Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Debate between Justin Madders and Freddie van Mierlo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found that a helpful way to look at things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parental Leave Review

Debate between Justin Madders and Freddie van Mierlo

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

If I was to accept specific recommendations at this point, that would be rather pre-empting the review, but I do hear the arguments that have been made. Obviously, the other place will decide how it wants to proceed with various amendments to the Employment Rights Bill—I just hope that it hurries up with it.

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

May I add my voice to welcoming the review as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fatherhood? It is a step in the right direction in correcting a decade of Tory failure on this issue. The Tories thought that giving dads two weeks of paternity leave and allowing them to break it up into one-week chunks was progress.

I note that fathers were not in the four objectives announced by the Minister. Does he accept that we cannot achieve those four objectives without better paternity leave and pay? For example, we cannot achieve good physical and mental health of women after birth without addressing the rights of fathers and birthing partners. If he accepts that, will he agree to meet the APPG throughout the review?

[Justin Madders]

I am of course happy to meet the APPG as part of the review. The hon. Member said that there was no explicit reference to fathers in the four objectives, but I suggest that our general references to parents do include fathers. For example, the second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work, and the fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family situation, including by enabling co-parenting. I believe that clearly addresses his point.