debates/debates2025-11-03b conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-03)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-03b conversation_21

Vikki Slade:Several of my veteran constituents have contacted me about very long delays in payments under the armed forces compensation scheme. Mr Butler, who lives near Wareham, has two separate claims—one for hearing loss and another for an arm injury—and has been waiting two years for an outcome. As we look forward to Remembrance Sunday and reflect on the sacrifices made, what steps is the Department taking to ensure that we pay our debts to those who have served us more recently? \p Louise Jones: I thank the hon. Member for raising the case of her constituent. If she writes to me with the details, I will look into exactly why it has taken that long. \p Emma Lewell: North-east industry has always supported our nation’s defence, yet we now have the lowest MOD spend out of every single region, leaving our potential untapped. Will my hon. Friend meet me and the North East Regional Defence and Security Cluster to redress that? \p Luke Pollard: Yes, I am very happy to do so. I am meeting north-east colleagues about how we can drive more jobs and opportunity. As we look at establishing not just growth zones but defence technical excellence  colleges and the six new munitions and energetics factories, there is a strong case for the north-east to receive some of that defence investment. \p Lincoln Jopp: Now that the Secretary of State has warmed up a bit by calling the SNP a threat to our national security, will he have another go and say whether China is a threat to our national security? \p John Healey: I have nothing to add to what I said in response to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who asked the same question. What a waste of a question. \p Amanda Martin: I very much welcome the Government’s Op Valour pilot programme and the Minister’s commitment to improving support for our veterans. However, I am disappointed that Portsmouth—home to the Royal Navy and one of the largest veteran communities—is not part of the programme. Can the Minister reassure me that councils like Portsmouth city council will be encouraged and supported to join Op Valour and look after the veterans who live in our city? \p Louise Jones: I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment. Valour is a £50 million programme that will bring together a network of regional hubs to ensure that there is a physical location where veterans can go to seek help. I urge every region of the UK to get involved. \p Sarah Bool: EKA Ltd in my constituency is a supplier to Ministry of Defence service recovery vehicles that have to be deployed with our tanks, but an issue that it and other service personnel have highlighted is the absence of the provision of robust spare parts in the event of a breakdown or damage. The Government are spending millions on these assets but leaving them completely unprotected. Is the MOD reviewing the provision of spares as part of its procurement, and would the Minister meet me and EKA Ltd to discuss the matter further? \p Luke Pollard: I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this further. The last Government, I am afraid, left not only our weapons stockpiles almost empty, but far too many of our parts stockpiles as well. We are looking at investing in that as part of our defence investment plan, but I am happy to meet her to discuss the matter further. \p Brian Leishman: Two giants of the Labour and anti-nuclear arms movement would have been 100 this year: Tony Benn and Mick McGahey. I never had the pleasure of meeting either, but I think they would have recognised that an industrial strategy based on militarism is flawed. The  defence sector is less than 1% of the UK workforce, so militarism is not a UK-wide industry and it serves war, not peace. What happened to choosing welfare over warfare, and to choosing jobs in sectors that will promote real economic growth and actual social benefit? \p Lindsay Hoyle: When I bring you in on a topical, it is meant to be short and punchy, not a “War and Peace” question! \p John Healey: I have to say that my hon. Friend is wrong on this. Over 400,000 jobs are supported—directly and indirectly—by defence, and almost 70% of the defence investment we make in this country is outside London and the south-east, right across the UK. \p Helen Maguire: People’s experiences of medical discharge from the armed forces vary significantly, and too often it fails those who need the support most. What steps is the Minister taking to improve the discharge process, including improving consistency across units? \p Louise Jones: I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point. Making sure that service personnel who leave under the medical discharge are fully set up for success in their post-service life is fundamental and a huge priority for me. \p Dave Robertson: Last week I had the honour and privilege of attending the dedication of the new LGBT+ armed forces community memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum in Alrewas in my constituency, alongside His Majesty the King, proud veterans and members of our armed forces. Will the Minister join me in commending the unveiling of this important memorial, and does she agree that it will serve as a lasting reminder of the injustice and discrimination suffered by LGBT+ service personnel and as a powerful symbol of our commitment to equality and respect for all those who serve? \p Louise Jones: It was clear to see how much that event meant to the LGBT+ veterans, many of whom had suffered terribly under the ban. Many said to me that they never thought this day would come. I hope that the event itself and the memorial will serve as a lasting reminder of our responsibilities going forward. \p John Cooper: The F-35 Lightning II aircraft is a cutting-edge system, the helmets for which come from my constituency, but the Public Accounts Committee has the MOD in missile lock over the cost of introducing the new nuclear freefall bombs with the F-35A. Can the Minister give the House some reassurance that the decision to bring in tactical nuclear weapons is not going to cost us a bomb? \p Luke Pollard: Yes. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Before we begin, it may be helpful for me to remind the House that the trial of Soldier F in relation to the events on Bloody Sunday is no longer sub judice and that it is the focus of today’s urgent question. There remain live cases in respect of other soldiers. On 14 July 2025, I granted a waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings related to historical troubles-related deaths. However, references to live cases should be limited to the context and to the events that led to the cases, but not to the detail of cases themselves, nor to the names of those individuals involved. \p Alex Burghart: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the verdict in the trial of Soldier F. \p Hilary Benn: The trial of Soldier F concluded on 23 October with a not guilty verdict. The Ministry of Defence rightly provided him with legal and pastoral support. I and the Secretary of State for Defence have, of course, noted the judgment, but I do not think it appropriate to be drawn on the particulars of these independent legal proceedings. The House will recognise that it was also a difficult day for the families of the 13 people shot dead on Bloody Sunday, in circumstances that the former Prime Minister Lord Cameron described as “unjustified and unjustifiable”. I am sure that the sympathies of the whole House remain with them.

We all understand the continuing pain felt by families and communities in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom as a result of the troubles. The Government remain committed to establishing a legacy process that can provide answers for families who are still seeking to find out what happened to their loved ones. We will always remember the dangers faced by our brave soldiers, police, and others who served during the time of Operation Banner and who tried to keep people safe, and will always remember, especially at this time of year, those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Their service will never be forgotten, and we owe them a profound debt of gratitude.

It is, however, important to note that the case of Soldier F of course involved no role for either this Government or the last one. The independent proceedings were ongoing before the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and they were not halted by that legislation. Decisions by the prosecution service in Northern Ireland are always taken independently, in the light of facts and circumstances, and we should all respect that independence. A prosecution can only ever be brought when the evidence presents, in the view of prosecutors, a reasonable prospect of a conviction, and when it is in the public interest to proceed.

I also recognise that all those affected by the troubles, including veterans, want a system that is fair, balanced and proportionate. That is what the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is seeking to put in place, with a new legacy commission and strong protections for veterans that were not included in the last Government’s legacy Act. That act offered a false and undeliverable promise of  immunity to our Northern Ireland veterans. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans commissioners have called for—not immunity from the law, but fairness under it. \p Alex Burghart: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I, too, begin with a thought for the families left bereft by the events of that day in 1972. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who, 15 years ago, said to the House that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both “unjustified” and “wrong”, and

“on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.”——[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.]

He did so, of course, after the publication of the Saville inquiry, which took 12 years and cost in today’s money about £325 million. Even after such an extensive inquiry, there has been no conviction. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that the evidence fell well short of the standard required. He said:

“A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.

That goes to the heart of what my party argued when passing our legacy Act.

As time goes by, it becomes vanishingly difficult to obtain convictions. The 1998 agreement was 27 years ago, and the ceasefires were 31 years ago. That of course has implications for the Government’s troubles Bill, which will reopen many cases where there is no prospect of resolution, only a prospect of ongoing legal process. Under the Bill, there is almost no possibility of bringing terrorists to court, but it ultimately leaves open the likelihood of ever more vexatious complaints against our veterans. We are talking about claims like that thrown out by the High Court in Belfast last month; the judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from reality”, although not before a former special forces soldier had to endure four years of investigation.

Last week, it was reported that a similar case, from 53 years ago, may soon go to trial. No wonder that on Friday, Special Air Service veterans published a letter in the Financial Times, in which they said that

“‘legacy’ has become an industry that keeps wounds open while rewriting history.”

We ask the Secretary of State to think again. \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to the Saville inquiry. That long-running inquiry finally brought some truth and justice, in the eyes of families of the 13 people shot dead, and led the former Prime Minister to make his apology. The hon. Member is right when he says that, given the passage of time, it is “vanishingly difficult”—I think that was the phrase he used—to obtain convictions. Most of the families—not all—whom I have met and who lost loved ones recognise that fact. However, he also has to acknowledge that the legacy Act, with its offer of immunity— \p Mark Francois: Conditional immunity. \p Hilary Benn: As I say, the legacy Act’s offer of immunity in return for statements that the legacy commission regarded as truthful and credible could have given immunity to terrorists. That is why the immunity that the last Government sought to put in place was rejected by victims’ and survivors’ groups in Northern Ireland, was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland,  and was found by the courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Therefore, as I have said to the House before, and I have said to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), the Act was no basis on which to try to help those families find the answers that they are looking for. That is why we need a different approach—building on the establishment of the legacy commission, I grant him, because I took the decision that we would not abolish it but reform it. That is what the Bill that we will debate shortly seeks to do, and I look forward to it being scrutinised by the House. \p Adam Jogee: Many people impacted by the troubles continue to live with the pain, trauma and grief of war. The previous Government’s approach to legacy was rendered essentially useless because, as the Secretary of State just said, it was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland. What steps has the Secretary of State taken to carry all the people of Northern Ireland with him on his approach to legacy? \p Hilary Benn: Having promised the House in two statements since the Government were elected in July 2024 that I would bring forward proposals, I did so when the Government published the Bill on 14 October. Since then, I have met political parties and organisations representing victims and survivors, and this week I will again meet the victims and survivors forum that I met on the day that the agreement with the Irish Government was published. As I acknowledged to the House when I made my oral statement, no proposals put forward will be greeted with approval by everyone, but I have been much struck by the fact that those I have met and talked to have said, “Well, we will need to consider the detail.” I believe that the proposals provide a basis for moving forward, and I hope that the House will recognise that. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. \p Al Pinkerton: I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far. We welcome the resolution of this trial and the clarity that the law has afforded. The Liberal Democrats extend our deepest sympathies to the families who still seek justice and answers. The legacy Act of 2023 may have been driven by the instinct to protect veterans, but it fails to comply with our international legal obligations and, through its conditional immunity, created a false equivalence between those who valiantly served in the British armed forces and those involved in acts of terrorism. That approach was both morally wrong and offensive to veterans and victims alike. The violence carried out by terrorist organisations during the troubles caused deep suffering across Northern Ireland, and we believe that the need to uphold the rule of law must apply to all without exception, but prosecution should never become persecution. This case focuses our attention back on the Government’s new attempt to deal with the legacy of the past. Is the Secretary of State absolutely confident that the Bill will deliver strong enough protections for British veterans? What has he done to try to secure support from veterans’ organisations? What has he done to ensure that victims and families can finally access the truth and justice that they deserve? \p Hilary Benn: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says and his characterisation of the immunity provisions in the legacy Act. Nick Pope, the chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, said that the confederation welcomes

“the development of the safeguards that have been put in place to offer protection to those within the armed forces community who are affected by legacy issues.”

We drew those up having spoken to veterans. I hope that when people look at them and see how they work, they will recognise that we have acknowledged our particular responsibility to treat veterans fairly in the process. That is the right way to proceed. \p Katrina Murray: Some 53 years after the events of Bloody Sunday, and 15 years after the report of the Saville inquiry, it is becoming clear that future criminal cases will be few and far between, but every single day, this issue sits with the families who have lost loved ones. It affects every day of their lives, be they the families of military personnel or of those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that they will remain absolutely central to this work, going forward? \p Hilary Benn: All those families, including military families, are at the centre of what we seek to do. What are the Government trying to achieve? We are trying to create a legacy system that more people in Northern Ireland can have confidence in. The last legacy Act failed to command sufficient confidence from the people in Northern Ireland; that is a fact that no one can dispute. I agree with my hon. Friend that prosecutions are increasingly unlikely with the passage of time—I think the judgment and the judge’s summing up in the case of Soldier F made that extremely clear—but even where they are not possible, we want to put in place arrangements, and to be able to provide information about what happened to the families. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: Whatever the wrongs committed on that day, does the Secretary of State understand that it beggars belief that a former IRA man can, in his old age, be lolling on a sofa, despite all his torturing, kneecapping and executions? I am thinking of Captain Nairac, who was abducted, tortured and killed; his perpetrators were never brought to justice. Does the Secretary of State realise that this whole process is deeply wounding to the morale of the British Army? He can take refuge in independent prosecution, but he can give his own opinion and say that it is surely time that Northern Ireland moves on into a better age. \p Hilary Benn: We all want Northern Ireland to be able to move on into a better age and a better future, but we have a responsibility to those families who are still searching for answers to put in place a system that will help them to get those answers, including in the cases that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I simply point out that it is estimated that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries served sentences of imprisonment during the troubles for a wide variety of offences, including murder. If he looks at the cases currently awaiting trial, he will find that most of them relate to former paramilitaries, not to our armed forces. \p Jayne Kirkham: I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks about the professionalism, bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces, and the role that they played in Northern Ireland and across the UK. What discussions has he had with veterans, as well as the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People, about the new protection in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? Is he or one of the Defence Ministers prepared to speak to veterans in Cornwall on this matter? \p Hilary Benn: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers in the Ministry of Defence will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. The protections in the legislation that has been brought before the House are the result of extensive discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence, the armed forces Ministers, and veterans’ organisations. \p David Davis: The Front Benchers have rightly referred to the pain of the relatives of those who died on Bloody Sunday. We all share their sympathy, but nothing justifies the persecution of innocent people, particularly innocent veterans. The judge in the trial said:

“The evidence presented by the Crown falls well short of…the high standard of proof required in a criminal case”.

Nevertheless, in two weeks’ time, there will be another case involving another soldier from 53 years ago, which has already been reviewed for four years by the Director of Public Prosecutions and ruled as “no case to answer”. Despite that, with no evidence whatsoever having been provided since that time, that man is being put through misery and persecution now—a 78-year-old man sitting in anxiety in his home, waiting to be prosecuted for a case that should never have been brought. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that this is injustice? Wrap it up however he likes, it is injustice, and his legislation will mean that many more such cases will occur. \p Hilary Benn: The legislation that the Government have put before the House will make no change at all to the basis on which decisions about any potential prosecutions are made. Indeed, that system will remain as it has been right through the course of the troubles and in the 27 and a half years since. [Interruption.] It is the case. Decisions about prosecutions are taken independently by prosecutors, and it is not for us to gainsay the decisions that those prosecutors make, because that is the absolute bedrock of our independent judicial system. \p David Smith: Some quarter of a million people served in Operation Banner, and the vast majority did so with great distinction and huge bravery, leading to the peace that we see in Northern Ireland today. The number of prosecutions of Army veterans is vanishingly small, so will the Secretary of State join me in thanking those veterans for their service and condemn the rhetoric that at times is coming from Conservative Members, which is unnecessarily stoking fear among those veterans? \p Hilary Benn: I have already expressed the Government’s thanks in my answer to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and I think those sentiments are felt right across the House. \p Carla Lockhart: I welcome the clear and just verdict delivered by Mr Justice Lynch, which rightly found Soldier F not guilty on all charges—vindication for a man who served his country with honour and distinction. Does the Secretary of State agree that this case again exposes the disgrace of vexatious prosecutions of aged veterans, pursued where there was never evidence capable of meeting the threshold for conviction, and that it is time to end the witch hunt once and for all?

Does the Secretary of State further agree that around 90% of all deaths during the troubles were caused by terrorists, and that of the 10% that involved the security forces, the largest proportion occurred while engaging terrorists who were engaged in murderous and criminal activities? Sinn Féin’s historical revisionism, exemplified by the First Minister’s comments following the verdict, is therefore defamatory. To equate murderers with those who defended democracy is an attempt to smear our veterans, and it should not be allowed. \p Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Member that 90% of those who were killed during the troubles were killed by paramilitary terrorists, which is why the vast majority of those who have been prosecuted and convicted have been paramilitary terrorists. However, I do not agree with her when she uses the phrase “vexatious prosecutions”. There are no vexatious prosecutions. [Hon. Members: “What?”] There are no vexatious prosecutions, because if the hon. Member is arguing that a decision to prosecute is vexatious, she is criticising the independent prosecuting authorities, which make their decisions on the basis of whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. We should be extremely careful about trying to undermine an independent judicial system. \p Johanna Baxter: Many IRA murders on UK soil have never been solved, including the targeting of soldiers and their families in the M62 coach bombing in 1974 and the Warrenpoint massacre in 1979, the deadliest attack on the British Army during the troubles. Does the Secretary of State agree that by shutting down investigations—including into the deaths of more than 200 Operation Banner soldiers—without an adequate alternative, the legacy Act failed many families and victims of the troubles? \p Hilary Benn: I share my hon. Friend’s concern about what happened as a result of the legacy Act, but I welcome that two of the cases she mentioned—the M62 coach bombing and Warrenpoint—are currently being investigated by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, because members of their families have chosen to refer in those cases. I want more families to have more confidence in the commission, which is why I am seeking to reform it so that they too feel able to refer their cases in. \p Bernard Jenkin: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and the whole premise of his case is that it is somehow in the public interest for people in that community to carry on trying to find people to blame and prosecute on both sides of the argument. Is the real case here not that it is not only an extraordinary injustice for people  to be prosecuted for having done their duty as members of Her Majesty’s armed forces, but it does not serve the interests of peace and reconciliation to allow and encourage people to carry on reopening wounds, when so much time and money has already been spent on trying to explain what happened to their loved ones? Nothing must detract from that sympathy, but it is a monstrous injustice that people in the line of duty who bear the scars of that conflict are paying the price for this almost politically correct process, instead of drawing a line. \p Hilary Benn: I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept the characterisation he used at the end of his question. This is not a politically correct process; this is about trying to find a way forward for those families. The honest answer to the fair point that he raises is that each family deals with the loss of their loved one in their own way. Some do not come forward. They live with their grief silently, alone. Others have campaigned. If it had not been for the campaigning of the Bloody Sunday families, there would not have been a Saville inquiry and we would not have got to the point where the former Prime Minister stood at this Dispatch Box to apologise for the killing of their loved ones.

Having said that, in the vast majority of cases, no one is likely to be held to account through a judicial process, and that is why one of the focuses of the new commission will be on fact-finding and the new body for information retrieval, using all the means at our disposal to try to provide answers to those families. It will then be for them to decide how they come to terms with what happened. We owe it to them to leave no stone unturned and to put a better system in place. \p Iain Duncan Smith: As someone who served in Northern Ireland, I just remind the House that this was the most peculiar operation that we could ever expect soldiers to do—patrolling streets in this United Kingdom, defending people against terrorists here in the UK, against a very strict rules of engagement booklet. They had to make complex decisions in a split second. Some of them were 18 years old, on the streets, petrified. In that context, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he talks of equivalence, but more than 700 British soldiers in Northern Ireland were killed by paramilitaries. Not one single paramilitary has been arraigned and taken to court for any of those murders that were committed against the British Army and the British forces. The Secretary of State talks of equivalence, but this is not equivalence, because it is those soldiers who will be persecuted for the rest of time, and not one single member of the paramilitaries, who kept no records, will ever go in front of a court. That is not fair. \p Hilary Benn: I apologise if I have got this wrong, but I do not remember using the word “equivalence”. What I said was that independent prosecutors would make decisions on the basis of the evidence that they had before them. The current legacy commission is able to refer cases for potential prosecution, and the new legacy commission will be able to do the same. If there is evidence that will allow paramilitaries to be prosecuted, it will be for the prosecutors to decide whether to bring a case, and if the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at  the convictions that there have been since the Good Friday agreement, he will find that most of them have related to paramilitaries. As I said a moment ago, most of the trials that are currently being awaited relate not to the armed forces but to paramilitaries. \p Richard Tice: Does the Secretary of State not understand that, given the judge’s comments that the evidence fell well short of the standard required, veterans do consider that that was a vexatious prosecution? They do consider that the prosecution of Soldier B is a vexatious prosecution, and they do feel utterly betrayed by this Government’s repeal of the legacy Act. \p Hilary Benn: The legacy Act offered a false promise of immunity. It was found to be incompatible with our obligations, and it had no support in Northern Ireland. At some point, Opposition Members must recognise that it had no support there. How can Northern Ireland move forward if the basis of the last Government’s legislation lacks that support? In those circumstances, it is for prosecutors to make decisions, and we need to respect that. People may agree or disagree, but we need to respect a system in which prosecution decisions are made independently, because there are other countries in the world where that is not the case. \p Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State envisage any circumstances in which an IRA terrorist could be prosecuted after he had received a letter of comfort, and if so, what are those circumstances? \p Hilary Benn: I would cite to the right hon. Gentleman the case of Mr John Downey, to whom I have referred in the House before. He received one of those letters, and as a result his trial for the Hyde Park bombings was halted by the judge, but the public record will show that Mr Downey is currently awaiting trial for two murders committed during the troubles, in which case the letter that he received cannot—I repeat, cannot—be said to have granted him immunity from prosecution. \p Jim Allister: I greatly welcome the “not guilty” verdict on Soldier F, but has the Secretary of State no empathy with Soldier F, a man who has lived through years of turmoil and torture while awaiting prosecution, in circumstances in which it was patently obvious that the evidence was never going to stack up? As a lawyer, I am absolutely astounded that this prosecution got as far as it did, because it relied entirely, in terms of what was relevant, on the word of two individuals, both of whom had by then been depicted as liars and perjurers, and neither of whom could be cross-examined—yet our so-called independent prosecution service persisted with the prosecution. Is that not the very essence of what is vexatious, and does the Secretary of State agree that those who campaigned for this persecution of Soldier F should accept the verdict that he is not guilty, and leave the man to live out his years in peace? \p Hilary Benn: It is a fundamental principle of our legal system that we accept the verdicts of the courts, even if we may not agree with them. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, and he expresses his views regarding the basis of that prosecution. The only point that I am making is that that decision is made by independent prosecutors, not by any of us. \p Harriett Baldwin: Fifty-one years ago this month, 21 people were murdered and 200 people were injured in the Birmingham pub bombings. Last week the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), issued a statement saying that he would not be recommending a public inquiry and that, instead, the Justice for the 21 campaigners could pursue justice via the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which the Secretary of State has referred to. But BBC Northern Ireland is reporting that, because there has been an inquest into those bombings, it would not be in scope for the commission to look into the Birmingham pub bombings. Could the Secretary of State, at the Dispatch Box, confirm to the families in Justice for the 21 that it would indeed be possible for the commission to look into that? \p Hilary Benn: It would indeed be possible for them to refer the case to the commission. \p Jim Shannon: I will first declare an interest: I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Ulster Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years.

This ruling was expected, as there was no additional evidence and it was twice held to be not fit for prosecution, as others have mentioned. It is hard to understand how they could pursue something without having the criminal investigation and the evidence sorted in advance. It is clear that the Secretary of State must address the way forward and provide certainty for those service personnel who know that they served honourably in impossible conditions, and yet who live with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, waiting to have their service used as a tool by republicans to make it seem like they were fighting a dirty war, when quite clearly they were not.

Will the Secretary of State send the message today that he will not sign off on the narrative that our troops—the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment—were ever anything other than honourable men and women putting their lives on the line for us, and that they will be protected as honourably as they protected us? How does the Secretary of State intend to protect them better than we are doing right now? \p Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the protections that we have put into legislation following the discussions that we have had with veterans, which I referred to earlier. I join him in again paying tribute to the extraordinarily brave service of all those who served during the time of Operation Banner in trying to protect the people of Northern Ireland from the terrorists. I will make a point that I know the whole House will agree with: while some people argue that there was no alternative to that terrorism, there was, and we saw it in the signing of the Good Friday agreement and what happened thereafter. There was always an alternative. That is why we should always support those who did their duty honourably. \p Lincoln Jopp: The Secretary of State baulked at the word “equivalence”, so I will have a go with another one. Does he believe that Northern Ireland terrorists should be treated equally to Northern Ireland veterans? If he does, why does he not issue letters of comfort to those Northern Ireland veterans? \p Hilary Benn: The letters of comfort—or the on-the-run letters, however one wishes to describe them—had their origin in the time after the Good Friday agreement, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, but, as I explained a moment ago in answer to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), they did not give anyone immunity from prosecution. That is an extremely important point to make. Anyone who gives the impression that they gave immunity from prosecution is, I am afraid, causing people unnecessary worry when the facts do not support that. \p Robin Swann: As we approach Remembrance Sunday, many of those who served in Operation Banner will reflect on comrades whom they lost, comrades who were injured and comrades who still suffer mentally as a result of their deployment in that operation—the British Army’s longest continuous deployment. The Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box that his Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will bring strong protections for veterans. It does not; it brings the same protections for everyone under that Bill, including those who possibly perpetrated murderous acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. So what can he actually provide regarding continuous support for veterans—something set out on the face of the Bill, rather than something that is not in the legislation but is promised by Government? \p Hilary Benn: The protections were put in place for veterans after consulting veterans, and they are not unimportant: the ability to stay at home and give evidence; the protection from repeated investigations; and the right to seek immunity in a hearing of the commission—people already have the right to seek that in a coroner’s court.[Official Report, 4 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 10WC.] (Correction) There are, of course, two other protections: the protection from cold calling and the right to be heard through the statutory advisory group that will be established, working alongside the commission, which will have representation from a member of the armed forces or a police force. Those are very practical changes that we have made, which, as I said earlier, are not contained in the current legacy Act. \p Caroline Dinenage: The Secretary of State is right to say that this Remembrance Month underlines the debt of gratitude that we owe to those who serve our nation, but many in my constituency feel that that stands in stark contrast to the fundamental failure in our nation’s duty of care to veterans of Operation Banner. The Secretary of State suggests that the troubles legacy Bill will not increase the risk of veterans being dragged through the courts, but veterans feel that the reality is different. In the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to, they call it “lawfare”. They say that there is a legal conveyor belt of several actions that are taking place. Is it not time for a time limit on civil actions relating to historical military operations? \p Hilary Benn: The hon. Member raises an important point. It is, however, very important to distinguish, as I know she will, between potential criminal prosecutions, which are the result of decisions of independent prosecutors, and civil cases. One of the other things that the courts found was that the ban on civil cases was incompatible with our human rights obligations. I point out that  there has already been a civil case in relation to a paramilitary, which found against that individual, and it is a fundamental feature of our system that people are able to bring civil cases. Decisions about how those cases are disposed of is rightly a matter for the courts. \p Zarah Sultana: My thoughts today are with the families of the Bloody Sunday victims and with the people of Derry, who have carried the burden of grief, truth and justice for more than five decades. What happened on Bloody Sunday is not up for debate; the Saville inquiry established in painstaking detail what the Parachute Regiment did to peaceful civil rights demonstrators on the Bogside. Can the Secretary of State explain how it was determined and who determined that Soldier F qualified for Ministry of Defence funding, and what precedent this decision was based on, particularly given reports that he received double the financial support typically afforded to a single defendant? If he was eligible for legal aid, that avenue was open for him. Instead, £4.3 million of public money was spent defending a man who, in his own evidence to the Saville inquiry, admitted his lethal role in the state-sanctioned murders on Bloody Sunday. Does the Secretary of State believe that this represents an equal and impartial application of justice, or a two-tiered system designed to shield the British state from accountability? \p Hilary Benn: I say to the hon. Member that the Saville inquiry report made for very sobering and distressing reading for all of us. Like many Members present, I was in the House to hear the former Prime Minister, Lord Cameron, make that apology to the families—something for which they had campaigned for years and years when justice was denied to them. I will always remember the photographs of the fists that came out of the window in the Guildhall in Derry/Londonderry as people heard what the Prime Minister at the time had said from the Dispatch Box.

On the hon. Member’s first point, it is right and proper that the Ministry of Defence provides support to any veteran who is facing a criminal justice process. I think we would expect nothing less. \p John Cooper: It is important that we in this House remember that terrorists killed Members of this House, including Airey Neave only a few hundred yards from where we stand today. The Secretary of State on previous occasions has indicated that something like nine inquests could now restart. He has said that Loughgall, an exemplary special forces operation in which brave men stood up against terrorists and nullified them, will be one of those. He has not said which other eight will be reopened. Can he take this opportunity to do that here today? \p Hilary Benn: I will do so when we have been able to inform the families in those cases. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is only right and proper   that we inform the families first, and then I will make a list available. On the reason for the Loughgall inquest, he will be aware that the former Attorney General said on 23 September 2015:

“Following careful consideration of a huge amount of material I have come to the decision that new inquests into the Loughgall deaths are justified.” \p Danny Kruger: Can the Secretary of State tell the House how it is compatible with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to give the Irish Government an official role—effectively, a veto—over the new framework that the Government propose? Is he confident that the Irish state itself will do everything it can to ensure that its agents are held to account for any collusion that may have happened in atrocities carried out by Irish nationalists during the troubles? \p Hilary Benn: The Irish Government do not have a veto. I stood next to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and I made commitments on behalf of the British Government and he made commitments on behalf of the Irish Government. All of us in the House who wish families to get the answers for which they have been searching for so long should welcome the fact that the Irish Government are prepared to move from where they are now, because they oppose the legacy Act too, to a place where they will give this their fullest co-operation. In the course of that, we all hope to provide more information to give more families answers. That is what we are trying to do, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the two Governments are working together on this, because it will help the families. \p David Davis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Yes, if it relates to the urgent question. \p David Davis: During his responses today, the Secretary of State has said two things: on the one hand, he said that letters of comfort do not give immunity; and on the other hand, he accepted that letters of comfort stopped the prosecution of Mr Downey for the Hyde Park bombing. It seems to me that those two statements are inconsistent. What way is available to him to correct Hansard and put one of them right? \p Hilary Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What I said was absolutely accurate, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. On the circumstances of the trial of Mr Downey in relation to the Hyde Park bombing, the reason why the judge called that to a halt was set out. But subsequent statements made it quite clear that those letters of comfort did not constitute immunity, as the subsequent events—not least the impending prosecution of Mr Downey—demonstrate. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Before the Home Secretary makes her statement, I must advise the House that charges have been brought against a named individual and the matter is now sub judice. Members should take care not to say anything in the House that might prejudice a criminal trial. I therefore urge Members to avoid speculating about the guilt or innocence of an individual, or the motive for the attacks. The Home Secretary may wish to make factual statements for the record. Members may wish to ask about the emergency services, the response to the attacks, the support for victims and families, and connected matters. However, I urge the utmost caution in avoiding any remarks that might prejudice a future trial. \p Shabana Mahmood: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the horrific events that took place on the east coast main line on Saturday evening. I am sure that I speak for everyone in this House when I say that my thoughts today are first and foremost with the victims, their families and their friends, and all those who experienced this terrifying attack. My deepest thanks go to the emergency services: the British Transport police, Cambridgeshire police, Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, and the East of England ambulance service. The speed of their response, as well as their skill and professionalism, was exemplary.

I also pay tribute to the breathtaking bravery of those on the train itself, including the heroic acts of the passengers and train crew who intercepted the attacker. I draw particular attention to one member of the onboard crew who ran towards danger, confronting the attacker for a sustained period of time, and stopped his advance through the train. He put himself in harm’s way, suffered grievous injuries as a result, and remains in hospital today in a critical but stable condition. On Saturday, he went to work to do his job—today, he is a hero and forever will be. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

There is now a live investigation into what happened on Saturday night and the events that led up to it. I am therefore limited in what I can say today without putting a successful prosecution at risk. I am sure that all here agree there must be one priority right now: bringing the person who committed this horrific crime to justice. However, I will share what facts I can.

At 7.42 pm on Saturday evening, police were contacted about an incident on a train travelling from Doncaster to London, with reports of several stabbings onboard. The quick thinking of the driver saw the train diverted to Huntingdon station. Within eight minutes of the first 999 call, police had boarded the train and brought the attack to an end. Ten people were taken to hospital by the ambulance services, eight of whom had life-threatening injuries, and a further individual later self-presented at the hospital. Three have now been discharged, while eight remain in hospital. I know that everyone in this House wishes them the swiftest and fullest recoveries possible, and I would like to thank the staff at Cambridge University hospitals NHS foundation trust for their lifesaving care.

I can confirm, as was reported over the weekend, that Operation Plato, the national police identifier for a terrorist attack, was declared; however, it was rescinded once the incident had been contained. The British Transport police remains the lead force in this investigation. It stated yesterday that while Counter Terrorism Policing was initially involved, it has found “nothing to suggest” this was “a terrorist incident”.

At the scene, the police made two arrests. Since then, one man has been released who we now know was not involved. As of this morning, the other—one Anthony Williams—has been charged. In relation to the events in Huntingdon, he has been charged with 10 counts of attempted murder, one count of possession of a knife, and one of actual bodily harm. He has also been charged with a further count of attempted murder and possession of a bladed article in relation to events on a docklands light railway train in the early hours of Saturday morning, at London’s Pontoon Dock. Cambridgeshire police has, in the last few hours, reported additional earlier sightings and possible further offences. As is standard practice in these cases, it has now referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct for independent scrutiny of its handling of these reports.

For now, there is little I can say about this man and his past, beyond confirming that he is a British national and was born in this country, and that he was not known to the security services, Counter Terrorism Policing or Prevent. I know that this House, and the public, will have many unanswered questions today about who this attacker was and about the events that led up to the attack. Those questions will be answered, but it will take time—the police and prosecutors must be allowed to do their work.

Since Saturday’s attack, the British Transport police has increased its presence at key points in the transport network. It should be noted, however, that its operational assessment of the risk posed on our trains has not changed, as this was an isolated attack.

This was also, of course, a knife crime. This Government are committed to halving knife crime within a decade, and progress has been made this year. We have taken 60,000 knives off our streets, banned zombie knives and ninja swords and seen a 5% fall in all knife crimes, including an 18% reduction in homicides by knife.

I know that ideas have already been suggested as to how policing should change in response to this event and, once the facts are known, we must examine what more might have been done to stop this horrific attack ever occurring and whether there are measures we must now take to better protect the public on our streets and on our trains. However, that must be done when all the facts are available to us.

The thoughts of the whole House today are with the victims of this horrific crime, their families and friends, and all affected by what happened on Saturday night. The sickening act of the man who committed this crime was the very worst of humanity, but the actions of those who responded and who ran towards danger to save the lives of people they did not know were the very best of us. I know that we all share in paying tribute to their extraordinary bravery today. I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Chris Philp: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

Our thoughts are with the victims of this appalling attack and their families, as the Home Secretary rightly says. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services who responded so fast and the brave interventions by members of the public and the train staff that prevented an even worse tragedy from occurring. They are truly heroes.

This attack has horrified and shocked the whole nation. People simply travelling by train were indiscriminately attacked. The horror the passengers experienced will likely stay with them forever.

Anthony Williams has now been charged. As the Home Secretary says, he had been involved in previous incidents in Peterborough and, in the early hours of Saturday morning, was also allegedly involved in an attack on the docklands light railway in London. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, as I have been told, police in London knew Williams’s identity following that attack, and if so, whether Cambridgeshire police were informed so that they could track him down? In essence, I am asking whether there were any opportunities to prevent this attack from occurring.

The Home Secretary says that Williams was not previously known to the security services, Counter Terrorism Policing or Prevent. Can she tell the House whether Williams was previously known to the police more widely or to mental health services?

This all comes just weeks after a murderous Islamist terror attack on a Manchester synagogue and just days after the horrendous murder of Wayne Broadhurst by an Afghan asylum seeker, both using knives. Although homicide has thankfully fallen by about 15% since 2010 and, as the Home Secretary said, knife crime has fallen in recent years, every homicide and every knife attack is one too many. The Minister for Policing and I saw the grief it causes at the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam, who was murdered in Croydon just over two years ago.

Speaking in general—not in relation to this incident—does the Home Secretary agree that knife crime and knife homicide figures are still too high, and that we must do yet more? Does she agree that more knife crime offenders should go to jail? This is important because when offenders are in jail, they cannot attack the public. Does she agree that we must ensure that more people who carry knives, especially where they use them to threaten others, are jailed? Of course, there is pressure on prison places, but by deporting more of the 10,000 foreign nationals in prison, we could create more space.

We also need to take more knives off our streets, which means we have to dramatically increase the use of stop and search. A study this year by Professor Lawrence Sherman, the Met’s former chief scientific officer, found that raising stop and search levels in London to 2011 levels would lead to a one-third reduction in knife homicide. Some complain that stop and search is used disproportionately in relation to some groups, but, when measured in relation to the offending population, the disproportionality disappears, as was set out in a recent Policy Exchange study. We should triple the use of stop and search to get   knives off our streets, and we should introduce year-round surge policing in the top 5% of high crime hotspots, which will include many train stations.

We must also use technology more. I know that there is work under way at the Home Office on scanning for knives at a distance, and it is hoped that it can distinguish knives from keys or mobile phones. This could help police rapidly identify those carrying a knife in a public place. I wonder if the Home Secretary could provide an update on the development of that work, either straightaway or in writing later if she would prefer. I really do think that it could make a big difference.

Finally, retrospective and live facial recognition can identify wanted criminals, including those involved in knife crime. In Croydon town centre—the borough that the Minister for Policing and I represent—in the last couple of years around 200 wanted criminals were arrested using live facial recognition, including two wanted rapists and others guilty of knife crime who would not otherwise have been caught. Crime in Croydon town centre, including knife crime, has gone down as a result. The images of innocent passers-by are immediately and automatically deleted, which addresses civil liberties concerns. I really hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing agree that rolling out this technology nationally would make a dramatic improvement to public safety, and they will certainly have my full support if they choose to roll it out.

I know that everyone in the House wants to see knife crime eradicated—today more than ever before, I am sure—so I hope the House will also support the tough steps needed to eradicate knife crime. We owe the victims of these appalling crimes actions as well as words. \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, in particular his opening remarks; I know that the bravery of all those who faced this attack on Saturday has unanimous support across the House, and I thank him for the spirit in which he reflected that.

As I said in my statement, the events in Peterborough are now the subject of an IOPC investigation. It is important that I do not say anything that seeks to get ahead of that, but I am sure all those questions will be answered in the fullness of time. It is standard practice where there has been contact with police in the run-up to an event like this that those matters are referred to the IOPC to investigate and consider.

The shadow Home Secretary will know that I also cannot say anything that relates to the suspect who has been charged and any prior history, or indeed mental health issues. They would be facts that are material to any future court proceedings, so it would be inappropriate for me, or indeed anybody else in this House, to comment or speculate on those matters today. I would ask that Mr Speaker’s words at the opening of the statement be remembered as questions are posed today.

I agree with the shadow Home Secretary that knife crime is far too high. This Government are impatient to do everything we can to eliminate knife crime. It is why we have set ourselves an ambitious target. We are pleased to have made some progress, though I agree that there is much more to be done. Instead of playing politics across the House, I hope that where there is consensus we are all able to work together to bring down the scourge of knife crime in our country. As I say, the numbers  have gone in a positive direction. I hope the shadow Home Secretary will welcome that and work with us as we seek to make more progress.

The shadow Home Secretary referred to sentencing. I have to say that it is disappointing when Conservative Members do not reckon with the scale of the crisis in our prison system. This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse, and it has meant difficult decisions ever since we entered office in order to prevent the country from running out of prison places entirely. This Government have deported more foreign national offenders since entering office than the previous Government did.

Despite deporting record numbers of foreign national offenders, the scale of the crisis in the prison system means that there are still more prisoners coming into the system than there have been places. It is important that the sentencing reforms are seen in that context. The majority of those who have been in possession of a knife and used it in a threatening manner do attract reasonably lengthy prison sentences. When we know more about the circumstances of this particular case, we will know if there are other lessons for us to draw and other areas of policy for us to consider.

The shadow Home Secretary referenced stop and search, and I think—I hope that I am not putting too much of a spin on his remarks—lamented issues about disproportionality. I gently remind him that it was a former Tory Home Secretary in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament who first started speaking about the disproportionate use of stop-and-search powers and changed the rules to reflect the disproportionate use of that power. That was the record of the previous Government. I hope he will recognise that the police already have the power to use stop and search indiscriminately, where the intelligence suggests that that is required. That is an operational decision for police chiefs. Of course, the decision as to whether to stop and search someone, when there are reasonable grounds and suspicion, is an individual operational decision for police officers. This is a well used and well understood power. It is an important power in our arsenal for tackling criminality, and the Government fully support its lawful use.

The Government will soon consult on a new legal framework to underpin the use of live facial recognition. The shadow Home Secretary will know that when his party was in power, that was left to individual police forces. I believe that South Wales and the Met were the first to roll it out, and they faced lots of legal challenges as a result thereof. The Government then did not change their policy, but this Government will consult on a legal framework so that all police forces across the country can use live facial recognition technology, confident that they will not find themselves defending those decisions in courts in the future. I have also supported the roll-out of 10 specific live facial recognition units across the country, and we will look to do more in the coming months.

In relation to scans for knives, there is much more that we can do to use new and emerging technology to help us tackle this type of criminality. I am happy to write to the shadow Home Secretary about our current plans, but I will set out more on our broader position in the coming weeks.

Knife crime is a terrible crime that claims far too many lives in our country. It is important that we keep doing everything we can to bear down on the damage  that it causes and to provide pathways for those who get caught up in the carrying of knives. That is an important bit of policy that we will continue to work on. However, in relation to the attack that we are primarily talking about, I urge the House to wait until more of the facts are known before drawing broader policy conclusions. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Transport Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: I thank the Home Secretary for all her remarks and the Secretary of State for Transport, who is also in her place, for her comments in the media this morning. I share, as all hon. Members of the House do, their concern for the victims and their families and the recognition of the heroism of so many in the tragedy on Saturday.

On behalf of my colleagues on the Transport Committee, I pay particular tribute to all the staff of Avanti West Coast and Network Rail, who responded so quickly, and in particular to the train driver who reacted so promptly to get the train to Huntingdon in order that the emergency services could meet it and the on-board staff member who is in hospital after protecting passengers.[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 652.] (Correction)

I know that people may be nervous of travelling by train now. I thank the Government and the police services for their work to ensure additional police presence at rail stations, as I saw at Waterloo on my way here earlier. As the Home Secretary said, British Transport police has said that its operational assessment of the risk posed on our trains has not changed, given that this was an isolated attack, so will she assure me that any long-term changes to security on our rail services will be considered very carefully once the full facts of this incident are known and that there will not be a rush into changes without considering potential downsides that may impact on the ease of travel by train? \p Shabana Mahmood: It is always about balance between ease of travel for millions of people every single day and making sure that people are safe, and of course the Transport Secretary and the rest of the Government will ensure that any arrangements—whether we remain with the current arrangements or make any changes—always strike the right balance. That is the most important thing. For now, based on our current understanding of this attack, the risk assessment has not changed, and although we are providing more reassurance to people so that they feel safe getting on trains in the aftermath of this attack, there are no proposals to go further at this point. We will of course review that once more when the facts are known. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Max Wilkinson: This attack has left 11 people in hospital, one of them a member of the train staff, who is in a critical but stable condition. My party’s thoughts are with all those affected: the victims, their loved ones and everyone who witnessed such a shocking event. We also want to thank the emergency services and rail staff for their swift response, as well as the passengers who intervened to prevent further harm.

After this sort of incident, it is vital that the police are given the time and space they need to establish the full facts. That is ever more difficult due to the rapid spread  of disinformation online in the immediate aftermath of such attacks. Within hours, social media was flooded with speculation over the ethnicity and race of the perpetrator, inciting racist and Islamophobic comments. While communities were still reeling from the horror of the attack, certain political figures on the hard right, including members of the Reform party, were already seeking to exploit the incident for political gain. Desperate to involve themselves in the tragedy, they reached for their dog whistles. They threw around baseless opinions on levels of crime when facts were available, shamelessly trying to turn this tragedy into yet another excuse to whip up fear and sow division.

The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today also veered into that realm. Never is an opportunity to blame foreigners missed—that is beneath contempt. At moments like this, those who aspire to leadership must calm fears and attempt to unite, not to inflame tensions. Does the Home Secretary share my view that while knife crime must be tackled forcefully, it is important that all of us must respond with arguments grounded in fact rather than trying to stoke fear?

Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government hold data on violent incidents involving knives or sharp instruments where three or more victims were harmed in a single incident? If so, what is the trend over the past two years, or over any other timeframe the Home Secretary has data for? Finally, she has said that the individual was not known to anti-terror police or Prevent, but when the facts are known, will she confirm that proper lessons will be learned about individuals who may pose a risk, be it as a result of mental health issues, an obsession with extreme violence or other relevant factors? \p Shabana Mahmood: I deplore the ease with which so many armchair warriors feel the need to speculate and spread misinformation on social media. It is important that the police and all our emergency services are able to proceed with their investigations not only at pace but transparently, so as to calm any tensions that might arise as a result of misinformation that spreads, particularly across social media. In terms of how other people may or may not have reacted, I tend to think that at moments of such crisis people normally reveal their true colours. I will leave my remarks about other individuals there.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that knife crime must be tackled forcefully. As I said earlier, we have seen an 18% decrease in murders by knife, and I will make sure he receives the further stats that he mentioned. As I have said, the data in relation to knife crime is going in a better direction, but like others in this House, I am impatient to see more change happen more quickly. I hope he will work with us on a cross-party basis on all the measures needed to achieve that. Of course, when all the facts around this case are known and understood, I will ensure that any lessons that there are to be learned will be learned and acted upon. \p Sam Carling: May I take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the first responders, the police and everyone on the train who put their lives at risk to protect others? So many people from the communities I represent in  both Peterborough and Huntingdonshire have written to me today in absolute fear, shock and confusion at how this could have happened so close to home, particularly after we found out this morning that the charged individual is from my constituency. Constituents have also been worried and alarmed about reports over the last few hours that the offender may have been involved in further incidents in Peterborough and London. Will the Home Secretary join me in calling for community cohesion following this incident, and ensure that a full investigation takes place into those possible other offences? \p Shabana Mahmood: I can only imagine how terrifying it must have been for my hon. Friend’s constituents and those in neighbouring areas to hear news of this horrifying attack. He will know that I cannot say any more at the moment about other potential incidents—they are the subject of further investigation. As more facts are confirmed by the police, we will be able to say more and, of course, the IOPC must be allowed to do its work.

When we know more about the facts of this case, we will know whether it relates to community cohesion or to wider community issues. I encourage Members to wait until more facts are known before we draw those broader conclusions, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary that we reassure communities in his constituency and across the country. That is why there is an increased police presence across the transport network and why this Government will ensure that, as we know more, where there are lessons to be learned, they will be learned and acted upon. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: This has been a difficult and challenging weekend for Huntingdon. My thoughts are with the victims of this terrible tragedy; with the LNER crew member whose heroic and selfless actions, placing himself in harm’s way, saved lives at the cost of his own safety, and who remains in a critical but stable condition; with the other four victims who remain in hospital with stab wounds; and with the four who were discharged yesterday, as well as those who bore witness to the attacks and will still be processing their own experiences.

I would like to place on the record my praise for the emergency services’ response: to Cambridgeshire constabulary, whose unarmed response officers and firearms officers were able to place Anthony Williams in custody within eight minutes of receiving the 999 call; and to Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, our air ambulance services, and the East of England ambulance trust for their incident response and for getting the casualties to Addenbrooke’s hospital. I also praise the train driver, Andrew Johnson, and the signalling staff, whose speed of thought in moving the train on to the suburban line from the high-speed line meant that the train could make the unscheduled stop at Huntingdon—a decision that curtailed the attack by several crucial minutes, that allowed the police to apprehend the suspect and that undoubtedly saved lives.

The swift action of all those involved prevented a horrific attack from being far, far worse. I am sure that the Home Secretary, and indeed the whole House, would wish to share in my sympathies for those impacted by this horrific attack, and in my pride in the conduct, leadership and professionalism of the responders and railway staff. \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the hon. Member for both his question and for his own work over the weekend. He was very quick to arrive at the scene. I thought that he handled himself with great honour and that he responded in a measured way to such a horrifying incident in his constituency. The way he has handled himself is a credit to him and to the people he represents. Of course, I agree with his remarks about the bravery of all those who were responding, the speed of the response and the bravery of those inside the train. Let me assure him that myself and my officials stand ready to work with him and others locally on the ground to ensure that all lessons are learned as we move forward. \p Andrew Pakes: May I associate myself with the comments about sympathy and empathy for the victims of this attack? The names of Peterborough and the town of the constituency of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) have flashed across the news here and around the world this weekend because of the terrible events of Saturday night. I do not want my constituency to be known just because of the acts of a single perpetrator, so may I put on record my tribute to the police, the train staff, the first responders and others who stepped forward when actions were needed? I pay particular tribute to my constituent, train driver Andrew Johnson, and his ASLEF and RMT colleagues on LNER, who went beyond the call of duty on that evening. They showed the best of British values, and the true face of the county I represent and its people.

We do not know all the information yet, but there is great anxiety in Huntingdon and Peterborough, and this is also a national issue. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we will go the extra mile to tackle knife crime and ensure that our streets and public transport remain safe for everyone for years to come? \p Shabana Mahmood: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He made contact with me and my officials very quickly after the attack came to light, and, like other Members, he is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I am sure that he will do everything he can to stand up for the people he represents and ensure that the wider area is not tainted by the actions of the attacker. He is absolutely right to remind the House that we should remember the acts not of the attacker, but of those who responded; they put themselves in harm’s way to protect people they had never met before, and they are the very best of us. I pay tribute to all the staff on the train, because they were faced with something utterly horrifying, reacted with immense bravery, and undoubtedly saved countless lives. \p Karen Bradley: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and associate myself with the tributes to the emergency services and the train crew. Our thoughts are with the victims.

When we have more information, I am sure that my Home Affairs Committee will want to consider what happened and learn lessons from it. I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to our inquiry on new forms of radicalisation. If things come out of the investigation that are relevant to my Committee’s inquiry, I ask that we ensure that we learn from them, and ensure that they are included in the inquiry as soon as possible. \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for those points. I look forward to working closely with her as we learn more lessons, once all the facts of the case are known. She is right that, more broadly, we are seeing many new forms of radicalisation in this country and across Europe and North America. It is important that we always stress-test and challenge the Government response to those new forms of radicalisation. Longer term, we will need a change in our understanding of what motivates serious violent behaviour. I am sure that she and her Committee will continue their work, and I pledge to work with them as we try to tease out more answers to these problems. \p Florence Eshalomi: I associate myself with the powerful tributes to the train driver, staff and members of the public. The incident demonstrates the importance of having more than one staff member on trains. The train guards play a vital role in protecting passengers.

My constituency is home to Vauxhall and Waterloo—busy mainline stations. In under six weeks, millions of people will travel home for Christmas on the public network. They need to be reassured that train travel is an efficient and good way to travel across the country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned that there will be additional resources across the network for the next few weeks. Will that go on into the busy Christmas period?

This issue is also covered by the Department for Transport. As transport geeks will know, the British Transport police has a strange funding mechanism: it is funded by the industry, not by the Home Office. As we take on more control of the public network and train services, responsibility for funding will fall to the Government. Will the Home Secretary and Transport Secretary consider that, and ensure that the British Transport police is fully funded to protect people on public transport? \p Shabana Mahmood: Thankfully, incidents like the one on Saturday are very rare, and our train system is generally very safe—millions of people use it every day without incident—so we have a strong base to build on. Of course, given what has happened—the horrifying nature of the attack, and the indiscriminate way in which victims were stabbed—the British Transport police’s decision to increase the police presence across the railway network is important. How extensive that increase is, and how long it goes on, is an operational decision for British Transport police, but we have a good working relationship with it, and I have been impressed with its response to this attack. We have been working closely with it over the weekend, and I pay tribute to it and all its officers. I will be led by British Transport police on the operational decisions that it is making. On the wider policy questions raised by my hon. Friend, as more of the network is nationalised, I will of course pick up those conversations with the Transport Secretary. \p Mark Pritchard: More generally on knife crime and on magistrates, is there a disconnect between the fact that under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, someone can be given a custodial sentence of 51 weeks, and the presumption under the Sentencing Bill that a 12-month custodial sentence will  not be required? What might the Home Secretary do to get around that and ensure that magistrates have more sentencing powers? Possession of a knife is not use of a knife, but sadly one so often leads to the other. There is clearly a legislative disconnect, and I hope the Home Secretary will look at that. \p Shabana Mahmood: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the average sentence for threatening with a knife is more than a year—it is around 15 months—and it would not be caught by the presumption in the Sentencing Bill. Also, the Bill creates a presumption against, not a blanket ban on, sentences of under 12 months; there is still discretion for judges in all cases. The Bill sets out the circumstances in which that presumption can be overridden, and that will always be a matter for the independent judiciary, based on the facts of the case in front of them. \p James Asser: I join other Members in expressing sympathy to all those who have been affected, and in thanking the emergency services, members of the public who got involved, and of course the train crew, who acted heroically to protect their passengers. Given the developments today, and the Home Secretary’s statement on the incident in east London and Pontoon Dock in my constituency, there is a great deal of anxiety and fear among my constituents in West Ham and Beckton, and I place on record my thanks to the police for their engagement with me this afternoon. What assurances can the Home Secretary give my constituents about safety on public transport, particularly in east London, where there are a lot of smaller, unstaffed, open-access docklands light railway stations, which are essential to the daily life of my constituents? \p Shabana Mahmood: As my hon. Friend will know, I am limited in what I can say, given that this is a live police investigation. The police have obviously confirmed some of the facts, but their investigation must be allowed to continue without further speculation. He makes a good point, and I well understand why people in his constituency, or those who regularly use that station, will feel concerned. That is why BTP has increased patrols to provide additional reassurance to the community. Nothing at this point suggests that this was a particular location of interest, and I hope that reassures my hon. Friend’s constituents. \p Julian Smith: I echo tributes to the train staff and emergency services, and to the Home Secretary and her team, who I am sure were working flat out all weekend. The case is being investigated, but given the events of Saturday and in the run-up to Saturday night, can I urge her to bring together police chiefs to talk about information sharing and any further resource that they require? I am happy to admit that we should not have diluted stop and search, but can I urge her to look again at that? Northern Ireland is much more permissive, and section 60 needs to be reviewed. \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. My experience over the weekend regarding the different police forces and emergency services who responded to this attack is that they work together very  well, and I was pleased to see that level of co-ordination, especially when different forces are responsible for different things. At the start of this incident, counter-terror police were supporting the investigation. They were stood down, but if they had needed to be stood up again, that would have happened almost instantaneously —as soon as the request was made. My initial experience and impression of the collaborative working has been positive, and I pay tribute to everyone involved in it over the weekend.

I will take away the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on information sharing and reflect on what he said. When such a huge incident takes place, with lots of information going out in different forms, it is important that we ensure complete co-ordination. If he has any specific concerns in relation to this incident, I will be happy for him to write to me, and I will respond, but I will pick up that conservation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and others as well.

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I think that stop and search is a very valuable tool for the police. I will always want to see it used, wherever that is appropriate. My understanding from my conversations with the police so far is that their powers work quite well from an operational perspective, but I will always be open-minded and willing to look again at any of these issues, should there be a change in the advice from police or in our experience of how the powers are used. \p Lee Pitcher: I associate myself with the many tributes given to those people on the train who tried to prevent the attack, the staff and the responders. As the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, I use the Doncaster to King’s Cross service most weeks. Many of my constituents and people across Doncaster are deeply shaken by this appalling attack, but that service is an indispensable part of our lives. Will the Home Secretary set out the immediate steps that she has taken to reassure passengers who use that line, and the best way for us to communicate that message, so that passengers have peace of mind as they travel on the trains over the next few days? \p Shabana Mahmood: We should all take confidence from the speed of the emergency services’ response to the attack, which has drawn justified wide praise from across the House. The speed of the response meant that the attack was brought to an end as quickly as possible, and many lives, I believe, were saved as a result of that response. While the incident is deeply shocking, and I can fully understand that people who use the service regularly will feel shaken by the news, we should all take confidence and pride in the fact that our emergency services were able to respond so quickly. The British Transport police has increased the police presence across the network to provide more reassurance to people. Thankfully, in this country, incidents of this nature across our transport network are very rare, and everyone in this House will want to work together to ensure that remains the case. \p Ian Sollom: I join the Home Secretary and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), in sending my thoughts to the victims and their families.  I pay tribute to Cambridgeshire police, Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, the East of England ambulance service, the staff at Addenbrooke’s hospital, the train crew and the passengers for their response on Saturday evening. While respecting the ongoing investigation and the Independent Office for Police Conduct process, will she assure the House that the extraordinary bravery and professionalism demonstrated by all those involved in containing the incident and providing lifesaving care will be properly recognised in due course? \p Shabana Mahmood: I agree with everything that the hon. Member said in praise of all those who responded to the attack. Once we are through the court proceedings and the full facts of the incident are known, I will ensure that there will be a moment to thank all our emergency services and the brave passengers in an appropriate way, when the time is right. \p Rachel Hopkins: I pay tribute to all the LNER train crew and the train driver for their bravery. Their swift action and their extensive training in responding to emergencies was undoubtedly critical to saving many lives. Railway staff will be deeply concerned that this terrible incident has taken place against a backdrop of year-on-year increases in violent assaults on rail staff. What conversations is the Home Secretary having with colleagues at the Department for Transport about the resources and support needed to keep rail staff and passengers safe on our railways? \p Shabana Mahmood: I know from my conversations with the Transport Secretary over the weekend that these issues are very much on her mind. There is crossover with those of us in the Home Office, but the responsibility sits primarily with the Transport Secretary. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a fuller response to her question, but she should rest assured that this Government recognise that assaults on any of our public sector workers are unacceptable, and the Government will do everything they can to stamp them out. \p Steve Barclay: May I join in with the tributes of my fellow Cambridgeshire MPs? In her statement, the Home Secretary indicated that she was receptive to the deployment of facial recognition at railway stations. Can she clarify, on the current timeline, the earliest date on which that would be deployed more widely? Given some of the early lessons coming out of this case, what scope is there for the Government to accelerate that timeline? \p Shabana Mahmood: The consultation I referred to in my earlier remarks around the legal framework for much wider use of live facial recognition will be in the next few weeks—it is all but upon us. I referred to the funding for 10 new mobile units that has been made available. The British Transport police is preparing a pilot of live facial recognition technology at selected railway stations in London, which will run for a period of six months. The exact dates will be public in due course, and I will ensure that we write to the right hon. Gentleman with them when they are decided. \p Rachael Maskell: With LNER headquartered in my constituency, I have written to David Horne, the managing director, to offer my support  to him and pass on my best wishes to his crew. I put on record my thanks to the signallers, also based in my constituency, who made it possible to shift the train on to the other line. Last summer, I sought to amend the Crime and Policing Bill with an amendment to provide greater protections for transport staff in the light of the increased risks they face. With the Bill about to enter Committee in the House of Lords, will the Home Secretary look again at my amendments and ensure that we provide those protections for transport staff? \p Shabana Mahmood: I will happily discuss with my hon. Friend the content of her earlier amendment. Even if it is not acceptable for that Bill, I will ensure that the policy question she raises is picked up by our colleagues in the Department for Transport. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We are running out of time, so I ask for questions, and answers, to be shorter. \p Stephen Gethins: May I put on record our best wishes to the victims and our thanks to the emergency services and railway staff, who did a remarkable job? I know that the Home Secretary cannot comment on this particular case, but one concern I have is around the speculation and disinformation that is rife on social media. Can she make it her job to have a conversation with the social media companies? That kind of speculation does no service to the victims or to the police pursuing this issue. \p Shabana Mahmood: The most important thing is that official sources of information are able to be transparent as quickly as possible so that the vast majority of this country that does not just get its news from social media knows what is happening. There will be a role for the Online Safety Act 2023 in the future as well. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for bringing it to us so promptly. I use LNER every week to come to this place; I always knew that the staff were great, but I did not realise that they were heroes. The response we saw from both the staff and the public on the train really was the best of Britain, but the response on social media was absolutely shameful, if I am honest—it shames us as a country. LNER connects Edinburgh South West to destinations north and south, and I am sure my residents will be really pleased to hear that we are looking at facial recognition on the transport network. That is incredibly important, but I will talk about knife crime more generally. In June, the Government gave a commitment to look at the manufacture and sale of round-tip knives and hopefully mandating them. Is the Home Secretary able to give us an update on that? I am sorry for putting her on the spot. \p Shabana Mahmood: We will publish a knife crime strategy very soon. I understand the reason why some people think that round-tip knives are part of the solution, and I will consider all the evidence, but in the end millions of normal kitchen knives are available. We have to do a much better job on all the other areas, such as prevention. \p Julian Lewis: I will be very brief. When the Home Secretary undertakes lessons learned and recommendations for the future, will she look into the question of whether there is any protective equipment, or even disabling equipment of a non-lethal nature, that could be issued to staff for use in such an emergency? \p Shabana Mahmood: The right hon. Gentleman will know that tasers were deployed on Saturday to bring this incident to a close. However, I can assure him that even if that is not part of the wider lessons learned from this case once all the facts are known, I will take his points into consideration. \p Navendu Mishra: My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this brutal attack, and of course I pay tribute to the amazing courage and bravery of the train crew, as well as the first responders. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have serious concerns about the funding arrangements for the British Transport police. Can I encourage my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to work with the Secretary of State for Transport and her Department to make sure that BTP’s funding arrangements are good going forward? \p Shabana Mahmood: I agree with my hon. Friend about the BTP’s hugely important role. Its funding for this year is actually 6% higher than previously, and I am sure the Transport Secretary will do everything she can on the funding front. \p Llinos Medi: My thoughts and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues are with everyone affected by this appalling attack. They are also with the train driver, the crew and the staff, whose quick thinking and decisive action helped protect many from the worst of outcomes. Will the Secretary of State join me in expressing gratitude for their bravery, and for showing us all how crucial the presence of officers and sufficient staffing are to our public safety? Surveillance can help catch criminals, but staff on the ground save lives. \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and it is undoubtedly the case that the staff on the ground during this incident saved lives. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I echo the Home Secretary’s comments and the tributes that have already been paid in the House. She will know, though, that the British Transport police is facing an unprecedented funding deficit that threatens safety on our railways. There is currently a shortfall of £8.5 million and a threat to nearly 300 jobs. Will the Home Secretary therefore meet the Transport Secretary to discuss how we can fully fund the BTP as a matter of urgency? \p Shabana Mahmood: I repeat that the BTP has been awarded £415 million for the year 2025-26, which is an increase of almost 6% on the previous year. I am sure that the Transport Secretary is considering the wider funding issues. \p Sorcha Eastwood: I also pay tribute to those who were on the train, the staff and the first responders, as well as members of the public.  Can I ask the Home Secretary to consider the comments made by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) about the new methods of radicalisation? The previous Home Secretary referenced them at the Dispatch Box, and I would be very keen to hear the current Home Secretary’s views on them. \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue of the wider forms of radicalisation that we are now starting to see in this country. She should rest assured that even if they are not relevant to the specific lessons that are drawn from this case, they are very much on the minds of all of us in the Government as we seek to meet the scale of the new challenge we face. \p Paul Davies: I fully support the remarks made by Stuart Cundy, deputy chief constable of the British Transport police, that the “heroic” actions of the LNER staff member undoubtedly saved lives. At a recent meeting with representatives of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, they raised concerns about policing budgets and the unique pressures facing the British Transport police. What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury to ensure a fair funding settlement, one that safeguards the BTP’s operational capacity and ensures the continued safety of passengers across our network? \p Shabana Mahmood: I repeat the earlier answers I have given in relation to funding. My hon. Friend should rest assured that we are discussing these matters with the Department for Transport. \p Jeremy Corbyn: In the review, will the Home Secretary undertake to look at the very serious problems of some trains operating without any staff on them at all, some very busy trains having insufficient staff, and hundreds of stations all over the country having no staff at all, particularly in the evenings, when the travelling public are obviously vulnerable and at risk? Can we pause driver-only operated trains and look at the issue of safety for the public as a whole? \p Shabana Mahmood: We will be led by the operational assessment made by the British Transport police as to what is required. The right hon. Gentleman should rest assured that where the Government have a role to play in keeping people safe on the transport network, we will do so. \p Mary Foy: Of course, my first thoughts are with the victims of this horrific attack. The RMT union has called for urgent meetings with the Government, police and the industry to ensure that we have the strongest resources and procedures in place to protect staff and passengers. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Department for Transport and the Home Office will facilitate those meetings as soon as possible? \p Shabana Mahmood: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Transport Secretary and I will be discussing all and any lessons to be drawn from this incident, and there will be a cross-Government response that meets the scale of the challenge that we face. \p Shockat Adam: Does the Home Secretary share my deep concern that when incidents such as this occur, certain political commentators and, sadly, certain politicians race to set the narrative behind such attacks as ethnicity-based, faith-based or, ideally, both, rather than focusing on the key crime indicators, such as socioeconomic deprivation, the disintegration of youth services, addiction issues, lack of funding for our police forces and lack of mental health support facilities? Does she agree that those factors matter much more than ethnicity, faith or the migration status of the perpetrator? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Member is getting rather ahead of the facts that are currently known about what lay behind this particular attack, so he will understand if I refrain from making broader conclusions about the motivations. I think it is important, learning the lessons of what happened after the Southport attacks, that the Government and the police move quickly to make all shareable information available to prevent the spread of disinformation and potential public disorder. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. That is the end of the statement on the response to the Huntingdon train attack. I will give the Front-Bench teams a few moments to shuffle over. \p Ruth Cadbury: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask that the record be corrected? I inadvertently mentioned Avanti West Coast. I must have been thinking of the derailment, and not the tragic incident, which of course was on LNER.

[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 640.] \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the hon. Member. The correction is now duly on the record. \p Jim Shannon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: Is it really a point of order? \p Jim Shannon: You will tell me whether it is or not, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my constituency, a young man was killed in Portavogie today in a knife attack. I think it would be in order to mention that there and perhaps the House would join me in prayers— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. That is very important, but we cannot continue the statement, which has concluded. \p Chris Philp: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the Home Secretary may have misheard me during my question. I was saying that I was not concerned about the disproportionality of stop and search, because when we compare its use with the offending population, there is no disproportionality. I was encouraging further use of the tactic. I wanted to make sure the Home Secretary had heard and received that message. \p Nusrat Ghani: The shadow Home Secretary has most definitely got that on the record. \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading

5.27 pm \p Keir Starmer: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Before I come to the Bill, I put on record in this House my own tribute to the police, to the first responders and in particular to the heroic actions of the driver and members of staff on board the Doncaster to London train, where such a vile and horrific attack took place this weekend. We all share in the revulsion at this shocking incident, but there is no doubt that their collective action—their brave action—saved countless lives. I know that the whole country is grateful for that.

Thirty-six years ago, 97 men, women and children went to a Liverpool football match in Sheffield—it was an FA cup semi-final, an occasion of joy—and they never came home to their families. I invite the House just to reflect on that simple statement of fact and what that might feel like.

Nearly 15 years ago, when I was the Director of Public Prosecutions, I met many of the Hillsborough families during the independent panel led by Bishop James Jones. I will never forget what they told me in their testimony—painful to tell, painful to hear. It included the testimony of Jenni Hicks, who told me how she and her husband drove their two teenage girls to the game that day. They had to drive back later with an empty back seat. Every single story, every single experience is painful to the core—unimaginable to the core.

So before I come to the contents of the Bill, I want to begin this debate with a simple acknowledgment, long overdue, that the British state failed the families and victims of Hillsborough to an almost inhuman level. But those victims and their families—their strength, their courage, their refusal to give up; and their determination, no matter what was thrown at them, to fight for people they will never know or meet, to make sure that they never go through something like this again—they are the reason why we stand here today with this Bill, they are the reason why it will be known as the Hillsborough law, and they are the reason why we say clearly again what should have been said immediately: that their loved ones were unlawfully killed and that they never bore any responsibility for what happened in Sheffield that day, and we say it from this Dispatch Box today because the entire country knows what happened next.

We often call Hillsborough a tragedy, but it is more than a tragedy, because the disaster was not down to chance—it was not an accident; it was an injustice. And then further injustice was piled on top when the state subjected those families to enduring, from the police, lies and smears against their loved ones, while the central state, the Government, aided and abetted them for years and years and years. It was a cover-up by the very institutions that are supposed to protect and to serve, and it is nothing less than a stain on the modern history of this country.

And yet, can we truly say that Hillsborough was an isolated example? No, because there are also the Horizon scandal, Grenfell Tower, infected blood, the grooming gangs, Windrush, and more besides. We should also be blunt about the fact that there is a pattern common to all these scandals: time and again, the British state  struggles to recognise injustice because of who the victims are—because they are working class, because they are black, because they are women and girls. That is the injustice that this Bill seeks to correct, and I hope that it commands the support of the whole House. \p Andrew Slaughter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a couple of things are missing from this otherwise excellent Bill? The first is an acknowledgment of the role that the media played in covering up many of the wrongs that happened, and the second is a national oversight mechanism which would ensure that when recommendations are made, they are carried out. \p Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention. Of course we must acknowledge the role that the media and others played in this—it was a cover-up at so many levels. As for an oversight mechanism, I do not think that the Bill is the place for it, but I do agree with the proposition that when there are inquiries, there needs to be a better way of ensuring that they are followed through. \p Jim Allister: The Prime Minister has listed a litany of scandals where there have been cover-ups. Will he reflect on including the Chinook disaster, in respect of which there have been repeated attempts to cover up the truth—the state of the aircraft that was sent out that night, in which we lost so many valued members of our intelligence service? Is that not a wrong that now needs to be righted? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that. This Bill is obviously intended to deal with all the situations in which there needs to be a duty of candour, with consequences if that is not adhered to. \p Jim Shannon: Will the Prime Minister give way? \p Keir Starmer: I will make some progress, but I will take further interventions later.

Let me now turn to the Bill itself, and first of all to the duty of candour. There are three parts to this, and the first is a new statutory duty of candour. At the Hillsborough independent panel, Bishop James Jones found that over 100 statements made by junior police officers had been deliberately altered to remove evidence unfavourable to South Yorkshire police—100 statements had been deliberately altered. I do not think there is anyone in this House who could possibly disagree that we must never let anything like that happen again. It is a disgrace, and the Bill before the House will tackle it. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the Prime Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward. I think it heartens us all to see its contents. Does the Prime Minister not agree that, with the rise of social media, there is more public scrutiny than ever before and less trust in our institutions? As he has outlined, the Bill is an opportunity to begin that journey of restoring public trust, but we must be mindful that nothing less than accountability can be acceptable. The public understand that mistakes can be made, but they cannot and should not forget when cover-ups take place. \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Bill includes legal provisions to ensure that this can never happen again as a matter of law, but I have been clear—I have said this to the families on a number of occasions—that it is also the culture that has to change. The Bill is the architecture, but the culture of the state has to change. \p Anneliese Midgley: Charlotte Hennessy, whose father Jimmy Hennessy was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, has had conversations with the Prime Minister in which he has assured her that the law does not need to be watered down and will be delivered in its entirety. She is in the Chamber today. Will he make that promise in this House today? \p Keir Starmer: Absolutely. I looked the families in the eye and made that promise, and I meant it. I say it again from this Dispatch Box: this Bill will not be watered down. This is such an important re-orchestrating of the relationship between the state and its citizens. It will not be watered down. I am very pleased to be able to affirm that from this Dispatch Box. \p Ayoub Khan: Will the Prime Minister give way? \p Keir Starmer: I will take one more intervention and then I will press on. \p Ayoub Khan: I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most powerful lessons from Hillsborough, and indeed from the Grenfell Tower and Post Office scandals, is that truth delayed is justice denied? And does he agree that, while this Bill rightly places a duty of candour upon public authorities, it must also compel Ministers themselves to uphold that same duty when addressing this House, so that accountability begins at the very top? That includes the misleading information that was given from that Dispatch Box by his Minister last week in relation to the hooligan Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. \p Keir Starmer: I really think that, with the Hillsborough families here in the House with us— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I was trying to pay close attention, but I may have missed it; we do not accuse each other of giving misleading information at the Dispatch Box. One should be mindful of the language that one is uses. \p Keir Starmer: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also think that we owe the families a better debate than this descending into party political point scoring. I hope we can continue the debate in that way.

This Bill will tackle that injustice so that when tragedy strikes and the state is called to account, in inquiries, inquests and other investigations, public officials—from police officers to the highest offices in the land—will be subject to that duty. That means that an injustice like this can never again hide in some dark corner of the state. Failure to comply—failure, therefore, to act with candour, transparency and frankness—will now carry criminal penalties, including being sent to prison. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: As a sponsor of the private Member’s Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), I fully welcome this Bill’s introduction, and I welcome that the protections include criminal offences of misconduct in public life. Can the Prime Minister assure me and others that those new offences will be able to be applied retrospectively? \p Keir Starmer: No, they will not be able to, but that is not a deficiency of this Bill; it is a long-standing constitutional rule. This will be about offences moving forward. But I will just make the point—because I do think it is important—that these measures will apply across the United Kingdom, and I would like to place on record my thanks to the devolved Governments for their collaboration on this.

I can also announce that the Government intend to bring forward an amendment to extend this duty to local authority investigations in England, which will make sure that when an inquiry or investigation is set up by a local authority—for example, the Kerslake inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombings—there can also be that duty of co-operation and candour in the search for the truth. \p Jeremy Wright: I recognise the strength of the case that the Prime Minister is making. He will understand the interest that the Intelligence and Security Committee has in clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for certain exemptions for those who work for the intelligence agencies. It then says that those people should report internally within their organisation any information that may be of use to an inquiry or investigation. Will he give some thought to how the Government might develop a concept of what then happens to that information, about which the Bill is broadly silent? He will understand that many will be concerned to ensure that when information is reported internally within the intelligence agencies, it none the less finds its way to those who should have it, in order to give reassurance about what the Government are seeking to achieve more broadly in this Bill. \p Keir Starmer: Obviously, a lot of thought has been given to the particular issue of the security and intelligence services. The Bill is clear that the duty applies, but has a different way of applying it. I think that gets the balance right, and obviously there are various national and public interests to protect in so doing. \p Andy McDonald: I congratulate the Prime Minister and thank him for bringing forward this Bill, which represents an epic struggle by the Hillsborough families, who are to be much admired and praised, but this will extend beyond Hillsborough, as the Prime Minister has said. I thank him on behalf of the families of Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore, who suffered great loss under the auspices of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS foundation trust, which lacked a duty of candour when those terrible tragedies struck. I hope that he can give consideration to a full, judge-led public inquiry, because the families are in search of truth, justice and accountability. \p Keir Starmer: To reassure my hon. Friend, the House, the families and all others affected by such scandals, these are clauses in a Bill that will soon be sections in a piece of legislation, but they are more than that: they change the nature of the relationship between the state and its duties to its people. That is so important. Yes, this Bill is the legal architecture, but something much bigger than this has to be put in place. \p Tessa Munt: rose— \p Maria Eagle: rose— \p Keir Starmer: I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention, then I will come to my right hon. Friend. \p Tessa Munt: I welcome this Bill. Will the Prime Minister reassure me and my constituents that organisations that are contractors for public authorities and public bodies will also be covered the provisions of the Bill? It is important that where responsibilities are deferred to other bodies, they too are captured by the clauses in this Bill. \p Keir Starmer: The hon. Lady anticipates my next point, which I will make before taking an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). We have to recognise that in some scandals, such as the Post Office Horizon scandal, the boundaries between the public sector and the private sector are complicated. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, clause 4 of this Bill applies the duty to some private bodies, particularly those delivering public functions and those with relevant health and safety responsibilities, as well as relevant public sector contractors—in the Post Office case, Fujitsu—for that very reason. We have to recognise that the boundaries are blurred, and we need to make sure that the duty extends appropriately. \p Maria Eagle: The Prime Minister knows that, for over two decades, the legal system failed to provide truth and justice to the Hillsborough families, and it was only a non-legal process—the Hillsborough independent panel—that finally set things right on the road to truth, justice and accountability. Does he see any prospect, therefore, that we will include in the legislation at a later stage provision to ensure that a Hillsborough independent panel-type process can be offered to families involved in future disasters, to try to circumvent the long-standing failure of the criminal justice system to offer truth and accountability to families quickly? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my right hon. Friend for her work and campaigning on this issue over many years. She makes a powerful point about the independent panel. I first met Bishop James Jones 15-plus years ago now, and I genuinely think he was among the first to listen properly—knowing what listening means—to those who were giving evidence to his panel, which is why the report that he made was so well received and respected. We will certainly give consideration to whether panels like that can serve a useful purpose in future. \p Yasmin Qureshi: The Prime Minister is being very generous in taking all our questions. I congratulate him on introducing this Bill, but can the duty of candour be applied fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not   just statutory inquiries? Does he agree that the command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge, not simply with the institution? \p Keir Starmer: This does apply to non-statutory inquiries, so my hon. Friend’s point is covered in the Bill. I will press on.

The second part of the duty of candour is a professional duty of candour for all public servants, because the Nolan principles of public service—honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership—are not some kind of optional extra, but the very essence of public service itself. Every public authority will now be legally required to adopt a code of ethical conduct based on those principles, and to set out consequences for staff who do not comply, including disciplinary sanctions up to and including gross misconduct. \p Rosie Wrighting: The Bill is a huge step forward for accountability and transparency for families who face what must feel like the most impossible of circumstances. Some families living in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Corby are still trying to get clarity about the possibility that dumped toxic waste and contaminated land have caused health complications. Could the Prime Minister spell out how the Bill will ensure that any public official who abuses their power and tries to cover it up will be held accountable? \p Keir Starmer: Yes, I can confirm that. I want to emphasise the point again, because it is so significant, that out of the most unbelievable suffering, these families—these victims—have pushed for a change that took far too long, but that will now benefit and safeguard people whom they will never meet and never know. I find that kind of campaigning humbling, and we thank them for it. \p Carla Lockhart: Will the Prime Minister give way? \p Keir Starmer: I will just make a bit of progress, and then I will take further interventions.

Finally in relation to the duty of candour, it is underpinned by a new criminal offence of misleading the public, which is aimed squarely at public servants who wilfully mislead the British people in a reckless, intentional or improper way. In cases such as Hillsborough, lies and dishonesty from the state grievously harmed the very people it was supposed to serve, and that must never happen again.

However, the Bill is not just about the duty of candour, because anyone familiar with how justice failed families and victims must also recognise that the lack of parity in our legal system played a significant role. I remember Margaret Aspinall—I met her many years ago now, and she is with us today—telling me that she had to scrape together every last penny for legal representation, including the money paid out by insurers for the death of her son James, who at the time was pretty much the same age as my son who comes to football with me. That is what she had to do, and we have to recognise that injustice piled on the other injustices. \p Imran Hussain: I join others across this House in welcoming this important Bill, and I welcome and align myself with all the points the Prime Minister has made. Will he join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby  (Ian Byrne) for his tireless campaigning to push for this law to reach the statute book? The Prime Minister is absolutely right that grieving families have faced the might of the state alone, and were forced to crowdfund lawyers while public bodies hired whole legal armies. Does he agree that, by guaranteeing legal aid at inquests, we can finally end those David and Goliath battles for justice once and for all? \p Keir Starmer: I absolutely extend that tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who I think was at the game and who has campaigned tirelessly in this place and beyond to help us get to the position today where we can introduce the Bill. I do pay tribute to him and I am very pleased to do so from this Dispatch Box, as we introduce this important legislation. \p Carla Lockhart: Will the Prime Minister give way? \p Keir Starmer: I will just make some progress and I will come to the hon. Member.

On the question of parity, what happened and what happens in so many cases is that families either have to scrimp and try to find the money for legal representation, or they have none. And what are they met with—the Hillsborough families were met with this—at inquests and inquiries, the working people who have had to save for justice? They have been met, time and again, by armies of state-funded lawyers; the deep pockets of the state—taxpayer money—has been harnessed for the explicit purpose of fighting against justice. The Bill aims to correct that inequality so that justice and the state serve all, with a new duty on public authorities to engage lawyers at inquests and inquiries only where necessary and proportionate, and to ensure that their representatives behave with the sensitivity and respect that victims and their families deserve.

The Bill will also ensure that no bereaved family has to face an inquest alone, with the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade granting access to free legal aid for all inquests where the state is an interested party, so that working people like Margaret and the Hillsborough families will never again be faced with such inequality on legal representation, or, as in many cases, simply left with none.

I will take the intervention I promised. \p Carla Lockhart: I thank the Prime Minister. He is speaking very powerfully about families and about human stories. I commend him for the number of human stories he has talked about today in this place. Will he agree to meet the families of the Chinook disaster, when 29 lives were lost and two pilots wrongly blamed? The families have been consistently refused even a meeting with Ministers, officials and Prime Ministers who have gone before. Will he do the right thing and meet them, and ensure that the Bill also covers them? \p Keir Starmer: I think there may have been meetings. If not, we will get meetings set up. [Interruption.] I am being told that there will be one, but I take on board what the hon. Lady says. I will make sure that there are the appropriate meetings, and will update her on exactly what form they will take and when they will take place.

The rebalancing of legal representation is a fundamental change in the balance of power in our justice system, and I genuinely hope that the whole House will support it.

Taken together, the measures in the Bill can be a landmark piece of legislation. I am determined—as I said in an intervention, having given my word to the Hillsborough families and having worked in partnership with them on this legislation—that the Bill will not be watered down. When it is in statute, it will rank as one of the great Acts of this Labour Government, a moment when the tireless campaigning of working people to right a historic wrong was finally recognised in this place and made our country better. That is all the campaigners have ever wanted. This has never been just about Hillsborough and those families; it has always been about everyone.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if they were to come down to this Dispatch Box—I won’t extend the invitation, because I suspect they readily would—I know, because I have heard them many times before, what they would say. They would say, “You must keep going. This is not done until it is done.” I want to therefore put on record in this House my deep gratitude to everyone who has worked with us on the journey to this point: Hillsborough Law Now; my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool West Derby, for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who were all at the game; so many hon. Members from across Merseyside, past and present, as well, of course, as the Mayors of Liverpool and Manchester, all of whom have never stopped fighting for this Bill; Inquest, which facilitated so much of the engagement so we could be a Government who listened; Bishop James Jones, who chaired that crucial Hillsborough independent panel; the countless other campaigns that this issue touches on, many represented in the Gallery today; and, most of all, Margaret, Steve, Charlotte, Sue, Jenni, Hilda and every single member of the families affected by Hillsborough. I know that what they really want is not thanks or acclaim; they want change and they have waited 36 long years for change.

It is my honour, as Prime Minister, to bring the Hillsborough law before the House and to open today’s debate. It should never have taken this long, but we are here now and we must get it over the line: a legacy of justice, change and national renewal for the 97. That is what we are here to deliver today. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Kieran Mullan: Today is the day that, first and foremost, at the front of our minds will be one group of people, some of whom join us in the Gallery: those harmed by the state, those misled by the state, those lied to by the state. But those same people refused to accept that and would not take no for an answer. Those people knew the truth—the truth of what happened to them and to their relatives—and fought on to make sure everybody else knew it as well. The movement towards greater accountability and transparency in public life owes everything to them.

The Hillsborough disaster stands as the example that many of our constituents will perhaps think of first. Ninety-seven lives were lost on 15 April 1989, and many  others were profoundly affected, as the Prime Minister so powerfully articulated. As the Prime Minister also pointed out, among them was a Member of this very House. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) was 16 years old at the time and was a spectator at the match. He has been an unrelenting advocate for those who shared with him the horror of that day and what happened afterwards.

As if the tragedy of those events was not enough, what followed served only to compound it over generations. In the decades that followed, despite multiple inquiries, reviews and inquests, the truth of what happened remained obscured by lies—by a cover-up. We would all wish to be able to say that this is the only example of institutional defensiveness, of covers-ups and of the reputation of organisations being prioritised over doing what was right, but as this House sadly knows, it is not.

Between the 1970s and early 1990s, thousands of UK patients contracted HIV and hepatitis after receiving contaminated blood, blood products and tissues. Reflecting on the findings of his inquiry into the matter, Sir Brian Langstaff said quite simply that:

“People put their faith in doctors and in the government to keep them safe and their trust was betrayed.”

Experimentation, deception, cover-up. And there are more examples. We have all been shocked to hear about the trauma and experiences of our postmasters and their families, as they were ruthlessly pursued by the Post Office and the Crown Prosecution Service over many years, with the failure of successive Governments to exercise their oversight to protect them. We have seen other failures in healthcare, policing and housing, some well known and others not so well known. But whether 97 lives are lost or just one, the impact on families is lifelong and severe.

The themes have been consistent: the resistance of the state to accept its wrongdoing; the aggressiveness of the state in responding to challenge; and the willingness of individuals working for the state to put themselves first over the people they are expected to serve. Again and again, David and Goliath battles are played out as the resources of the state, in all its forms, have been deployed against innocent people, innocent victims.

As we reflect on the proposed measures before us, it is sensible to consider the changes that have been made in this area. On legal representation, the means test for legal help and representation at inquests for applications to the exceptional case funding scheme has been removed and we have seen a steady number of applications over recent years. Measures were introduced to promote candour in policing, when the offence of police corruption was created in 2017. In the health service, the duty of candour was introduced following the Francis inquiry into catastrophic failings in health at Stafford hospital. Through part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we legislated for the creation of an Independent Public Advocate, whose role is to ensure victims and bereaved families are properly supported and represented after major incidents.

However, a desire to do more has remained. Bishop James Jones’s report, “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, reflected on the experiences of the Hillsborough families and set out key lessons for  public bodies. It called for the bereaved to have “proper participation” at inquests where public authorities are represented, and identified other key areas for reform; alongside work by the Law Commission, it provided a key basis for the Bill before us. It should be noted, however, that Bishop James emphasised that legislation alone is insufficient. As mentioned, a statutory duty of candour already exists in parts of the public sector, particularly in the NHS, but question marks remain over the success of its implementation. The lesson is clear: legal change must be accompanied by cultural change.

In principle, we welcome the aims that underpin the Bill and which we are asked to consider on Second Reading. It is, however, always incumbent on this House to reflect on and consider whether the legislation we pass is as good as it can be, no matter how laudable the aim, and to ensure that we avoid any unintended consequences.

It is no secret that despite a very long-standing commitment on the Labour Benches to bring legislation of this nature forward, the Government themselves wrestled with how to do so appropriately. This Bill should be one that Members scrutinise closely. Members and our staff are quite rightly on the extensive list of public servants who will be in scope, under schedule 4. We will be able to look at the implications of the Bill and reflect on how it might interact with our work, where contention and disagreement are often at the heart of our decisions. As such, there are a number of questions and points for consideration that I would like to raise with the Government.

First, are we sure that the language in the Bill will provide the necessary legal clarity to underpin its successful operation? The Bill makes use of terms like “reckless” and “seriously improper”. It also states, for example, that the Act is designed to

“ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…in the public interest”.

How often do we disagree in this House on what constitutes the public interest? How often do we question the truth of what is being said?

Although superficially it might seem obvious—in the examples we have considered today, which are at the forefront of our minds, the failure to act in the public interest is clear and unquestionable—in other situations, we might be left with conflicting views as to what the public interest is. How will we differentiate between interpretations of the public interest in a way that does not allow individuals to escape the measures being proposed in the Bill? We have seen Government decisions that the Government consider to be in the public interest challenged repeatedly, and often successfully, in the courts. Individual public servants will also have their own views on what is or is not in the public interest; we will need to consider that, too. Further, how will the Bill be utilised by campaign groups that wish to legally challenge the Government in support of what they consider to be in the public interest? That is not to say that we cannot make the Bill work, but we need to consider its terminology carefully.

Part of the Bill deals with misconduct in public office. This represents one of the most significant changes to the way in which we hold public officials to account. Under the proposals, the common law offence of  misconduct in public office will be replaced with two new statutory offences: seriously improper acts, and breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. This follows recommendations by the Law Commission, which suggested that the current offence be replaced with a clearer statutory provision that is both less broad and easier to interpret.

The Opposition fully recognise that this is an area of the law in need of clarity, but, for all its many imperfections, the common law offence has at least provided flexibility as a means of addressing serious misconduct that might not fit clearly into an approach based on specific statutory offences. I would be grateful for the Government’s reassurance on that point. Will the Government also share their view on the reduction in the maximum penalty from life imprisonment, as available under the current common law offence, to between 10 and 14 years’ imprisonment under the statutory offence? Misconduct in public office strikes at the heart of public trust in Government and the rule of law, and we must ensure that the penalties available to the courts reflect that seriousness.

The area where I would most welcome assurance is in considering whether the measures in the Bill will fall most squarely and most strongly on the right shoulders. In its critique of the existing legal framework for misconduct in public office, the Law Commission said there was

“a concern that it tends to be used primarily against relatively junior officials, rather than more senior decision-makers that members of the public might more readily expect to be held criminally accountable.”

Of course, public servants, no matter how junior, are accountable for their actions, but how can we be sure that these measures will ensure that accountability goes all the way to the top? We all know that influence and power can be exercised over junior staff without there ever being an email, written instruction or any other proof. Junior staff in an organisation with the wrong culture can come to understand what is expected of them and that there are consequences if they do not comply, regardless of what we might be able to readily prove in court.

I know that this Bill will be deeply welcomed by campaigners and Members who have long called for its measures. I mentioned one particular Member at the start—the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby—but I know that Members across the House, across different causes and across different constituencies have challenged these issues. The principle of what the Government are trying to do—to stop the voice of the state and public bodies drowning out the voices of our constituents, whether through use of resources or misconduct—is the right one. We all know the fallibility of the state and the ways in which the wrong people take the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons: for their self-interest, to protect themselves or to protect their organisations. No Bill alone can guarantee against that, and perhaps there are ways in which this Bill can be improved. However, the Opposition welcome the start of its consideration, and we stand ready to play a constructive role. \p Maria Eagle: This is the first time that any Government have brought forward legislation to tackle what went wrong at Hillsborough.   It is a fulfilment of a Labour manifesto commitment and a commitment by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, and I congratulate him on it.

I rise to support the legislation. The duty of candour with effective sanctions and equality of arms are all good, and will make a difference. However, I think that the Bill should also seek to boost the powers and capabilities of the office of the new Independent Public Advocate, and I want to explain why.

I was first elected to this House in May 1997, and I have been making speeches about the Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath ever since. The disaster happened a full eight years before I was elected more than 28 years ago. As a trainee lawyer in Liverpool, I got to know some of the bereaved families only a year after the disaster, in 1990, as they sought to recover damages for nervous shock, which was a way of reaching a legal finding of culpability against the police. The bereaved families did not want to make money; they wanted the police to accept the blame that they should have accepted. This was one of a number of legal actions ongoing at the time. I worked on some of those cases at the direction of my principal, who was on the steering committee of solicitors conducting that civil litigation, and while I did not have conduct, I was familiar with matters and met some of the families at the time.

Some of the bereaved families became constituents of mine when I was elected in 1997. Indeed, some of the very first meetings I had with constituents after my election were with members of the executive of the Hillsborough Family Support Group—Trevor and Jenni Hicks, Hilda and Phil Hammond, and Doreen Jones, who between them lost five family members at Hillsborough. Four of them were my constituents, and three of them still are all these years later.

I think that my long and close involvement with some of the families gives me some insight into what went wrong, and I have some observations. My first observation about the disaster, as I have alluded to already, is that the legal system—the entire justice system—showed itself to be totally unable to deal properly with the aftermath or even to fulfil its basic functions in the face of a national disaster. This disaster unfolded live on TV at a very high-profile national event; we all saw what happened. There was a large appetite in society to get to the bottom of what had happened.

Within four months of the disaster occurring, the interim report of the public inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor had correctly identified the loss of police control as the main cause of the disaster, excoriating South Yorkshire police for its attempt to evade responsibility for what occurred by trying to blame Liverpool fans and telling the force to modify its behaviour. That is where truth and accountability could have been established. But South Yorkshire police simply ignored the findings of the public inquiry and used all subsequent legal proceedings —all paid for with public money, with expensive lawyers doing the job—and most notably the first inquest, to redouble its efforts to evade responsibility.

Eight years of legal action had failed to get to the truth by the time I was elected in 1997. There was no justice for those involved, and particularly for those who, as we now know, were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. There was not a sniff of accountability for those whose gross failings had led to the disaster or those whose subsequent behaviour in blaming the victims and survivors led to so  much anguish over so many years for so many families and survivors. That is despite the fact that every possible kind of legal action had been undertaken in that time—none of them worked. Once the justice system gets it wrong, and appeals and judicial reviews do not succeed, it is almost impossible to get it right subsequently using the same system.

It seemed like the truth did not matter to the justice system. The system was content to settle on a lie, with inquest verdicts of accidental death and no criminal or disciplinary proceedings for those at fault. It was content to allow the perpetrators to peddle the appalling falsehood that the disaster was caused by Liverpool fans being drunk, late and ticketless. This was a South Yorkshire police cover story, and what they aimed at establishing as the truth through the systematic changing of police statements. That effort failed spectacularly at the public inquiry and was repudiated within four months of the disaster, but the justice system allowed the perpetuation of this mendacious false narrative by those who had been identified as at fault: senior South Yorkshire police officers.

The first inquests allowed ongoing reports in the newspapers for over a year about the inquest proceedings, firmly to establish in the public mind that the false narrative was true. It was as if the public inquiry and its findings had never happened. Those who had caused the disaster were retired early on enhanced pensions. Society got the impression that the disaster was about football hooliganism, and the unlawful killings were said to be just “an accident”—despite the findings of Lord Justice Taylor in the public inquiry.

That is where the justice system, and the lawyers and judges, got us to. The way I see it, the justice system might properly be said to have failed in all respects and at every turn in this most appalling miscarriage of justice imaginable. The legal system failed. Multiple lawyers, judges and causes of action failed: failed to get to the truth, failed to do so in a timely fashion and failed to make those responsible accountable. The system failed the bereaved families, it failed the survivors and it failed those who died.

To the extent that this Bill suggests that more lawyers and an equality of arms before the law is enough to guarantee truth and justice, I say it is not enough. That, to me, is one of the main lessons of Hillsborough, and I say that as a lawyer, because I am indeed a lawyer. It is a good thing that an equality of arms is to be set up in legal proceedings, and it is a good thing that families can get the help that they need. I support that, but it does not guarantee truth, justice or accountability.

I have met many families bereaved by public disasters —not just those affected at Hillsborough but the MV Derbyshire families, the Alder Hey organs scandal families, Manchester arena bombing families—and they all want pretty much the same thing. They want the truth, and they want it as quickly as possible. They want accountability for those at fault, not official cover-ups. They do not want any other families to go through what they have endured; they all say that—they want lessons learned and what went wrong put right for the future. That is simple. It is not too much to ask. Those are the three tests by which I judge the adequacy of legislation that sets out to learn the lessons of Hillsborough, including this Bill.

I was a sponsor of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, introduced in 2017 by Andy Burnham, which was the precursor to this legislation. I can see nothing wrong at all with having a duty of candour in statute. It helps get across to public officials subject to it the importance of telling the truth to inquiries and investigations and that their functions should be carried out with candour, transparency and frankness. I would have hoped that they would all have known this anyway, but apparently some of them need to be reminded.

I note that this legislation takes up more rather more pages establishing a duty than the original 2017 Bill, but I have no doubt that these changes and their import will be fully scrutinised in Committee and we can understand the intention fully. I know that there will be significant interest in the legislation, not only in this House but in the other place.

Bishop James Jones’s 2017 report—“The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, which is about the lessons learned from Hillsborough—recommended, along with his 24 additional points of learning, enacting Andy Burnham’s Public Authority (Accountability) Bill. However, lying liars are going to lie, and although I am not convinced that, had this legislation been in place at the time of Hillsborough, the cover-up would not have been attempted, I am gratified to see—this is certainly the case—that there would have been more opportunities to punish those caught lying when they were caught. The more serious punishments in the Bill for breaching a duty of candour are a good thing, but would this have stopped the cover-up or the long years of agony endured by families and survivors? We have to take this opportunity —it will be the only one—to enact legislation that has a chance of achieving this.

I have spent the last few years trying to tackle the way in which we deal with the aftermath of disasters from a slightly different angle. Since 2016, I have been introducing to the House an independent public advocate Bill, which I have worked on with Lord Wills in the other place. He has been introducing it there since 2014. It was drafted after work we did with some Hillsborough families and those affected by other disasters. It arises out of the following insight. The legal system has failed repeatedly in the aftermath of disasters, but the Hillsborough independent panel succeeded spectacularly. It was established in 2009 by the Labour Government of Gordon Brown after the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough, and it reported in 2012, under the Conservative Government, who allowed it to complete its work despite the era of austerity, thanks in large part to Theresa May.

Finally, the truth that the South Yorkshire police had tried to cover up for all those years was established in the public consciousness. The fans were not at fault. The police caused the disaster. Many of those who died could have been saved had they received timely medical assistance. The police engaged in an appalling cover-up, and set out to deflect blame from themselves on to fans, including by attempting a wholesale revision of police witness statements to better reflect the cover-up story, and to erase any statements that seemed to point the blame at senior officers. They also took blood alcohol readings, even from the children who died—the youngest was 10, let us remember—to try to smear them as somehow being at fault.

There were shocking revelations in the report, and it led to an immediate re-appraisal of the public view of what had occurred. It led to an apology to the families  by David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the day, and a striking down of the accidental death inquest verdicts, which were eventually substituted with unlawful killing verdicts—but not before South Yorkshire police had again tried to tell its cover-up story, over an agonising two-year legal process, in the second inquests. This was a terrible ordeal for families, and it only concluded in 2016.

The Hillsborough independent panel was not a legal proceeding. It was about the transparent release of documents, freedom of information, and a narrative account arising out of the study of the documents. Lawyers were not involved. The Bill that I keep introducing to the House would enable a public advocate to assist families in getting to the truth much sooner, in the event of a disaster, because it would replicate that same process at a much earlier stage in the disaster’s aftermath. I believe that would promote the telling of truth at a much earlier stage. Shining the light of transparency on the activity of public officials in the aftermath of a disaster will torpedo cover-ups before they can get very far—and at a significantly lower cost to the public purse and faster than our justice system has shown itself able to.

The Hillsborough independent panel did in two years what the justice system had failed to do in 24 years. This kind of proceeding has the potential to enable families to side-step the years of overlapping legal actions that they get caught up in after public disasters. I think it would be a useful addition to the armoury for families who want the truth and accountability quickly, and who want lessons to be learned. Families bereaved by public disasters should have the option of asking for such a process at a much earlier stage in the aftermath, and that should be up to them.

A version of the Independent Public Advocate was brought in by the previous Government towards the end of their time in office, and an appointment to the office has been made by the current Government. However, I do not believe that she has sufficient powers or resource to do the job that my Bill envisaged being done. I may well try to explore in Committee, where it is in order, what can be done about that. I believe that provision for an independent public advocate would increase the range of options for bereaved families in the aftermath of public disasters like Hillsborough. It would mean that families had a greater choice of how to take forward their efforts. It would be a good addition.

The truth, quickly; accountability, not cover-up; justice for those affected; and lessons learned and swiftly, and implemented so that nobody else has to suffer the same way—that is what families want, and this Bill must be judged on how well it promotes those aims. I think it will do so very well. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so when I get to Back Benchers, speeches will be limited to six minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). I thank her for her impassioned speech,  and for shining a light on a broken system since 1997. Today is her day, as much as it is the day for all those campaigning for change.

On 15 April 1989, fans of Liverpool football club undertook what everyone assumed would be a routine pilgrimage to watch their team play Nottingham Forest in the FA cup semi-final; it would be anything but that. As everyone will know, that match at Hillsborough stadium was to descend into carnage and commotion, causing a mass crush in the fenced sections housing Liverpool supporters. It led to 97 fatalities and hundreds of injuries, as well as immeasurable trauma for the families and friends of the victims, and left a dark mark on our nation’s history. The Hillsborough disaster is now talked about in schools, but it is not just a moment consigned to our history books; it has served as a catalyst for change, which we finally see brought here today.

Immediately after the disaster, questions were asked about how and why such a tragedy could occur, and immediately the path to truth was blocked by people in positions of power and trust. It is abundantly clear now that a system was in place that allowed the narrative to be filled with lies, aimed at protecting the public bodies who bore responsibility for the safety of those fans attending the match. In the days and weeks that followed, blame was pinned on the Liverpool fans—the victims—by sections of the media. Stories were fed to journalists by those who were ultimately found responsible for the disaster, which undermined inquiries into the events. The false allegations of drunkenness and hooliganism painted a dark stain over the victims and their families, which hindered their attempts to grieve and seek justice, and prevented any meaningful learning from the tragedy for many years.

Conditions on the public bodies and in the justice system provided the perfect environment for a co-ordinated cover-up, designed to absolve South Yorkshire police of blame and all them to protect their own. Their actions led to decades of delayed justice. Families were denied the truth, and individuals whose failures had caused the tragedy remained in power.

The tireless and heroic campaigning of the victims’ families and the survivors of Hillsborough has slowly uncovered the truth that the stadium’s dangerous design was well known, and that the police made catastrophic decisions on the day that cost lives, but it has been an uphill battle. Ordinary people with limited resources were forced to push back against state institutions, fighting with the odds stacked against them at every turn.

I pay tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are in the Gallery, for their courage and perseverance over 36 long years. Their efforts have brought us to the point at which we can begin to level the playing field for countless others affected by miscarriages of justice, be it the Post Office scandal, infected blood, Grenfell, nuclear weapons testing, pelvic mesh, LGBT veterans or any of the many others. These are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods, or suffered life-changing injuries. Those scandals have been uncovered, despite the best efforts of public institutions to keep them buried. Institutions that should have been transparent and accountable instead used public money to protect their reputation and deflect blame. Every single victim deserved better.

The Bill is long overdue, but it will finally allow basic values of fairness to be restored within our justice system. A duty of candour, providing a basic but essential level of transparency and fairness, and a duty for public officials to act with openness when dealing with public investigations, are vital steps supported by the Liberal Democrats and hon. Members across the House.

The Bill also offers a crucial opportunity to push for cultural change in public organisations that are outside the legislation. It marks a shift away from defensive, inward-looking approaches that prioritise reputation over responsibility, and a move towards an open, learning culture that puts the public first and learns from mistakes, rather than concealing them. Public bodies should welcome these reforms as a means of rebuilding public trust and avoiding the drawn-out, costly legal processes that have so often characterised past scandals.

The two new statutory offences—one for those who fail to fulfil the duty of candour, and the other for those who mislead the public while in office—are welcome and necessary additions. They will serve as consequential reminders for those in public office that their primary duty is to the public, and that they must go beyond self-interest. The introduction of provisions on proportionality and cost-effectiveness is a welcome step that will not only increase fairness but ensure that taxpayer money is never spent silencing victims.

The extension of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests is also long overdue and greatly needed. For too long, the system has been weighted against ordinary people seeking justice. Those seeking to bring these scandals into the light have faced well resourced and highly motivated public bodies intent on protecting their reputations. Ending the need for large-scale public fundraising will ensure that everyone, regardless of wealth, has an equal opportunity to be heard.

However, the Liberal Democrats believe that there are gaps in the legislation. We will, of course, engage with the Government collaboratively and constructively throughout the Bill’s stages. On legal aid, we are concerned that the measures are too limited, as they support only the families of bereaved victims. Those who are seriously injured, or who, as in the Horizon scandal, have lost their livelihood and cannot afford legal challenges are not supported by the Bill, and will still face burdensome legal aid tests. There are precedents from the infected blood scandal and the Post Office scandal for extending legal aid support beyond the bereaved families.

There are also instances of misconduct that should be captured in the Bill. Officials who are not actively engaged in wrongdoing, but who are turning a blind eye to it, should be held accountable. The Bill also fails to address day-to-day decision making outside formal settings. We have seen an increasing number of cases in which communications on services such as WhatsApp have gone missing prior to investigations. An example is the covid inquiry. That represents a major gap in accountability. These communications must be included in future investigations, as we are moving into a world where we use such services more frequently in working life.

Many of these scandals have come to light because of the brave work of whistleblowers—individuals who have shared information at great personal risk, while standing up against entrenched power structures. The Liberal  Democrats have long called for the strengthening of whistleblowing protections to ensure that wrongdoing in organisations and public bodies is swiftly exposed and brought to justice. We therefore call for the UK’s whistleblowing framework to include anonymous reporting, legal representation funding and a statutory duty on organisations to foster a speak-up culture. As in our manifesto, we call for an independent office for the whistleblower, which would be transformative in enforcing standards in whistleblowing cases.

We would also like the Bill to be implemented immediately after Royal Assent. Campaigners such as those at Hillsborough Law Now have fought for years to ensure the enacting of these changes, and victims should not have to wait a moment longer for them to be introduced.

Finally, we have a concern, which I think is shared across the House—it has been reflected in the opening speeches—about the lack of redress from the media. In many of the scandals that we have discussed, the amplification of falsehoods and the blaming of victims has been a recurring issue. In the case of Hillsborough, The Sun conspired with South Yorkshire police to spread the lie that the fans were responsible. Media regulation remains largely unchanged since the original Leveson inquiry, despite its recommendations. The second part of that inquiry, which would have examined the relationship between the press and the police—precisely the issue in cases like Hillsborough—was never completed.

The Government call for integrity, and Labour has promised Leveson 2 in the past. Much more needs to be done to strengthen accountability, transparency and openness, including within social media companies. The Molly Rose Foundation, which campaigns on suicide prevention, has correctly pointed out that despite recent powers on disclosure targeting social media companies, those organisations have significant commercial and reputational incentives to delay and obstruct investigative proceedings. We support the calls for an amendment to the Bill that would extend the duty of candour to social media companies, so that those organisations are held to account in the same way. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed whether that was in the scope of the Bill.

We are all familiar with the many failings at the heart of public institutions that have, in recent years, been brought to light by brave individuals who are prepared to speak out against organisations that should have been trustworthy. Many of those campaigners are here to see the law finally progress today. It is to their credit that the legislation will bring improvements in public standards, accountability and transparency that will spare others from suffering what they had to endure. I thank them. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill further and ensuring that it delivers for our public services and our citizens. \p Justin Madders: It is a privilege to be here today debating a Bill that has been decades in the making. Before I begin, I want to join those who have already spoken in paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of the Hillsborough survivors and those who lost loved ones in the disaster. They have been through an unimaginable ordeal spanning decades, but throughout they have shown remarkable courage,  dedication and tenacity to deliver justice for their loved ones. Even after the truth about the tragedy emerged, the families have not stopped campaigning. They have long called for a systemic change to prevent anything like this from happening again. We as a country owe a great debt of gratitude to their efforts, because without them we would not be debating this Bill today. As someone who grew up in a part of the world that has lived under the shadow of Hillsborough, I know how much this means to my constituents, and not least to the families of those that have lost loved ones, so I am proud that we have acted on the pledge that we made to implement this law.

The Bill addresses the key problems that we have identified time and again. How will we ultimately judge whether the Bill is a success? Two words: never again. That is the standard against which the Bill must be held. Never again should victims be wrongly blamed by the state for their deaths. Never again can we allow public bodies that are meant to protect us to lie in order to protect their own reputations. Never again must ordinary people fight tooth and nail against the seemingly endless resources of the state just to get to the truth.

As we have heard, Hillsborough is by far not the only example of the scandals and cover-ups that have emerged in recent years. The well-rehearsed list gets longer every year, and it includes infected blood, the Post Office, Grenfell, nuclear test veterans and many others that we have debated in this place. The test is that we do not add to that list, and that when tragedy strikes again and serious mistakes are made, truth and accountability are on display immediately. Let us be clear, legislation is only the starting point for this. As the Prime Minister said, a culture change is also required.

Establishing a legal duty of candour that requires bodies to act proactively, promptly and with full disclosure to assist inquiries, inquests and other investigations is a huge step forward, but it has to be delivered in practice, and that is the real challenge that we face. All too often—we have seen it in this place, have we not?—institutions act defensively, obfuscate and focus on protecting themselves when placed under scrutiny. With the guidance provided by codes of ethics and the threat of criminal sanctions, bodies and those working inside them should be forced to refocus and to put the public and their safety as their No. 1 priority, not to lie, and to actively support investigations and inquiries. That is what the public expect institutions to be doing already. While it should never have been required, this Bill will enshrine that basic principle into law at long last.

As we have seen in the NHS, however, that is easier said than done. It is nearly 10 years since the freedom to speak up guardians were introduced, but from what I can observe, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the good intentions behind that initiative are truly embraced across the board. Only in the past week I have been contacted by several people currently working in the NHS who believe that their concerns have not been listened to, or that they have been on the end of mistreatment because they have spoken out. Legislation is one thing, but culture is another, and I would suggest that changing the culture is something that needs leadership and buy-in from every single person across every single part of every single organisation.

I want to say something about equality before the law. Victims must no longer be browbeaten by lawyers in their quest for the truth, but I have some concerns about how that will work in practice, because when a public body is looking at something serious under this Bill, which it inevitably will, it will want the most senior representation it can get. If a public body can afford hundreds of pounds an hour for its lawyers, it will instruct them, but such fees will clearly be well in excess of existing legal aid rates. In that scenario, who is going to tell the public body that it has to choose cheaper lawyers? How will true equality before the law be achieved, especially if authorities only have to “have regard” to these principles? We need an overarching, independent way of monitoring this and of ensuring that recommendations from inquests and inquiries are effectively publicised and their implementation is monitored and delivered, ideally with progress reports to this place. \p Richard Foord: Clause 6 relates to the intelligence agencies, and there is an exemption for those who handle material that falls within the definition of security and intelligence. Our constituents will want to be certain that these organisations have oversight, so would the hon. Gentleman agree that this could be an additional power for the Intelligence and Security Committee? \p Justin Madders: That is an interesting suggestion. I think a lot of Members are concerned about how this will relate to the security services, because we have had many examples in the past of where they have done things that we would rather had not happened. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, there will be some good dialogue about an appropriate way to deal with those difficult balances that have to be achieved.

I also want to raise a couple of concerns about clause 11 and the offence of misleading the public. The requirement for there to be “harm” to a victim could significantly reduce its effectiveness, which aims to deter cover-ups and obfuscation. In addition, part 2 of the Bill goes on to define who is included within the definition of a public body, and it specifically excludes the devolved bodies and both Houses of Parliament. I know that is because of the long-standing convention that Parliaments deal with their own affairs, but I am concerned that this sends out a negative message about our responsibilities in this matter. Parliament has in the past allowed other bodies to become involved in the way it does business with, for example with the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, so there is precedent there for us to look at that again.

We should all be treated equally before the law. When trust and confidence in our institutions are at an all-time low, it is hard to underestimate the impact of the changes this Bill can deliver, but it should apply to everyone equally. Repeated examples of scandal and state cover-up are corrosive to trust and only serve those who want to sow division, so we have to get this right. This moment can mark a stark change in the way we deal with these issues, but we have to deliver it. Once it becomes law, we have to be consistent and vigilant to ensure that the Bill’s good intentions are delivered. That will mean a profound cultural shift. Hopefully the Bill will restore trust in our democracy and our institutions, so that when in future we say that something should never happen again, we can be confident that it will not. \p John Glen: On Saturday 15 April 1989, I visited my grandfather. I was a 15-year-old boy, and he had been taken into hospital a week or so before after a heart attack. He was a former chief constable in Wiltshire police. His immediate and clear response to what had happened that day was to say that the police were at fault. Two days later he died and we never followed it up, but that conversation had a profound effect on me. Over the years since, as I aspired to come to this place, I have seen what has happened. It is truly lamentable that the British state failed to come to terms with what happened. I have listened to the speeches from the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) with a degree of humility at their determination to change what has happened in this country over many, many scandals.

I want to make a small contribution this evening to reflect on my exposure to the infected blood scandal when I was in office as a Minister until last year. I also want to pay tribute to my successor, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who has done an excellent job in taking forward what was required in the spirit of the cross-party consensus that exists on this issue.

I completely support the principle of the legislation before the House this evening, and I am totally clear about the inadequacy of the existing mechanisms for holding public officials to account. Over 18 days I visited 40 groups who have been affected and infected as part of the infected blood scandal, and every one of those people I spoke to had had a negative experience with officialdom at some point during their time seeking justice for themselves or their loved ones. It was profoundly depressing to think that, despite all the apparent determination of Government after Government and Minister after Minister, we were still dealing with this 40 or 50 years after the scandal occurred. It is a tragedy that we can no longer rely on common law offences and have to move to a statutory regime that codifies expectations, but I do believe that this legislation will bring greater scrutiny and interrogation of the acts and omissions of public bodies.

I want to make a point about public inquiries. They have grown significantly in number in recent years. As of last month, a record 25 public inquiries are open. Between 1990 and 2025, 87 public inquiries were launched, compared with just 19 in the previous 30 years. Despite their proliferation, inquiries often fail to deliver timely justice or to prevent future tragedies. In fact, they are taking longer than ever to conclude. I do hope that, as part of the response to those facts, we collectively examine what we think should happen in public inquiries.

Public inquiries cannot be shut down by accountable Government Ministers; they rely on the chair to shut them down. I was looking at the infected blood public inquiry, and I am not casting any doubt over the integrity of the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, but upwards of £150 million has been spent on that inquiry. I feel that it is wrong that we in this House, sent here to do a job of work in whatever area of Government, have got into the habit and practice of delegating more and more responsibility for resolving matters to arm’s length bodies and public inquiries in the belief that it will create a more virtuous, correct and timely outcome. \p Ian Byrne: Does the right hon. Member agree that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to stop the cover-ups and save the public purse money? \p John Glen: I absolutely do, and I sincerely believe that it is likely to achieve that, but we must not miss the opportunity to reflect on what is going wrong with this principle of not taking more proactive responsibility for wrongs that have happened.

My exposure through the infected blood compensation scheme taught me that over 40 years there had been deliberate attempts to slightly change the emphasis in responses, to give a concession of a little bit of compensation here or there. The truth is that those delays—most importantly—made things massively worse for the victims, but they also cost the public purse enormous sums of money. I welcome this legislation, but I ask the Minister to address that point when she responds.

Bishop James Jones referred in 2017 to:

“The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.

What a powerful phrase, and one that should humble all of us and help us all to ensure that whatever provisions, whatever definitions, and whatever “candour, transparency and frankness” means, the legislation is enforceable and meaningful and that we can avoid some of the absolutely appalling outcomes, which have been so horrendous in undermining the general public’s confidence in this place and in our Government. \p Peter Dowd: Today is the culmination of over three decades of determined advocacy and persistence by a dedicated group of campaigners in search of social justice, many of whom are in the Gallery and were referred to by name by the Prime Minister. I wish to put on the record my thanks and admiration to all those who, in many cases, have put their own lives on hold in their search for justice—a justice denied for so long to so many people. It should not have taken this long, and we are still not quite there yet. But a significant milestone has been reached, and I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment today and his commitment to ensuring that the Bill will not be watered down, and I thank the ministerial team as well.

The time has arrived to deliver on the promises made to the families and friends of the victims of so many scandals that have damaged the integrity of so many of our institutions. Put simply, those institutions involved in cover-up, disingenuity, duplicity, deceit, manipulation, artifice, contrivance and silence, among other descriptors, have been found wanting, to say the least. Hillsborough, the Post Office, infected blood, Grenfell Tower, Windrush, Orgreave, the Manchester arena, and no doubt many others, have dishonoured those institutions but not necessarily, of course, all the many dedicated people who work in those institutions. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has also given his commitment that the Bill will not be watered down. I am pleased that Ministers have given a commitment to work with families to improve the Bill as it goes through Parliament.

The Bill is not an end in itself, per se. There will, of course, be the drafting of the code of practice for public officials, which will need input from families to ensure  that the provisions of the Bill will be built upon. That has been referred to by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright).

It is fair to say that after so many years of disappointment and disillusionment, campaigners have every right to be guarded, cautious and possibly sceptical as the process runs its course, but I know that many Members in this House and the other House will examine the Bill closely with commitment and passion.

I started by putting on the record my thanks to the campaigners, and I reaffirm that. I would like now to put my thanks on the record to other campaigners, including lawyers, associated professionals and so many others who have been there all the way.

As a blue, I rarely, if ever—in fact, never—thank a red for anything. But as long as we keep it in this Chamber and it does not go public, I will make an exception or two. First, my red hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) has, along with another red, the Liverpool metro Mayor Steve Rotheram—I am getting a bit anxious now—worked to push this process along in partnership with the families, but I know the input and guidance from a blue, Manchester metro Mayor Andy Burnham, has been invaluable. Dare I say it? Liverpool 2—Everton 1, but it is still not full time.

It goes without saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) has been a long-standing advocate for this legislation. Her contribution was witness to that tenacity, as her work has been over decades in this House on this matter.

Liverpool FC’s legendary manager Bill Shankly said,

“For a player to be good enough to play for Liverpool, he must be prepared to run through a brick wall for me then come out fighting on the other side.”

The survivors and the families of the victims of those scandals I mentioned and others have faced and broken through so many brick walls and are here, remarkably, still playing. I hope that their fight has now, at last, come towards an end. I hope that this legislation will be a living monument to all those who have lost lives, livelihoods, loved ones and freedom. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to all the campaigners to whom we owe so much. \p Tom Morrison: That day in September 2012 remains vivid in my memory: the day the independent panel, chaired by Bishop James Jones, finally confirmed that public officials had hidden the truth about the Hillsborough disaster. It was a day the families had waited for so long for, a day they had worked tirelessly to bring about. It was the first day that their persistence prevailed, the first breakthrough in what would become a chain reaction that has led us here today.

During that time, I was a councillor in Liverpool. I remember knocking on doors that evening and being met by absolute relief on people’s faces—the tide was starting to turn. The families came that day to speak to the council. The emotions in that room were among the strongest that I have ever experienced. For the first time, the families felt that power could be held to account and justice might one day be served.

However, to this day, no one has been held accountable for the Hillsborough disaster. The 97 and their families are still living without the justice they deserve. Yet the families remain selfless, motivated by the greater good, working to protect others in the future—people unknown to them. Their campaign has continued for three decades, but it must have felt like a lifetime. The truth has taken so long to be uncovered that key campaigners like Anne Williams, Phil Hammond, Rose Robinson and Barry Devonside are sadly no longer here to see the legislation come before the House, but their fortitude and determination were nothing short of astounding. They have mine and the nation’s utmost respect.

To be wrongly and publicly shamed, smeared and blamed for a tragedy of such scale is something that no one can imagine experiencing. Then to face the institutions of state in court, without the means to navigate the law and our complex legal system professionally, is nothing short of devastating. The fact that public bodies that can effectively silence citizens, who must find millions of pounds to stand up against them, is simply unacceptable. To not only endure but passionately oppose lying, victim-blaming, delays and denials for years takes unwavering strength.

What the fans and their families endured is all too familiar to many others across this country. The Bill is not about only one place or one group of victims; it is about how we can hold power to account. Those who have suffered, both directly and indirectly, from the state-driven scandals that have been mentioned are familiar with the feelings of powerlessness, grief and justified anger. The infected blood scandal is just one example of unimaginable suffering—people endured not only physical harm but haunting social stigma and lasting damage. Children as young as seven were told that they would die. Some lost multiple members of their family, only to be left in social isolation. That is not to mention a serious lack of transparency and years of delays, and many victims dying before justice or compensation even began. Sir Brian Langstaff rightly called the delays for the blood scandal victims

“an injustice all of its own.”

No Government can be allowed to act on serious state failures behind closed doors, without a legal duty of candour. People who bravely seek justice must no longer be ignored and pushed aside by successive Governments. It is admirable that those affected by the multiple tragedies since Hillsborough have continually come together to fight for prevailing and lasting change. The Hillsborough Law Now group is a formidable force. Yet it should not be that way. People should not have to sacrifice their lives to see change. Successive Governments should not be pushing back and dragging their feet at every turn.

This Bill should have been introduced to the House far, far earlier than the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough. If it had been in place 36 years ago, all the pain, trauma, repeated legal proceedings and investigations would never have happened. I join the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, Inquest, the Law Society and numerous other groups that have expressed their relief about this law finally being put in place. Although compensation for those scandals is crucial, victims and the British public want to see justice and change. That is why the Bill is a victory for sufferers of all the state-caused scandals in our recent history. It is owed to each and every one of them.

Although we must all ensure that the Bill retains its strength during its journey through Parliament, more can be done. We can push for stronger whistleblowing protections, robust enforcement mechanisms, non-means-tested legal aid for survivors, and a Leveson 2 inquiry to hold the media to account. The Bill will ensure that silence in the face of wrongdoing no longer prevails. Public organisations will no longer be able to place reputation management above the truth. The Bill will be a legacy for the 97 who never came home, and their families, who will never walk alone. \p David Baines: This has been a long time coming. We finally have before us a Bill that is, in the eyes of those who matter—some of whom are sat in the Gallery today—worthy of the name “Hillsborough law”. That is a huge achievement and, as others have said, it is the result of a lot of hard work and campaigning by a lot of people.

The fact that victims have had to fight so hard just to get to this point shows exactly why the Bill is needed. Nobody should have to fight the state for truth and justice after the death of a loved one—nobody. The way the Hillsborough families have fought for so long is inspirational, but the fact that they have had to do so is unacceptable. They should never have been put through it.

I was just nine years old when Hillsborough happened. I vividly recall the news and images coming through that day. I can remember seeing the TV reports and the national newspapers in the days and weeks that followed. Most of all, I remember the shocking speed at which completely false allegations were invented and deliberately spread about the victims and the ordinary fans who tried to help them. I remember the lies that were told about innocent men, women and children who simply went to watch a football game. Those lies were told, encouraged and believed by people in positions of power—including in this place—whose duty was supposed to be to protect ordinary people. Those lies stuck. They piled insults and further harm on top of unimaginable pain, grief and loss.

It has taken 36 years to get to this point—to have the Prime Minister introduce a Bill in this place, with a Government so clearly committed to delivering this law and a worthy legacy for victims not just of Hillsborough but of other scandals such as Grenfell, the Manchester Arena attack, Orgreave, the infected blood scandal and so many others—it would take the rest of my available time to mention them. By doing so, we pay tribute to the victims, survivors and families not just in words but in action, to better protect ordinary people now and in the future.

I have met and known families who were affected by Hillsborough, including the Aspinall family. Margaret Aspinall is in the Gallery today, and her daughter Kerry is a lifelong friend of my wife. I have seen the impact that it has had on their family. They live and breathe it to this day.

Time and again, innocent ordinary people have been treated appallingly while at their most vulnerable. The state, which should be there to protect them and serve them, has too often deliberately got in their way, obstructed justice and protected itself instead of the victims. I have  always said that I cannot and will not support anything called a Hillsborough law if the Hillsborough families did not feel that it was worthy of that name, so I am delighted that they support the Bill before us. I am also pleased to hear that, so far, all the talk has been of strengthening the Bill, not watering it down.

However, the Bill is not perfect, and the Hillsborough Law Now campaign group— many of whom are in the Gallery—has identified areas in which we can improve and strengthen it. I have known one of that group’s members, Debbie Caine, who is not here today, for many years. She has campaigned tirelessly for years to get us to this point, and I thank her for everything that she has done. The campaign group want to ensure that the duty of candour applies consistently to all public authorities, including the security and intelligence services. They ask for certainty about the commencement of the Bill, and insist—not unreasonably—that it should come into force upon Royal Assent, not at some unspecified later date. They ask for enhanced whistleblowing protections specific to disclosures made under the new duty of candour. They also have concerns about the current wording on “harm”, which is limited to an identifiable victim. As we know from numerous shameful examples, public deceit can cause institutional or systemic harm rather than individual injury, and we need clarity on that.

I am sure that those and other issues will be the subject of some debate in Committee. I want to be clear that, from this moment, the process must result in a stronger Bill, not a weaker one. Too many people have had to fight too hard for too long just to get to this point. We must see this through and get it right. This is no time to be timid. We were elected with a mandate to deliver this law and to do so properly. The victims of Hillsborough and too many other tragedies deserve nothing less. \p Sorcha Eastwood: I echo many other Members across the House in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families. I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland, but I have to confess that I am a red. We heard of their plight and took that plight on as our own.

I cannot see up to the Gallery, but I say to Margaret and everybody else up there: we are thinking of you and hold you in our hearts today. This is your day. What you have managed to do has reverberated not just throughout Liverpool and the whole of the United Kingdom, but throughout the world. You have set the gold standard—a price that we should never have expected you to pay. To lose family members at any time is extremely traumatic, but to lose them in the way that you lost your loved ones, and the subsequent cover-up—as other Members have mentioned today, this is not simply about statutory organisations and their response; it is also about the role of the press.

Last summer, whenever this Parliament sat for the first time, the Prime Minister said that this would be a Government of service, and I really do believe that this legislation is the best example of that so far. This Bill is all about service to people and service to community. When I entered Parliament last year, I found a kindred spirit in my friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). This subject is personal to me and  my constituents, because many people in Lagan Valley and Northern Ireland were impacted by the infected blood scandal; some of those families are my constituents. This is about a pattern and, as others have referenced—I will say it out loud for the avoidance of doubt—there is also a strong element of class within this. People do not understand. If you have been brought up and raised by the state, for want of a better word—reliant on it for financial and other support—if you are pregnant and someone tells you to take a pill because you have morning sickness, you take the pill and believe that you will be okay. And when people start to ask questions, you don’t ask why.

So many women across the UK took that pill: Thalidomide, Primodos, sodium valproate, aggressions against women as they were labouring, the Ockenden report—so many issues littering across our culture and our United Kingdom. And the pattern is always the same: transgressions against people who sometimes do not even know how to raise the alarm. If you were to ask the person on the Clapham omnibus, “Do you know what the Public Interest Disclosure Act is? Do you know how to utilise your rights in regard to that piece of legislation?”, they are going to look at you; they are going to turn around and say, “I’m not gonna tout on the boss.” That is a cultural phenomenon, and it is one that persists because we have such inequality within this country—inequality in housing and in education. We can see a huge social gulf widening every day. Why should we be surprised whenever people who are done wrong by the state feel that they have nowhere to turn? They cannot even see themselves that they have been done wrong.

This matter transcends politics, and it has been heartening to hear that echoed across the House today. This is not a matter of party politics; this is about representing our constituents to the best of our ability. This legislation is so important because it represents the UK Government finally recognising that honesty and transparency are not optional virtues; they are the foundations of justice.

Today in the Northern Ireland Assembly, my colleagues have spoken about one of the biggest health scandals of our time: the cervical smear scandal in the Southern trust, which includes part of my Lagan Valley constituency. Some 17,000 women had their smear tests read incorrectly. Two of them have already passed away: Erin Harbinson and Lynsey Courtney, both young mothers. We are still waiting for adequate responses as to why that happened, and that is in just one part of the UK.

There is another reason that this is legislation is so important and personal to me: the experience of my Lagan Valley constituents, the Conroy family. I am really grateful to my friends and Members from Northern Ireland for mentioning the Chinook crash—the case of flight Zulu Delta 576. Twenty-nine people on board were killed and there were no survivors, but what happened afterwards should be considered, and is, a stain on the corporate body of the UK. It should not be materially relevant, but fact is that all those people on board gave their lives in service to protecting people. And they were repaid by the state denying justice and just saying that the four special forces pilots were wrong—that was it; nothing to see.

If were it not for the persistence of the families of Flight Lieutenants Rick Cook and Jonathan Tapper, the families would have walked away by today. It was  not until over a year ago that a documentary aired and some of the families found out that, actually, the findings relating to the Chinook crash are sealed for 100 years. I understand that is because of information related to the people on board the craft, but we can get round that with a public immunity certificate. The families deserve answers, and if this Government are serious about this legislation, this should be the first test case. \p Richard Foord: At present it is not obvious what public servants should do if relevant material cannot be disclosed because it is of an intelligence or security nature. Does the hon. Lady think that strengthening the reach of the Intelligence and Security Committee might help to bring some oversight of the sort that her constituents, and mine, would expect? \p Sorcha Eastwood: Absolutely— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call Ian Byrne. \p Ian Byrne: This moment carries immense weight for me and for so many others here today—for all those who have lost loved ones, those who carry the scars, and those who survived but never recovered from the trauma of being dragged innocently into a state cover-up. This Bill is not just about legislation, although that is vital; this Bill is about legacy. It is about truth, justice and accountability—three words that the establishment has resisted at every turn, and three words that we have fought to place at the heart of the Bill.

Let me speak briefly about why I have fought so hard for those words. Like so many, I was at Hillsborough in 1989. Like so many, I witnessed the cover-up unfold. Ninety-seven innocent men, women and children were unlawfully killed, and countless more lives shattered, but the tragedy was only the beginning. The cover-up that followed was deliberate—a calculated attempt to rewrite history and shift the blame on to the victims. Let us never forget what the chief constable of South Yorkshire police admitted in 2012, after the Hillsborough independent panel:

“In the immediate aftermath senior officers sought to change the record of events. Disgraceful lies were told which blamed the Liverpool fans for the disaster. Statements were altered which sought to minimise police blame.”

I saw that with my own eyes. I sat beside my dad, who was seriously injured at Hillsborough, in the Liverpool office of Elkan Abrahamson, who is here today—one of the architects of the Bill, along with Pete Weatherby—when he received his revised statement. The anger, dismay, and betrayal that he felt reading the lies written in his name is something that I will never ever forget, and it is why this means so much to me.

It took 23 years for South Yorkshire police to admit the scale of its cover-up, yet by 2020—31 years after Hillsborough—no public servant had been convicted, and no police officer disciplined. In fact, Norman Bettison, who was absolutely central to the cover-up, not only escaped sanction but was rewarded with a knighthood for his efforts—a title he disgracefully retains to this day. So yes, we got the truth, but justice? No. That is why we are here today. This Bill must be worthy of the 97 who  were unlawfully killed. It must be worthy of all who have suffered at the hands of a state that covers up its failures.

I want to thank everyone who has helped us reach this point. There are so many to name; so many are sitting here today, so many will be sitting at home watching this on the TV, and some are no longer with us. I pay tribute to the campaign groups behind Hillsborough Law Now: the Hillsborough families and survivors; Truth About Zane; nuclear test veterans; contaminated blood campaigners; Post Office Horizon scandal victims; Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice; Grenfell United; the Fire Brigades Union; the Manchester Arena families; Primodos campaigners; and of course Inquest. All have faced the same wall of silence, the same institutional defensiveness, the same decades-long fight for truth, and the pain that that brings. That is why the Bill must not be watered down. It must include every strengthening measure promised by Ministers, including a duty of candour that applies to all inquiries including local ones, and parity of funding must be enshrined as a clear principle within it.

Time and again, grieving families have faced the full might of the state, armed only with determination, while public bodies deploy teams of lawyers to protect reputations and shield those responsible. The imbalance is grotesque, and absolutely deliberate. Let us be clear: the establishment will try to weaken the Bill. They will say it is too complex, too costly, too disruptive, but what they really mean is that it is too effective, because it threatens their impunity. The scale of state cover-ups should shame this House, but over the years this place has played a key role in their creation and concealment. That can change today, with this Bill. As it passes through Parliament, I and others will examine it line by line to ensure that it remains fit to bear the name Hillsborough.

While I thank the Government for getting us here today, I must raise a few issues that need to be addressed in Committee and on Report. The Bill rightly creates both corporate and individual duties, which are so fundamentally important when we look to avoid another Grenfell. Clause 2(5) requires the person in charge of a public body to take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance, but it does not make the chief officer or executive liable. Without that individual accountability, the deterrent power of command responsibility is lost and the culture of cover-ups that we are trying to end may continue. I urge hon. Members to press the Government to strengthen that provision. \p David Baines: I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for all the work that he has done for years to help to get us to this point—it is incredible. I completely agree with him about the things that need to be done to strengthen the Bill, but does he agree that this is the start of the process—just another step on the journey—and not the end by any means? \p Ian Byrne: My hon. Friend makes a fair point; this is a great start but there is a long way to go yet, and we need to keep our foot to the pedal.

The Government recognise the need for a statutory duty of candour to change the culture of cover-ups. Candour is not incompatible with national security. The duty to tell the truth must apply to everyone,  including intelligence agencies. Carve-outs for individual officers undermine this Bill and, frankly, have no place in legislation about candour. Accountability would improve the performance of our security services and surely enhance our safety, not lessen it. The Government have been offered a simple amendment to fix this issue in the Bill, and to ensure that accountability, by the lawyers connected to Hillsborough Law Now. I urge hon. Members and the Government to support it.

Colleagues, we did not get here without a long, collective effort from so many, and we must continue that same collective effort to ensure that truth, justice and accountability are finally—finally—enshrined in law. The Bill must honour those already wronged by the state, those who fought for justice on their behalf and those who might come after us, but it must also mark the beginning of the end for the suffering of innocent working-class people dragged into the vortex of a state cover-up.

My message remains crystal clear: anything less than the Hillsborough law delivered in full would be a further betrayal of the 97, and indeed unworthy of the name Hillsborough. All of us in this place, and those watching, will carry on, relentless, until we get that legacy. \p Seamus Logan: This Bill certainly is long overdue. I previously contributed to the excellent debate in Westminster Hall that was secured by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has just made another fantastic contribution to the campaign. He has been a tireless campaigner for justice since the disaster in 1989.

The Scottish National party supports the Bill and we will work with the UK Government to change the culture of secrecy and cover-up, which for far too long has characterised too much of our public life. Scotland and the rest of the UK are well served by the exceptional dedication and commitment of our public officials, who work every day to keep our communities safe. However, it is right that we should be able to trust that those who serve in a public role fulfil very high standards of behaviour and conduct throughout their careers.

The sad reality is that when these failures were discovered, far too often the wagons were circled, rather than good-faith efforts being made to provide transparency and justice. So often in my own career in health and social care, I witnessed public bodies and senior executives responding to adverse events in defensive ways, declining to offer apologies to avoid financial cost and seeking to hide the truth to protect careers. But the buck stops in this place ultimately.

To reiterate, the SNP Scottish Government are supportive of the aims of the Bill and have been engaging closely with the UK Government on this legislation, including on how it may be extended to Scotland and which Scottish legislation will require amendment. If so, a legislative consent motion will be presented to the Scottish Parliament for debate. In the meantime, public servants are, of course, expected to continue to follow all existing codes, and professional and legal obligations, until the Bill is fully implemented. The SNP Scottish Government have already taken legislative steps to introduce a duty of candour in areas of public life in Scotland, but this Bill must now be the catalyst to change organisational culture across these islands for good.

I fully agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that the Bill would benefit from the establishment of an office of the whistleblower. That has to be one of the outcomes of the eventual passing of this legislation. We fully support the measures dealing with enforcement and compliance, but the key question is: when will we see an end to cover-up, denial, obfuscation and defensiveness? This law must extend not only to intelligence services, but their individual officers. It must make it clear that there is a single, clear point of accountability for chief executives of public bodies and other leaders with command responsibilities. Some legal experts believe that the Bill’s wording on that may be weak, and there is a case for reviewing and strengthening this part of the Bill.

We welcome the proposed code of ethical conduct, and the extension of the law to private bodies with public service health and safety responsibilities. Clause 5 allows for a prison sentence of up to two years for the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour. That could be unduly lenient when one considers some of the more serious scandals.

The inclusion of the concept of “victim harm” in clause 11 may not be as helpful as it sounds, as it would potentially exclude those who, for example, simply falsify statistics, for whatever reason, and are not directly creating any specific victims. That wording could be reviewed. We welcome the commitment to equality of arms in court proceedings, and to ensuring that victims and their families have full recourse to legal aid. In the past, the absence of public funding has too often been an insurmountable obstacle.

On a further matter of detail, already mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester, the Bill makes no reference to newspapers or other media outlets, some of which were up to their necks in law breaking, as demonstrated by the Leveson inquiry. As hon. Members will know, Leveson 2 was meant to investigate the relationship between the press and the police, but it was cancelled by the Cameron Government. As a result, there is little or no accountability in this area. There is still deep hurt in Liverpool at the conduct of some editorial staff and journalists at The Sun newspaper all those years ago. There are other examples of misconduct and even law breaking. Will the Bill provide some solutions relevant to the media? If not, how do the Government intend to address this issue?

I alluded at the outset to devolved matters. There is a clear need to work proactively with devolved Administrations on legal provisions that will require amendment. There have been so many examples in recent times of an utter failure to consult, liaise or communicate with the devolved Administrations, but that cannot happen in this instance. I hope that we will see maximum co-operation on these matters. My party and I stand ready to make a constructive contribution as this Bill passes on to its next stages. \p Paula Barker: I rise to support the Bill. I start by thanking the Prime Minister for delivering on our manifesto promise to bring the Hillsborough law before the House. As a Liverpool MP and someone who had family and friends at Hillsborough —they fortunately all came home—I would not have  accepted anything that was not accepted by the families, and I know that my neighbouring colleagues feel the same. I am grateful, as I know the families will be, to the Prime Minister for confirming that he will accept no watering down of the Bill during its parliamentary passage. I sincerely hope that those in the other place have heard that pledge loud and clear.

I pay tribute to my constituent Mark Corrigan, who is in the Public Gallery, along with many family members of the 97. Mark’s brother Keith McGrath was one of the 97 who was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. His parents, Mary and Joe Corrigan, fought all the way to the end for truth and justice, and demonstrated the strength, dignity and resilience of all the families.

Our city, on the banks of the Mersey, knows about solidarity, love and empathy. We have one another’s backs, and we know all too well that an injustice to one is an injustice to all. I can say proudly that the bonds that were forged in the fire of 15 April 1989 are as a strong today as ever. As I have said previously in this place, Scousers have long memories. We shall never forget. We will continue to mourn our lost loved ones, and we will always fight for truth and justice, opposing those who continue to spread the appalling lies about that fateful day with every fibre of our being.

On that point, Margaret Aspinall, who lost her son James at Hillsborough, has said:

“Today Hillsborough Law is finally debated in Parliament. But justice won’t be done until the S*n, too is made to answer for its abuses. The Prime Minister promised us that he would see this through. It is time for him to deliver the justice he promised, to build on today’s vital achievement by making Leveson 2 a reality, and ensure the media is held to account for its role in state failures and cover-ups.”

Appallingly, The Sun played a key role in the cover-up of the Hillsborough disaster by working with South Yorkshire police to spread lies about what happened and hide the truth.

The Bill before us does not contain any references to Leveson 2 or the role of the press and is exclusively focused on public officials and authorities. As welcome as that is, I would be grateful if the Prime Minister could update the House as soon as possible—I note that he is no longer in his place. Will he consider establishing a public inquiry into the relationship between the police and The Sun? Will he keep his promises by meeting with victims of press abuses and working with them to introduce further legislation to tackle press standards and corruption? If any small flicker of light can come from the darkness of Hillsborough, it must be protection for succeeding generations from the pain and anguish of the lies, the misinformation and the cover-ups that we witnessed and suffered from for more than three decades.

I welcome the fact that this law will ensure that families bereaved by public disasters are treated far better and do not have to fight for decades, and I welcome the duty of candour, although I can hardly believe that we must legislate for people to tell the truth. The fact that it has taken more than three decades to get to this point is a grotesque abdication of responsibility by those in this place to those whom we represent, those who do not pull the levers of power, and those with little resource other than their collective determined voice.

When we say “Never again” to Hillsborough, we are also saying “Never again” to Grenfell, the Manchester Arena attack, the Horizon scandal, nuclear test veterans, the infected blood scandal and so many more. If the law does not place itself on the side of ordinary, good and decent people, it will consign itself to being a hobby tool for the privileged and powerful in safeguarding their own interests.

We should never hear just the voices of those in this place; we should listen to the people who do not walk these corridors of power. Let us give power to them and amplify their voices. Anything less is an injustice. We need to pass this Bill in full for the families, the victims, and the survivors. Justice for the 97! \p Tessa Munt: May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to my role as vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation?

The Bill places new obligations of transparency and frankness on public authorities and officials, leaving them nowhere to hide from public scrutiny of their actions. I absolutely applaud those aims. We have been offered the opportunity to strengthen the Bill, and I have a contribution to make that stems from more than a decade of listening to whistleblowers. The UK has no proper law on whistleblowing or for protecting whistleblowers. Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, gives a measure of protection from detriments to workers and employees who make what are termed “public interest disclosures”. However, that provision treats such detriments as essentially employment matters; it does not once use the words “whistleblowing” or “whistleblower” and does not extend beyond workers and employees. It is highly technical, puts all sorts of barriers and difficulties in the way of workers and employees who make public interest disclosures, focuses exclusively on the employment context, and rarely—if ever—leads to any wider investigation of the substantive matters about which the worker or employee makes a disclosure.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill misses an opportunity: it could and should have recognised the important role played by whistleblowers in ensuring accountability. The whistleblower is, or should be, the best friend of every chief executive officer, every board, and every Minister. Whistleblowers want to see an end to crime, corruption and cover-up; they do not want to be fired for raising their concerns. Almost everyone will recognise the major scandals in which whistleblowers have reported what was happening again and again but have not been believed or, worse, have been invited or forced to leave their role. The case against whistleblowers is all about protection of reputation and the imbalance of power, and I recognise entirely what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said.

Explicit recognition was given to the role of whistleblowers in the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on 9 July 2025, with the support of the Hillsborough victims. Clauses 2, 5(1) and 9 in that Bill would have  been of huge significance in advancing the protection of whistleblowers. For the first time in legislation, the Bill gave explicit recognition to whistleblowing—a word which had hitherto not featured in the legislative lexicon. The ten-minute rule Bill sought to extend the concept of public interest disclosures beyond employment law; it would have extended whistleblower protection to all who blow the whistle, many of whom will be outside the scope of employment law. If that Bill had proceeded, whistleblowing as a legal concept would have broken out of the confines of employment law.

Clause 9 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill requires public authorities to publish codes of ethics. It would be easy for the Government to take into their Bill the provision from the earlier Bill requiring public authority codes of ethics to recognise the need to protect whistleblowers. It is deeply disappointing and unfortunate that it does not, and I ask the Minister to address that point and amend the Bill in her mission to strengthen it. If that were to happen, it would be a start, but further reform would still be needed. First, the provision would apply only when the potential wrongdoer was a public authority within the scope of the Bill. Secondly, such protection as would be given would arise only indirectly through the existence of a code of ethics. Thirdly, the Bill would lack teeth to deal with breaches of the code of ethics. Fourthly, there would still be no mechanism for investigating and following up the wrongdoing that a whistleblower might have uncovered.

There remains an urgent need to set up the office of the whistleblower, and to extend the Bill’s scope to include contractors in the private sector— \p Judith Cummins: Order. May I remind the hon. Lady of the scope of this Bill? \p Tessa Munt: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sought to pick up on the Minister’s and Prime Minister’s intention of ensuring that the Bill is as strong as it can be.

The Bill should cover contractors in the private sector as well as the public sector, as was mentioned, if it is to have real teeth and ensure that wrongdoing is fully investigated and that wrongdoers are brought to account. Will the Minister meet me and whistleblowers to explore the scope of this Bill? \p Anneliese Midgley: That day in April 1989 will never leave us. Fans went to the match and never came home. They were not lost; they were unlawfully killed. Authorities protecting themselves; decades of denial, distortion, and lies; a press slandering the dead and the grieving; a cover-up and systematic failure of the state that cut deeper and lasted longer than anyone could have imagined—and still not one successful prosecution. That is why we are here today. That is why the families and survivors continue to fight. We have all seen their courage and determination, and I cannot express what it means to be in this place with so many members of the Hillsborough families with us in the Chamber today. One of them is Margaret Aspinall, from Huyton. She has asked me to say some words on her behalf. She has repeated many times to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General that the group wants the Hillsborough law to be delivered in its entirety,  with no changes or watering down. That will create a system that is so much fairer for families who have lost a loved one in a state-related death. Today, it is the perpetrators who get the help, while the victims get a massive cover-up. It must never again be a one-way system.

Delivering on that promise means delivering the Hillsborough law in full. That means imposing duties on chief officers, rather than corporate bodies. This matters, because the duty should have been on the chief constable, Peter Wright, rather than on South Yorkshire police. Requiring proof of harm makes the “misleading the public” offence impractical and ineffective.

Delivering the Hillsborough law in full also means bringing forward an amendment to deal with combined and local authority inquiries. Without such an amendment, the result could be the intelligence services failing to properly provide the full facts to inquiries. We must avoid what the King’s Counsel to the families of those who tragically lost their lives in the Manchester Arena attack called “institutional defensiveness” and a lack of candour from MI5. As this Bill progresses, the families and Members of this House will continue to watch, in order to make sure that the Hillsborough law is exactly what this Government deliver.

Margaret’s son, James Aspinall, died at Hillsborough aged just 18. She was forced to accept 1,200 quid, which was supposed to represent compensation for James’s life—1,200 quid for the life of her son. She was forced to cash it against her will because she could not find the money to pay her share of the families’ legal costs. As she has said,

“Making a mother, like myself, accept a pittance to fight a cause. The guilt of this has lived with me for years.”

Such practices have not stopped; since the Hillsborough verdict, other families have been made to beg for legal aid.

Charlotte Hennessy is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Sir Mark Tami), who as a Government Whip does not have the opportunity to speak today and tell her story. Charlotte was just six when her dad, Jimmy Hennessy, went to the match and never came home. Jimmy was 29. He was a plasterer, a man of morals, a mod—he looked good—and a respected family man. For 23 years, Charlotte was told that he died of traumatic asphyxiation. It was not until 2012 that she learned the truth. Her dad was found alive on that pitch. A police officer testified that he felt life and gave him CPR. Jimmy was carried to the gym, where he was supposed to receive medical support. He was declared dead, but he was not dead; he was still alive when he was zipped into a body bag, and he vomited inside it. The pathology report was false: Jimmy did not die in the crush, but from inhalation of his own gastric contents.

Can you imagine dying like that? Can you imagine knowing that your dad died like that? Charlotte has told me about the agony of living with an official lie, but she has fought to piece together her dad’s truth. She told me:

“A Hillsborough Law, with a duty of candour, is imperative. It must stop corruption and prevent any other family from going through”

the pain that her family went through.

It is right that the Government have attempted to match the courage of the families and to be bold, but Hillsborough is not a one-off. Again and again, the state fails those who need the most protection. There must be justice for the 97, but also for every family who have faced the same nightmare, or might face it one day. We cannot let them down. This Bill must be delivered in full, with no watering down. I look forward to the Minister promising, as the Prime Minister has from the Dispatch Box today, that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law—that it will be strong enough to protect every victim of state failure and finally deliver justice for the 97. \p Jim Allister: In welcoming this Bill, I am very mindful of the tenacity and courage of the campaigners who got us to this point, both outside and inside this House. They can take some comfort from this Bill today. I trust that it is a Bill that will live up to its promise. As I mentioned in my intervention on the Prime Minister, I trust that it will bring justice to the Chinook families, for example, who have been treated to serial cover-ups in respect of that appalling incident.

However, there are issues with the Bill that I want to probe. It declares in its very first clause that:

“The purpose of this Act is to ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…(a) with candour, transparency and frankness, and (b) in the public interest”.

But will it be at all times? We discover in the Bill that the only criminal sanction applies to those who do not show candour, transparency and frankness to a public inquiry or a public investigation. In many such cases, there would already be the threat of perjury, so where is the commitment to ensure that there is candour at all times? \p Alex Davies-Jones: rose— \p Jim Allister: If the Minister wants to make an intervention, I am quite happy to take it. \p Alex Davies-Jones: I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments, but the Bill literally says that there is a duty of candour “at all times”. \p Jim Allister: It does, and then it goes on to tell us in clause 1(2) how it imposes that duty. There are five ways in which it does so. The first is by

“imposing a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations and imposing criminal liability for breach of that duty”.

That is the only criminal liability that would arise from a breach of the duty of candour. The second way is by imposing an ethical code on public authorities. No criminal offence is committed if someone breaches that ethical code—none whatsoever. The third, fourth and fifth ways, in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), are by

“imposing criminal liability on public authorities and public officials who mislead the public in ways that are seriously improper”,

by

“imposing criminal liability for seriously improper acts by individuals holding public office and for breaches of duties to prevent death or serious injury”,

and by

“making provision about parity at inquiries”

about legal aid.

The Prime Minister told us that the Bill would apply across the whole United Kingdom, but sadly it does not. Clause 24, the extent clause, makes it plain that the last three paragraphs of clause 1, which I have just read out, do not apply to Northern Ireland or to Scotland. The Bill in its entirety applies only to England and Wales, meaning that clause 11, for example—which is an important clause, because it does create a criminal offence, that of misleading the public—does not apply anywhere other than in England and Wales. Why should that be? Why is this Bill not drafted in such a way that those clauses apply to the whole United Kingdom, after which the Assemblies of Scotland and Northern Ireland can deploy the mechanism of legislative consent? \p Patricia Ferguson: The hon. and learned Member may or may not be aware that in order for those sections to apply across the UK, the Scottish Government would have to agree to a Sewel motion—a legislative consent motion—that would allow this place to legislate for Scotland. Justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament—it has been since the Act of Union and before. That is something that is valued, so there would have to be that agreement. It is not something that can be laid at the feet of this Minister. \p Jim Allister: That is exactly what I said. Why does clause 11 not apply to the whole United Kingdom on the basis of a legislative consent motion? Such a motion could be sought from Stormont and from Edinburgh, and in that means we could have uniformity across the United Kingdom. That is the mechanism for doing it, but the starting point is to make the clause applicable across the United Kingdom, and then to have the legislative consent motion that would enable it to be enforced. That is how Parliament works with the devolved institutions. [Interruption.] Members can shake their heads as much as they like, but I was a Member of a devolved institution and know that that is how it works—that emphatically is how it works. \p Patricia Ferguson: The hon. and learned Member was a Member in Stormont. I was a Member of the Holyrood Parliament, where I was also the Minister for Parliamentary Business for three and a half years. It was my responsibility to take through legislation in that Parliament and to oversee the Sewel convention, and I can assure him that that is not how it happened. \p Jim Allister: I disagree. Many, many times in the Stormont Assembly, Bills that were passing through this House, which included measures such as new criminal offences, were subject to a legislative consent motion. That then gave consent to proceed, and that mechanism could equally be used here. My question to the House is this: if this Bill is delivering the duty of candour by the five steps set out in clause 1(2), how can it do that for the whole United Kingdom if three of those steps do not apply throughout the United Kingdom? \p Alex Davies-Jones: This is not a debate about the constitution; it is a debate about the duty of candour. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that the  intention is for all nations in the United Kingdom to be bound by this legislation. However, he will be fully aware of the devolved competencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland in this case. We are having positive engagement with both nations, and that is the intention of the Bill. I just remind him to perhaps bring the debate back to exactly what this Bill is about, with the families in the Gallery today. \p Jim Allister: I therefore hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will indicate that, subject to legislative consent, she will indeed make this Bill apply across the whole United Kingdom, because my constituents are as entitled as anyone else to the same duty of candour that arises elsewhere. \p Carla Lockhart: The hon. and learned Member is making a powerful point. The Minister referred to devolved competences. Does he agree that this Parliament is sovereign and has on many occasions intervened in laws in Northern Ireland that are devolved? It is therefore upon this Government to do the right thing and make all of this legislation applicable to Northern Ireland. \p Jim Allister: I agree absolutely, and such interventions have happened many times. If we are serious about saying there is a basis of equal citizenship across this United Kingdom, and that is what it is to belong to a United Kingdom, the duty of candour being given to England and Wales should equally be given to all of the United Kingdom. I welcome it for England and Wales, and I welcome it so far as it goes in Northern Ireland, but it does not go far enough. I am disappointed by the Government’s reticence to accept that this Bill, like any other, could be improved. A mighty step forward in improving it would be ensuring that it provides that duty of candour across the United Kingdom. \p Paula Barker: Will the hon. and learned Member give way? \p Jim Allister: I would give way, if I had not run out of time. I say to the Government, yes, let us go forward with this Bill, but let us make it a better Bill that gives the same rights across this United Kingdom. \p Kim Johnson: I rise in support of this Bill today as the MP for Liverpool Riverside, as a very proud Scouser and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice. As we all know, Hillsborough stands as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen. This Bill is about a simple, powerful idea: truth and justice. Those two words should underpin our systems of power, but from Hillsborough to Orgreave, the Manchester Arena tragedy, the Shrewsbury 24, Grenfell and Windrush, we know that too often that simply is not the case.

For decades, working-class communities and the families who have lost loved ones have had to fight tooth and nail against institutions that were meant to protect them, only to find those same institutions closing ranks and themselves facing delay, denial and deceit. This Bill, and the Hillsborough law it seeks to deliver, are about ending the cycle once and for all.

Let us be honest, though: that progress did not happen by chance. It is down to the tireless efforts of families and campaigners who refused to give up. I pay tribute to those families and campaigners who were in the Gallery, and to those who fought very hard, but are no longer with us. They kept this issue alive when others tried to move on and bury it. I also want to say thanks and pay tribute to my good friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham for their work so far on bringing this Bill forward.

We know that this Bill, even with the best of intentions, may face obstacles. We have already heard about the possibility of it being watering down in the other place. We all know how things work in Westminster, and while it is welcome that the Government have brought the Bill forward, we are also being warned that it might be watered down, with its bite blunted and meaning diluted. It is on this House and all of us here to ensure that we fight back against that.

On that shocking day in 1989, 97 innocent people were unlawfully killed, but we must recognise that the injustice did not end that day. The real scandal began in the days, months and years that followed, when the machinery of the state turned on the victims and the families. Police statements were altered. Blatant lies were printed on the front pages, particularly by “The Scum” newspaper. Families were smeared and forced to relive the trauma for decades, just to prove what they already knew: that their loved ones were not to blame. That is why we need a Hillsborough law, with a statutory duty of candour on all public officials so that truth is not optional and cover-ups are impossible. If that duty had existed in 1989, those families might not have had to wait 36 years for justice.

If that duty had existed, perhaps we would not have seen the same play used again at Grenfell, or Orgreave, or with the infected blood scandal, the Post Office, Windrush and so many more that we have heard about in the Chamber this afternoon. We owe it to those families and to every family who has suffered injustice at the hands of the state to make sure it never happens again. That is why I want to take this opportunity to recognise the Cammell Laird workers, who were unjustly imprisoned in 1984 for standing up for their rights. Their struggle remains a stain on our history, and they are yet to receive justice. My good friend the former Member for Birkenhead is a staunch leader in that campaign, and I thank him for his incredible work. Their case, like Hillsborough, shows exactly why accountability in public office matters. When the state closes ranks, ordinary people pay the price.

This Bill must establish a legal duty of candour on public officials—a duty to tell the truth, to co-operate fully with investigations and inquiries and to act in the public interest, not for self-interest. It must ensure parity of legal funding for bereaved families, because justice should never depend on someone’s postcode or pay packet. The Bill must deliver real accountability with real consequences for those who lie, mislead or obstruct justice, because if we have learned anything from Hillsborough, it is that words without consequences are meaningless.

I am forever honoured to represent my home in this House. My city has lived and breathed this fight for more than three decades. It knows what institutional  failure looks like and what courage, solidarity and persistence can achieve in the face of that failure. For the people of Liverpool, the fight for justice has never been abstract; it is deeply personal and born out of tragedy, betrayal and an unbreakable demand for truth. We are a proud city—proud of our history, our culture and, above all, our sense of solidarity. The campaign for justice after Hillsborough helped shape our modern identity, with a fierce refusal to be silenced, a stubborn loyalty to the truth and an unshakeable belief in collective action.

Liverpool has shown this country what dignity looks like in the pursuit of truth. Now it is time for this country to show Liverpool that it has learned the lessons. I urge colleagues from all parts of the House to support this Bill with the strength and integrity that the people of Liverpool and people across the UK expect from us. We must fight for every detail until it is over the line and passed into legislation. Let us make truth, justice and accountability not just passing words today, but enshrined in our Hillsborough law forever. \p Gill Furniss: It has been a massive privilege to have all the families appearing with us today. Without their presence, this law would not be being passed. Let me also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), and all the Liverpudlian Members sitting behind me who have worked so hard over the years.

The failure to hold public officials accountable when they are at fault has been the foundation of innumerable scandals in our history. Just a few of them are Orgreave, Windrush, Grenfell, the nuclear test veterans, the infected blood victims and the post office workers. All those people have suffered at the hands of the state through no fault of their own, but, to our eternal shame, their suffering has been compounded by indifference, inaction and, in some cases, malice on the part of the very bodies that are meant to serve and protect them.

The need for change is clear. It is vital that we have a Hillsborough law worthy of the name, and I am very pleased that the Bill will meet that standard: I am certain that my colleagues on the Bill Committee and my colleagues in the other place will ensure that that happens. The introduction of a Hillsborough law was one of the most important manifesto commitments for me, if not the most important, and I greatly appreciate the Government’s affirmation that they will resist any attempts to water the Bill down. I believe that my colleagues and friends will do the same, and, as the Member of Parliament for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, I know that many of my constituents will strongly welcome that commitment.

On 15 April 1989, we were home to the country’s biggest sporting disaster. At the time, I lived just around the corner from the football ground, and I have never forgotten that day. I went out to buy a card for my best friend’s birthday, and I was walking down my street just after it had happened, when people were leaving the ground. At my local shops there was one telephone box, and there must have been 80 to 100 people queuing up beside it, in complete silence. Not a word was being spoken.  As I carried on towards home, it became apparent that the people walking around in our community were completely dazed and traumatised by what they had seen happening on that day. \p Ian Byrne: May I place on record my thanks to the people of Sheffield? On that day, they were magnificent in looking after the Liverpool fans who, as my hon. Friend has said, had no way to phone home. They showed unbelievable human kindness to those fans. \p Gill Furniss: My neighbours and members of my community were opening their doors to people and giving them cups of tea, because they were clearly in shock, and also letting them use their telephones to tell their loved ones that they had survived. At that time, I was about nine and a half months pregnant. My daughter was born on 1 May, and every year when that date comes around I think of those who did not have a daughter at home, whereas I was lucky enough to have my baby. Today is a very emotional day for Sheffield, or at least for me, as I remember how it was—as I remember that that happened in the city where I was born and the city that I love. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for reminding me that the few little bits that we could do meant something to those people, and I will be ever proud of my constituents for what they did.

The Bill is long overdue, and I apologise to the people sitting in the Gallery for that, because we should have done better in the past. For a long time, public bodies have not considered themselves to be accountable, which is why the word “accountability” is in the Bill’s title. I think we are now bringing home to people out there—people who work in other areas—the fact that they have always been accountable. We are just reminding them, and ensuring that there will be consequences for those who think that it does not apply to them, including prison sentences. That is only right.

I feel today that we are putting right the wrongs that have been long with us in our society. I agree with those who have said, “This is having a go at the working class, because they do not know any better, they have no money, and they cannot easily get hold of legal aid”—which, indeed, does not even exist now. I should like to think that today is a celebration of the people who have campaigned tirelessly over the last 36 years, because without them, we would not be here. I say to them, “You guys were really tenacious as friends of the victims, and you have kept going and telling everyone what was wrong.”

I absolutely concur with what Members have said about The Sun. I would never buy a copy of that paper, and I never have after that day, because the part that it played in this tragedy should be subject to an open inquiry so that we can see who collaborated in ensuring that it looked as though people were drunk, people were out of their heads on stuff and people had caused the tragedy, when they already knew that it was their fault. Let us never, ever see another such episode. I believe that the Bill is the way we will get through this, and that today will go down in history as the moment when the truth became known. \p Andrew Slaughter: I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it. It is the result of years of committed campaigning led by the families of the victims and the 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.

The Bill requires the state and its agents to tell the truth about their misconduct, and gives rights to the victims, not least the right of representation on fair and equal terms in inquests and inquiries. Let us therefore celebrate a landmark piece of legislation which, like the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act under the last Labour Government, gives power to the citizen and makes the state accountable; but let us also look for ways to improve it by strengthening what is in it and adding what has been left out.

I welcome the duty of candour in clause 2, which requires public authorities and officials to act with “candour, transparency and frankness”. Clause 4 extends the duty of candour to bodies or individuals who are not public authorities or officials, but who had a “relevant public responsibility”. However, it requires

“a direct contractual relationship with the public authority”,

which means that subcontractors or subsidiary companies would not be caught by the duty of candour, and I think that is wrong.

Clause 11 introduces a new offence of misleading the public. It is a strong test, but the Bill also contains exemptions and caveats that may make it less comprehensive or effective. First, the “harm” test in the clause is unnecessary. The object of the clause is to prevent the public from being misled. That may cause harm to an individual, but it should not be a requirement. Preventing reliance on wrong information is an end in itself.

Secondly, the carve-out for the security services is too broad. Schedule 1 not only exempts legitimate safeguards such as national security, but gives a general exemption to intelligence officers at all levels up to and including director. Thirdly, clause 11 provides an exemption from the offence of misleading the public for acts done

“for the purposes of journalism.”

However, the scope of this exemption is unclear. For example, does it extend to individuals being interviewed as well as those conducting the interviews, or to public officials who also, for instance, publish news columns or host news programmes? We know all too well from Hillsborough that the actions of the media can lead to injustice for victims.

However, aside from that exemption, the role of the media has been overlooked by the Bill. 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, most notably The Sun. It was the culture, and the connections between the newspapers and the police, that enabled this to happen, and there is 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 investigations into phone hacking at News of the World.

The culture of complicity was due to be investigated by part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Margaret Aspinall, who is here today, was among those due to give evidence to Leveson. Her son died at Hillsborough; he was only 18. Margaret has written powerfully in the Liverpool Echo today about the need for this Bill and for the press to be held to account.

I would like to voice my support for the expansion in legal aid for inquests that will be brought in by the Bill. The Bill provides that families will be eligible for non-means-tested legal aid if a public authority is an interested person at the inquest. I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on how that expansion in legal aid will be funded. What is the estimated cost of providing representation at inquests and inquiries, and how will it be funded? Will it be, for example, from existing budgets?

Finally, I will mention a couple of provisions that I think should be added to the Bill. There is no mention of the Independent Public Advocate. It would be good to hear from the Government on how they think that office—for which the Lord Chancellor has just made an excellent appointment in the person of Cindy Butts—can work to support victims through the Bill.

There is also no national oversight mechanism provided for in the Bill, despite widespread support for one as a necessary guarantee of the successful implementation of public inquiries and prevention of future deaths reports. A national oversight mechanism, which has been proposed by the charity Inquest—which I know has been working closely with the Hillsborough families—would ensure that recommendations from inquests and inquiries were effectively publicised and that their implementation was monitored. Too often, the recommendations of inquiries sit on shelves and are not implemented, and no one goes back to see that they are. A national oversight mechanism is a major omission from the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point when she winds up.

I invite the Minister to respond to the points I have raised this evening. The Bill is an overdue, but no less welcome, piece of legislation that the whole House should wish to improve and enact. \p Judith Cummins: Following the next contribution, I will reduce the time limit to five minutes—so, on a six-minute time limit, I call Abtisam Mohamed. \p Abtisam Mohamed: As the Member for Sheffield Central, I approach this Second Reading debate with pride that we have finally got here, but with the deepest frustration and sadness at the time that that has taken. Many of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), will be pleased that we are finally here, and I am sure that they will stand in complete solidarity with the families affected.

For over three decades, our city was part of a tragedy that repeatedly scarred families and communities who lived far beyond South Yorkshire. Not only were 97 lives lost at Hillsborough; those people were unlawfully killed—and instead of those lives being honoured and mourned, the families of the 97 had to swallow their grief and fight decades of institutional injustice, indifference and denial.

The failures were not limited to what happened on that day in April 1989. They continued for months, years and decades after: wave after wave of betrayal for families already living with the unimaginable pain of losing their loved ones; wave after wave of betrayal by those in leadership positions who just closed ranks; wave after wave of betrayal by the media, leading to cover-ups, delays and dishonesty.

With this Bill, we can say that this will never happen again—to anyone; because, while the bereaved families have sought justice for their loved ones, the cover-ups have continued. They include Grenfell, Horizon and the infected blood scandal, to name just a few. Time and again, families have watched as the same playbook is used to smear working-class communities and protect those at the very top.

It is right that the Hillsborough families have pushed hard for non-means-tested legal aid, because while those who covered up benefited from the public purse to fund their legal fees, families had to scrimp, save and borrow just to enter the legal system on the same footing.

I am pleased that this Bill will ensure that there is change, and that that change will start now. Fair access to justice means that no victim will be left to fight the state alone. With the duty of candour, public bodies must act truthfully, they must support investigations and they must behave in line with the Nolan principle of integrity. Now when things go wrong—when tragedy strikes—lessons must be learned, not buried.

This is the Hillsborough law, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for their tireless efforts to ensure that those lessons are protected through the Bill. Their legacy, and that of the bereaved families, is the one that will be remembered. Their tireless campaigning has resulted in change at the very top, and their relentless fight has forced the Government and public institutions to abandon a culture of cover-ups. There must be accountability, and there must be no dilution. At the bottom and at the heart of this, there must always be justice for the 97. \p Judith Cummins: On a five-minute time limit, I call Dame Nia Griffith. \p Nia Griffith: Let me pay a huge tribute to all those who have fought so hard for this day: the Hillsborough families, who fought and fought and fought for 36 years. I pay particular tribute to Margaret Aspinall for her feisty and determined campaigning. It is hard to believe it has taken this long; in fact, it is scandalous. I also pay tribute to all those who fought against cover-ups and lies to get to the truth: those hounded and even criminalised by the Post Office Horizon scandal, and those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal.

I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, within just over a year of Labour taking office. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to seeing it on the statute book and will not allow it to be watered down in any way.

I remember finally getting the Conservative Government’s response to Bishop James Jones’s report back in December 2023—six years after its publication. I went  to the briefing meeting, fully expecting the then Justice Secretary to say that the Government would be introducing a Hillsborough law, but I was bitterly disappointed to find Conservative Ministers talking about a voluntary charter. But my disappointment was nothing compared with the grief, anguish, frustration, anger, disbelief and despair that the Hillsborough families have been left feeling, time and again, at the cover-ups, the obfuscation and the procrastination.

In the cases of the contaminated blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, the cover-ups and the failure to listen to those experiencing the issues meant that there were new victims. In the Post Office Horizon scandal, people who need never have become victims—hard-working postmasters and postmistresses—were subjected to the appalling mental anguish of feeling that their beloved communities, and indeed members of their own families, did not believe them. We know how tragically that ended for some. With the infected blood scandal, there were people who need never, ever have been infected.

In brief, tragedies happen and mistakes are made, but a different culture, with a willingness to admit mistakes—a workplace environment that treats whistleblowers and those who speak up as constructive, critical friends, not troublemakers—and driven by an expectation of a duty of candour, could so often prevent further victims and suffering. Today we are finally welcoming a Bill that introduces a new duty of candour—a full Hillsborough law to force those in public office to co-operate fully with investigations, with tough penalties, including prison, for those who fail—and guarantees legal aid funding to enable those affected to challenge public institutions.

I was pleased that back in July, in keeping with another of our manifesto promises, the then Home Secretary announced the Orgreave inquiry. Can the Minister advise us whether this Hillsborough Bill will become law in time to be applicable to that inquiry? Further to that, amidst rumours of boxes of relevant police papers being destroyed, is there anything that she or her Cabinet colleagues can do, even before the Bill becomes law, to prevent potential evidence from being destroyed?

Colleagues have referenced that appalling front page of The Sun, headlined “The Truth”, which alleged that fans had stolen from the deceased and abused police officers, and put the blame for the disaster on the fans. The Sun knew perfectly well that what it said was anything but the truth; it was an outrageous attack on Liverpool fans and nothing short of a cover-up for the police. Although this Bill will introduce a duty of candour for our public sector workers—and I do not want to do anything to delay or confuse that in any way—we should nevertheless, sooner rather than later, address the fact that there is no duty of candour for the media.

For 36 years, The Sun has escaped all accountability for its contribution to the cover-up. Even today, there are no independently enforced standards for the press that would end the ability of parts of the media to conspire with the authorities to mislead the public. The fact is that the Independent Press Standards Organisation falls well short of Leveson part 1’s requirements for independent and robust press regulation. As a result, there is nothing to prevent a cover-up perpetrated by the press from happening again.

I congratulate the Prime Minister and my colleagues in Government on the Bill, but I urge them to heed the call made by Margaret Aspinall today: introduce further legislation to make good on Leveson 2, bring in tougher regulation of the press and stop certain elements of the press destroying innocent people’s lives. As we say in Welsh, “Nid da lle gellir gwell”: don’t be satisfied with the good if we can do better. \p Clive Efford: This legislation is long overdue. Looking back at the scandals where the state has deceived the people, some of which go back to the aftermath of the second world war, we see a long list of how the great British state has let down the people it is there to serve. In all these scandals involving the state versus the people, it is ordinary people who had to fight long and hard to get justice. In the contaminated blood scandal, it has taken over 50 years. For nuclear test veterans, it goes back to the 1950s. In the case of Hillsborough, it took 36 years. The list goes on. All these scandals demonstrate that there is something wrong at the heart of our state—that the state places itself above the people, will not allow itself to be seen to be wrong and, worse, refuses to offer redress for its wrongdoing.

I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood—addressing one of the worst examples the state deceiving people over many decades. At the start of his May 2024 report, Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood inquiry, sets out the depth of the state’s deception—how the state knew as early as the mid-1940s the dangers posed by transfusions of plasma, and the consequences. The risk of spreading infections through transfusions was known in the early days of the NHS, yet this did not result in research or any attempts to ensure that blood was being sourced from safe providers. The state doubled down on its denial while continuing to use products that put people at greater risk. Sir Brian goes on to accuse the state of a catalogue of failings, deliberate lies and obfuscation. He exposes the scale of the deception and how the state failed to carry out research to make products safer, which could have saved lives and reduced infections. This in turn led to products not being HIV-free.

At Treloar’s school, pupils with haemophilia were given contaminated blood products as part of an experiment. That is probably the most chilling part of the whole scandal. The former pupils of Treloar’s have called themselves “human guinea pigs”; those are their own words. What is worse is that the pupils were told that they had glandular fever. Their families were told not to tell anyone that it was HIV. The lack of a duty to tell the truth allowed the state to ignore the needs of the victims and their families. They were offered no help, support or counselling. The silence allowed the state to avoid being held to account—something that we have seen again and again in the Hillsborough story, the Post Office Horizon story and all the rest. This has to stop, and the Bill will at last give a voice to victims.

Although candour in public officials is welcome, the Bill fails to impose a similar duty on our media. Time and again, we have seen a significant section of our national media collaborate with officials, which has obstructed justice, misled the public and led to harassment of survivors and their families. Perhaps the most devastating  example is the role of The Sun in respect of the Hillsborough tragedy; the paper directly conspired with South Yorkshire police to accuse fans of causing the disaster. I hope that as the Bill passes through all its stages, we can address this omission.

I welcome the Bill. We MPs come here to speak truth to power on behalf of our constituents. Now our constituents will have the right to force power to speak truth to them. \p John Martin McDonnell: I pay tribute to all the campaigners, but I want to pay special tribute to the Scouse MPs, who in the last few months put their foot down and said that they were having nothing but the Hillsborough Bill. I thank them on all our behalf.

I want to raise a point about the duty of candour, transparency and frankness, and the duty to operate in the public interest. I would like someone to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that there is a duty to co-operate with the complainants or the victims in the pursuit of truth. I say that not about a historical event, but about an event that is happening today: the Mitting inquiry into the undercover operations carried out on a number of our campaigns. In that inquiry, the authorities, the police and the intelligence services are belligerently fighting not to tell the truth. I will explain briefly.

Twenty-eight years ago almost to the day, my constituent, a young Asian lad named Ricky Reel, went on a night out with his mates in Kingston upon Thames. He went missing and never came home. We now know that he was racially abused. A week later, we found his body in the river. The police inquiry was appalling, and we begged for police resources to be applied. They were applied, but we discovered later that they were applied to surveil our campaign. We had undercover police officers surveilling our campaign, not investigating the case. We were told, “Don’t worry, we weren’t really surveilling you. You were collateral damage.” It was a collateral invasion of privacy, we were told.

Then we met workers who were being blacklisted, so we set up the Blacklist Support Group. We discovered that the police and the intelligence services were surveilling those workers and providing information to employers. Some of those workers never worked again in their life.

Then, of course, we worked with the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. We discovered a hero: a police officer called Peter Francis, who was part of the unit that undertook the surveillance. He said what actually went on, and he blew the whistle. He is now giving evidence to the Mitting inquiry. My constituent Mrs Reel is also giving evidence, as are the Lawrences and other campaigners, but the police are refusing to attend. They claim to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They claim that they are so unwell that they cannot provide the evidence. As a result, we will not get to the truth unless there is an overpowering duty in this legislation that forces them to co-operate.

People have said that this is about class, but it is also about race. The Lawrence family were surveilled. Why? So that information could be provided to the media to discredit them. In the Ricky Reel campaign, it became farcical. We went to visit the Metropolitan police and said, “You’ve now admitted that you were surveilling us.  We would like to see the documents about that surveillance.” We were each given our own copy, but it was redacted to such an extent that there was maybe only a sentence or a word visible. To be frank, we fell about laughing. We got up to take the copies out, but we were told that we could not, and the reason why was that we might have put them all together and made sentences. That is how bad the situation was. We have still not got to the truth —to the full files—and we are still calling for another investigation, so this Bill is highly relevant. We want a duty that is not just about telling the truth, but about co-operating with those who are complaining and the victims. Until we get that spirit of co-operation, I do not think that we will ever get to the point at which we can hold officials and others to account.

I am worried about the different way that the intelligence services will be treated. Surveilling the blacklisted workers involved a rare mixture of police, special branch and others. I would like to see the intelligence services held to account under this legislation. It almost gives them a private guarantee that even whistleblowers will never be heard in public in a way that allows us to expose what goes on. There will be a lot more to say about this legislation, and we will need to amend it.

My final point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). I remain angry about The Sun. I remain bitterly angry about its role and what it did. We were promised Leveson part 2, but we have dropped it, and I do not think there is any justification for that. If anything good comes out of today’s debate, maybe it will be the Government reconsidering introducing Leveson part 2 and legislation that prevents newspapers acting as The Sun did. I have to say, if social media had existed back then, can you imagine how horrendous it would have been? \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Gordon McKee. \p Gordon McKee: On a sunny spring afternoon, Linda Howard watched her husband and son walk down the path from her house. Even now, decades later, she can recall the details of that morning with perfect clarity. Young Tommy pestered his dad to let him join him at the football match. His mum did not want him to make the trip to Sheffield, but she saw the anticipation in his eyes, and was unable to say no and break his heart. As she said goodbye and watched them walk down the path, Tommy turned to wave one more time. She did not know it in that moment, but it would be for the last time, because her husband and son were heading to a disaster. Their lives would be cruelly taken in a tragedy caused by a failure of care, control and courage, and an instinct not to act, but to look away, as the crisis deepened.

Ninety-seven people lost their life in the Hillsborough disaster, and thousands more lost trust because of the events that happened afterwards. The same instinct that led to inaction on that day led to deceit in the days that followed. The fans of Liverpool football club were smeared as a gang of drunks. The grotesque implication was that the dead were somehow responsible for their  own demise, and grieving mothers, brothers, fathers and sisters were treated by the police not as bereaved family, but as accomplices to some indescribable crime. They were taken to a gym hall and forced to look through photographs of the dead to find out the fate of their family. Hillsborough was not just a collapse of a crush barrier; it was the collapse of trust. It was a moment when public officials saw their fellow citizens not as people to be protected, but as problems to be managed.

I am ashamed to say that this is not unique in our history. Just ask the grandmother who came to this country on a boat, and contributed for decades, only for the state to turn around and tell her she was no longer welcome in her own country; or the tenant who warned that their building was unsafe, but found their home engulfed in flames before anyone would listen; or the local businessman who held together a community, but who found that the output of a faulty computer system was treated with more deference by the authorities than his own word and honest reputation. These are not isolated stories; they are the same story. This was described by the Right Rev. James Jones in his report as the

“patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.

That posture has no place in a just Britain, because power without accountability is not strength, but corruption. In a true democracy, the state exists to serve the working-class widow on the Wirral just as much as the chief constable of a police force. The binding promise of justice in a democracy is that, together, we belong to a country to which we each contribute, and by which we are treated equally. It is the promise also of the movement to which I belong, which 100 years ago said that working men and women no longer required a patronising disposition; instead, they required representatives of themselves to bestow power on the powerless, and to impose on all of those who hold state authority a duty of candour. That is what the Bill does. It instils in the public contract an immovable commitment that the truth shall sit above all else, regardless of consequence. The people of this country do not demand perfection. They understand the inevitability of mistakes, but what they cannot accept is a state that obscures the truth from its own people.

We cannot bring back the victims of Hillsborough, and we cannot erase the years of pain or decades of denial, but we can make sure that no grieving family ever again has to fight their own Government for the truth, so that when the next mother watches her son walk down the path, she knows that if tragedy does rear its ugly head, her country will stand with her, not against her, in the fight for justice. \p Lorraine Beavers: It is an honour to speak in support of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which so many of us know as the Hillsborough law.

This Bill was born out of a state-sponsored injustice against working-class people. It was forged from the courage and persistence of those families—ordinary working-class people—who refused to be broken by the weight of injustice. They did not have privilege or power on their side. What they had was solidarity and an unshakeable  belief that the truth matters. For too long, people in this country have felt that, when the system fails them and when those in power get things wrong, sometimes with devastating consequences, no one is ever truly held to account, and families are left to fight for decades just to be heard.

This Bill begins to change that. The new duty of candour says to every public official, “You work for the people of this country, and when something goes wrong, you tell them the truth—no more cover-ups, and no more protecting institutions over people’s lives.” It will make honesty a legal duty and create criminal offences for those who mislead the public or obstruct investigations. That matters, because we have all seen the cost of denial—from Hillsborough to Grenfell, from the Post Office scandal to infected blood—and this Bill will help to end that culture once and for all. The extension of legal aid at inquests and inquiries finally levels the playing field, with no more families having to crowdfund or face state-funded lawyers alone in the fight of their lives. That gives ordinary people a fair chance, a voice and the power to hold the state to account. This is real accountability. This is democracy in action.

However, if we truly want a culture of honesty, we must protect those inside the system who dare to speak up when something is wrong. Whistleblowers are often the first to see the cracks, and too many have paid for their integrity with their career. Honesty should never cost someone their job, their home or their peace of mind. If we want this law to work, we must make sure that whistleblowers are protected, their concerns are investigated and their courage is valued.

When I think about what this Bill means, I of course think about the Hillsborough families standing year after year inside and outside Anfield, saying simply, “Justice for the 97”. This Bill honours their fight. It says that never again will ordinary people be treated as a problem when all they did was tell the truth. For working-class families across Britain, this Bill is a promise that truth will no longer depend on wealth, that justice will no longer depend on power, and that the voices of ordinary working-class people will never again be drowned out by the machinery of the state.

This is a Bill that finally says: no more cover-ups, no more lies, no more hiding—just truth, fairness and accountability. That is what the Hillsborough families fought for and it is what the victims of so many injustices have fought for. On behalf of those families, on behalf of every whistleblower who has spoken up, and on behalf of every working-class person everywhere who just wants a fair hearing and an honest Government, let me say that I am so very proud to support this Bill. \p Ian Lavery: I thank the Government so much for bringing this much-needed, vital Bill to the House. It shows what a Labour Government can actually do, and how a Labour Government can effect change. It was really positive to hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that there would be an absolute guarantee that the Bill would not in any way, shape or form be diluted. That is really important to everybody.

It is not a day for celebration; it is a day far too long in coming. It is not just about history; it is about justice, it is about class, it is about the truth. The tragedies we  have all lived through—the Hillsborough disaster, Orgreave, Windrush, Grenfell, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, plus many, many more—are not isolated events. They are symptoms of a deeper sickness: a system that protects power over people, reputation over responsibility, and privilege over truth. In each case, working-class lives were treated as expendable. Innocent people were pitted against institutions that closed ranks, denied wrongdoing and delayed justice, sometimes for decades. At Hillsborough, 97 Liverpool fans lost their lives, not by accident but because of institutional indifference. They were branded hooligans, not victims, by officers who held deep-seated prejudice against working class communities.

It is about legacy, truth and accountability. It is not just about the Bill today. It has been said today in this Chamber that this was like people turning a blind eye to what happened. It is not turning a blind eye, for heaven’s sake! It is about huge, detailed, organised and orchestrated deliberate cover-ups using billions of taxpayer pounds against ordinary working people.

It has been mentioned today that the chief constable got a knighthood. He has not received any form of discipline whatever. Ninety-seven people killed and not one person has been taken through the courts and prosecuted, but he was given a knighthood. What an absolute disgrace. It shows a huge disregard and indifference to working people. They were allowed to trample on the graves of the victims in the belief that they could do whatever they wanted, because they were the ones with the power and the influence.

That cannot be allowed to continue. We have to remember that justice means justice. Who indeed made these decisions? What police officer shut the blinds, put the coffee on the table and said, “Right, look, we’ve had 97 people sadly passed on, but we’re going to make out like it really wasn’t our fault”? Who then signed it off, because, by the way, I think every one of these injustices gans a lot further than just police officers and people in the public sector at the very top? It has got to have had ministerial sign-off, I am afraid, because it would not have happened.

I support the Bill in its entirety. No more delays. Justice for all. This is a long overdue Bill, which I fully support. \p Yasmin Qureshi: I am proud to support this important Bill and to pay tribute to the Hillsborough families, whose courage and determination have brought us to this moment. Their decades of struggle have changed our country and created a chance to ensure that no family ever again has to fight for truth alone. The Bill is about truth, fairness and accountability. It is about ending the culture of cover-ups that has marked too many national scandals, from Hillsborough to contaminated blood, and from Post Office Horizon to Primodos, whose families I have been honoured to represent and campaign for in this House for the past 13 years. I have stood here many times to raise that issue and to lead debates, because it is not a new story.

The Primodos scandal has been known about for decades. What has been missing is not information, but honesty. Primodos was a hormone pregnancy test given  to 1.5 million women in Britain until the late 1970s. It was linked to miscarriages, stillbirths and babies born with life-changing disabilities, yet the families were met not with transparency, but with denial.

In 1967, Dr Isabel Gal published research in Nature showing a possible link between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects. Rather than being supported, she was dismissed and discredited. Both the manufacturer, Schering, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines knew of the risks. The committee issued a notice in 1975 warning of a possible link, and another in 1977 confirming that the link had been established, yet Primodos was not withdrawn until 1978 and the women who had already taken it were never told the truth. That was not candour. It was concealment.

Decades later, the pattern repeated. In 2017 the Government’s own Commission on Human Medicines established an expert working group, which concluded that there was “no causal association” between Primodos and harm—wording that was added later after pressure from senior officials. Families were shut out, evidence was excluded and regulators defended themselves instead of admitting failure.

Then, in 2023, the same families were forced into court against Bayer and the Government. Despite the independent Cumberlege review, which occurred after the 2017 expert working group, confirming that avoidable harm had occurred, their case still collapsed before trial when the families were threatened with £11 million in legal costs if they refused to withdraw. It was a David versus Goliath battle, with ordinary families facing the full legal force of the state and a global corporation.

This Bill could hope to change that. It establishes a duty of candour, a duty to assist investigation and the principle of parity of arms, which seeks to ensure that families are not denied justice because they lack resources. However, the duty of candour must apply fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not just statutory inquiries. Command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge and not with the institutions. The offence of misleading the public must not be weakened by the need to prove individual harm.

The Bill is really important. I hope it is not diluted. I hope that people like those who suffered because of Primodos will get due justice. \p Liam Conlon: I start by saying that it was fantastic to have Hillsborough law campaigners in the Gallery today. I worked for them for several years before I was elected to this place on behalf of victims of the Ballymurphy massacre—one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. I am a relative of one of the victims of that massacre, Father Hugh Mullan, a Catholic priest who was unlawfully killed by members of the Parachute Regiment. It took my dad’s family 50 years to have the words “entirely innocent” put on the public record; in the intervening years, people tried to smear Hugh as a gunrunner, obfuscating justice. It is a pattern that we see repeated across so many of the stories we have heard today.

We should not forget why this legislation matters. All the campaigners and campaigns supporting the Hillsborough law are distinct: victims of Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, Grenfell and Horizon,  the covid-19 bereaved families, victims of the Windrush scandal, the troubles and many more. These are events that span decades and involve different arms of the state in different parts of the UK; the circumstances and consequences of each differ greatly. However, after each event, when families began to seek justice, they often faced similar challenges and circumstances: first, the smearing of innocent victims as guilty; secondly, the closing of ranks among authorities, shutting off routes to justice; and thirdly, a legal system where the scales of justice are stacked in favour of the state. The human consequences are severe. Mr Kalia, a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal from Bromley, which I represent, found his own children mistrusting him after he was unable to clear his name. His marriage almost broke down and he contemplated suicide.

This Government have the potential to put an end to these obstacles and create a turning point in transparency, accountability and justice in public life to ensure that Mr Kalia’s experience, and those of so many others, is never repeated again. That means full parity of arms at inquests, putting an end to David versus Goliath battles in court, where the state, flanked by an army of lawyers, takes on families who have scraped together for a single barrister. It means a full duty of candour, with proper consequences for those who fall foul of it. It means creating an obligation for full disclosure, ensuring that public bodies are wired to help families to achieve justice, not to close ranks and protect their own.

I thank the Prime Minister today for his reassurance that this Bill will not be watered down and for his work and that of the Justice Secretary and the Attorney General in the other place in driving the Bill forward. I am also grateful for the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) in tirelessly campaigning on this issue.

Passing this Bill will lead to a rebalancing in the relationship between state and citizen. We will also have fulfilled the purpose of power—to give it away—and will have empowered families to pursue the settlement that they want. I again thank every campaigner and every family for their work on this Bill.

I will finish with an Irish proverb:

“Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine”—

it is in the shelter of each other that the people live. I know that what the Hillsborough families and many other families have done today is to provide shelter for others for many years to come. \p Richard Burgon: The Bill before us stands as a testament to the decades of campaigning by the Hillsborough families. I want to pay special tribute to them and to other families I have been humbled to work with, including Grenfell families and the family of Zane Gbangbola, who are still fighting for justice. They have backed this Bill because they do not want to see others endure what they had to.

I want to commend the tireless work of Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who as Member of Parliament for Leigh helped drive a Hillsborough law from inside this House. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne)—my close friend—for all he has done over the years,  before becoming an MP and now, to fight to get us to where we are today. Thanks are also due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and Steve Rotheram, Liverpool metro mayor.

As shadow Justice Secretary in 2017, I was proud to commit that a future Labour Government would deliver a Hillsborough law. In fact, it is almost eight years ago to the day since around 90 Labour MPs signed a letter co-ordinated by myself and the then shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Member means to say the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney somewhere or other—apologies for not knowing. \p Richard Burgon: She has been forgotten too many times in this place, but I will put that to one side.

The letter from the then shadow Home Secretary and I called on Theresa May to introduce a Hillsborough law in the aftermath of Grenfell. I commend this Labour Government for bringing forward this legislation. A duty of candour, new criminal offences for failing to uphold that duty, expanded legal aid and a parity of representation to end the David versus Goliath nature of inquiries—these are all big steps forward. There will be areas where the Bill can be strengthened, and I hope to play my part in ensuring that it is improved as it goes through this House, but fundamentally it is a good Bill and must remain so as it passes through the House.

On that point, I want to send a very clear message today to anyone hoping to water the Bill down as it passes through Parliament: do not try it. Far too often in this country politics has acted as a dam, holding justice back rather than helping it to flow. Class and power imbalances and, yes, racism have repeatedly denied people justice in the face of state abuses. We have seen the truth sacrificed to protect the powerful. Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, Bloody Sunday, Orgreave—these are all examples of times when the state used its immense power not to deliver truth and justice but to block it year after year. In all those cases, the state was accused of a cover-up by those affected. Distrust was sown, and justice delayed and denied.

We know that there are forces who did not want this Bill to get this far and who do not want it to go forward in this form—forces who do not want the scales of justice tilted in favour of working-class people. I welcome the Prime Minister saying that there will be no watering-down of this Bill, but if any civil servants, Members of this House, those in opposition and in the House of Lords, those in the media or others within the machinery of the state attempt to dilute or derail this Bill, they will have the fight of their lives on their hands. We will use every power at our disposal, including naming and shaming under parliamentary privilege, if we hear of any attempts to water down this fundamentally important Bill.

Let this be a rare moment when the House delivers legislation that we can all be proud of. Martin Luther King once spoke of how

“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”.

It has not felt like that for so many families. Let us make sure it does by supporting this Bill and making it law. It has been too long, and today is an important day. \p Lizzi Collinge: The Hillsborough law we debate today is not an historical problem; it is something that my constituents need right now. I have already spoken in this place about baby Ida Lock, who died after failings in her care, and the incompetent investigation and lack of transparency that followed.

Today I want to talk about another constituent of mine. Vicki had autoimmune diseases, and she had regular treatment for them, often needing steroids. In 2021, Vicki fell pregnant and had a flare-up, which was treated with steroids. Not long after she tragically suffered a miscarriage. Days later she was admitted to hospital with severe abdominal pain and an increased heart rate, and she began to deteriorate. The differential diagnosis was either an infection or a flare-up of her autoimmune disease.

Vicki kept getting more poorly. She was treated with antibiotics but not given any steroids. Her care was fraught with errors: her lipids were scored incorrectly; the right tests were eventually requested but not carried out in a timely way; and a pharmacist spotted that she had missed crucial medication, but nothing was done. According to her family, the doctors got caught in a loop of circular thinking—they focused on sepsis and covid—even when there was another possibility, particularly with her history of autoimmune problems.

There is a rare but known complication of autoimmune disease called hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, which is a massive overreaction of the immune system that causes hyperinflammation, damaging vital organs. If the hospital had listened to Vicki and done a bone marrow test earlier, that HLH could have been identified, and it is possible that it could have been treated successfully. But once the decision to do the test—it gives results in only 10 minutes—was finally made, it took 18 hours for it to be done. The bone marrow test confirmed that Vicki had HLH. Twenty-four hours later, she died.

Vicki knew that she was having a flare-up, and she said so, but she was not listened to. From her hospital bed, she had written a letter of complaint to the patient advice and liaison service; then, just a week later, she was dead. Her family just want the truth to be recognised, because, in their experience, it has not been. Their experience echoes that of Ida’s parents. The pain is compounded because the family had felt that she was in the right place to be cared for. They trusted the hospital to get it right.

We know that no one goes to work in healthcare to do harm, but doctors and nurses are humans; they will make mistakes, and it is difficult for them to admit that they have harmed someone, so we need to create institutional cultures in which people feel able to speak up and raise concerns. Mistakes are often one-offs, but what is not is the institutional response to these tragedies. The institutional response of cover-up is part of a wider, long-standing pattern of poor culture and weak accountability. What harmed families tell me in the wake of these tragedies is that it is not necessarily the mistake itself that causes so much harm to them but the cover-up and the denial. Families, instead of grieving their loss, are forced to fight for the truth.

My hope is that the Bill will protect victims and their families—like Vicki’s, like Ryan and Sarah Lock and those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough—from this  prolonged trauma. They deserve honesty, accountability and humanity from the very start, because that is how we rebuild trust. \p John Grady: I will focus on chapter 2 of part 2 of the Bill, which provides that public bodies must operate in accordance with the highest ethical conduct. That is very important to my constituents in Glasgow.

Shortly after I was elected, I met a mum and dad at one of my surgeries. They want to know how their beloved child died while being treated as an in-patient in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. They know that they cannot get their beloved child back; they just want to know that lessons have been learned so that other families do not suffer the same anguish every day.

This family wrote to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde two months after the death of their child; the first response was less than candid. They asked for proper investigations; one partial report was issued 10 months after their child’s death. The second report was completed over two years after their child’s death, and that report itself was concerning as the NHS could not identify one of the doctors involved in the child’s treatment and could not source two nurses involved, so they were not interviewed. How can it be that the NHS cannot identify three people who worked in a hospital on the day in question?

The family do not have answers even now, two and a half years after the death of their beloved child. I have tried my best to help them, and I have pressed the NHS to complete the long-delayed report and meet them. Despite that, I am afraid that this grieving family has been treated appallingly. I therefore welcome the provisions of chapter 2. They are seriously needed.

I am not the first to raise concerns about the transparency and openness of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde: my friends Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie have repeatedly raised serious concerns about institutional cover-up. I agree with them, and join them in their call for a radical change of culture and their support for Milly’s law, with a public advocate system.

I would like to ask a couple of questions about the Bill’s application in Scotland. It contains three criminal offences that are not replicated in Scotland. That is quite proper because, as we heard earlier, criminal law is a matter for the Scottish Parliament, not this place, but it would be interesting to know what the Scottish Government’s position is on this. Clause 18 and schedule 6 concern public inquiries, and the provisions are designed to ensure that the conduct of public authorities and their legal teams is fair and reasonable, in particular to ensure the equality of arms that we have heard described so eloquently today. The law relating to public inquiries in Scotland and England is broadly the same, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the schedule 6 provisions do not extend to Scotland.

Schedule 6 also makes provision for the expansion of legal aid and again, quite properly, this does not apply to Scotland, but I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the Scottish Government’s position on this. My concern is simple: a family in Glasgow should have the same broad rights as a family in Newcastle upon Tyne when trying to get the truth from public authorities.

I shall close by paying tribute to the Hillsborough families. They are the embodiment of the greatest of human qualities: immense courage in the face of the most terrible grief; determination to get to the truth; determination that every possible lesson is learned from Hillsborough; and determination that the law is changed to protect people they will never meet and never know. I admire them greatly. Each of us owes those families the greatest of debts. \p Marie Tidball: I was nearly five years old when the Hillsborough disaster happened, less than half a mile away from my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency. My mum had just had my baby brother and was on maternity leave, and I vividly remember watching the coverage of the horrendous tragedy, transfixed by the screen. Meynell, the school where my mum worked at the edge of the Parson Cross estate, was near the ground. Seeing the horror of her realisation that some of her families might have been at the match was deeply upsetting. The images of the treatment of the fans by the police are etched on my memory forever. My baby brother is now a grown 36-year-old man: the measure of the lifetime it has taken to get the justice for the 97 fans who lost their lives at the Hillsborough disaster.

Today really is a historic day. I am proud to be stood here in this moment as a Sheffield Labour MP and as part of the Labour Government who are introducing the Hillsborough law to this House. I am proud, too, that we have a Prime Minister who has made making this law his personal mission. This landmark legislation will help to close this chapter of some of our nation’s darkest days.

The Bill before us will be transformative. As someone who followed closely the evisceration of legal aid—and, with it, access to justice—under the Conservative Government in coalition, I am immensely proud that the Bill includes the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade for bereaved families, providing non-means-tested help and support for inquests. The Bill contains criminal sanctions for the most significant breaches, including for misleading the public in a way that is seriously improper, under the new offence it creates. \p Liam Conlon: Does my hon. Friend agree that this will be particularly important for people who have been disabled by public gross negligence? \p Marie Tidball: I do agree. Alongside the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010 passed by the last Labour Government, we will have created a shield and a sword for those disabled people.

Trust in public life is a delicate and precious thing, and the duty of candour on all public services within this Bill provides the scaffolding for this to be held up. Public servants must always tell the truth about anything to do with their jobs or face the consequences. In requiring that they do so, the Bill will lay strong foundations to build cultural change throughout the public sector, placing public bodies under a new duty to promote the ethical conduct of their staff.

This law is for the 97 who lost their lives, but it is also for all those who fought for justice when they had been betrayed by the authorities that were meant to protect them. The changes that the Bill makes will ensure that truth and justice are never concealed again and that brave families will never again be left fighting endlessly for the truth. Anyone caught trying to hide the truth will face the full force of the law.

To Margaret Aspinall, the brave bereaved families and the hundreds of campaigners who brought us to this moment, thank you for the decades of work you have done. We all owe you a debt of gratitude. With my whole heart, I commend this Bill to the House. \p Phil Brickell: I welcome the Bill and commend Ministers for the work that has been done on it. In particular, I pay tribute to Merseyside colleagues, who have done so much to get us to where we are today.

This Bill is about restoring people’s trust in the people who serve them, whether that is in Westminster, Liverpool or Bolton—trust that the truth will be told when things go wrong; trust that when things do go wrong, those responsible will be held to account; and trust that Government at every level will work for them, not against them. When I speak to people in Bolton West, the impression is often the same: they are tired of people in public office covering up their failures instead of being held accountable for them. \p John Slinger: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the central reasons for public disillusionment and outrage is that there are no successful prosecutions, or very few, in cases of egregious state failure? Does he agree that unless wrongdoers pay a price and are seen to pay a price, this impunity may persist, and that the duty of candour and the two new statutory offences will help overcome this malaise? \p Phil Brickell: My hon. Friend speaks to the two new offences—clauses 5 and 11. It is vital not only that the Bill is passed, but that the authorities have the powers they need to ensure that the contents of the Bill are enforced.

When I speak to people, they want honesty and fairness, and for those in power to live by the same rules as everyone else. That is why this Bill matters. Behind it lie some of the darkest chapters in our recent history, which we have already heard about in the Chamber today: Grenfell, Hillsborough, the Horizon scandal, infected blood—the list is far too long. Each one of those cases represents lives ruined by not just a single mistake, but a culture of denial by institutions that closed ranks instead of coming clean.

Given the time constraints, let me turn to the contents of the Bill. It will create a landmark duty of candour on public officials, alongside a new and important offence of statutory misconduct in public office. Both will be vital measures in ensuring that the scandals of years past can never be repeated. Fundamental to the Bill is the new requirement for public authorities to have a code of ethics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned before me, which will start to rebuild the moral foundation of public service that too many people believe has been lost.

I put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has generously engaged with me on a number of points related to the Bill. I hope the Government will consider three small, novel but important changes I wish to propose as the Bill goes to Committee. First, the Bill uses two different definitions of what counts as a public authority. There may be a good reason for that, which the Minister can speak to in her wind-up, but for the duty of candour and misconduct in public office offences, elected representatives, such as local councillors, mayors and Ministers, are included as per part 2 of schedule 2, but when it comes to the requirement to have a code of ethics, it excludes them as per part 3 of schedule 2. That feels inconsistent, and I worry that it risks diluting the message that we are trying to send, which is that everyone, no matter their position, is held to the same standards. My constituents expect everyone in public life, from the Cabinet table to the council chamber, to live by the same principles of honesty and decency.

Secondly, may I gently suggest that we look again at putting the ministerial code and the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards on a statutory footing? This simple measure was recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its 2021 report, “Upholding Standards in Public Life”. That is a simple way of ensuring that the rules that govern Ministers today cannot be swept away by less scrupulous Governments tomorrow.

Thirdly, on the offence of misconduct in public office, will the Minister clarify why the Government have elected to set the bar so high? Part 3 is worded to allude to

“the nature and degree of any benefit obtained by the person (whether for themselves or another person) as a result of the act”.

Seeking to be corrupt is not better than successfully being corrupt, so I hope that the Minister will look afresh at the relevant clause. Indeed, the Law Commission has called for a definition along the lines of the intention to benefit. As I recall from more than a decade tackling corruption, section 6 of the Bribery Act 2010 uses the phrasing

“intend to obtain or retain…business, or…an advantage in the conduct of business.”

Aligning those definitions would make it easier for prosecutors to hold bad actors to account.

None the less, the Bill is a huge step forward in the Government’s mission to return politics to service. I am proud to support it this evening, and I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House to make it as strong, fair and future-proof as it can be. \p Sarah Smith: It is a privilege to witness proceedings and to speak as this landmark Bill is given its Second Reading. As others have remarked, this day is a testament to the courage, resilience and awe-inspiring fortitude of the bereaved families of the 97 Liverpool fans who were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, who shall never be forgotten. I pay tribute to the many Members of this House who have been involved—those who sit here today and others whose time here ended before they were able to see this crucial legislation. I acknowledge in particular the campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) has seen through with such courage, and  the powerful speeches that we have heard, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker).

It has been said that grief is just love persevering. The families’ pursuit for justice and truth, because of that love, has persevered through decades. The Bill will ensure a lasting legacy—on top of that which has already been built—for those who tragically did not return after simply attending a football game. It will also benefit us all, and we owe the families a deep debt of gratitude.

In straightforward terms, I see the Bill as providing in statute that truth can never be discretionary—it is an intrinsic and legal duty of being in public office and public service. It has not been an easy road to get to this point. I commend the Prime Minister for delivering on a promise that he made personally, regardless of any institutional resistance. We cannot let truth be concealed ever again. No future family should have to fight a system for answers or be retraumatised by a process that is fuelled by, as Bishop James Jones eloquently put it,

“the patronising disposition of unaccountable power.”

I welcome in particular the measures that go beyond the fundamental new duty of candour and offer assistance to families facing an inquest. That will ensure a parity of representation between them and the state, in cases in which a public body is to be legally represented. Let us not forget that, at the first Hillsborough inquest, families received no public funding for legal representation, while senior police officers were represented by five separate legal teams. Bringing an end to that imbalance of power will support the inquisitorial nature of any legal proceedings, and, I hope, offer protection against the efforts of a public body to obfuscate, intimidate or even withhold information.

I would like us to consider how we can best ensure that any learnings and recommendations from inquests or inquiries are implemented. The honesty and integrity that the Bill mandates will further help coroners to establish the facts and come to conclusions about what events or actions could or should have been prevented. Families want their painful stories to lead to change, but learning leads to change only if public bodies are made to act.

I will finish on a wider cultural point. I do not think anyone would deny that public trust in our politics and public institutions is at a very low level. Scandals have eroded trust, as bodies and public officials have misled people—and, frankly, hidden the truth—to protect themselves rather than the public. The Bill provides an opportunity to restate that public services are here to be on people’s side. My constituents, and all the communities we serve, deserve to feel safe and supported. To regain legitimacy, the public need to know that words and evidence from our public officials and bodies can be trusted. I hope that the Bill will lead to greater integrity and further person-centred reform to public services, which I know this Government are committed to building. \p Josh Newbury: It gives me great pride as a Labour MP to speak in this debate on an incredibly important Bill that will further right historic wrongs—stains on our nation’s history. Although my constituents hold a range of views on many issues, they  are united in expecting public servants and institutions to act with honesty and transparency. The Bill draws a line in the sand, signalling a landmark shift in the responsibilities placed on those who serve our communities. With the Bill we can finally say that when the state fails and public servants do not live up to their duties, the men and women of this country will not be left fighting for the truth.

The duty of candour is about truth telling when the truth is inconvenient—even incriminating—and it is about ensuring that the power of the state can never again be used to conceal wrongdoing, distort justice or silence ordinary people. As an MP representing a former mining community, the memory of the battle of Orgreave still looms large. On 18 June 1984, hundreds of striking miners gathered to picket peacefully. What followed was a ruthlessly planned violent confrontation between police and miners; 95 were arrested and charged with offences including riot and violent disorder. Many of the prosecutions collapsed when it became clear that the officers’ statements were almost identical and not credible, but still those men were vilified and for 40 years have lived with the scars—physical and mental—and felt the crushing weight, as the families of the 97 have felt, of justice denied.

In July the Government announced a statutory inquiry into Orgreave, to be chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield. That announcement was so welcome, but three months on many in our communities are desperate for news. Last week I and fellow coalfield MPs met the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, which reminded us that with many miners having shorter life expectancies due to the gruelling and dangerous work that they did underground, every day that goes by could mean lost testimony that would be crucial to the inquiry. As with Hillsborough, when it comes to Orgreave, a duty of candour could have prevented a generation of injustice, and could even have disincentivised a culture of cover-ups.

The same principle of truth, transparency and accountability applies just as powerfully to the press. This morning in the Liverpool Echo, Margaret Aspinall, who has been such a powerful figurehead for the Hillsborough families’ campaign for justice, said unequivocally that justice for the 97 will not be fully done until we have proper press regulation and accountability for the lies that were told by The Sun. She is right, and we owe it to everyone who has had their life torn apart by press intrusion or misinformation to take action.

I think of Paul Dadge from my constituency who became a symbol of humanity in the 7/7 attacks. Hon. Members may remember the harrowing image of a woman clutching a burn mask to her face, being guided towards an ambulance by a man. That man was Paul and, although he hates the word, Paul was a hero that day. But in the months that followed, Paul found that his phone had been hacked by News of the World journalists. We all remember the denials and warm words that were uttered throughout the public furore over the phone-hacking scandal. It has now been more than a decade since the Leveson inquiry exposed the corrosive culture of impunity in parts of the British press. The second phase of that inquiry would have investigated the relationship between the press and police,  but it was shamefully abandoned by the previous Government. Instead, the big papers created their own regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which has never fined a newspaper and has found in favour complainants in only 0.3% of cases.

Now that we are 12 years on from Leveson and in an age of social media, action against press intrusion needs to look different, but the principle of an impartial, independent watchdog is perhaps even more relevant now than it was in 2013. I hope that is something under active consideration by the Government. Whether it is the families of Hillsborough, the miners of Orgreave, or my constituent Paul, we owe them meaningful, permanent change. The Bill offers us a chance to do that, and I hope and believe that it will be the start of much more to come. \p Jessica Toale: I would like to start by paying tribute to the many hon. Members and campaigners who have never stopped fighting for truth and accountability. We have heard many powerful contributions today, outlining a painful litany of cover-ups and scandals, where individuals and families have been betrayed by the very institutions that were meant to protect them. This Bill is also for those who are suffering, but who only now we are beginning to see and to recognise.

My constituent, Jan Hall, is a diethylstilbestrol—DES—daughter. DES was an anti-miscarriage drug invested here in Britain and prescribed between 1939 and the late 1970s. It was marketed as a wonder drug, but even as evidence that the drug caused harm emerged in the 1950s and after it was linked to cancer in the 1970s, it continued to be prescribed to women. This is potentially one of the biggest pharmaceutical scandals in British history, and something upon which this Bill will, no doubt, shine a light.

Jan’s mum, Rita, was prescribed DES. She died of breast cancer at the age of 32, when Jan was still a toddler. Jan has suffered from health problems for her whole life, including cervical cancer, and now her daughters, Beth and Hannah, have had a series of gynaecological problems. We know that women who took DES face around 30% higher risk of breast of cancer. Their daughters who were exposed to the drug have 40 times the risk of rare vaginal and cervical cancers, and also face infertility issues. On top of that, their sons show increased risk of genital abnormalities and infertility. This is an intergenerational issue and we are now seeing grandchildren, like Beth and Hannah, suffering from complications, with research only beginning to uncover the scale of the inherited harm. These women have fought for decades for the recognition and justice that they deserve, but for too long they have been ignored.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has admitted that it misled the public for more than a decade. Imagine if a duty of candour had existed for DES victims. Imagine if the MHRA, the Department of Health and pharmaceutical companies had been compelled to disclose what they knew and when they knew it: generations of women might have been spared devastating illnesses, families would have been spared grief, and trust in our institutions might have been preserved. The Hillsborough law is not only a matter of legal reform, but a matter of trust. If the public cannot  trust the state to tell the truth when things go wrong, then the social contract is broken. The Hillsborough law gives us a way to rebuild it.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to the issue and the reaffirmation that he will not water down the principles that give the Bill life. To all the families still waiting for justice—this Bill is for you. Let the Hillsborough law mark the moment when we say, finally and decisively, that justice delayed must never be justice denied. \p Brian Leishman: First, I would like to record the respect I have for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for all he has done on the Hillsborough law. His relentless campaigning on it is equalled by his dedication in fighting another political injustice—that of food insecurity. It is fair to say that his community, the Labour party and this place are stronger for him being in them.

What a catalogue of injustices, cover-ups and scandals our nation has seen. There are too many for me to mention in the short time that I have available, but the common theme is that working-class communities always seem to be the victims. Forty-one years on, people are still waiting for justice from the premeditated beatings handed out at Orgreave. Thirty-six years on, families and survivors who we have heard from today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, are still waiting for justice and accountability for what happened that day at Hillsborough.

Eight years on from Grenfell, the memory of the 72 victims, and their families and friends, still wait for justice. Incredibly, approximately a quarter of a million people will go to bed tonight in buildings with the same flammable cladding surrounding them. How on earth can we sit in this place and allow that to be the case? Because I’ll tell you: if it was not working-class people who died in those buildings, then a lot more than what has been done so far would have been done by now. Furthermore, the firefighters who attended the scene at Grenfell are now suffering from serious health consequences because of their incredible recovery efforts. They too deserve answers and justice, and—crucially—the protective equipment that will keep them safe from the carcinogenic materials that they are exposed to in the line of duty.

It is only right that my final comments are addressed to the Hillsborough families, both those here in Parliament today and those watching at home. You have waited so long for what is just; I am truly sorry that it has taken this length of time. You have shown that change is possible and that, more often than not, it comes from pressure applied by the general public, not this place. \p Catherine Atkinson: I pay tribute to the families of victims, and to the campaigners who have fought for decades, following the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, for this legislation. They have fought to prevent state cover-ups such as the one that they experienced. In the years since Hillsborough, far too many other families have not only endured the grief of losing people they loved, but had their grief compounded by injustice. Instead of answers, they got obstruction and obfuscation. \p Julie Minns: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point about the obstruction that families and individuals still face. A family in my constituency have for the last 18 months methodically uncovered failings in the care of their father in hospital. He sadly died, yet the failings that they uncovered were ignored by the medical examiner and in the pathology report, and they were not adequately addressed by the hospital trust. As a result, the family have been unable to secure the accountability that they seek for their father’s death. Does my hon. Friend agree that the duty of candour that this Bill compels will begin to rebalance the relationship between individuals such as my constituents and public bodies? \p Catherine Atkinson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There are still so many families fighting for justice, and the persistence of families who have been fighting for justice has brought us to this moment. We all owe them our thanks and our action. I feel privileged to have so many colleagues who fought alongside them for so long.

I welcome the expansion of legal aid in the Bill; after years of cuts to legal aid, it is heartening to see the extension of legal aid to all families at inquests in which public authorities are involved. As a barrister, I have represented parties in inquests, including families, and I know how difficult inquests can be for families, even when they have legal representation and get answers that help them to come to terms with what happened. For too long, families have faced an inequality of arms when they have sought to understand and navigate the coroners court, and to secure the information and documents needed, and have sought the confidence to ask questions without legal representation. Meanwhile, they see the public authorities from which they are trying to get answers being supported by their legal teams.

This is not just about funding; it is about fairness. This Bill helps to correct the balance, so that families at least have representation. It gives them an advocate, a guide and a voice. That is not just compassionate, but essential to justice. I fully accept that injustice can still happen even when there are lawyers, but not having representation in those circumstances is an injustice in itself, and this Bill changes that. I also welcome the fact that the Bill introduces new statutory criminal offences. That sends such a powerful message that cover-ups will no longer be met with dismissal; they will be met with criminal sanctions. That is a vital deterrent and a long-overdue shift in accountability.

Mistakes are made, and humans err in the moment, but later on, there are choices. Are the errors acknowledged, or do people attempt to double down and persist in a false narrative? If somebody acknowledges the error, they may be sacked, but if they cover it up, they will not just be sacked; they will face going to prison. This Bill empowers the frontline of our public service to say no, and to report it if they are pressured to participate in a cover-up.

This Bill reflects the hard-won lessons of decades of campaigning. It will not undo the pain of the past, but it will help prevent future injustice by strengthening legal aid, empowering grieving families, and introducing meaningful criminal sanctions for cover-ups. This legislation begins to rebalance the scales. It sends a clear message   that truth must come before reputation, and accountability must come before self-preservation, and it ensures that families will not be left to fight alone. \p Paul Waugh: This legislation is all about a fundamental rebalancing of power between the state and the citizens it is meant to protect and serve. We have heard powerfully today from many Members about the Hillsborough families and their enduring quest for the truth. Briefly, I would like to add the nuclear test veterans to that list of campaigners for justice, including my constituent, 88-year-old John Morris.

When John was stationed on Christmas Island in 1956, he was told that British troops were building a new runway. In reality, they were testing nuclear weapons, but the weapons that were intended to keep Britain safe from the Soviet threat were far from safe for the men who were out in the south Pacific—they were effectively treated like lab rats, with little or no protection from harm. John is one of 22,000 British troops who were exposed to radiation while on service in the 1950s, and who have campaigned for years about the cancers and other side effects they endured.

John’s son Steven died at just four months old from birth defects. For 50 years, John and his wife faced repeated indignities. They were wrongfully questioned on suspicion of having murdered their son, denied information about how and why their son died, and denied John’s own medical records. Finally, a coroner’s report suggesting that Steven’s lungs might not have formed properly was revealed. John himself has had cancer, and has had a blood disorder since he was 26 years old. He sent me a message today:

“Great news about the Hillsborough law…for us vets, it’s very positive”,

because it will

“make our lives much easier”

in getting the answers they demand. He is pleased that in September, the Prime Minister agreed to meet him to discuss the issue further, and he is looking forward to that meeting.

There is another Rochdale resident whose campaign will, I hope, also benefit from this new legislation: 83-year-old Sylvia Mountain, who used the pregnancy test drug Primodos, which has already been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends. She gave birth to her son Philip in 1963, but Philip died of birth defects just 22 days after he was born. Today is the anniversary of the day her baby died, 62 years ago. Sylvia was told by doctors at the time to stop being “hysterical”, and has been told that no medical records exist to explain her son’s death, but many other women who were prescribed Primodos suffered similar birth defects in their children, as well as stillbirths and miscarriages. Victims of the Primodos test are still waiting for answers. For more than half a century, these families have faced a culture of concealment—of suppressed evidence, misleading official conclusions, and denial of responsibility.

John and Sylvia—two Rochdale pensioners in their 80s, whose lives have been overshadowed by tragedy and loss in ways that are very different, but also very similar—personify the decades of injustice that this legislation is  intended to prevent from ever happening again. I pay tribute to both of them for their resilience in the face of unspeakable tragedy and suffering, and am proud to have them as my constituents. John and Sylvia want the state to recognise its responsibilities before it is too late for them and others like them. It is in their name, and that of all the other victims of state power and cover-ups, that I welcome this landmark Hillsborough Bill today, a Bill that it has taken this Labour Government to make a reality. \p Caroline Nokes: That brings us to the wind-ups. I call Mike Wood. \p Mike Wood: The Bill is the result of decades of campaigning and struggle by families fighting for answers. The thoughts and hearts of all of us in this House, regardless of party affiliation, are with the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. The tireless work of those families is ultimately responsible for uncovering the truth about Hillsborough and delivering an element of justice for the victims, whose memory was tarnished by the unwillingness of some individuals in authority to tell the truth. The Bill is also testament to the valuable work done by Bishop James Jones and his independent panel, for which we are truly thankful.

The Bill is in no small part down to the effective campaigning of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); he has fought for those who joined him in going to Hillsborough on that terrible day in April 1989, but who lost their life, due to the terrible decisions made by the stadium operators and South Yorkshire police.

Hillsborough stands as one of the most obvious and harrowing examples of the British state’s failure to remain accountable, truthful and candid. Unfortunately, it is not the only such example in recent years. We have had the Post Office Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, the families of pub bombing victims in Birmingham and Guildford denied justice following police misconduct, and the failure of the British state to properly acknowledge and tackle the rape and grooming gangs that have terrorised communities across the country. Each and every one of these failures undermines the British public’s faith in their Government, and each was a scandal made worse by institutions’ attempts to hide from responsibility, and to put their reputations and interests ahead of transparency and justice in the clearest possible examples of abuse of power. Calls for greater candour and accountability are legitimate and welcome; those of us in this place must always remember that our sole duty is to serve the interests of the British people and to do right by them.

I thank all those hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this Second Reading. I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that the Government will table an amendment to extend the duty of candour to cover local inquiries, which was a clear gap in the Bill as introduced. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) spoke about the often heard cry of “never again”. We must make sure that when this Bill enters the statute books, it turns that cry into a reality.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) expressed legitimate concerns about the effectiveness and administration of some public inquiries, and I know those concerns are shared by some Ministers in the Government. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) spoke about the need for a change in culture that goes beyond legislation, so that taking responsibility, rather than covering up failings, becomes the norm, and not just a legal requirement. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) reminded us of the outrageous experimentation on disabled pupils at Treloar school and the lengths that authorities went to hide responsibility. Hopefully some of the Bill’s measures will be of some help to those pupils.

The hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke movingly about how failings in the NHS were made worse by a lack of openness, and about families simply not feeling heard. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) reminded us of the long battle fought by nuclear test veterans.

As noble as this Bill’s intentions may be, we must be ever vigilant for the unintended consequences of well-intended laws. As this Bill proceeds through the House, we will scrutinise it closely to minimise the harms that may arise. In particular, we must make sure that the Bill does not inadvertently create a situation in which Government and public services can no longer function effectively, not because they are falling foul of the Bill, but because they fear that they may fall foul of it if its provisions are applied in ways that the Government did not intend. We must clarify how this Bill will interface with legal and disciplinary frameworks, including the civil service code. We must clarify how new standards of ethical conduct will interface with those and other frameworks, and we must have a clear definition of what it means to mislead the public. Under the Bill, that charge of misleading the public carries a criminal sanction. We obviously recognise some of the safeguards that have been included, but they are not as tightly defined as they might be. If politicians are to be able to represent the public effectively, we must be absolutely certain that this definition is watertight, because otherwise the Bill may give rise to a situation whereby legitimate decisions made by Ministers are subject to politically motivated lawfare.

We rightly expect our parliamentarians, officials and Ministers to speak honestly, truthfully and with integrity, whether in the Chamber or outside, but clause 11(3)(a), by defining dishonesty in terms of

“falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise”,

risks leaving Prime Ministers, other Ministers and even constituency MPs at constant risk of vexatious complaints. We may differ about the adequacy, and even the accuracy, of some of the responses that the Prime Minister gives us at Prime Minister’s questions, but those disagreements must be a matter for the ballot box rather than the courtroom.

We must also have a clear definition of the public interest, which is the idea on which so much of the Bill rests. In our political system, the public interest is not for bureaucrats or judges to decide. The public express their will through the democratic process, and elect Members of Parliament to implement that will on their behalf. Can the Government be sure that the definition  of the public interest in the Bill will not conflict with efforts made by future Governments to implement those democratic wishes? It would be profoundly dangerous for any single Government to attempt to define the public interest in a way that would bind future Governments without giving sufficient weight to the role that the public themselves play in determining and articulating that interest.

At their best, public inquiries offer opportunities to genuinely learn rather than to seek retribution; to establish what happened and how, so that action can be taken to stop such events being repeated, more harm being done to more people, more lives being lost unnecessarily, and more futures being stolen away, so that the oft-repeated words “never again”, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough spoke so well, can actually have some meaning. However, that can only happen with honesty, openness and a degree of trust—in short, with candour from all those involved. If this Bill can help to achieve that, it is well worth supporting. That is why, although we will work to tighten some parts at later stages to ensure that it operates properly, we will support it tonight. \p Alex Davies-Jones: It is a genuine, true privilege to close this Second Reading debate on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law. The introduction of the Bill is a huge achievement, but I echo the Prime Minister when I say that it was not born here in Westminster; it was born out of heartbreak, out of unimaginable loss, out of the tireless courage of those who refused to be silenced. Some of those extraordinary people have been with us today in the Gallery, and to them I simply say, “Thank you. The whole country owes you a debt of gratitude.”

I want to pay particular tribute to Hillsborough Law Now. I pay tribute to Nathan, Pete, Elkan, Deb, Clare and Debbie, whom have all given their time, expertise and passion to this Government to ensure that we deliver the best possible Bill. I pay tribute to the family members who lost loved ones at Hillsborough and met us over the summer, who shared their pain and who have rightly held us to account every single step of the way: Margaret Aspinall, Charlotte Hennessy, Sue Roberts, Steve Kelly, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond.

I also pay tribute to the Members who have stood shoulder to shoulder with the family members: specifically, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friends the Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern)—my very good friend—who chaired the all-party parliamentary group on the Hillsborough disaster for nine years, and is now the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness. I know that it has been significantly painful for her not to be able to speak in this debate, but she is with us tonight, sitting on the Front Bench.

The genesis of this Bill is the fight of the Hillsborough families, but it goes much further. This Bill is for anyone who has experienced an injustice, anyone who has had to fight against the state to be heard, and anyone who  has had to demand the truth when it should have been given freely. At its heart, this Bill is shaped by lived experience.

I also want to thank Inquest for its tireless work, and for holding that vital family listening day back in February with families from a range of campaigns. We heard from so many of them personally about why the changes in this Bill are so essential and the real difference that this will make in people’s lives, and why access to legal aid for inquests where the state is an interested person is so vitally important.

I thank the families of Ruth Perry, Matthew Copestick and Connor Sparrowhawk for sharing their experiences with us and highlighting the importance of this. I cannot thank enough Hillsborough Law Now, Grenfell United, the sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal, those affected by the infected blood scandal, Truth About Zane, and, sadly, so many others, for their time, or Inquest for the report that it produced. That has shaped not only this Bill but wider areas of policy, and that is why it is so important that the voices of victims and those with lived experience are at the heart of what we do in government. But this Bill is not only for the major scandals that have scarred our nation and made the news; it is also for individual families—we have heard many of their stories here tonight—and for the ordinary people who find themselves facing the full force of the state alone.

The Prime Minister has already set out why the expansion of legal aid is so important, but I also want to share a story that shows why this Bill is needed so urgently. In September, I had the pleasure of meeting Will Powell, a father who has been fighting for answers for over 30 years, and I am proud that he is with us today. He has been fighting since the death of his son Robbie in 1990. Robbie was just 10 years old when he died of Addison’s disease. After Robbie’s death, it became apparent that doctors had suspected that he had the disease and, without Will’s knowledge, a test to confirm the diagnosis had been requested but not completed. That meant that Robbie did not receive the treatment that could have saved his life. Will and his family have been fighting for the truth ever since. They have been fighting for the truth about what went wrong and why this happened.

Nothing can bring back Robbie, or those we lost as a result of Hillsborough, Grenfell, Horizon or infected blood, but what we can bring is truth. At the heart of every campaign and every struggle is love—love for those who families have lost, love that has become action and love that is determined to make sure that no one else suffers as they have and that there is lasting change. \p David Chadwick: I commend the Minister for paying tribute to William Powell, who has campaigned for justice for 35 years for his son, Robbie Powell, who died as a result of medical negligence. William Powell has done so much to secure this legal duty of candour, so it is right that he is acknowledged here in this debate, but he is still waiting for a public inquiry into his son’s death. Can the Minister say whether she believes that this case, which has been described as the worst cover-up in  NHS history, meets the conditions for a public inquiry—something that has been called for by the former Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for introducing me to Will Powell earlier this year. I know that the Secretary of State for Wales has also met Will Powell. However, the hon. Member will know that granting an inquiry is a decision for the Welsh Government, and I know that he is having conversations with the Ministers there.

Every single life lost is someone’s whole world. I am so honoured to bring forward this Bill and to represent the families who have so tirelessly campaigned for it, but as we have heard, this is just the beginning. \p David Chadwick: Will the Minister give way? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I will not, as I have quite a lot to get through.

As a victims Minister, I want to put on record my commitment to continue to listen to and provide a voice for victims. I will do everything in my power to make sure that when this Bill leaves Parliament, it does so as the strongest Bill possible. The Government will bring forward an amendment to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the duty will extend to local authority investigations that are intended to capture the likes of the local grooming gang inquiries, and the Kerslake review into the Manchester Arena attack. We will utilise powers in the Bill to extend the duty to a range of ombudsman investigations, such as those by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and the Housing Ombudsman.

I will turn now to the points raised in today’s debate. First of all, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their support for this Bill. It is welcome and, as many have said, this Bill is long overdue. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), raised a number of potential issues with the Bill. She mentioned legal aid and said that the Liberal Democrats would like it to be expanded to those who are survivors, as well as the bereaved. I want to put on record that this is the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation. \p Douglas McAllister: The Bill provides for parity of representation, and will expand non-means-tested legal aid so that bereaved family members can secure advocacy at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, but it does so, as I understand it, only in England and Wales. Of course, justice is a devolved issue, but can the Minister confirm that, despite months of engagement with the Scottish Government on this UK-wide legislation, the SNP Government have failed to confirm that non-means-tested legal aid will be available in Scotland, resulting in Scots families still relying on charity to gain access to justice— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Interventions need to be short. \p Alex Davies-Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, which gives me the opportunity to address some of the issues concerning devolution that were brought up in the debate. A number of hon. and right  hon. Members talked about whether this Bill will apply UK-wide, and I can confirm that the duty of candour provisions will apply UK-wide. However, as hon. and right hon. Members will know, justice is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so the legal system does not apply there in the same way that it does in England and Wales, which is why some of the criminal offences do not apply. It is for Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland to request whether this legislation applies to those nations. Conversations have been positive, and we have engaged very closely with our counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland on this point. We hope that these measures will apply UK-wide, but we cannot mandate for other nations that are not in our jurisdiction.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) made an important point about legal aid. It is for the Scottish Government to determine whether they will apply the same provisions that we are providing for England and Wales. We are providing non-means-tested legal aid for any bereaved person at an inquest where the state is a represented party. It is for Scottish Ministers to determine whether they want to apply the same.

We have had a lot of talk this evening about how long this Bill has been in the making. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned that she was proud that it is a Labour Government, in just over our first year in office, who have brought this Bill to the House. The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about this issue, and they failed. The SNP Government in Scotland have had 20 years to do something, and they have failed. It is a Labour Government who have chosen to bring forward this Bill and to do something about this, to ensure that families get parity on legal aid and that a duty of candour applies across all our public services.

A number of speeches this evening addressed protection for whistleblowers. I reaffirm my commitment to hon. Members that the Bill does require all authorities to set out a process to raise concerns, and to ensure that procedures are clear and accessible for whistleblowers. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), who is vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, requested a meeting with me. I will happily meet her to discuss this matter further, because it is important that we address it.

A number of Members raised the issue of the media, but they will know that that is out of scope of this Bill. This Bill provides a duty of candour for public authorities and public servants. We will ensure that public service broadcasters operate within what they are permitted. However, it is important to note that since the calls for Leveson and Leveson 2 were introduced, the media landscape has drastically and dramatically moved on. The public do not consume media in the same way any more. The vast majority of the British public consume their media via social media. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was on the Front Bench when these issues were raised. She has made a commitment, and she has already met some of the families of victims to discuss what more we can do to tackle disinformation and misinformation, particularly about disasters and issues that arise in public and are then put on social media. I will continue my conversations with her as the Bill progresses to ensure that we address that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) gave a fantastic speech about how we need to be reasonable, proportionate and fair. I want to assure him that, when it comes to legal aid and the parity of arms that is so integral to the Bill, coroners do have the powers to enforce what is considered reasonable and proportionate under the Bill to ensure that families are not faced with an army of barristers when they have a publicly funded lawyer advocating for them. That is not the intention, and we have put that in the Bill.

A number of hon. Members mentioned the definition of harm, and I want to reassure Members again that there is a very low bar for meeting this test. We have ensured that it does cover mental distress, and that that is not the only measure for a criminal offence. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) mentioned those who falsify statistics—crime statistics, for example—where harm would not necessarily come into play. If an officer falsified crime or other statistics to make himself or the police force look better, that would come under the offence of misconduct in public office, so they would be captured in another criminal offence in the Bill.

The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about something that is very close to my heart. He made an excellent contribution on the need for inquest reform, and inquiry reform more broadly. I wholeheartedly agree with him, as do this Government, which is why the Cabinet Office is taking its time to get this right. It is looking at quite a substantial piece of work, and I will endeavour to keep him updated on it as we are actively developing our proposals.

I hate to have to admit it to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) but I am also a red, so I think it is actually Liverpool 3—Everton 1. I want to reaffirm my commitment to working with him and all Merseyside MPs—in fact, all Members in this House—and the families, as the Bill progresses, to ensure that it is the strongest possible Bill.

There were excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens North (David Baines), for Liverpool West Derby, for Knowsley and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who have been excellent advocates for the families of the Hillsborough disaster during their tireless campaigning. I am determined to work with all of them as the Bill progresses to ensure that there is no carve-out for the security services. Just to reassure the House, there is no carve-out: the duty of candour applies to everyone, including the security services and including individuals. However, what is different for the security services is the way in which they report such a breach—they must report it to a senior individual within the service to ensure that national security is protected—and I think we have struck the right balance in the Bill. However, I hear the concerns raised in this House, as there have been concerns raised outside it, and I am keen to engage in such conversations to see if there is anything further we can do on this point.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) mentioned the Chinook disaster. A commitment has been made to meet Members and families of the victims of the Chinook disaster, and I have made a commitment to be at that meeting to progress those issues.

There were fantastic contributions from Sheffield Members who, as well as the Merseyside MPs, have felt the urgency to bring forward this legislation and the pain of the Hillsborough disaster in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) said she gave birth not long after the Hillsborough disaster, and talked about how it has always stuck with her that her baby was at home while so many parents did not get to bring their children home. \p Gregory Stafford: As a six-year-old, I remember the death of Joe McCarthy, who lived on my road in west London, so it is not just about those who lived in Sheffield or elsewhere. It affected everyone across the country, and this Bill is so important for that reason. \p Alex Davies-Jones: Indeed, and for me that is a fantastic point. This law may bear the name Hillsborough, but it is a Bill for the entire country, and this Government have made that a clear commitment.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), the Chair of the Justice Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston, talked about the Independent Public Advocate. As the House will be aware, Cindy Butts has been appointed as the Independent Public Advocate. She is a fantastic individual who has just been appointed to her first role as the IPA, following the horrific attack at Heaton Park synagogue. I am due to meet her later this week to discuss how she has found being stood up for the first time following the introduction of the role in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, and her resource requirements and powers. I will, of course, update the House if we both feel, as the IPA and the Minister, that there is further to go in that respect. I am also due to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston and Lord Wills in the other place to discuss, as the Bill progresses, how we can work together further to look at the role of the IPA. \p Andrew Slaughter: I also mentioned the national oversight mechanism. Whether the Minister thinks it requires legislation or can be done by Government action, does she support having something that is shared, publicised and known about so that we are not constantly repeating things and we know where inquiries have got to? Will she do that in tandem with the Bill, if it is not part of the Bill? \p Alex Davies-Jones: My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, pre-empts my next point, which is on the national oversight mechanism. Again, a number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned that. As the Prime Minister stated in his opening remarks, there is a need for accountability here. We are looking at how we can do that. Work is being led by the Cabinet Office on inquest and inquiry reform, and the Ministry of Justice has already done work on ensuring that prevention of future death reports are published. I echo the Prime Minister: we do not feel that the Bill is the necessary vehicle to put in a national oversight mechanism, but we are looking proactively at what we can do to ensure that there is accountability and transparency so that these inquiries are never again left sitting on a shelf, with recommendations ignored or put to one side.

My good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, and my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned an issue very close to my heart: Orgreave. Hon. Members may know, because I have talked about it with pride, that my father was there on that day. I am the very proud daughter of a miner and nothing has given me more pride than this Government announcing a statutory inquiry into Orgreave, which will be coming forward soon.

When the Bill becomes an Act, it will apply to inquiries that are ongoing. If an inquiry has started or is ongoing, the legislation will come into immediate effect and apply to all inquiries that are under way. I am really looking forward to the recommendations of that inquiry and to the truth we will get, because that, again, is long overdue.

There were concerns regarding the security services and whistleblowers. Hopefully, I have put some of those fears to bed this evening, but I look forward to debating all these issues in detail in Committee. I again extend the offer to meet any hon. Member to ensure that the Bill remains as strong as possible when it finally leaves this place and becomes an Act. I look forward to positive engagement with colleagues across the House.

Finally, the Bill will ensure that no other family will ever have to walk alone. I am immensely proud to commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill: \p UNKNOWN: (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee. \p UNKNOWN: (2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 11 December 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets. \p UNKNOWN: (4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading. \p UNKNOWN: (7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Luke Murphy and Anneliese Midgley be discharged from the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee and Graeme Downie and Lizzie Collinge be added.—(Gen Kitchen, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Samantha Niblett be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Dame Nia Griffith be added.—(Gen Kitchen, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p Emma Lewell: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding the uncontrolled growth and lack of monitoring of houses in multiple occupation across South Shields. HMOs are having a detrimental impact on our community, increasing antisocial behaviour and contributing to the erosion of family housing. Everyone deserves to have a place to call home, and everyone deserves to feel safe in that home. HMOs should not be allowed to be used as a substitute for good-quality, affordable housing.

The petitioners therefore request that:

“the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce new legislation to regulate and lessen the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation; and to ask that each local authority publishes their strategy and policies on HMOs.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of South Shields

Declares that the uncontrolled growth of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) within the constituency is having a detrimental impact on communities, leading to overcrowding, crime, anti-social behaviour, parking pressures, and the erosion of family housing availability; notes that HMOs are subject to different licensing regimes under housing law, including mandatory licensing, additional licensing, and selective licensing; further declares that while these licensing schemes provide oversight of management and safety, the planning system remains the main safeguard against over-concentration; and further declares that without strengthened legislation, HMOs can proliferate unchecked.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce new legislation to regulate and lessen the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation; and to ask that each local authority publishes their strategy and policies on HMOs.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003124] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Morgan.) \p Sally Jameson: Today marks the first sitting day of National Care Leavers Month, and what a way to begin. I am grateful for the opportunity to come to the Chamber and talk about the challenges facing young people once they have left children’s social care, and I very much hope that this month Members from across the House can join together in the spirit of raising awareness of these challenges and working together to bring forward solutions. I welcome the fact that the Minister was the chair and author of the independent review into children’s social care over three years ago. I know that he feels deeply about this area and I am sure he will bring a wealth of experience to his role on the Front Bench.

The theme of National Care Leavers Month 2025 is “Rising as Me: Overcoming challenges, transforming, and finding your identity”. The ages of 16 to 25 are a formative time in the lives of many young people, and care leavers should have the same opportunities to enjoy and explore this period; instead, many face a cliff edge of support and services. \p Helen Hayes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Care leavers need support; they need the state to deliver for them when family is sometimes not there in the way that it is for many young people. Does she agree with me and my Select Committee that we need to iron out the differences in support for care leavers across the country and that we should have a national offer for care leavers so that they can rely on support wherever they are in the country? \p Sally Jameson: I completely agree. As we move through this debate today, I think a theme that will shine through is the need to get rid of what is often a postcode lottery for care leavers.

I want to recognise some of the good work that the Government have already done in this area. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill marks an important step forward in ensuring that support for care leavers endures beyond the age of 18. I welcome the requirement for local authorities to publish a full care offer for care leavers, which will offer clarity and direction. I know that there is already some good practice from my own council in Doncaster, with comprehensive offers of support, including the Staying Put and Staying Close initiatives. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; I spoke to her beforehand. Does she agree that those leaving care may not have had the financial advice and instruction that they should have had and that many of us take for granted? It is imperative that they are taught how to be self-reliant and are able to manage their finances by themselves. Does she further agree that such classes should also teach these vulnerable young people, who do not have a family to help and protect them, how to protect themselves financially and physically from those who would seek to target them? \p Sally Jameson: I agree. I think it comes back to the fact that the offer is very different in different areas, and that is something we all want to address. \p Warinder Juss: rose— \p Sally Jameson: I am happy to take an intervention from my hon. Friend—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Morgan.) \p Warinder Juss: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate. We know that care-experienced people face distinct discrimination and challenges throughout their lives. As of September, 125 local authorities have passed motions to recognise care experience as a protect characteristic, which is an important step towards tackling inequality. Does my hon. Friend think that this might be an appropriate time for the Government to follow suit and recognise care experience as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010? \p Sally Jameson: I do agree, and I am proud that my own council in Doncaster is one of those that has recognised care experience as a protected characteristic. The council also has a supported accommodation service, which includes a rent guarantee scheme and council tax reductions, and a care leaver guaranteed interview scheme. I also welcome the in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill the extension of the corporate parenting responsibility to all Government Departments to ensure a wider net of support and awareness when it comes to care leavers and the unique challenges they face.

Earlier this year I attended the all-party parliamentary group for care-experienced children and young people—along with Minister before he was in his current role—where I met Fay, Caelan and Caitlin from Doncaster’s children in care council. The recognising of care experience as a protected characteristic is due in no small part to the campaigning that young people like Fay, Caelan and Caitlin have led. It just goes to show that if these young people are given the opportunity to speak out, they will lead the way and show us what they need in order to thrive. It is pivotal that they are part of pushing the change we desperately need.

While we have seen some major strides forward, we must recognise the journey still ahead. The state has some responsibilities for care-experienced children until they are 25, but for many, when they turn 18, the support and relationships that have been available to them up to that point are hugely reduced. \p Matt Turmaine: Leaving care can be extremely challenging. In Watford, Hertfordshire’s local authority provides support with housing, finance, education and training, health and relationships, and wellbeing, but does my hon. Friend agree that all these services have to work really well not just independently but harmoniously together to ensure that care leavers can take steps into adulthood in a properly supported way? \p Sally Jameson: I do agree. Having a holistic approach that is the same across all local authorities is really important, especially because children in care often   move around a lot and have to get used to new social workers, teams and support systems. We definitely need to move towards having one support package in place.

According to the charity Become, nearly 4,000 children nationally either moved home or left care during their A-level exams in the academic year 2023-24, and 60 of those children were in my home city of Doncaster. Accounts that have been sent to me from care leavers in Doncaster show the stark reality of life after care. Young people report losing weight, becoming ill, feeling self-conscious when going to a food bank, and being unable to access regular or healthy meals because they cannot afford them. \p Leigh Ingham: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. One issue that came up in my life previous to becoming an MP, and that has come up since, is access to period products for care-experienced young people, particularly as they transition out of care. My hon. Friend has spoken about the postcode lottery, and not all local authorities necessarily provide that support. Although some can access period products through education, care leavers may leave education and not be able to access them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we move away from this postcode lottery and ensure that there is wraparound care, including for care leavers who are not in the education system? \p Sally Jameson: I completely agree. Period poverty can often be overlooked when thinking about the whole system, but for young women in care and leaving care who cannot access those products, it can be debilitating to their ability to access all the other services that we are talking about.

One care leaver in Doncaster said:

“Even though I’m not homeless now and I’m safe and secure, it worries me that that will be the next step. It has happened before and it could happen again”.

Another said:

“I don’t think anyone who hasn’t experienced homelessness could understand how scared I was.”

Many in temporary hotel accommodation and still under corporate parentship have to face the choice between affording food or washing their clothes. One said:

“The government are my corporate parents, and they don’t act like it. Would a parent allow a child to go a week without washing their clothes? Would a reasonable parent allow their child to be homeless or not eat?”

The answer to that is no. \p Darren Paffey: My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point in this debate, which she has thankfully secured. Last week, a group of Southampton care leavers came to Parliament, and raised housing and accommodation as one of the most urgent issues they want us to tackle. I have heard her welcome, as I do, innovations like Staying Put and Staying Close, but supported lodgings are another family-based option for care leavers where the young person gets not only a place to live but the practical help and relational support that she is using those young people’s voices to talk about so powerfully. The early evidence is positive, but does she agree that with too many care leavers living in substandard accommodation and without  that support, initiatives such as Home for Good’s supported lodgings are also worth Government attention, particularly in National Care Leavers Month? \p Sally Jameson: I agree; I will come later in my speech to a couple of local examples of supported lodgings, which, if applied nationwide, would have a transformative effect on the support that care leavers receive.

These young people often do not have the benefit of family support to help them find accommodation, or with rent and security deposits. Because of that, they are incredibly vulnerable not just to homelessness but to a whole raft of predators who see an opportunity to exploit them. Will the Minister work across Government Departments to increase the setting up home allowance, give priority to care leavers on housing lists in authorities where they have resided for over six months, reform universal credit so that care leavers are entitled to the over-25 weighting, and commit to work with the Department for Transport and regional mayors who have powers in the area to give free bus travel to care leavers up to the age of 25? While I am at it with the asks, can we also include free prescriptions for care leavers? In the context of wider Government spending on the population, the numbers are small, but I think everyone in the Chamber—that includes the Minister—knows that doing those things would make a huge difference to the most vulnerable group in our society, including the young people I have quoted and those on the minds of hon. Members in the Chamber.

There are other areas in which care leavers are often disadvantaged; I have seen them myself. When I worked as a prison officer, I was a single point of contact for care leavers in my jail. I learned that, shockingly, it is estimated that 29% of the prison population are care leavers, and they also make up over 50% of the youth estate. Young care leavers are also 10 times more likely to receive an immediate custodial sentence than young people who have not been in care. As a Government, and indeed as a Parliament, we cannot rest while that remains a reality for such a vulnerable group. Will the Minister work with the Prisons Minister in the other place to develop a national care leavers in custody policy, ensuring that support for young people—wherever they move to—is partnership based?

I will take a little time to pay tribute to an organisation in my constituency that has been mentioned previously. Doncaster Housing for Young People, which I am a patron of, provides tailored housing support in the form of supported lodgings with host families as well as floating support to help sustain tenancies. The organisation has shared stories of those who have had to leave foster places when they turn 18. One young woman in that position shared how she was not ready emotionally or financially to live independently, but, thanks to Doncaster housing for Young People, she moved into supported lodgings where she could build life skills, continue her studies and focus on her wellbeing. \p Lee Pitcher: I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Next week marks the first National Supported Lodgings Week. It will celebrate what those lodgings do in offering the wonderful opportunity of a safe, stable home to people who can then grow and have their independence. She and I are both patrons of  Doncaster Housing for Young People, and we know that it has lots of experience supporting care leavers. It is going to go big on National Supported Lodgings Week. Does she agree that the Government should treat supported lodgings as part of the core offer for care leavers, and that we should always strive to make sure that that support is a lot more personal and is less institutional? \p Sally Jameson: I agree completely.

The young person that I was speaking about just before my hon. Friend’s intervention said that they were not ready for their own place but that the supported lodgings made them feel less stressed so that they could relax and get on with what they needed to do. It is quite hard for people who have not been in that situation to imagine what it must be like to be on their own with no support network, no family and often no friends in an area where they did not grow up. When they are out there on their own, those supported lodgings are a lifeline for a lot of young people. I am sure that, when the Minister replies, he will discuss whether we can spread that provision more widely.

Other care leavers have shared how Doncaster Housing for Young People has helped them through linking them up with other agencies, and has offered support and help managing debts and finances. It is that holistic support that is so important to help young people leaving care maintain their confidence and transition into adult life. Doncaster Housing for Young People is one of many charities across the country that offer that tailored support; I thank them all for the work they do for young people. I of course invite the Minister to come to Doncaster to learn from Doncaster Housing for Young People, and to see for himself its incredible work.

Before I finish, I would like to reflect again on this year’s theme for National Care Leavers Month: “Rising as Me: Overcoming challenges, transforming, and finding your identity”. We should all remember that, at the heart of this month, there is a group of young people who innately have the same hopes, aspirations and potential as any of their non-care-experienced peers. They deserve to be ambitious about their future, to realise their potential and to become the adults they want to be. \p Adam Jogee: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the Minister to his place. Just this morning on my way down here, I visited the Newcastle-under-Lyme jobcentre, where I met the brilliant staff who are supporting care leavers to find fulfilling work and the dignity that comes with it. Will my hon. Friend add to her list of asks for the Minister the request that we do more not just through financial support but through directing care leavers towards work that suits their needs and their skillsets, because that is important to give them the dignity to which she has referred? \p Sally Jameson: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I have not touched on this in my speech, but the number of people not in education, employment or training in the care leaver population is higher than the average. That is a fact that we need to take incredibly seriously, because those people deserve to have the same ambitions for their future as everyone else and to be able to realise  their full potential. I am sorry to say that just is not happening at the minute, and it is the job of the Government to make sure it does. \p Rachael Maskell: My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Tomorrow I will be hosting York’s director of children’s services here in Parliament to talk about York’s care journey, which has been phenomenal. It has enabled care leavers to co-produce services and to chair many committees. Does she agree that that is an exemplar that can enable young people not only to gain confidence and experience but to direct their future? \p Sally Jameson: I agree. My hon. Friend’s anecdote and those from colleagues across the House show that there are many examples of good practice across councils and authorities around the country, but it is important to weave it all together to ensure that we have a national strategy and support package so that every care leaver knows what to expect and can access it. Because so many of them have experienced hardship and trauma in their young lives, they probably have—more than most—the drive, resilience and determination to overcome the obstacles ahead, but we need to recognise that the system is stacked against them.

Support and policy in this area are often not what grab the headlines. They are not on all the election leaflets and do not feature in the polls, but if we in Parliament, regardless of politics, cannot protect and improve the outcomes for this most vulnerable group of young adults in our country, we have failed. The Government have the opportunity to let these young people rise as themselves and fulfil their ambitions, so let’s take it. \p Rebecca Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and everyone who has intervened. I will keep my remarks even briefer than I said I would. We have already heard a huge amount about supported lodgings, and that is what I wanted to speak about briefly, as much as anything to highlight the cross-party support for what they represent, and the role that they can play for our care-experienced young people.

Supported lodgings—a family-based form of supported accommodation for young people aged 16 or over—play a vital role. They accommodate predominately care leavers, but also young people at risk of homelessness. In supported lodgings, a young person lives in the home of a host who offers not only a room but guidance, encouragement and belonging.

According to research from Home for Good, which runs the supported lodgings national network, 84% of young people say that supported lodgings feel like home, 89% had a positive relationship with their host, and 90% feel more confident about living independently as a result. As one young person put it,

“Being in supported lodgings allowed me to take the college course I wanted to take and ultimately the career path I wanted to follow.”

Supported lodgings can make a transformative difference. Further research from Home for Good found that when young people live in supported lodgings for six months  or more, we see an average 44% decrease in the number of those not in education, employment or training. Supported lodgings also cost only a tenth of what residential provision costs, while delivering far stronger long-term outcomes for young people.

However, despite what we have heard this evening, awareness remains low. Only 30% of the public have even heard of supported lodgings, and most local authorities report difficulties in recruiting new hosts. That is why I am proud to support the launch of the first National Supported Lodgings Week, which takes place next week, during Care Leavers Month; over 60 local authorities and independent schemes are taking part.

My asks of the Minister are simple: I ask him to allocate dedicated funding to expanding supported lodgings; to reduce reliance on high-cost residential placements; and to improve national data collection, so that we can properly evidence the scale and impact of this vital provision. We are all agreed this evening that every young person, whether in care, leaving care or facing homelessness, deserves not just a place to stay, but a home where they belong. \p Josh MacAlister: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) for securing this debate at the start of Care Leavers Month. She brings to this place her insights from the prison system, in which she saw the tragic and avoidable over-representation of the care-experienced community.

There have been many excellent interventions and contributions by Members from across the House. I particularly want to mention the repeated mention of the important role that supported lodgings can play in our care system. I agree that they are underused—I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and others for flagging that. I will gladly work with all Members to improve outcomes for this group throughout my time in this role. On calls for a national approach to care leavers in custody, I can share that my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are looking at this, and will give Members an update by the end of 2025.

Let me start by making a point that may seem obvious: the disadvantage faced by the care-experienced community is one of the greatest social justice issues of our time. Ensuring that those who grow up in the care of the state have a shot at a good life is a collective obligation, and for too long, we have been found wanting when it comes to ensuring that the obligation is met. That is in part because meeting it is about providing assets that any Government or service would struggle to provide. These assets are so fundamental. They are the need for belonging—a tribe—and the need for something intrinsic to the human condition: lifelong, loving relationships. That is why, at the start of this first ever Care Leavers Month, I say plainly, as the Minister for Children and Families, that the creation and sustenance of those relationships must become the obsession of the care and leaving care systems in England.

When we fail care-experienced people in that endeavour, we leave them with lives that are more isolated, a weaker sense of belonging, and questions about their self-worth. The tragic consequences for some is a life cut short. Suicide and early death are, tragically, a part of the care experience for too many. To start to solve a problem,  we must first confront it. That is why I have commissioned the Department for Education to review the shockingly high number of early deaths in the care-experienced community.

However, we do not need to wait to act, and this Government certainly have not waited. We have a comprehensive plan to fix the children’s social care system at every single level. That is core to the relentless focus of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on breaking down barriers to opportunity at every stage. Let me give the House a sense of the recent action that we have taken to improve support for care leavers. We have removed the local area connection test in social housing allocations for care leavers. That is crucial for those who have grown up in care and moved around between different local authorities. We have expanded corporate parenting duties to public bodies, especially the NHS. We have committed to expanding Staying Close and local authority offers of support for housing. We have disapplied the intentionally homeless test for eligible care leavers, meaning that they should no longer have to declare themselves homeless to their corporate parent in order to receive housing support. Very recently, the Secretary of State for Education automatically made care leavers able to get the highest level of maintenance support at university. Overall, we have doubled down on the Families First programme, which will see many more families stay together successfully, avoiding the need for the care system, including through much greater support for kinship care. \p Jonathan Brash: My hon. Friend has outlined the vast range of steps that the Government have taken in short order to fix a very broken care system, but these things take time, and local authorities are under unimaginable pressure—they are at breaking point in many cases. What can he do in the short term to ensure that local authorities can continue to provide care for looked-after children and do not reach breaking point? \p Josh MacAlister: I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. As a country, we must reset the children’s social care system. We must move away from the crisis-led approach that the system has been stuck in for far too long, and towards earlier effective intervention for families. Local authorities need help and support to do that. They will have my full backing in making that transition. We are rolling out a national programme that will leave no local authority behind in the pursuit of that goal. I will speak to local authorities at the end of this month to set out more detail of how they will get the Government’s full backing to make those changes.

Further to that point, we must do much more to support the recruitment and retention of foster carers across our country. Much of what we see in the care system is a symptom of a fostering system that has been in decline for too long. Next year is the centenary of the fostering system in England, and I cannot think of a better time than now to reset how we do fostering. \p Gareth Snell: Stoke-on-Trent has the second highest number of children in care per capita—second only to Blackpool. The items that the Minister has outlined are welcome for children in my city, but because we have that high per-capita number, the costs are such that more money is spent on  children in care than can be found for those who are transitioning out of care. What is available to local authorities with acute demand that are in distress, so that as a vast number of young people leave care and go forward in life, we are able to put social support around them? \p Josh MacAlister: I am in the unusual position of having been commissioned to do a review for a Government, and of then being in a position to start implementing its findings. One of the things I called for was additional spending to help local authorities that are in exactly the situation that my hon. Friend described get out of that vortex with additional spending, and that is what this Government are doing. \p Tom Morrison: One of my constituents came to my surgery to talk about her experience of being a care leaver. We discussed making care-experienced children a protected characteristic, and the discrimination that she felt in the education system. On local authorities, should we not do more to ensure that schools and colleges have the tools needed to educate our young people about the difficulties that people go through in the care system, so that discrimination is eradicated? \p Josh MacAlister: I completely agree. I first came across these issues as a secondary school teacher, and I see fully the impact that teachers, schools, colleges, and universities can have when these issues are spotted in the classroom and acted on. We absolutely should do more on that.

I conclude by celebrating the extraordinary people who make up the care-experienced community in England. When I meet people who have grown up in care, I always sense a remarkable determination, and the special perspective that they have on humanity and relationships. It is often called a superpower by others, and we should do as much as we can as a country to tap into the incredible talents of that community—talents such as those of Tony Simpson, partner at Oliver Wyman; Meera Mistry, director of strategy at an NHS trust; Allan Jenkins, the award-winning former editor of The Observer “Food Monthly”; Ivor Frank, a barrister at Church Court Chambers; Jack Holton, a baritone opera singer; Lemn Sissay, author, poet, and former chancellor of Manchester University; Samantha Morton, Oscar-nominated BAFTA-winning actress; Kriss Akabusi; Fatima Whitbread; the noble Baroness Lola Young; the noble Baroness Floella Benjamin; and AJ, a young care-experienced person from Coventry whom I had the pleasure of meeting a few weeks ago. He is embarking on his first few months of adulthood with the support of his grandfather, who the care system managed to find and reconnect him with. He has a bright future ahead of him.

I will close with the words of Richard Henry Tawney:

“What a wise parent would wish for their children, so the state must wish for all its children.”

That is the spirit in which we should change the care system. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central for securing this important debate. We must all get to work for those in and leaving care.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.