presented to Parliament. And presented to Parliament. And tonight is before this, this House. It does feel tonight like life is coming full circle. And as we pass coming full circle. And as we pass this momentous piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will change the way this country thinks and works about justice. It truly is a rewiring of the state and a passing of power from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

authorities to the hands of ordinary people. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it is happening because of the Prime Minister's commitment to a country based on justice and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a country based on justice and fairness, and we thank him for that. Hey. He has honoured his commitment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He has honoured his commitment to the Hillsborough families and what this House will do in passing what this House will do in passing this bill tonight is rebalancing the scales of justice so that we have justice for ordinary people going forward. And that, Madam Deputy Speaker, is some legacy indeed. We have all recognised that we simply would not be here tonight, were it not for the dignity and the determination of the Hillsborough families who are with us in this chamber this evening.

They supported by the wider group of campaigns as part of Hillsborough Law. Now I do want to recognise their lawyers, Pete Weatherby KC and Elkan Abrahamson KC, who are with us this evening to inquest. Deborah Coles, who's with us as well, and all of the people who supported the campaign. This is the reason why we are here. But might I say also we are here because of the city of Liverpool, represented so well by my hon. Friend, the Member for West Derby, 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 Rotherham, a former member of this House, mayor of the Liverpool City Region, who also carried forward this campaign. To this point I cannot describe my pride. Madam Deputy Speaker, in being in this House tonight to see this bill plant the values of the city of my birth at the heart of this country, and that is something of huge and profound significance that has been brought about by the Hillsborough families.

And we recognise the significance of that tonight. As Steve Rotherham has said, the Hillsborough law can't do any more for the Hillsborough families. Indeed, it will do much more for those who come after them, but that's what makes their campaign so special. They've done this for others, not for themselves. And those others include, and it's very important to remind the House of those other campaigns who we hope now will be lifted by this legislation as we as we pass it this evening.

We do think, as the Prime Minister said of the Grenfell survivors and families this evening, and I'm 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 families who have fought so hard for fairness, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East. West. I have been away for a while, but I'll get there in the end. But also, I know other members in this House have supported those who suffered other treatment disasters.

Sodium valporate mesh pip implants. These are still ongoing campaigns and we need to recognise these campaigns in the House tonight, as we do the Chinook families. Madam Deputy Speaker, who were in court today, and I was only just speaking to the hon. Member for for Mid Dorset and Poole in in the lobby, and we pay tribute to them this evening. But let's not forget also in this list, and I know they have support from across this House, the service men who served this country in the post war period in the South Pacific, our nuclear test veterans.

Madam Deputy Speaker, how often in this House do we praise our veterans? And how in this case, have we left those veterans without truth and justice in terms of what happened to them all of those years ago? And I think this House needs to hear their call for a special tribunal. Madam Deputy Speaker. 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, and yet this place ignored them. For all of 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 who were infected by infected blood and were blamed that they had brought it on themselves through their lifestyle. We can't forget that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and let's finish where I started, that the Liverpool supporters were blamed for harming their own fellow supporters at a football match. That is what was done. That was left to stand for all of those years. These families here tonight had to live with that for all of those years. Imagine what that must have felt like.

We have had a situation in this country where people suffer the trauma of the initial bereavement, the incident that took their loved ones away. Then they are retraumatized by the behaviour of the state. We can't 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. And I finish again by praising the Prime Minister for making it happen. And this truly is his legacy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Sir Edward Davey. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I begin by echoing the words of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for right hon. Gentleman the Member for Makerfield, in paying tribute to the Hillsborough campaigners. Our whole country owes them a debt, and whole country owes them a debt, and I want to speak about that. But I want to speak in the spirit of want to speak in the spirit of cross-party support and working, which this moment demands, and I want to pay tribute personally to the Prime Minister for the work he has done on this, having to overcome the difficulties we know with the security issues.

And I also want to pay tribute, and I hope it's not the last time to the right hon. Gentleman. Gentleman. The Member for Makerfield. He's welcomed back in this House. He has for many years paid a very personal role in this campaign. And so it's very fitting that he's in this House tonight to see this law passed. And I want to echo those tributes that he and others will no doubt make, because people have campaigned for many years for this moment.

And that enormous debt of gratitude that we owe them for their courage, their tenacity and their determination is one that I hope this historic moment gives proper credit to. But let's remember, as others have said, that it's not just the Hillsborough scandal, it's Grenfell, it's Windrush, it's horizon, it's Orgreave, it's Infector blood, it's Covid, it's the nuclear test. Veterans and other scandals that were mentioned Primodos the right hon. Gentleman was right to add that to to the list. I hope, by the way, that when he takes an office, which we're expecting him to take soon, that he will put right those scandals and we will hold him to that in a cross-party manner.

Yeah, but there are many tragedies and scandals that have been compounded
18:35
Ed Davey Portrait Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
by state cover ups. And this is an issue of rights between the state issue of rights between the state and individuals, victims, survivors and families having to fight for and families having to fight for years or even decades just to expose the truth and win the justice they should have had justice they should have had straight away. All too often, Madam Deputy Speaker, when things have gone wrong, we have seen a tendency 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 against a system and an establishment that has 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 and ensuring that no one has to fight so long and so painfully to get truth, justice and accountability. There is more to do, not just on the individual scandals, but on the need to protect whistleblowers, something that this party has raised, and we want to work cross-party with the the the government to make sure we set up an independent office of the whistleblowers so people come forward to expose these scandals, quickly.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

You hear. Many of the people who will benefit from this law, will not benefit from this law, will not recognise, will not even know how hard and how painfully hard the campaigners have had to work over so many years. It's important that we remember that, because it is truly remarkable, having suffered so much pain and injustice that so much pain and injustice that they kept going, and what has been achieved in this bill is something that will change the very nature of power in our country, and it will make so many people lives better.

So can I thank the campaigners and say to them from the bottom of my heart, thank you.
18:37
18:40
None Portrait Consideration of Lords amendments: Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
-

>> Now I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege. We will begin with the government motion to agree with Lords Amendment one, with which it will be convenient to consider all other Lords amendments as on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords amendments as on the selection paper, I call the McDonald. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is indeed a pleasure to be back in the House today to see back in the House today to see through the final stages of this bill. The government supports all the Lords amendments before us, and the Lords amendments before us, and I wish to pay tribute to my colleague, Minister Long, who so expertly guided the Bill through its passage in the other place. I would also like to put on record my thanks for the constructive approach that was taken to the approach that was taken to the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the upper House, including the.

The constructive and careful consideration by His Majesty's official opposition peers from the Liberal Democrats and also the crossbench peers as well for their contribution. We have a responsibility to act now to secure the future of the UK steel industry. This Bill will assist 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 one ensures that the sunset power in the Bill may only be extended 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 amendments two and three 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 these are considered
18:42
18:43
Andrew Griffith Portrait Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this House >> The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment one. Shadow Secretary of State Andrew Griffith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

State Andrew Griffith. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful to their lordships for their work on this bill, and we their work on this bill, and we support the amendments before the House. Let me be plain from the outset. Our objection was never has been, never been to steelmaking, nor to the men and women who make it. It is to a government that has crushed around and used blunt instruments without ever having a detailed plan. Hope is not a strategy, and a blank cheque isn't a plan.

Nationalisation is a bad idea, and nothing that has been said at this despatch box has yet 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 their own members of the government concede in private that they rushed into something which they now repent at leisure. They just look at what we've learned over the passage of this 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. And that cap wasn't plucked from thin air. It was the government's own figure 2.5 billion. The fact that they wouldn't accept the cap concedes that it 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, we support amendment one, which limits the powers of Ministers to bring further steel businesses into public ownership to by two years, without coming back to this House.

How is this sweeping? Should never have been in the Bill and handed to Ministers without limit. We support amendments two and three 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 upon the government. We support amendments four and five laid on a cross-party basis which lift 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 us do so in daylight with the consent of this House and not by regulations that slip through unseen, without the scrutiny of Parliament. And we welcome the government's own amendment 6 to 18. These 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. So when the government listens and acts sensibly, we have and we will support them.

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 to the taxpayer. Yet for all the hours we have now debated the future of steel making in the UK, the government still refuse to confront the real issue. They know what it is, but they refuse to confront it. It's the Secretary of State for energy and his addiction to Ruinously high energy prices.

It's not me, but unite, the union's general secretary, who has described this as a noose round the neck of job creation. There is no path to profitable steel making of any kind in the UK, while energy prices here are four times higher than in many of our competitors, 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. Yes, the government will talk about its big scheme and that is welcome, but it is just a sticking plaster on a gaping wound and the Minister knows it.

And 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 relies upon imports without which it 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 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. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will not stand in the way of these amendments. Many of those 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decisions behind them do not. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Sarah Olney. Thank you very much, Madam. Deputy Speaker. We have a duty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. We have a duty to stand by the steel sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including unprecedented challenges, including President Trump's unfair steel tariffs, China's anti-competitive state aid practices and the state aid practices and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we're going to foster a thriving we're going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse, more jobs to be lost, or the risk of our
18:49
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
last blast furnaces going cold. And that is why the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector. I'm particularly glad that the government has accepted Liberal Democrat amendments, which will Democrat amendments, which will require the Secretary of State to have regard to the costs of nationalisation before they table nationalisation before they table regulatory regulations to nationalise a company, as well as amendments which would ensure the consideration of environmental liabilities.

These Liberal Democrat amendments will strengthen this 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, whilst providing taxpayers real value for money on amendments two and three. These amendments ensure that if the Secretary of State is to exercise a principled transfer of power, the government must consider the expected cost to the taxpayer. Not only is this important for business and industry to have certainty over the nationalisation process, but also for taxpayers who need to know that their money is not being wasted or paid to foreign owners who are going to leave our industries high and dry.

I am glad that the government has also agreed to Liberal Democrat amendments, which would 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 these legislative concessions, we're glad that the government accepted other Liberal Democrat calls. This includes 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 Select Committee.

These are significant improvements to the legislation, promoting parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. We also welcome the government listening to Liberal Democrat peers and introducing written ministerial statements on the day of acquisition, which will be repeated every three months until we reach a year from nationalisation. Again. This change boosts transparency, enabling Parliament to scrutinise the measures impact on local communities and jobs. Lastly, we're glad that the government adopted Liberal Democrat proposals to strengthen the Steel Council and its role in facilitating nationalisation within the context of the steel strategy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 it creates thousands of good jobs across the UK. The Liberal Democrats welcome the action the government is taking to protect British Steel, backing a key plank of our critical national infrastructure. I am glad that the government has 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 it puts these new measures in force to ensure that steel producers, local jobs and British taxpayers are properly supported and treated fairly. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
18:52
Martin Vickers Portrait Martin Vickers MP (Brigg and Immingham, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the fact that the government have accepted the Lords. government have accepted the Lords. Amendments and, as members will know, part of my constituency takes in the Scunthorpe steelworks and in the Scunthorpe steelworks and hundreds of my constituents work there and my aim throughout the. This rather tortuous and long saga of the future of the steelworks has been to ensure that they. Their jobs are retained. The bill could have been further improved as the Shadow Secretary of State has outlined.

But I'm delighted that we have at least reached a conclusion, and 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 as to the future of the steelworks, because if energy costs in particular stay as they are, then there will be future disasters ahead. And I think the Minister is well aware of that. We've got to do something on energy costs if we are to maintain any sort of steel industry and heavy industry in the UK.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for getting us to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point, and I look forward to working with him in the future. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the with. The leave of the House, I've I've listened very carefully to the I've listened very carefully to the remarks from the shadow Minister, and I will address those in a moment. But first of all, I also wanted to say, as well as the contributions we've heard this evening, how grateful I've been for the support for the Member for
18:53
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
the support for the Member for Scunthorpe and my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, both of whom are unable to speak in this debate as a result of their positions elsewhere in the House, and I opened by remarking on the constructive and very careful consideration that we've had in the other place. So it is disappointing to see that the shadow Minister is not taking the same approach, but perhaps on a couple of the issues that he raised. I'm I'm acutely aware of the position that the previous government left us in with uncompetitive energy prices for industry.

And if he was attentive in some of the debate he'd been involved in, it'd be aware of some of the measures that I've taken to address that our energy intensive scheme, increased relief on our supercharger scheme, our British Industrial Competitiveness scheme, and I am determined to do more on tariffs. I am not saying making the decision on tariffs was easy, but he would clearly throw British industry to the mercy of dumped steel on the global market. We will not make that decision. And he mentioned call for coking ovens.

He may be unaware that there are no coking ovens in Scunthorpe. They're closed on his watch now with this government, we've seen that we are acting decisively and with purpose in the national interest. But he is blinded by his ideological position on nationalisation, where we believe a steel industry, where necessary, if run by the government owned by the people, at least gives the opportunity to attract private sector investment in the industry. And if the public interest test is met, it is the right thing to do.

But if that doesn't convince him, perhaps I can appeal to his sense of patriotism, I said at the Second Reading. The England men's football team have only ever won the World Cup in a year when we've 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. Thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their agrees with the Lords in their amendment one. As many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it with the leave of the House. I call the Minister to move House. I call the Minister to move that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments. 2 to 18. Lords in their amendments.

2 to 18. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments. 2 to 18 as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Petition. James Nash.
18:56
18:58
18:59
18:59
19:00
Liam Conlon Portrait Petition Liam Conlon MP (Beckenham and Penge, Labour)
-
-
Petition, political donations and public contracts. >> Petition. Liam Conlon. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, was 28. World records the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre is the spiritual home of UK athletics. the spiritual home of UK athletics. It is also an incredible community asset. Residents across Beckenham speak fondly about using its facilities, growing up or remembering 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 and 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 with 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, 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, and 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 delivery of the transformation of the Crystal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Palace National Sports Centre. Petition. Crystal Palace

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition. Crystal Palace National Sports Centre thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

National Sports Centre thank you. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. Charlie Maynard. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to
19:02
19:02
Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard MP (Witney, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
environmental failure, and specifically how this impacts everyone in my Witney constituency. everyone in my Witney constituency. Thames Water serves the constituency and embodies the systemic failure of the national water sector. Last year, Thames water sector. Last year, Thames Water pumped sewage into rivers and lakes for 107,822 hours, and in lakes for 107,822 hours, and in western Oxfordshire that is very much ground zero for sewage. We much ground zero for sewage. We have the Thames itself, we have the Evenlode, we have the Windrush, we have the Shellbrook, we have the coal and we also have Wasp or Windrush against sewage pollution, who have been so active in going after Thames Water's bad behaviour.

They have mapped the illegal sewage spills at Thames Water sewage treatment works and found that there were 1231 illegal spills just in the Witney constituency between 2021 and 2025, and with 271 illegal spills in just one sewage treatment works at Faringdon. In that same time period, West Oxfordshire District Council has done great work trying to hold Thames Water to account, as has Wasp, who inspired the channel four programme Dirty Business. Many of you will have seen so well done Peter and Ash, Jeff and Vaughan.

Despite Thames Water's appalling record, residents have nonetheless seen their bills skyrocket. I have constituents whose bills have gone up by 50% by 70%. I've even got one who's gone up by 93%, and that that's outrageous. But those bill hikes are not making the situation any better. And that's because Thames Water's financial situation is disastrous. Thames has nearly £20

**** Possible New Speaker ****

billion of debt, could certainly. I thank the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking intervention and also bringing this speech to the House because it's hugely important. because it's hugely important. Sorry, Madam Speaker, and and I would say that residents in Harlow are also fed up with their bills going up. And because of what going up. And because of what appears to be Thames Water's incompetence. So would he agree with me that actually that shouldn't be the case? And if shouldn't be the case? And if Thames Water are incompetent, so incompetent they can't sort out this problem, then actually the government needs to step in and do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something about it. Yeah. I completely agree. And Thames Water's full year accounts are at 7 a.m. tomorrow morning, and we'll a.m. tomorrow morning, and we'll see just what they tell us. And it's going to be ugly. And that's because, you know, not least the company's equity is worthless, with company's equity is worthless, with the largest equity shareholders writing down its shareholding to zero value and withdrawing its zero value and withdrawing its board members more than two years ago, when the creditors sought to take on another £3 billion of debt.

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 of these outrageous costs and interest expenses, but otherwise would have had no voice in court. This Labour government has slow peddled the last two years, refusing to draw a line under decades of Tory bad behaviour by putting Thames Water into special administration, and this approach is costing customers an absolute fortune.

Thames Water paid £338 million just in interest expenses for the six months to September 2025. That's £133 million more just in interest expenses than it paid for the same period in the year previous. So this approach is costing customers a fortune. And this hands off approach that Labour is taking is despite the company operating with multiple breaches of its operating licence. And to illustrate some of these breaches, as is already, the company has carried out more than a thousand illegal spills over that four year period.

The company must hold two investment grade credit ratings as a condition of their operating licence. However, Thames Water last held any investment grade credit rating two years ago in July 2024, and the company has undergone a change of ultimate controller. Yet both, I'm afraid this Minister, the Secretary of State and Offerte, has repeatedly refused to answer to this point. Certainly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have a similar problem with South East Water, who are probably the second worst water company in the United Kingdom after Thames Water, but two with them. Two, this Water, but two with them. Two, this Labour government has been too timid, and I wonder if you'd agree with me that actually, in acting in the way that they are or not acting in the way they are, they are privileging shareholders over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consumers? Absolutely. The consumers are getting the raw, raw deal and there's no end in sight at the moment. So focusing on ultimate controllers to qualify as an ultimate controller is a defined term. A party only needs to have material influence over Thames Water, the creditor consortium right now is negotiating bilaterally with the company has put in £3 billion worth of money but somehow doesn't meet that criteria. It is ridiculous. And frankly, it's probably the single moment where I most despair of government and the rule of law seeing this failure play out, and I repeatedly ask the same question, and I repeatedly do not get an answer.

I find it really, really bad.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I am offering. Secondly. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving way. Residents in Wokingham. Are absolutely sick. Of the failures of Thames

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the failures of Thames Water's management. In 2025 alone, Thames Water committed 74 sewage Thames Water committed 74 sewage spills for a duration of 684 hours. That means Thames Water dumped sewage for the equivalent of 456 football matches, and there were certainly no clean sheets. There is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no waterway in Wokingham that is safe. The hon. Gentleman should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that intervention should be short, spontaneous and perhaps not short, spontaneous and perhaps not pre-type three pages long. Charlie Maynard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you very much for your friend. Rather than having customers pay hundreds of millions customers pay hundreds of millions of pounds of debt at ludicrous interest rates of nearly 10%, Thames Water should be taken into Special Administration Regime SA, commonly known as bankruptcy on insolvency grounds, and I urge the government to pursue a SA on the basis of insolvency, as this is a more straightforward way for securing special administration than on a performance basis, and it will give the Special administration administrator additional powers and a stronger position in relation to the creditors.

The Water Industry Act sets out triggers linked to financial insolvency. Among them are that the company is unable or likely to be unable to pay its debts. The Secretary of State and Offerte each have the discretion to apply to the High Court for a special administration order where these triggers are met. I understand the government currently doesn't have and has refused to publish a SA assessment policy. This is despite the Cunliffe review concluding that there is a need for, and I quote, broad judgment based tests within a clear policy that has been set out in advance of how the regulator will assess failing water companies against these tests, the factors that will take into account and the indicators that will consider that's final report para 793 and recommendation 59.

Clarity around these tests and when SA will be used would benefit the water sector and its investors. It also increases the government's negotiating leverage, and this is important with the class A creditor consortium, by further increasing the credibility of the threat of SA. So I'm interested to hear from the Minister why Defra is so reluctant to publish these tests. A SA process would allow Thames 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 so that the company leaves SA with a balance sheet that is strong enough to manage the huge amount of spend that will be required over the next decade or so in treatment to to to networks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I'm afraid. I certainly. Want to thank my friend for giving away. Does he agree with me giving away. Does he agree with me that we need Thames Water to go into special measures so they can invest in infrastructure? Because in my constituency of Woking they have closed a road for three weeks because they in Horsell, because they've not invested and they've they've not invested and they've dumped over 1115 hours worth of sewage last year in our river way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sewage last year in our river way. That lack of investment is why we need this call that he's doing today. I mean. I thank my hon. Friend. I completely agree with him. I completely agree with him. And that's just written small. What is going on up and down the catchment where where treatment works, the works are deferred, what crucially needed. And Aston, we've got sewage running down the street year after year after year. Same goes in Standlake and it's just disgusting and there is no end to it in sight.

So a SA process would allow the government to use the period, while Thames is in SA, to put much of the good work from the Cunliffe review into new legislation, and do the legwork to enable the company to exit as a mutual. Crucially, a SA wouldn't ultimately cost the government anything. This is really that matters. Again, the SA wouldn't ultimately cost the government anything as the government will recoup all of the funding spent on SA, as this new funding injected by the government would be super senior to all other funding.

And I'm very grateful to the former deputy secretary, Steve Reed, setting out a letter to the different.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The former Secretary of State for Defra, the right hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for Defra, the right hon. Member for Croydon North. South Central, Charlie Maynard. My apologies, deputy Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My apologies, deputy Madam Speaker. Quite right. So. The former Secretary of State for former Secretary of State for sending out a letter to the Select Committee in June last year that Committee in June last year that and I quote, we expect that any government funding required during a sale would be recouped after the conclusion of the administration, as did the now Secretary of State in the parliamentary debate on the 16th of June. And it's also worth noting that the Tories.

Oh, there aren't any. That the Tories continue to refuse to acknowledge this. And the fact that Teneo, Thames Water's own expert adviser, stated the same in their report to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the High Court in December 2024. I'm very grateful to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He's making a powerful argument. I wonder if he would agree with me that the fact that the government is so reluctant that the government is so reluctant to take a company that is clearly now technically insolvent into SA, is actually loading costs onto the is actually loading costs onto the consumers in other water companies by creating a moral hazard, that means that they incentivise to take on ever more debt, with the debt on ever more debt, with the debt providers being protected by the government, rather than allowing a company that should be allowed to fail to fail and be taken into SA so that some of the infrastructure that my hon.

Friends have referred to can be invested in here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend 100%, I agree, and that is what's so depressing is that essentially, by continuing to to demonstrate that the regulators have no teeth, we the regulators have no teeth, we create a bigger and bigger problem for ourselves. So the alternative to a SA, a deal with the creditors, to a SA, a deal with the creditors, which extraordinarily seems to be the government's preferred option at this point, should not be at this point, should not be countenanced.

Giving these businesses now operating the creditors operating as London and 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 its 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, breaking the cycle of financial mismanagement and egregious environmental failings once and for all.

Legislation sets out that a water company, insolvency SA, can conclude in two ways rescue the company is restructured, debts are written down or converted in the existing legal entity, continues a modified form or transfer. The regulated undertaking is sold or transferred to a new owner. It does not require a competitive auction. The legislation provides for a transfer approved by the Secretary of State and Ofwat. There is nothing in the legislation stating that either route requires a competitive sale, as the overriding objective in SA is the continuity of public service, not maximising creditor returns.

The government could therefore set out at the point of SA entry or shortly after that. A mutual is the preferred exit route for Thames and make this clear in the special Administrator's mandate, work would need to be done in parallel with the SA process to incorporate and put in place the government's framework for a new mutual, as well as more broadly updating water regulations to take into account the Cunliffe report's recommendations. OFC then work towards a licence transfer to the mutual rather than running a market sale.

So I have some questions and conclusion and then I will end. If the Minister is unable to answer them. Now, I appreciate answers in writing, if possible. Has the government sought legal advice on the SA process from a specialist law firm? I appreciate the FTI consulting has been instructed for many months, but this is not a substitute for legal advice. A proper specialist undertaking of the SA as a legal process and of the litigation risk, perceived or actual of taking the step of applying for SA is critical.

Second, will the government commit to publishing a SA assessment policy? Third, does the Minister agree that the creditors consortium has material influence over Thames Water and therefore meets the ultimate controller test? Fourth, will she act with Ofwat to enforce the appropriate penalties on Thames Water for having undergone this change without having given notice? Fifth, can you provide an update on the negotiations between Ofwat and Thames Water? Sorry, can the Minister provide an update on the the negotiating negotiation process between Ofwat and Thames Water sixth and then seventh? 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 that Thames Water is now put into special administration? And finally, the Secretary of State said in this chamber on the 16th of June, in response to a question about whether she would consider the Liberal Democrats call for water companies to be mutually owned public benefit companies that I would be happy to see more mutual ownership of water companies.

The question is how we get there. Given this, will you confirm your department's position on mutual ownership models for water companies? What it and what are the department's plans for exploring how we get there?
19:17
Emma Hardy Portrait Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)
-
-
Minister Emma Hardy, thank. >> Minister Emma Hardy, thank. >> You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Witney, for inviting me to respond this for inviting me to respond this evening to his concerns about the future of Thames Water. I've listened with interest to the comments he has made. I hope I will able to add some facts into the debate, but I've also. I do accept the sympathy and anger that his constituents face and in fact, they must feel very, very angry about the fact that water was left in such a state that the Environment Agency Budget was cut by half by the coalition government, that they introduced self monitoring by the coalition government.

The Environment Agency was unable to fulfil its duties that during the time of the coalition government, the regulators did not actually putting forward forceful accountability of the water companies and that it was left to this Labour government to clear up the mess left by the coalition government and the 14 years of the Conservatives. I'm sure he shares my anger with that, because I certainly feel quite angry about it. When I came into government and saw exactly the mess that we had been left to clear up and just under ten years.

Let me just remind the hon. Gentleman exactly what we have done introduced a Water Special Measures Act. Within six weeks of entering government. We did that to raise standards, enforce accountability, make pollution cover ups a criminal offence, banned more than 4 million bonuses. Unlocked money of private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure. In. Just last week, we introduced the automatic penalties as well. There is much more I could mention the ten 000 water inspections. Perhaps I should mention those. Many more than happened under the absolute slash and burn of the funding to the Environment Agency by the coalition government.

We've restored accountability to the system that has been missing for so long. I give way to my hon. Friend. I thank the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much for giving way. My my constituents are cheering on the work that the government has done, that taking a grip of this situation. After the Environment Agency was left to mark their own homework, the self mortaring absolutely failed. The regulation absolutely failed. The regulation framework absolutely failed. So will the Minister say a bit more about the dedicated supervisory teams that are in the White Paper teams that are in the White Paper that will be working to stop this happening again and make sure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happening again and make sure that Thames Water changes in the future? I thank my hon. Friend, and she's quite right to point out how self monitoring was such an utter mistake introduced by the coalition government, and how it has done so much damage to the water industry, and why we are in the situation we're in now. When it comes to the supervisory regime. The purpose of this is to be able to intervene more early. It goes alongside the performance improvement regime so that we can hold companies to account.

It's why we're abolishing our squad. It's why I've heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman. If he doesn't mind giving someone else a chance, that would be most grateful. And it's why we're looking at introducing the performance improvement regime as well, because this is about how do we. William. One second. This is about how do we intervene early to stop the abject failure that we've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way. Every week in my surgeries, I see and hear the consequences of the failures by Thames Water, including an elderly, widowed constituent of mine who was widowed constituent of mine who was left without running water after they failed and botched an installation of a water meter. She installation of a water meter. She was forced to shell out hundreds of pounds on an emergency plumber in order to remedy the situation. Can the Minister confirm that she understands the anger of constituents like mine with regards to Thames Water and their continued failings, and can she confirm that she will keep them and all measures under review?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend and it's true, I do feel angry. I feel angry on behalf of all of our constituents who are being so badly let down by the system that we inherited, and that's exactly why to do. And nobody is saying they're saying there isn't. But I think we have to acknowledge the absolute dire straits and 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, not just today, but for generations to come.

The reforms will create a single, powerful water regulator to act and make sure it has teeth in the way it hasn't. Turning to some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, the consortium's proposal regarding the recapitalisation proposal being negotiated between Thames Water, London and Valley Water Consortium, a group of Thames Water creditors. And what I want to 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, and I really welcome this opportunity to at least introduce a few more facts into the argument and the proposals.

Off.what, 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 two of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a duty on both Afwa 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Out it is. Yes I will. Does she think that the Secretary of State exercised that those duties well, when under the Blair government, Macquarie was Blair government, Macquarie was allowed to come into Thames Water and South East Water, an asset

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strip. Those companies. Well, quite clearly, I think some of the behaviour that we've seen in the past from water companies shows the regulatory companies shows the regulatory system didn't work, and that's exactly why we are changing it. There are, of course, between Blair and this current government. There were 14 years and five years of coalition government in between where they could have taken the actions that we are taking today. It is for that reason. On the 16th of June, the Secretary of State gave her preliminary views on the consortium's proposal to offer, with reference to the section two duties of the Water Industry Act, 1991, she was clear that she does not believe the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment.

She cited three particular concerns in lines with her duties. These are unfair costs for customers, delays to infrastructure investments and delays to environmental improvements. However, the decision on how to assess the proposal on whether to proceed with consultation ultimately rests with Ofwat as the independent regulator. It is therefore important that government respects these boundaries, while the Secretary of State may express views in accordance with her statutory duties, it would not be appropriate for government to direct off what's decision making, prejudge the outcome of his assessment, or be seen to exert undue influence on an independent regulatory process.

We are working closely with Ofwat, who 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 do also want to 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 also want to use this as an opportunity to address some of the misconceptions that have developed around special administration.

Too often, Sarah is presented as a simple lever that the government can pull whenever there are concerns about a water company performance. This is simply not the case. The reality is there is a high bar for the imposition of a special administration regime. A company can only enter a if it becomes insolvent, or if there has been 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 special administration regime would have to be supported by a robust and compelling body of evidence, and it would ultimately need to satisfy the courts, bringing a case forward without sufficient evidence would not only risk the failure of that case, it would also waste a huge amount of taxpayers money. So any case that is brought forward, the Government and Ofwat would need to be would need to be convinced that there was a robust and compelling body of evidence that is quite different to what is presented out there too often.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is just a button the government can press at. Will I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Minister for giving way, and I'm glad that she's moved on to the substance of Defra's case. Would she please clarify from my Would she please clarify from my residence whether she considers that a company which is spending 33% of the income it's getting from 33% of the income it's getting from customers on servicing its debt and paying a 10% premium on that debt, is actually viable as a company. And could she set out for the case what she considers the measure of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what she considers the measure of insolvency for a privately held monopoly to be? Well, as I've just said, under the issue of performance, you have to bring forward a case to court and you have to convince the court that the company is insolvent. But I will sorry, in performance, I will move on to insolvency. And this 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. They must put forward credible plans to improve and they must Since we are introducing a new performance improvement regime through the Clean Water Bill, the performance improvement regime will help 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 performance and improvements in performance and provide a clearer pathway for intervention long before special administration may be required. Let me also 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. This is not how the regime works. A special administrator is appointed by the court, has specific legal duties and objectives. They must manage the company's affairs, businesses and property for the statutory purposes set out in the Water Industry Act 1991.

Their primary responsibility is to ensure the continued delivery of essential water and wastewater services, while securing a long term solution for the business. Depending on the circumstances, that could mean rescuing the company, such as through restructuring or transferring it as a going concern to new owners. That is why 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.

And I know the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about if the consortium meet the criteria of acting as the ultimate controller of Thames Water, and I want to 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. I have given a detailed explanation behind why they do not consider the creditors to be the ultimate controllers of the company. In their letter to the chair of the Business and Trade Committee dated 8th of September 2025, I have stated that one of the reasons they do not believe creditors are in a position to material influence the company's policies or affairs, is that they do not have the right to appoint directors to the board, nor do they hold any governance rights or veto rights over Thames Water business plan or other strategic decisions the company's board is making.

I am reassured they reviewed the matter and that the ultimate control of the company has not changed. But I am also reassured that off what will continue. This is the thing with the hon. Gentleman. He makes many assertions in this House and many assertions when he stands up and makes comments and then refuse to allow me to address them and to answer them, I am still answering the point regarding the ultimate controller. If you want to ask me a question each other with decency and respect to listen to the answer.

I am also reassured that our effort will continue to keep both the position of Thames Water Ultimate Controller under review, and that they have made clear to the company that expectations that the company continue to monitor whether there is or may be a change to the ultimate controller position. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that has introduced a few facts in what otherwise can be quite an inflamed conversation. This government is serious about tackling water company failure. It is serious about acting on behalf of customers and protecting the environment.

We have demonstrated this from the action that we took on our very first day in office, and every day since then. I am always happy to discuss issues around special administration. I have held a private briefing with the hon. Gentleman before. I would do that again. But what I do not like, Madam Deputy Speaker, is when things are presented in a. How's the right word? I can put it. I wouldn't say I'd say dishonest, presented in an incorrect way to the House. So to conclude, 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 special administration regime if necessary. The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say I. The ayes have it.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page