Ian Byrne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q As you have outlined, and as has been said lots today, this is the legacy: this is what we have all been fighting for, and what you have fought for, for a long time. Andy, you alluded to what you feel needs to be in the legislation, but I want you and Steve—you touched on it being 80%—to put on record your support for the amendments and what you feel needs to happen for this to be the legacy that you envisaged a decade ago, given all the fighting to get to where we are today. It is important that we have on the record, from the pair of you, what you expect to be in the legislation. Steve Rotheram: First, I talked before about the responsibility sitting with you. There cannot be any diminution of the substance of what is already going through the system, but you can use this Committee phase to ensure that we tighten up some of the things that we were unable to get during the negotiations, which ensured that we at least had a Bill to put before Parliament. That is the first thing. The second thing is that we need to ensure that the main planks—the ones that Andy was talking about before—remain at the forefront of everything that we do. It is about those protections. As you said, this is of course the legacy for the 97. All the families I have spoken with are absolutely delighted at the way in which the parliamentary process has gone so far. Pete Weatherby has done a brilliant job for us. If you listen to anybody, you need to listen to people like Pete Weatherby, and others, who have been on this from day one. They know all the caveats that need to be included so that we do not have wriggle room for occasions in the future when tragedies might occur and people try to get away with it. Ian, you talked about this earlier. I would love the Bill to be able to ban things like The Sun , following its unconscionable and scurrilous lie, which within days of the tragedy set the false narrative. I know that Leveson 2 is not part of the scope of this Committee, but we need to clamp down on those things and stop them happening in the first place. The untold damage that things like that have done to reputations and to people—the falsehoods are still believed by some people 36 years later—is unfathomable to me. Andy Burnham: I endorse what Steve just said and the evidence given to you earlier by Nathan Sparkes. Leveson 2 is part of the Hillsborough story, and we believe that it is needed to have the full story. There is one area that I have not touched on today, but which we need to talk about: the exemption for the security services that we are told is, in effect, in place. That was not the case with my 2017 Bill. That is relevant to us here in Manchester: a false narrative was given by the security services, by MI5, to the Manchester Arena inquiry, and it was subsequently exposed only by the evidence of individual officers. This is not about material going into the public domain that should not. Obviously, there is a proper exemption for some things going into the public domain, but where things do go into the public domain, they should be accurate and truthful. We have seen the BBC being given false information by the same organisation, so I do not see that the security services can be exempt. In some of the issues in this country that still need further work—the Shrewsbury 24 would be one example—there was definitely the involvement of the security services, domestically, against people. Are we saying that that should be exempt and should not be part of this? What about Orgreave? I do not know the full extent of their involvement there, but certainly the forthcoming Orgreave inquiry should not have that cut off in any way, shape or form. That is something that needs to be addressed in a proper way. No one is calling for things to be put into the public domain that should not, or that would compromise the country or our safety in any way. However, where things are being said, they have to be truthful. I do not think the Security Service gets an opt-out on that, as they seem to think they should have. That would be my final statement. As I think Steve was indicating, can I thank the Committee? You seem to us to be doing exactly the job we would hope you would do. We congratulate the Government on introducing this legislation in the current state it is in; it is obviously substantially meeting the tests of my Bill, as I have said. But let us not leave loopholes, grey areas or overly high hurdles that can be exploited—that has damaged public trust in the authorities of this country. This Bill should leave no doubt whatsoever about what should be expected in the future and should back people, from the off, to get truth, justice and accountability.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Dr Chopra, you have talked a lot about cultural change and how we effect that. Do you agree that the ineffectiveness of the duty of candour in the NHS is due to the fact that it applies to the organisation and not the command? Dr Chopra: Can you say a little more?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It is good to hear evidence from both of you, Chris and Richard, and I echo that the legal aid element of the Bill is great news. I am a bit concerned about some of the mood music around scaling up for the parity of arms, because that was needed yesterday. From the evidence we have heard and our experiences, we know that is so important. It is such a crucial part of what we are trying to achieve here on accountability and justice for victims. In a world where the Bill is passed into legislation in May, what would the timescale be for scaling up so we have parity of arms at inquests? What would be the timescale, and what would you need? I would like that on record. Richard Miller: First, we need to get the structure for the legal aid administration resolved, and we need to have discussions with the Ministry and the Legal Aid Agency about what training is required, what can be provided and how quickly it can be developed. It might potentially be helpful if a plan could be published that sets out, “This is the plan for meeting the capacity requirements here”, and on which we and the Government and perhaps the Legal Aid Agency could all say, “Yep, we agree that is the route forward. That is the road map. Those are the milestones and timelines that we think we will need for it.” I do not think we are in a position today to be able to say, “Yep, this is the time that is required”, but I do not think it would take too much work to develop a plan that would help us understand what would be required and how quickly we could get there. Chris Minnoch: I have some minor points to add. We will need an amendment to the Bill to fix those structural issues. The Bill, as currently drafted, is based on the existing funding model, which does not support sustainability and creates unnecessary complexity in the system. The way in which the funding mechanism works does not enable it to be completed in the same way as other areas of civil legal aid. The earlier those amendments are made and the Bill receives Royal Assent, the earlier current practitioners can make a conscious business decision to say, “Yes, this is an area in which we can take on more staff and start training them up, or divert resources from other areas into inquest work.” One of our concerns is that this might mean that lawyers take on a higher proportion of inquest cases than they currently do, and one of the things I would like to see the Ministry of Justice actively thinking about is how you put mechanisms in place that support lawyers to do such complex and potentially harrowing cases. I think that is partly an issue for the Ministry of Justice, and partly an issue for the legal sector. The legal aid sector is not particularly good at looking after itself, given the nature of the cases it does. That is as much about having an adequate fee scheme and having the right levels of training and supervision in place to do that.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thanks, Daniel—it has been a fascinating evidence session so far. You have a lot of personal experience with MI5 over the last couple of years. Do you genuinely believe that the provisions of the Bill, as drafted, will drive the cultural change that we feel we need? Daniel De Simone: For MI5? No, I do not think so. Look at what the head of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, has said. He said in a speech last month that there are particular responsibilities on MI5 as a secret agency to comply with oversight and be as transparent as it can with these sorts of things. He was talking with reference particularly to the fact that MI5 was found to have given false evidence in our case. So strong words are clearly being said. The trouble we have in our case is that when we showed that there was false evidence, and they accepted that, the third in command of MI5—the director general, strategy—then came along and gave an account to the court that the court, the Lady Chief Justice, the president of the King’s bench division and the head of the administrative court now say was not an accurate reflection of the closed material. That happened after they said they were going to be very transparent with the court. They really had to be dragged to the point they are now in, where there is an investigation that the court—the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—required. That is being carried out under the auspices of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. His organisation was also misled. In our case, every kind of judicial body charged with holding MI5 to account, or its regulator, has been given false evidence. That is an issue, and it calls into question issues around a duty of candour. Lord Evans said in his evidence earlier that there is already a duty of candour responsibility on MI5 and the Government in the courts, and that is true. In our case, they have admitted that they did not meet that test. It is there; the issue is that it is not always being complied with. As I understand it, the point of the Bill is to strengthen that duty and enforce it. That seems to be why it is there.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you, Lord Evans, for your support of a Hillsborough law. We heard clear evidence this morning about the Manchester Arena bombing, and we are going to hear later on from a BBC reporter that the Security Service is not immune from the problems that the Bill has been created to address. My question is, if the Security Service has to go before an inquiry, why should they be treated any differently from a police officer? Surely, it should be the actual agent who answers the questions, and not the corporate body. We saw clear differences in Manchester, where many agents were summoned to give evidence, from what the corporate body was saying. As you outlined, we have to remember what this is about: it is about getting to the truth to give justice and accountability. My fear, as things stand, is that that will not happen with the security services. Lord Evans of Weardale: I understand why you have that concern. As is often the case in these difficult cases, we have two competing public goods. As a country, we benefit from having an intelligence community that can keep us safe; we need to protect that and ensure, therefore, that the agency is not hampered in doing its job. In my previous answer, I tried to explain why I would have, and continue to have, concerns about that being done on a bilateral, immediate basis, without the agency itself being aware of the disclosure. That could be one model, but I do not think it is the right way to do it. Of the three agencies, I am most familiar with MI5. How accountability works there is that individual agents, as you put it—officers, we would say—do give evidence. If you look at the courts, even though not all the material can be presented in open court, closed material procedures are in place in the courts.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  With the strengthening amendments. Pete Weatherby: Yes. There is no silver bullet or absolute answer, because if people choose to lie, they choose to lie. What we are doing here is putting in so many deterrents—we are not interested in locking people up; we are interested in deterring them in the first place. The answer to the second question, building on the answer I gave Maria Eagle, is that the Bill goes a long way to solving the problem, but the amendments would make it much better. On the question of international partners, let me deal with it this way. If the head of the French secret service were sitting in Paris, reading the BBC reports of the Daniel De Simone case, in which it is clear from the High Court that the security services misled two different constitutions of the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, or reading the account of what happened with the misleading of the Manchester Arena inquiry, would they think, “Well, it’s good that the British secret services are doing that,” or would they think, “Next time we have a dealing with them, can we believe what they say?” The more candid that we can make this, the better the relationship with international partners. There is no threat here; that is a completely false road to go down.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q If they are not added, will the Bill be poorer for it? Will you have confidence in the Bill without them? Charlotte Hennessy: I think they are needed; they make the Bill stronger, and anything that makes the Bill stronger is imperative. Steve Kelly: We touched on it before—sorry, I am not sure who it was—but there should be more sanctions on the press. Without the press reports, the Hillsborough story would not have been as disastrous for us and would have not taken so long to come to a conclusion.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It is good to speak to you, Peter. I have a couple of quick points after what we listened to last week when we went to visit the security services; this was raised, and I would like your opinion on it. First, will anything in the Bill compromise the UK’s intelligence sharing with its partners? Secondly—we have come a long way to get here today, and I just want a definitive answer to a blunt question, because we really only have one shot at this—in its present format, would the Bill prevent a Hillsborough-style cover-up? I know that you just alluded to this with Maria, but I want a definitive answer on the record. Pete Weatherby: I think that if the amendments that we are putting forward were made, it would be almost impossible for a Hillsborough-style cover-up to follow.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thanks to the four of you for what you have done, and for what you put yourselves through all the time to get here. You know as well as I do that this is the legacy, isn’t it? This is our opportunity to create something that, as Margaret so eloquently said, is for future generations. Is there anything in the Bill that needs strengthening? This is our opportunity to do it. Is there anything missing from the Bill that you feel needs to be added in an amendment to give you the comfort that this is the true legacy for all your loss? Charlotte Hennessy: We fully endorse all the amendments that Peter has already submitted.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q To Tom and Professor Lewis, under the Bill as drafted, could a public authority have a legitimate reason for not complying with the duty of candour? If yes, can you give me an example? Tom Guest: I partly covered this previously but, to draw that out, no, we have not identified any freestanding offence, either in the statute or in general, that is likely to apply. It is important to underline that clause 3(7) covers the fact that if there is another Act of Parliament or another rule of law that prohibits providing information, the duty of candour does not override that. That is the only exception to the duty of candour that we have identified to draw to your attention.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) stated that Maccabi Tel Aviv have “played a game in Istanbul where there was no trouble at all.” UEFA moved the game to Hungary after Turkish authorities refused to stage it in Turkey. Hungarian authorities then had it played behind closed doors, hence no trouble.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  First, I pay tribute to the volunteers who serve on the safety advisory groups—a thankless but hugely important task—who will be really worried about today. The safety of football fans has, at times, been at the very bottom of priorities in this place. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the safety of supporters is absolutely paramount in the Government’s thinking, rather than the politics around this matter?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The Prime Minister has the ball in his court. He has made personal commitments to Liverpool, to the Hillsborough families and to survivors of other state-related scandals. He is perhaps the most qualified Prime Minister in history to understand why this matters, but understanding is not enough. We need courage, we need leadership, and we need action. I have met countless campaigners who are formidable, tireless and brave. They have been underestimated by the establishment for far too long, but they will not go away, and neither will I. As somebody who was at Hillsborough, I carry this fight in my bones. I will not rest while injustice persists, not just for those who died at Hillsborough, but for everyone who has been wronged by the state. Unless the state learns from its mistakes, it will repeat them, and lives will continue to be destroyed. The time for delaying is over, and the time for diluting promises is over. We must legislate, we must protect truth, and we must honour those who have died at the hands of the state, and those who have fought for justice on their behalf, not with words, but with law.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  I agree 100%. The then chief constable of South Yorkshire police said after the findings of the Hillsborough independent panel in 2012: “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.” By that point, 23 years after Hillsborough, the game was up. Even South Yorkshire police had to admit that there had been a cover-up of the true facts on an industrial scale. At the end of the Hillsborough processes in 2020, 31 years had passed. A jury at the inquests had found to the criminal standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that those who died had been unlawfully killed by the gross negligence of the match commander. The police force involved had settled the cover-up cases, having publicly acknowledged that disgraceful lies had been deliberately told by senior officers to shift the blame from the police on to Liverpool supporters. Yet, disgracefully, no public servant or police officer has ever been convicted of any offence or even disciplined. In fact, one of the officers at the very heart of the cover-up, Norman Bettison, not only escaped sanction, but was rewarded. He received a knighthood—a title he disgracefully holds to this day. Truth, but no justice. Would anybody in this place argue that it was right that those responsible for the 97 unlawful deaths of innocent people walked away without any consequences? I would wager not. However, 36 years after the Hillsborough cover-up, nothing has changed. The very establishments and vested interests responsible for this culture are once again looking to maintain the status quo and the ability to continue state cover-ups and deny justice to those wronged. This place, which has been at the heart of this culture and done so much to enable cover-ups, must acknowledge today that the game is up and act with clarity and moral courage to push back against those vested interests. That is why we need a duty of candour, which was built into the proposed Hillsborough law of 2017. Establishing a legal duty of candour on public authorities, public servants and corporations that are responsible for public safety would set out a legal principle that they have to tell the truth. Is it not remarkable that that was necessary and remains so?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; she is spot on. Out of sheer desperation at the situation, in July I used a private Member’s Bill, the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, to reintroduce the original Hillsborough law—the 2017 version. The Government rejected it, so here we are today, without the Hillsborough law, fighting against those same vested interests, and the clock continues to tick while people’s belief in politics and politicians continues to erode. Let me be absolutely crystal clear for the Government: a full duty of candour with criminal sanctions is non-negotiable in any legislation bearing the name of Hillsborough. It is not a technicality; it is a moral imperative, and it is a moral and legal imperative that it sits at the heart of every inquiry, investigation and inquest, local and national—no exceptions. Nothing less will change the culture, because carve-outs become cover-ups, and this must never be allowed to happen again. Simply, if it had been law at the time of Hillsborough, we would not have waited decades for justice. So much pain and suffering could have been avoided, and families could have grieved for those lost instead of fighting the state for truth and justice. The duty of candour is about accountability. It is about preventing cover-ups, and it is about restoring public trust. The second pillar of the Hillsborough law is legal parity, which is equally vital. Time and again, bereaved families have faced the might of the state with no legal support, while public bodies are armed to the teeth with expensive teams of lawyers. Parity of arms is essential to stop false narratives being spread and families feeling like it is them who are on trial. That imbalance is not just unfair; it is grotesque. I pay tribute to Deb Coles and the team at INQUEST for their constant championing of this. Their work was highlighted in “All or Nothing: A report on the Hillsborough Law Family Listening Day”. I urge everybody in this room and beyond to read it, to understand why parity of arms is so fundamental to gaining truth and justice. If the Government resist a full duty of candour without exception, what does that say? Do they believe public officials should be allowed to lie with impunity? Do they believe families should continue to be denied justice? Opposition to this legislation is not about practicality. It highlights the power of vested interests. It is about protecting the status quo—a status quo that has caused untold harm to so many. The ball is now in the Government’s court. More specifically, it is in the Prime Minister’s court.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered duty of candour for public authorities and legal representation for bereaved families. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am here to speak about the urgent need for a statutory duty of candour and the full implementation of the Hillsborough law, and to oppose the forces that want to fight against this change. Historically, the state has taken a defensive position to protect its own interests. From the Peterloo massacre to Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, the Post Office scandal, Grenfell, the contaminated blood scandal and nuclear test veterans, to name but a few, the list of state cover-ups is long, exhausting and utterly shameful. So many families have been denied truth and justice because of the current system, which enables cover-ups. How and why has a system been left in place that has continually enabled the establishment to evade truth, accountability and justice for those wronged? That is a question that this place and this country should think long and hard about. I was at the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 when 97 innocent women, children and men lost their lives and countless more lives were destroyed. It was not just a tragedy; it was a betrayal—a betrayal compounded over decades by lies, cover-ups and institutional failures.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister reflect on the fact, though, that Bishop Jones’s report was in 2017? He was asked to deliver it by the then Prime Minister, Theresa May. The Conservatives had a long time in government to implement the Hillsborough law. The shadow Minister mentioned some of the things they did, but it was not enough. I have been here since 2019, and I have continuously asked Minister after Minister to deliver the Hillsborough law, but the fact is, you failed us.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for those valid points. The third aspect of the Hillsborough law would make new offences of wilfully failing to discharge the duty to fully assist inquiries, or intentionally or recklessly misleading the public or media. That would be an absolute game changer and would transform the country for the better. That leads me to the current situation. In the 2024 King’s Speech, the Government pledged to bring forward legislation to enshrine a duty of candour for public servants. They called it the Hillsborough law, and it was what was promised in the manifesto that I, and many Members present, proudly stood on in the 2024 general election. We thought it was the same legislation as the Hillsborough law that was first brought to Parliament by Andy Burnham in 2017 and written by Pete Weatherby KC and Elkan Abrahamson, two prominent lawyers who have represented Hillsborough families for decades and continue to work with the Hillsborough law campaign. The Government promised that they would ensure that public officials tell the truth and proactively co-operate with investigations. They also promised parity of legal representation for bereaved families. I, as lead for the Hillsborough law campaign in Parliament, and all the campaigners connected with it over the years, were delighted by that commitment, which the Government promised to deliver by the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough on 15 April this year.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is spot on. The second aspect of the Hillsborough law would put that new legal principle of truth into practical use by requiring public authorities, public servants and corporations proactively to assist investigations, inquests and inquiries, and providing a legal toolkit to help families and others to make them comply.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful point—I agree 100%. The Government’s promise to deliver that commitment by the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough was broken. Instead, they offered a watered-down version of the legislation, stripped of its moral force and legal teeth. Lawyers who drafted the original Bill refused to endorse it, negotiations stalled, and once again the families were let down. It felt a continuation of the betrayal by the state. Although the Paymaster General told me in this place in July that the Government remain “fully committed” to introducing a Hillsborough law, we still have no clarity on when or how those provisions will be enacted. There have been plenty of warm words, but warm words do not deliver justice—action does.