Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I begin my speech with one thought in my mind: the 97 individuals who lost their lives on 15 April 1989 at Hillsborough, and their families and friends. It is through the tenacious campaign of those families and friends that we are here today. What occurred on 15 April 1989 was a shameful saga. It stains our nation. Various parts of the state colluded to cover up the truth and, worse, blamed the victims of the tragedy for the events. Clearly, that added grief to the already grieving families, not only immediately but over many years. It is a tribute to them—and they have never given up on getting the truth—that we are discussing this Bill today. Let us hope that the Bill becomes a living legacy for the victims of that tragedy. It is beholden on us to scrutinise the Bill in detail and to make sure that we get it on the statute book as quickly as possible.

If Hillsborough was a lone event, that would be a serious issue, but it was not; there have been countless events where cover-ups by the state have led not only to victims not getting justice but to them having to fight for many years. I have been involved in fighting for justice for sub-postmasters with my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot. For the last 15 years, we have been working to help expose the truth around the Post Office Horizon scandal.

Like the Hillsborough families, the victims of that scandal were lied to. Things were covered up; decent and hard-working individuals not only lost their livelihoods but went to prison; and 13 tragically took their own lives, including Martin Griffiths, who stepped in front of a bus, as highlighted in the ITV drama documentary. Added to that has been the mental trauma of the families and children of those affected. I am very pleased that the Government are now recognising that by providing compensation to them.

As I said, it would be bad enough if Hillsborough was the only tragedy, but it is not. The Post Office scandal has been called one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in this country. It is the state—the Post Office lied, the state lied. The Government hid behind the fact that the Post Office was an arm’s-length entity to not put forward the truth. They spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money to defend the indefensible when the postmasters took them to court. Obviously, that led to the truth finally coming out. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, will say in his contribution that over the years, the facts were there but we were just lied to. Parliament was lied to. Therefore, I welcome the Bill and hope that it will shed some light and change the culture. It is not just about individual institutions but about looking across the public sector.

In the Post Office case, with the duty of candour, you would have thought that once the scandal broke after the court case the Post Office would be forthcoming. It was not. It took it another three years to admit—I and others campaigned to highlight it—that there was a system that was used previously to Horizon, called Capture. We are still fighting for justice for those individuals. The Government have provided compensation, but 27 are still waiting for their convictions to be overturned through the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I urge the Government to follow the last Government’s approach to Horizon on those.

Should this Bill be needed? No, it should not, if we were in an open and honest situation. But we are not. We have situations here where the state, or various parts of it—it is a cultural issue—have come together not only to deny the truth but, on occasions, to lie and cover their tracks.

I turn to the point around the security services, as chair of the ISC. As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said, we have been very closely involved in this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, asked why it has taken so long. It has taken so long because it has been very important to get it right. I just echo the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller: the security services, under the procedures that are in place at the moment, are content that they will protect those agents. The important point is that it is not the individual agents who will have a duty of candour; it will be the agency heads.

Having spent many hours not only with the committee but also just me and the deputy chair in discussions with agency heads and the families, I think we have come to a point now where we can recognise that it does cover the agencies, but also puts in place very clear safeguards—that are already there, actually—to ensure that the secrets to which the noble Baroness referred to are protected. From the ISC’s point of view, we are content, as the Bill stands at the moment, that there are enough protections in place to cover our security services.

This is the last point I would like to make. I mentioned the word “culture”, and it needs to change. I do not think, to be honest, that this is the end. We also need to look at the inquiries issue. It takes far too long for victims to get justice. Compensation has to be reinvented every time. I know that Professor Christopher Hodges, who is the chair of the Horizon compensation advisory board, has been doing some work with government to look at whether we need a beefed-up ombudsman with parliamentary oversight to ensure that inquiries do not go on and victims get justice far more quickly, as they should.

In closing, I just say that passing this Bill is important, and let us hope that, from the tragic events of 1989, some good comes.