PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 13 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Madam Deputy Speaker, in the light of continuing discussions about tomorrow’s legislation, I am announcing the following changes to business.

The business tomorrow, Wednesday 14 January, will now be a general debate on Ukraine.

The remaining stages of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill will now take place on Monday 19 January.

The business on Thursday 15 January will remain unchanged. There will be a general debate on new towns, followed by a general debate on financial support for small businesses and individuals during the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

I will announce further business in the usual way on Thursday.

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for advance notice of it, but I think it should be noted by the House that this—I am sure he would agree—is a bit of a mess. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill was in Committee in December, and amendments should have been filed by the Government on Wednesday of last week, but in fact they came on Friday, too late for colleagues to be able to address them. Now we have had a sudden emergency rejig of business tomorrow, and we know not what is going to happen to the ping-pong that was planned for next Monday. Instead will be debating this Bill.

Can the Leader of the House explain why this has happened and what has gone wrong here? Can he also explain what will happen to the legislation and motions that were originally to be debated on Monday 19 January? Finally, can he assure the House that when these matters are brought in front of the House next Monday, the Minister will give a full explanation as to both the ministerial snafu and the substantive issues that have caused this in the first place?

I appreciate the shadow Leader of the House’s comments, not least because we spoke earlier at the earliest opportunity. He will be aware, as will the House, of the importance and sensitivity of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. I recognise that it is not ideal for Members when we have to change business at short notice. Last Friday the Government tabled a series of amendments to further strengthen the Bill’s provisions. We continue to listen to stakeholders on all sides of the debate, to ensure that our amendments strike the careful balance that is required and, where necessary, make changes. For that reason, I decided that we would move the Bill from tomorrow to next Monday. I am not going to provide a running commentary on what the changes might be, but the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), is sitting next to me and has heard what the shadow Leader of the House has said. We will be tabling new amendments tomorrow. The Government will continue to keep all Members updated on this, and on Monday we will have an opportunity to debate these important matters fully.

I welcome the statement from the Leader of the House. However, I am concerned that the Bill has been pulled from tomorrow’s business and that there will be amendments. Watering down the duty of candour, especially for intelligence agencies such as MI5 and MI6, is completely unacceptable. Including the duty of candour in the Bill was meant to ensure accountability, prevent cover-ups and give victims and their families the answers that they are entitled to. If this law is not watertight and does not apply to everyone, it does not deserve to be called the Hillsborough law. Why are the Government pandering to the requests of the security services at the expense of families and the public trust?

The short answer to the question is that we are not. My hon. Friend has been a very strong advocate on these matters and a great support for families. We understand the significance of the Bill, particularly in the region that she represents and wider still. The Government are absolutely committed to the duty of candour. I know that there have been questions about the application of the duty to, for example, the intelligence services. We have been very clear that the duty will apply to the intelligence services, but there is a careful balance that we must achieve. This is not about the principles of the duty of candour being applied but how the legislation will apply in practice and having the right national security safeguards in place. Nor is it about whether we can get there in the quickest possible time. It is about ensuring that we get to the right place and that we do it in the right way.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has approached this with understanding. In thanking him for that, may I say that there has been extensive debate on these matters, and I am grateful to everyone who has taken part. This is an ongoing situation, but it is important that we get the Bill right. It will be the meaningful Bill that we set out to achieve. It is not in the interests of the Bill to try to resolve the next stage by tomorrow. That is precisely the reason I have decided to move it until the beginning of next week—to give that bit of extra time.

I am sure that the Leader of the House shares my concern that families, including my constituents who have been repeatedly failed by the state, had arranged time off work and booked travel and expensive accommodation to make the journey to London, only to be told that there will now be no debate tomorrow. It is, of course, welcome that the Government are listening, but please can my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that the Government listen to MPs, their constituents and campaigners sooner—before we reach such critical points in legislation—in order to avoid such upheaval?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we have not taken these decisions lightly. Of course we try to ensure that any issues are resolved before they come before this House, which is the reason for this change to business, even at this relatively late stage. I am sorry that my hon. Friend’s constituents have already made travel arrangements; I hope that they can be altered in a suitable way. I understand that the meeting with the Prime Minister that was requested will still take place tomorrow. I am sure that my hon. Friend’s constituents will take an interest in the debate on Monday when we get to it.

I completely understand that the Government will want to move business around given the circumstances they are under. However, as the Backbench Business Committee will be meeting this afternoon, will the Leader of the House update the House on whether we will be allocated Thursday 22 January for debates—hopefully we will decide that this afternoon—as well as 29 January?

On Monday, the Lords amendments to the Holocaust Memorial Bill will not be debated. From a personal perspective, as I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on holocaust memorial, it would be helpful to know when those amendments will be debated so that we can be ready for the discussion.

Although I am not in a position to confirm either 22 or 29 January, my aim, to put it slightly differently and to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point about other legislation due to be debated on Monday, is to create minimal disruption. Although Monday might have changed, I do not intend to make major changes to what I have already announced about next week. I am not in a position to say anything about 29 January, but I do not think his Committee should change any plans based on expectations for 22 January.

This is an important and historic Bill about delivering justice for the families affected, so it is perfectly reasonable that we take the time to ensure that it is right. I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who is in her place, for her tenacity in taking the Bill forward. I have tabled a set of amendments to the Bill that would extend the scope of the offence of misleading the public to apply to members of this place. Will the Leader of the House confirm that because the Bill’s consideration has been moved to Monday, there is time until Friday for Members to add their names to those amendments, should they so wish?

I confirm not only that the Government will be tabling amendments tomorrow but that there is time for hon. Members to table amendments as well. I would not discourage hon. Members from tabling any amendments that they had planned to do.

I appreciate the difficulties around timetabling, but this is no ordinary Bill—so important is it to the Government that the Prime Minister presented it on Second Reading. Given that, does the Leader of the House not believe that the House was entitled to something more than the chaos we appear to be seeing in how the process is being handled?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that this is no ordinary Bill. That is why we are taking this important step to ensure that it has proper time and continued engagement. As for the Prime Minister, he cares deeply about these matters—as the right hon. Gentleman said, he took part in earlier deliberations on these matters—and it is his firm view, too, that it is important that we get it right. That is why we are making the decision that the best time for the next stage is Monday, given the other discussions that have been had since, rather than risking rushing it tomorrow.

I have a particular interest in the accountability of public services due to the shocking treatment of some of my constituents by NHS trusts. I was pleased to sit on the Bill Committee, which was on the whole collegiate and comprehensive. I welcome the statement from the Leader of the House that we will be getting the Bill right, but will he assure me that there will be minimal impact on its implementation, notwithstanding that it must go to the other place?

Yes, I am happy to do that. I accept that, thankfully, there has been a collegiate approach on these matters, and I hope that will continue, even if the debates will be on a different day. I confirm that there is no great change to the plan other than the date on which we consider the Bill, which instead of tomorrow will be Monday.

This afternoon, I will present a Bill to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage and kick him out of the House of Lords for continuing his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Since tomorrow afternoon is now legislation-free, will the Government please schedule the Second Reading of my Bill for tomorrow afternoon so that we can kick Peter Mandelson and all those who are pals with convicted sex offenders out of the House of Lords as soon as possible?

I commend the hon. Lady for her ingenuity in weaving something entirely unrelated into these matters. This is a statement on a very specific change to business. We have important plans for tomorrow, when there will be a debate on Ukraine. There have been a number of opportunities for hon. Members to ask for that debate, and the Government now have the opportunity to grant it.

The Hillsborough law has been a long time coming. It has been a journey, and for the families of the victims and survivors, as well as those affected by lots of other tragedies and disasters over the years, it has been too long coming. Will the Leader of the House please assure me and my constituents that this change is about getting it right—I think everyone involved can agree that we need to do that—and not about watering it down in any way?

I agree, and I can absolutely confirm to my hon. Friend that the purpose of the change is to get the Bill right. There is no watering down; it is about getting it right. The only difference is that we need a slightly longer time period to do that, so that when the Bill comes out it commands support and delivers justice for those who have campaigned on these matters for such a long time.

Given the existential importance of the subject of Ukraine, and presuming that the Prime Minister will be in the House tomorrow to answer Prime Minister’s questions, will he be staying on to lead the debate, as would seem to be appropriate? Will the Leader of the House also explain what is happening to the Chagos Bill—the British Indian Ocean Territory (Sovereignty and Constitutional Arrangements) Bill—as there was a motion to regret yesterday—

Order. That is understood.

I cannot confirm who will be leading the Ukraine debate tomorrow, but I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister will be meeting the families tomorrow, so that probably answers that part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. In terms of the Chagos legislation that was scheduled for next week, as I have said I am expecting, hoping for and intending there to be minimal disruption, so while we will not get on to that important matter on Monday, it will not be long after that.

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. While I am here, may I thank the victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for her incredibly hard work on this issue? The Public Office (Accountability) Bill is hugely important, so I understand why the Leader of the House has taken this decision. Will he confirm that any changes made to the legislation will be thoroughly consulted on with the families of those who were tragically lost in the Hillsborough disaster? Will he also confirm that we will continue to ensure that we reach out to victims and their families when we look at dealing with such legislation in the future?

I confirm that the Government and Ministers do continue to speak with stakeholders, particularly the families. A great deal of effort has been put into that both by hon. Friends on the Back Benches and Ministers; I commend them for that. If there are lessons to be learned, we will learn those lessons, such is the progress of legislation; and for future Bills, if there are lessons to be learned, I am sure that we will have done so.

Now that the Chagos Bill has been dropped from the Order Paper for 19 January, will the Leader of the House please confirm when consideration of the Lords amendments will be scheduled?

It may have been dropped for 19 January, but it has not been dropped—as I just said to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), my intention is for minimal disruption—so the hon. Gentleman might want to think what might come shortly afterwards. I will confirm the business on Thursday as usual. If he is in his place on Thursday, he will hear that at first hand.

Given that the welcome intervention by the UN Human Rights Council has arrived subsequent to our own deliberations on the Chagos Bill, may I urge the Leader of the House not to be so hasty and to consider pulling the Bill entirely?

The Government will not be tempted down that track. When the Bill comes before the House again—which will be soon—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, will make the point that he just started.