Ian Byrne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, party colleagues and I wrote to the Prime Minister and the general secretary of the Labour party to raise serious concerns over the allegations facing Labour Together. It is absolutely essential that any investigation into these matters is demonstrably independent, thorough, transparent and, now, wide-ranging, listening to the many voices in this place. For that reason, I ask the Minister to confirm that published terms of reference for that investigation will be brought before Parliament and suggest that the Government should introduce the duty of candour of the proposed Hillsborough law in any investigation.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. We run food pantries in Liverpool with Fans Supporting Foodbanks, and over 60% of those who access those pantries are in work. That is the stark reality of the world we live in. Behind the figures are real families and real children. Alder Hey Children’s Charity made abolishing the two-child limit its primary focus in its Put Children First campaign report. That charity see at first hand the damage the policy causes to the children in our communities. I have spoken to my great friend, the paediatrician Dr Ian Sinha from Alder Hey children’s hospital. He was presented with a child who, at first sight, he thought had leukaemia. It turned out to be malnutrition. Poverty kills. That is why scrapping the two-child limit matters. In my constituency of Liverpool West Derby alone, over 3,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. Nationally, 470,000 children will benefit by 2027, alongside 200,000 adults. That represents a 15% reduction in child poverty, with the living standards of 1.6 million children improving immediately. The impact goes far beyond immediate relief. As we heard at the Right to Food Commission’s evidence session last week in Knowsley, lifting families out of poverty and improving their food security transforms lives, leading to better health outcomes, less pressure on the NHS, higher educational attainment and a stronger future workforce. For those in this place today and many who are not here now who rallied against the cost of lifting children out of poverty, the economic benefit of removing the two-child limit is estimated at £3.1 billion per year through reduced pressure on public services, increased employment and higher tax revenues. It is cost-neutral. For those who speak only the language of the Treasury, it is not only morally right but fiscally responsible. If that floats your boat, that is what we are talking about. We must be honest, though: this measure does not go far enough. We are voting to remove the two-child benefit limit, not the benefit cap. The cap remains, meaning that 50,000 families will see no benefit at all and 20,000 will see only a marginal increase. If we are really serious about ending child poverty—and I hope we are, with the strategy that we are bringing forward—this Government must commit to removing the benefit cap entirely in this Parliament. The Right to Food UK Commission will also call for legislation on a comprehensive right to food, including universal free school meals, transparency on food costs and the requirement for food security to be considered across all areas of policy. I urge colleagues to support the Bill, but I remind the House that when it comes to inequality, we do not get to choose where our moral mission ends. As long as children in 21st-century Britain are growing up hungry or in poverty, there is more we can and must do. Let us remove the two-child limit today, end the benefit cap, legislate for the right to food and build a Britain where no family or child is left behind.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was also one of the seven Labour MPs suspended: for voting, to be quite clear, on an amendment to strengthen the King’s Speech by removing the two-child limit. I had made a vow to my constituents in Liverpool West Derby during the election that I would vote to scrap that inhumane policy at every single opportunity I had—so I did. Today I am grateful and, frankly, relieved that the Government have recognised this policy for what it always was: an immoral attack from the architect of austerity, George Osborne, which punished working-class children. That is everything we should oppose in a Labour Government. Today is a big step in the right direction for the Government elected on a promise to support the most vulnerable, and for change. I am delighted that we stand here today. Shamefully, 4.5 million children are living in poverty in the UK—850,000 more than in 2010. The two-child limit has been a key driver of that increase since its introduction in 2017. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, every single day that the policy existed, 109 children were pushed into poverty and denied their ability to live life to the full. Trussell figures are just as stark: almost one in three emergency food parcels last year went to families with three or more children, who make up just 11% of the population, and more than two in five of those families experienced food insecurity. This winter, food banks have been forced to provide an emergency food parcel every 10 seconds—in one of the richest, wealthiest nations on Earth.

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  The latest information appears to show that Peter Mandelson, when he was a Minister, worked alongside one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles and conspired against the interests of the British people in pursuit of money, power and influence. That strengthens the case for a Hillsborough law to hold those in power properly to account. Under that law, Ministers who used their office to gain a benefit—financial, reputational or otherwise—or who caused detriment to others while knowing that their conduct was improper, would face up to 10 years’ imprisonment. It cannot come quickly enough. Can I ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister a simple question? Will the Government commit to an immediate investigation into who knew what about Peter Mandelson, before and during his disastrous appointment as ambassador to the United States?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I hope you get well soon, Mr Speaker. Lillia Jakeman is 19 years of age and has been given a devastating diagnosis of motor neurone disease. When she was told that she has a very rare form of the disease that can be treated with a groundbreaking new drug called tofersen, her family were given hope. They have since discovered that although the drug is being made available to the NHS free of charge, her local trust has declined to deliver it. This afternoon, her family will be arriving at Downing Street, having walked from Southampton, to highlight this injustice. Will the Deputy Prime Minister work with me, MPs from across the House, Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS bosses to deliver fair access to tofersen for all living with this rare form of motor neurone disease?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. I will be absolutely clear about what is happening in Birmingham: this is not a strike for more money; it is a strike against brutal pay cuts, bullying, and union-busting. Bin workers employed by Birmingham city council have been on all-out strike since March because the council started downgrading their jobs, slashing wages by up to £8,000 a year. In some cases that is a quarter of their income gone overnight. That is not reform; that is robbery. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, these crucial public servants, who we clapped for during covid, are being expected to lose a huge chunk of their wages, something that would drive many of them into poverty. Would MPs in this place accept that proposal? I very much doubt it. It has now escalated; since December, agency workers have joined the strike. That is unprecedented. These workers were brought in to break the strike, but instead they are striking themselves. Why? Because of the bullying, harassment and blacklisting they faced for standing with the union. It is unprecedented; as a former trade union organiser, I have never heard anything like it. One agency manager was even caught on video threatening workers with being barred from permanent jobs if they joined the picket line. That is straight-up intimidation, and it is now the subject of legal action by Unite the union. What is the council’s response? Further strikebreaking, this time on an industrial scale. Despite denying it, the council’s own figures expose the truth. Since the strike began, it has been spending over £1 million extra every month on agency labour and outsourcing—new agencies, new contractors and millions handed out not to workers but to private firms. The result has been more than £20 million wasted so far, rising by almost £70,000 per day. That money could have settled the dispute many, many times over. In fact, it nearly did. In ACAS talks last year, a ballpark deal was agreed, with compensation payments of around £14,000 to £20,000 per worker. It was cheaper than the strike and the legal claims, sensible and fair. Why did it not happen? It was blocked by the council leadership and Government-imposed commissioners. Now, the very same council that blocked that deal faces over 400 legal claims due to the mishandling of the dispute. These are claims that its own legal position has described as extremely weak, and that will cost millions of pounds more. Let me kill one more myth: settling this dispute does not create a new equal pay risk. That does not come from Unite; it is the advice of one of the country’s leading KCs. The real legal danger comes from not settling. Here is the truth: this strike can be ended. The money is there; the deal was there to be made. What is missing is the political will. If the commissioners are blocking the deal, the Government must step in now, because every day this strike is on workers are paying the price, communities are suffering, and public money is being burnt. This dispute is not inevitable; it is an ideological choice. It is time to change that choice for the benefit of the striking workers who want to resume their jobs serving the people of Birmingham—people who are suffering at the moment, as outlined by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, because of the choices being made by the council.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I’ll move on. I thank the Minister for the statement and for the pause. A lot of people were extremely concerned about what was happening over the weekend, myself included, so I think the pause is the right thing to do. This is not just a law or a piece of legislation; this is a legacy. This is about the 97 men, women and children who died at Hillsborough, but also those who have been wronged at the hands of the state. This is hugely important, and it is not party political. It is for the whole House to make sure it is done right. I would like to ask the Minister why amendment 23, which I tabled and which has the full support of everybody connected to Hillsborough, has not been adopted by the Government. Why is it deemed not to be right and proper to be adopted by the Government? It would solve all our issues. Any clarification on that would be great. Could the Minister also give us a timeline? As she rightly stated, we have waited a long, long time for this, and there is a real concern now that the Bill could be kicked into the long grass. I know the Minister does not want that; she knows I do not want that. All the families and campaigners do not want that either. I just ask for a little clarity on those two questions.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I must say to the new shadow Justice Secretary that we have been trying to do this since I was elected in 2019, and we could not even get a seat at the table with the Government then, so to cast aspersions— [ Interruption. ]

• 6 Jan 2026 · Poverty and Welfare Policies · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his hugely important speech. He has touched on some of the horrific stats around food. Does he support the work we are doing with the Right to Food Commission, which is travelling the country over the next six months, to create a road map to introduce a right to food into legislation and end what we are seeing regarding hunger in the UK?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 11, page 9, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 3 agreed to. Clause 12 Seriously improper acts Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 56 is to schedule 3, which place limits on extraterrestrial jurisdiction for offences. I am gravely concerned, because often in the history of cover-ups, those responsible have sailed off into the sunset with fat pensions, unscathed and untouched by justice. The whole point of the Bill is to close that down, but I have a real fear about the current draft of the Bill. Whether an offence is committed outside the UK should be absolutely irrelevant; it should be right within the scope of the Bill. Paragraph 1(1)(a) and (b) is open to being construed cumulatively. If caught by clause 5 and clause 11 offences, an individual has to be both a UK national and inhabiting a residence in the UK. There have been many cases where former public officials have retired abroad and been non-compliant with official investigations, and that cannot be allowed to happen. The IOPC report showed that police officers who had been involved in the corruption of Hillsborough had absolutely got away with it, with no sanctions put on them, and lived the rest of their lives with full pensions. It really worries me that people like them could evade by justice by moving abroad. If accepted, amendment 57 would provide that paragraph 1(2) should apply to clauses 5 and 11, to absolutely ensure that public bodies and individuals within bodies who have failed the British people can be adequately held to account wherever they are in the world. I really hope the Minister considers the amendments, by which we is to strengthen the scope of the law and make sure that those who are responsible for cover-ups and who have harmed people using the hand of the state are held accountable, wherever they reside.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The purpose of the legislation is to lower the costs; we are talking about parity of arms. That was outlined in the evidence sessions.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to reinforce what the hon. Lady said regarding the definition of journalism. It must be tightly defined to prevent the bogus defence that we have seen recently, as made by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—also known as Tommy Robinson. If the purpose of this exclusion is to exempt public service journalists—for example, those working at the BBC—from scope, then it should say that explicitly. There is no reason why it cannot say that. Otherwise, public officials and servants are not journalists, and there is no reason to exempt a lie asserted in the course of writing or broadcasting.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston cannot be here to move the motion because of her father’s illness. She really wanted to be here, and I fully support the new clause, so I am going to speak on her behalf. New clause 1 proposes a post-legislative assessment, within 12 months of the passing of the Act, of how its provisions on the duty of candour and equality of arms are increasing public confidence in public authorities. Specifically, it would examine whether the internal processes of public authorities are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures as they first arise after major incidents. The assessment would also consider the role of the independent public advocate in evaluating how public authorities respond to affected individuals and bereaved families following such incidents. The report would have to explore whether the powers of the independent public advocate should be extended to facilitate the gathering of information to support inquiries and investigations, to ensure that public authorities and officials act in accordance with the duty of candour. It would also have to examine the case for empowering the independent public advocate to instigate an independent panel, similar to the Hillsborough independent panel, and assess the costs compared with non-statutory and statutory inquiries. The new clause would ensure that, soon after the Act comes into force, Parliament would receive a clear, evidence-based assessment of whether it is delivering on its aims, and whether the role of the independent public advocate should be strengthened to secure faster truth, greater transparency, and better support for bereaved families after major incidents. When Hillsborough Law Now launched in 2022, it not only supported the measures in the Bill but called for the establishment of an independent public advocate with powers to set up independent panels like the Hillsborough independent panel. For more than two decades, the legal system failed to deliver truth or justice to the Hillsborough families. In some cases, it even facilitated the propagation of a false narrative, including by officers named in the IOPC report published this week. It was the Hillsborough independent panel, which was established in 2009 and reported in 2012, that finally set the record straight. I wholeheartedly support that statement. Its process was non-legal, document-based and grounded in transparency rather than adversarial proceedings. In two years it achieved what the legal system had failed to do in 24. One of the key lessons of Hillsborough is that the legal system can fail. The two witnesses, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond, spoke powerfully on behalf of this new clause, and the need to look at how panels in the style of the Hillsborough independent panel can help to achieve justice. I want to put on record that I thought they spoke really eloquently. We cannot claim to have learned the lessons fully unless we provide bereaved families with access to a similar process at an earlier stage. The Public Advocate Bills introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston in the Commons in 2016 and by Lord Wills in the Lords in 2014, set out to create an independent public advocate with meaningful powers, including the authority to instigate independent panels akin to the Hillsborough independent panel. The intention was to give bereaved families a route to truth and transparency at an early stage, and to ensure that public authorities could be held to account quickly and that failures in process could be addressed before they became entrenched. However, the office of the independent public advocate, as currently established under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, does not yet carry the powers originally envisaged, as the independent public advocate outlined in last Thursday’s evidence session. I think she is open to having more powers to achieve what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston is looking to set out with the new clause. As it stands, the office of the IPA lacks the statutory authority to gather evidence from those affected, and it cannot initiate independent panels to collate information and assess public authorities’ actions. I cannot say it strongly enough: the Hillsborough independent panel uncovered what happened at Hillsborough because it had access to the police documents and the reports, so it could see the scale of how some police officers had changed the evidence of those who were at Hillsborough. I include in that my own father, whose report of his experience at Hillsborough was changed beyond all recognition. When he eventually saw what the police had put down for him, it caused him great distress, along with many others. What my right hon. Friend has outlined in the new clause is so important, and without the powers in it the advocate cannot replicate the approach that finally succeeded in the case of Hillsborough, when transparency, document disclosure and independent oversight finally brought truth, in a fraction of the time that the legal system had taken. The gap in the powers has real consequences today for families who experience disasters or major public incidents. If we are serious about learning the lessons from Hillsborough and other tragedies, which I believe we are, we need to ensure that the independent public advocate has the appropriate authority and resources to act effectively, and that Parliament can scrutinise whether the office is delivering on its intended purpose. New clause 1 would provide for that, and I support it fully. I urge the Minister to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston laid out in the new clause, and to discuss how we move forward on it.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 56, in schedule 3, page 44, line 27, after “national,” insert “or”.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  For clarity, if a police officer is involved in a Hillsborough-style scandal and then moves to Spain, are they within the scope of the Bill?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response and the clarity that she has added. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning, Sir Roger. The offence of misleading the public is aimed at deterring wrongdoing related to the system, rather than to individual gain or loss, which is adequately covered by the offences under clauses 12 and 13. I feel that proof of harm is therefore inappropriate and will render clause 11 potentially ineffective in a number of contexts. The provision of this new offence and of the clause 5 offence dealing with the duty to assist are vital in making a duty of candour practical and effective, rather than merely aspirational. It is important to recognise that they are different from the codified misconduct in public office or MIPO offences under clauses 12 and 13. The new offences will enforce the proper functioning of public authorities and official investigations, and prevent cover-ups. That is crucial to what we are trying to do with this legislation. The MIPO offences deal with individual wrongdoing by the misuse of office for personal gain, or by causing detriment through gross negligence. The new clause 5 and clause 11 offences are therefore complementary to, but distinct from the MIPO offences, in practice and in principle. Subsection (3)(b) inappropriately and unnecessarily adds the ingredient of “harm” to a victim, but the fact that it is contrary to principle is not the central objection. The real problem is that subsection (3)(b) significantly reduces the effectiveness of the provision, which aims to deter cover-ups rather than punish actual harm to identifiable individuals, although harm to victims may in fact be caused. In some cases, that will not be problematic, but it will negate the provision in other cases where it absolutely should apply: for example, the falsification of crime statistics or the false denial of something previously admitted by state agents to the media concerning a matter of substantial public interest—both actual, real-life cases. That is why I have moved the amendment, and I hope the Minister will recognise that.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s response and the offer of continuing talks with my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to put on record our thanks to Marie Lyon for all the work that she has done. She outlined exactly what my right hon. Friend has said about that report, and the families’ disappointment about the lack of a duty of candour. I therefore fully support the proposal.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot envisage a circumstance where clause 2(5) would be enforced. All reasonable steps could include deferring to the authority lawyers or senior leadership teams. We have seen exactly this example in the Kerslake inquiry following the Manchester Arena attack, where the former chief constable of Greater Manchester provided a false narrative regarding the police response. At the subsequent public inquiry, he accepted he had made a grave error but still blamed the senior leadership team and lawyers. It is unlikely that he would have risked misleading said inquiry if he had command responsibility, which goes to the absolute heart of this legislation. Section 3 extends clauses 5 and 11 offences to officers within authorities, such as managers who deal with particular investigations or statements, but only when they can be identified as the wrongdoers. It is a welcome provision, but it is only complementary to command responsibility. It would catch all those contemplating a cover-up lower down the authority, but it does not impose command responsibility on those at the top. We saw that with the evidence last week with regard to the NHS. Healthcare regulations have been pretty ineffective in this regard, partly because enforcement applies only to the organisations, and not the command. That lies right at the heart of the Bill.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that, and she is absolutely right; a commitment was made not to weaken that. Clause 2(5) of the Bill imposes a duty on the chief officer or chief executive to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure corporate compliance, but that is not command responsibility—I think that is a really important point. It is far weaker, and I feel it will be ineffective. Command responsibility is straightforward and places the responsibility for the discharge of the corporate duty on the head of the body.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 5, page 5, line 18, after “objectives” insert: “or are reckless as to whether it will do so,”. This is simply a strengthening amendment that has come from the lawyers, and which I hope the Government will take on board. It is worth pointing out that we only have one shot at this. We need to ensure that there is no unfortunate language that perhaps does not allow the Bill to be as strong as we need it to be, so I hope the Government will accept the amendment. The current wording in clause 5(1) sets the mental element of failing to discharge the duty as intent, and the mental elements of failing to provide the information in the duty as intent or recklessness—being cognisant of the risk and choosing to take it nevertheless. We feel, and I certainly feel, that this is a baseless distinction and an anomaly. The mental element should be the same, and the amendment would rectify that. It is simply a strengthening amendment to make sure that we shut any gaps.