PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families - 3 September 2025 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

Before I call the Member in charge, let me say that 21 Members want to speak, which will mean two to two and a half minutes for each speech. There are also a lot of people who wish to intervene. I am letting the Member in charge know that in order to give him an idea of when he might want to finish his speech—I suggest that he takes no longer than 20 minutes.

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.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for all the amazing work he has done on this subject for such a long time. Does he agree that if the Hillsborough law is not delivered as promised, it will be a massive betrayal of not only the people of Liverpool, the families and the survivors, but the whole country?

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?

Does my hon. Friend agree that to change the culture of cover-ups that has caused so much harm to so many, we must have a duty of candour, with criminal sanctions for individuals as well as organisations and authorities?

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.

I wish to make it really clear that I am vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, a non-profit-making organisation set up to protect whistleblowers. Nothing should slow down the promised Bill, and it is essential that those who hold public office are held fully accountable. If we are to prevent the now constant stream of scandals that blight so many innocent lives, we must not overlook the fact that the people involved in Hillsborough and every similar scandal speak up, but the system lets them down. Will the Minister address directly the fact that, as part of the important new Hillsborough law, the Government should commit to protect those who exercise their duty of candour from retaliation by also committing to the introduction of an office of the whistleblower?

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.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who the whole House will agree is making an excellent and powerful contribution. I congratulate him on all the hard work that he has done to advance this issue. He is right to set out the essentials of any Bill, including the duty of candour, criminal responsibility, and the criminal sanctions to follow. Does he agree that any attempt to water down the Bill in any way will be rejected and be unacceptable to the House?

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.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the hard work he has done on this issue since he entered the House. As he was speaking, I thought to myself that in all the cases that have led to these discussions—Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, nuclear test veterans, the Primodos scandal and countless others—the victims and their families have had to deal with the initial trauma of the incident and then the prolonged trauma as a result of all the lies that have been told. Does he agree that introducing a duty of candour would protect victims and their families from that prolonged trauma and that that should take priority over protecting the public body that is responsible? That is how the Government can show victims and their families that they are listening. This is why my hon. Friend is so forthright on bringing forward a Hillsborough law—because it would include the duty of candour.

Order. Interventions should be short, as so many Members want to speak.

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.

I should explain to my hon. Friend that I will have to leave the debate to attend a meeting about the violence meted out in a demonstration outside an asylum hotel in my constituency, but I want to make this point very clear. Labour is going to Liverpool for its conference in three weeks’ time. If this legislation is not sorted by then, it should not expect a welcome from the people in Liverpool, because we have waited too long.

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.

Order. As I have indicated, a lot of people wish to speak. I will start with a formal time limit on speeches of two and a half minutes, but we might have to reduce that further.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate today. I recognise that he is a survivor and that he has had the courage of his convictions to talk about this issue. It is challenging not just on a personal level, but with the responsibility of carrying on his shoulders the families and what they have wanted for so many years. I give credit to him and everybody in this House who have carried that so well.

Above all, I want to pay tribute to the families and campaigners, some of whom are here today—it is fantastic to see that—who have kept the campaign for the Hillsborough law alive. We would not be here today without their courage, persistence and awe-inspiring efforts over the years. We have seen this many times in the UK; whether it is Hillsborough, Grenfell, the infected blood scandal or Primodos, it is completely endemic throughout our system and our politics. Coming from Northern Ireland, it would be entirely remiss of me not to state that many people in Northern Ireland throughout the decades have been most egregiously let down by the state.

I want to take some time to talk about my constituents, the Conroy family. Their father, Royal Ulster Constabulary Detective Chief Superintendent Desmond Conroy, was one of the people on board Chinook ZD576, which crashed in the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994, killing all 29 people on board. It was an absolutely immense tragedy, and a loss to the intelligence and security services in Northern Ireland at that time.

For 30 years, the Conroy family, the Phoenix family and many others have had their names and their family’s names brought through the mud. Not just that, but the two people, Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, who were piloting the craft that day, also had their reputations tarnished posthumously—normally people are honoured posthumously. All 29 people on board that craft—although it is not relevant materially—served their country with distinction. How were they honoured? They were honoured by their families being blocked at every cut and turn, and by being told that it was “in their head” and that they were conspiracists.

It is a pleasure to see so many people here. We clearly cannot do justice to this subject in two and a half minutes, but in a way, the number of people here speaks more eloquently than any speech. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing the debate and for all the work that he has done on this issue. He has rightly identified two essential elements that are necessary to ensure justice where there is a major event resulting in death or serious injury.

This is something that the Justice Committee—and the predecessor Committee to the one I chair—has been calling for for many years. Four years ago in a report, the Committee recommended that

“Non-means tested legal aid should be automatically available at the most complex inquests such as those following public disasters. In all inquests where public bodies are legally represented bereaved people should be entitled to publicly funded legal representation.”

That is something that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also found. Indeed, when considering the issue of the duty of candour in 2023, it recommended that a duty to be candid at inquests should be extended to all public bodies. That is essential if we are not to continue to make the horrific mistakes that have been made, not just in the case of Hillsborough, but in many other tragedies over the past years and decades.

In the short time I have, I will mention two other important elements. Yesterday, the Justice Committee interviewed an outstanding candidate for the Independent Public Advocate, Cindy Butts, who endorsed the need for legal representation and the duty of candour. If she is appointed later this week, as I hope she will be, she will be outstanding in championing these matters.

The final point I will mention is a national oversight mechanism, which is equally important. In many cases, even where there has been a proper hearing, recommendations have just sat on the shelf. I fully support the campaign of Inquest and other organisations to ensure that we have that mechanism in the future. It needs to be part of this package of measures going forward.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on bringing forward this debate and on the passion with which he is advancing the case. The attendance in the Chamber today demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue. My contribution will draw attention to an area of Government where the duty of candour already exists, at least supposedly—the Department of Health and Social Care. I hope that the Government will learn lessons from the way in which that is conducted within the Department.

I relate the case of one of my constituents, Joe Poynton, whose daughter Sally was murdered by his undiagnosed paranoid-schizophrenic grandson Jacob in June 2021. For three years prior to her death, Sally battled unsuccessfully to get diagnosis and treatment for Jacob. He is now receiving that in hospital, but the family are devastated at the price that she had to pay—and they are paying—to achieve it.

There is a long tragic history of innocent people being killed by young people with schizophrenia, sometimes undiagnosed and sometimes diagnosed, but usually on the radar of mental health services. Sally Poynton had made repeated attempts to get her son diagnosed, but the service never got on top of the issues. I have already furnished the Minister with my questions, because the attempts to get reports out of the NHS have simply failed—reports have been heavily redacted.

What legislative changes can be brought in to correct the failings of the service in this case? What legislative changes are proposed to ensure that an adult discharged from hospital following a mental health admission has a GP assigned to them? Can the Minister ensure that measures are proposed to reverse the disappointing lack of professional curiosity within the service? Finally, can the Minister ensure that there is legal representation at all inquests? The NHS has professionals, barristers and lawyers supporting it, and individuals and families do not.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate. The day of 15 April 1989 will never leave us. On that day, 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; that Sun front page; a cover-up; the systematic failure of the state; and still not one successful prosecution.

Charlotte Hennessy is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Sir Mark Tami), who, as Government Deputy Chief Whip, cannot tell her story. Charlotte was six when her dad, Jimmy Hennessy, died. Jimmy was a plasterer, a man of morals, and a mod—he looked good. She was told that he died of traumatic asphyxiation, but in 2012 she learnt the truth: her dad was found alive on that pitch. Jimmy was carried to the gym, where he was meant to receive medical help, but he was declared dead. He was not; he was still alive when he was zipped into a body bag—he vomited inside it. Jimmy did not die in the crush; he died of his own vomit while zipped inside a body bag.

Charlotte told me that a Hillsborough law with a duty of candour is imperative. The Government must now match the courage of the families and campaigners who have fought for this. Will they be bold enough to lay the Hillsborough law?

Hillsborough was not a one-off. Again and again, the state has failed those who need its protection most. Last year, the Prime Minister promised to deliver a Hillsborough law, but the Government’s own target to introduce the Bill by 15 April this year has been missed. Families have waited too long and there have been too many broken promises. I ask the Minister: when will the Hillsborough law come before Parliament? When it does, will it give justice to the 97? Will it be worthy of their memory? Will it be strong enough to protect every victim of state failure?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I extend my immense gratitude to my friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne).

On behalf of my independent alliance colleagues, I begin by paying tribute to the Hillsborough families, survivors and campaigners who for decades have fought with extraordinary courage and perseverance. Their demand has always been simple: for the truth to be told as it is so that families can find closure and not face barriers in their pursuit of justice for their loved ones. Their legacy is the Hillsborough law: a legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials, and equal representation for bereaved families. That was promised by the Government. With trust in politicians at an all-time low in our country and around the world, I appeal to the Government to please honour their promise. I am not asking for anything different or anything more.

With high-profile tragedies such as Hillsborough, Grenfell, the Manchester Arena bombing, Horizon and infected blood, the need for such a law is undeniable. I attended the statement made yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), on child sexual abuse. Without the Hillsborough law, that inquiry may not uncover the truth about what people withheld and how many victims could have been prevented from abuse or supported in their time of need, so please—this is critical.

I will skip to one additional point. Justice is about not just how we respond after a disaster but the systems we put in place to prevent injustices from happening again. Too often, families are forced into painful struggles because institutions have failed them. While we respect the work of our public servants, we must recognise that failures within the NHS, the police, local government and the courts are sometimes systemic. One such issue relates to critically ill children, where parents have to go through adversarial court battles to get second opinions and treatment for their children. I urge the Government to look into that and to pass the Hillsborough law as promised so that those things can be addressed.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate. As the MP for Sheffield and Hillsborough, who was living locally at the time, I will never forget the harrowing scenes—things that people really should never see—with many people just roaming around our area in complete shock. I pay tribute to the many neighbours who helped by letting people into their houses, giving them cups of tea and allowing them to phone to reassure their parents and families that they were okay.

No family should ever have to face the indifference, the lies and the avoidable trauma that the survivors of Hillsborough and the families of the 97 have experienced. I recall the debate we had on the Hillsborough families report more than two and a half years ago and the warm words and cross-party support on display for the Hillsborough law then. But warm words are comforting for only so long and, after 36 years of waiting the families deserve both the truth and justice. That was why I was proud to stand on a manifesto committing to the Hillsborough law.

Beyond that manifesto commitment, the Prime Minister pledged in 2022 that

“one of my first acts as Prime Minister will be to put the Hillsborough law on the statute book”.

We are now a quarter of the way through the potential lifespan of this Parliament and, while I appreciate that the legislative process takes time, we have not seen any public progress on that commitment.

To me, our manifesto pledge was a clear commitment to the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill of 2017, which was tabled by the former Member for Leigh and subsequently re-tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby. Importantly, we are in a position where we have a Prime Minister who has taken silk and is a former Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no man more eminently qualified to judge the Hillsborough law on its merits than him, and I trust that he would have considered the viewpoints of these anonymous detractors before making public promises.

The speculation about what form the Hillsborough law may take is only rampant due to an information vacuum that has regrettably been allowed to exist. Can the Minister outline for us, either today or later in writing, the timeline for the implementation of the Hillsborough law and commit to publishing a draft of that law, to give us proper time to review the Government’s proposals? It is vital that we get this right.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Hobhouse, and I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech. Let me take ten precious seconds to point out that, apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), not one single member of His Majesty’s Opposition has come along to this debate.

Despite what the Prime Minister said on the 2 July, committing himself to the Hillsborough law, including criminal sanctions, The Times reported on 13 July that the Treasury was holding this up because of problems regarding funding for legal aid. My contribution to this debate is based on my long public service in health and social care, which spans four decades. Scandal, cover-up, service failure and outright abuse over those decades says to me that, despite the Nolan principles in public life, our leaders cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted to do the right thing unless they are legally required to do so.

There have been so many examples of whistleblowers in public life who, rather than being honoured for trying to put a stop to these failures, are hounded and harried by the very authorities they are seeking to challenge. That is why, more than ever, we need an office of the whistleblower, independent of Government and with the powers to enforce any duty of candour on public authorities. My public service began in the same organisation that was responsible for the Kincora children’s home scandal. Many of us in this place remember, all these years later, that we have still not got to the bottom of that.

I also want to point out that, in ensuing years, I witnessed large-scale failures in the care of older people, people with learning disabilities, children in care and other client groups, not only in this jurisdiction, but in the Republic of Ireland as well. In each and every case, the organisational system worked overtime to protect its reputation. Senior public servants, who should have come clean from the outset, worked hard to cover up these matters from full public view. That is why this law is so important, and I completely agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, who introduced this debate.

As I said, behind this law is the need to give it teeth through the establishment of an office of the whistleblower. Public inquiries simply do not provide the answers we need. Just think of the late Dr David Kelly, who died more than 22 years ago, and why details about his untimely death were sealed for 70 years by the Hutton inquiry. In conclusion, I simply ask one question: why have the Government not yet set out how they expect the proposed legislation to work? The clock is ticking. People need actions, not words.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate.

I speak as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Primodos, which I have led for over a decade alongside affected families in their fight for truth and justice. Primodos is one of the clearest examples of a systematic failure of candour in British medical healthcare. Between 1958 and 1978, around 1.5 million women in the United Kingdom were prescribed the hormone pregnancy test. From the 1960s, doctors and researchers raised concern that it was linked to miscarriages, stillbirths and severe birth defects.

Instead of acting, the regulators actively suppressed the evidence and colluded with the pharmaceutical companies. When Dr Isabel Gal published her study in 1967, officials undermined her work rather than investigating it. Later, archives in the UK and Germany showed that they knew of the concerns, but kept patients in the dark, even though other countries had withdrawn the drug from the market.

After years of campaigning, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency finally established an expert working group in 2017. Its task was to examine whether there was a possible association. The final report said there was “no causal association”. That was not in the original draft; it was inserted late, under outside instruction, and caused misunderstanding by giving the impression of certainty. Moreover, the families were excluded from the process. We continued to campaign; in 2020 the Cumberlege review was set up and found that there had been avoidable harm, that people should receive redress, and that there should be a duty of candour and cultural change. However, five years later, only one recommendation—a patient safety commission—has been delivered.

The impact on the families has been horrendous. I call on our Government to recognise Primodos as a case study—[Interruption.]

Order. We have been disrupted by a Division. I am expecting everybody to be back here in 15 minutes, at 3.20 pm. When we come back, the hon. Lady will have half a minute.

Meanwhile, the Government have pursued legal strike-out applications to shut down the families’ cases—blunt tools that treat them as vexatious, even while Ministers have accepted in public that there was a failing. I call on the Government to recognise Primodos as a case study of breach of candour, to implement the Cumberlege review in full, including redress, to legislate for candour across public authorities, to guarantee legal parity, and to support the Hillsborough law now.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I remember his debate in the main Chamber well; it was highly emotional. I am pleased to see his continued passion for justice, openness and transparency—well done.

It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, in the Northern Ireland Assembly back home, my colleague Paul Frew MLA is currently proposing a private Member’s Bill on the duty of candour in the health sector in particular. All the issues the hon. Gentleman raised are applicable there, too. The Democratic Unionist party supports the introduction of an evidence-based statutory duty of candour within Northern Ireland’s healthcare system that can hold people to account for failings where there was a deliberate withholding of information that could have prevented harm.

The Bill is currently out for consultation. We hope that it will make a change and maybe set a precedent for the United Kingdom. The measure, rooted in transparency and accountability, is crucial for restoring trust in our health services following a series of devastating failures such as the revelations of the infected blood inquiry and the tragic hyponatraemia-related deaths. While healthcare professionals work under immense pressure, it is vital that transparency prevails—not as punishment for mistakes, but as a safeguard against deliberate misinformation or obfuscation, particularly when it leads to harm.

I believe that the duty of candour is necessary across Government Departments, while acknowledging the need for a balance to ensure that staff are not hampered from making hard decisions because they believe that they will be personally culpable for them. I can well remember that during my time in a council, when we considered going against advice given, we were warned that, in any legislative challenge, we would be personally responsible through surcharge. At times, that scare tactic would have prevented the right decisions being made. I believe that the duty of candour must be balanced with protections. I look to the Minister to ensure that that is the case UK-wide.

It is also important that, if legal cases are needed to bring openness, there are funding streams available, rather than the crowdfunding that currently seems to be needed. As always, protections against vexatious claims are also needed. Any legislation must find that delicate balance, but there must be no doubt that the right legislation is needed, and needed soon. The days of backroom dealings are done forever. The public demands and deserves better.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Let me begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing and leading this important debate. His personal testimony of that fateful day in April ’89 is a moving one. He has used his voice in this place to continue the fight for truth, justice and accountability. Most importantly, I pay tribute to the family and friends of the 97, to the survivors of that terrible day and to my city, which has always stood together and continues to do so today. Their tenacity, resilience and dignity are a lesson to us all.

I would like to take a moment to quote Jenni Hicks, who lost her two daughters at Hillsborough.

“I’ll never get that accountability for my daughters but we’re still fighting on behalf of Grenfell, Manchester Arena and other disasters that are bound to happen in future.

What runs alongside the loss of my daughters is the knowledge that this is a country that’s prepared to accept this injustice and that’s why the system has to be changed. You can't just say that’s it, that’s how it is. If something’s wrong, you have to try and do something about it.”

Let’s forget the legal speak. Can anyone name a better summary of the guiding light and principled mission of this campaign for change?

The truth is that none of us should be here in Westminster Hall today. Our Prime Minister promised this legislation at the Labour party conference in Liverpool last year, and in our manifesto. So, yes, I am angry that it is not yet on the statute book. Whether specific Ministers are to blame, or senior civil servants, or Government lawyers, I really do not care. This needs to be sorted, and sorted quickly. In the last week or so, we have seen several media reports that state we are near an agreement on the legislation, but I must place on record that the delay is one thing, but the watering down is another. It is quite frankly unacceptable, and should shame my party.

It should not take a backlash to focus minds to do the right thing. As MPs and Ministers, that should always be our guiding principle. We must deliver this legislation in full, no ifs and no buts. Anything else would be an affront and a betrayal to my city. The purpose of the state, indeed of our whole system of Government, is the service of people. The welfare of the people should be the highest law. I finish by asking the Minister to get this on the statute book as quickly as possible, and by saying: justice for the 97.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has spoken powerfully many times about his own experiences and has consistently pressed for justice for the 97. There is a longstanding, deep problem in this country that smacks of cover-up and of protection of the establishment and public bodies at all costs. We see it time and time again, with Hillsborough, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, covid-19 bereaved families and the longest-running scandal in British history: the fight for justice for our nuclear veterans. Those who are injured, suffering from ill health and deep trauma, and those who live daily with the heartbreak of missing their loved ones have to break every single sinew fighting the very people and the very institutions set up to protect and serve them.

I know from my constituents who lost their children in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack about the financial and emotional toil and the feeling of powerlessness from being done to by those with more agency, more power, and deeper pockets. Grief is impossible when someone is locked in that battle. The daily, monthly, yearly, decade-long grind that families have to suffer just to be believed, while those responsible carry on regardless, sickens me to my stomach. When justice feels like it may be close, the public apology comes from Ministers at the Dispatch Box, followed by promises of lessons learned and change, and that it will not be allowed to ever happen again. Yet it does. Lessons are never learned. Meaningful change never takes place.

People are tired of it, and tired of hearing empty promises. Trust in Government and institutions, and faith in our democracy are at the lowest levels I have ever seen. The Government promised to enact a Hillsborough law by April this year; they have not. There have been reports that the legislation has been watered down. It has been ready since 2017, yet we are being told more time is needed to get it right. Like many others, I struggle to understand what exactly the Government need more time for, and what they need to look closer at. The Hillsborough law as is, with no changes, tweaks or amendments, should be introduced to the House now. Nothing less will do. It matters to so many people.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate. More than eight years after the Grenfell Tower fire, the fight for justice for the 72 who lost their lives, the bereaved and the survivors continues. Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry report, which shone a light on the systematic failure that led to the fire. I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations from the inquiry, but there has still been no criminal accountability and the pace of change has been far too slow—just witness the families across the country still sleeping in unsafe flats that have not been remediated.

I pay tribute again to the Hillsborough families, who have fought to ensure that other communities do not have to suffer as they did. But we know, from Windrush to the Post Office, LGBT veterans, infected blood and many other scandals, that we need to reform how we approach injustices involving the very state that is supposed to protect people. That starts with the Hillsborough law: an essential levelling of the playing field between victims and the state, including, as others have said, parity of legal aid and a duty of candour. But we should not stop at the Hillsborough law. It is also vital that we ensure that lessons of past tragedies are never ignored. To go through lengthy and expensive public inquiries and then fail to change compounds the original injustice further.

The same goes for coroners’ findings, including prevention of future deaths reports, which are vital early warnings to the state to prevent larger tragedies. Grenfell shows us the cost: after the Lakanal House fire in 2009, the coroner made clear recommendations to review building regulations, including guidance on external fire spread applicable to new and older housing stock. If those recommendations had been implemented, it is very possible that the fire eight years later would have been avoided.

I urge the Government to consider independent oversight of whether lessons from inquiries have been learned, including through a national oversight mechanism. This is not about taking power away from Ministers or Parliament. If the Government wish to reject recommendations, they can do so and explain why, but that should be done openly and transparently. I believe that an oversight mechanism would help the Government to improve, deliver on a public sector reform agenda, and deliver on justice and change for victims, including those at Grenfell.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for his contribution.

The issue here, really, is class. When we look at what happened at Hillsborough, what happened at Orgreave, what has happened with contaminated blood, what happened with the nuclear veterans, what happened with Windrush and what has happened at Grenfell, who suffered? Working-class people—that is the common denominator. As soon as people uncover it, and the establishment are questioned, they circle the wagons of injustice and discredit everybody other than themselves to try to protect the establishment.

This cannot continue—I really mean that. The default position of the powerful—the establishment—is to attack the powerless. We had 72 people killed at Grenfell, we had 97 people killed at Hillsborough, people with contaminated blood are dying weekly, and we have other issues such as Orgreave. Still we have not sorted these issues out. It is an absolute disgrace from a Government that have promised so much—a Government that I am proud to be a Member of Parliament for.

It is reputations versus truth and accountability—that is where we are at this moment in time. It cannot continue. We have to get to the truth. The Prime Minister this week said “delivery, delivery, delivery”. He needs to make sure that we deliver on a proper, full Hillsborough law, which was written a number of years ago and accepted by all. We cannot let down the people in Liverpool, or any of the other people I have mentioned. We cannot let people down. We have to get to the bottom of the truth.

I have a question, by the way—in seven seconds. Why do we need a law for a duty of candour—for people to tell the truth? What on earth is this about?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate and pay tribute to him for his tireless work, for so long, to raise awareness of the injustice suffered by the victims of Hillsborough and their loved ones.

I know people who were directly affected by Hillsborough. I have tried to support them and their truth and justice campaigning in my time in politics. As council leader in St Helens in 2022, I took forward a motion, which I am pleased to say was backed unanimously, to support the introduction of the Hillsborough law and to support my hon. Friend’s “The Real Truth” legacy project. There is not much that would give me greater satisfaction than voting to pass the Hillsborough law in this place, in the role that I now hold.

I am not trying to make anyone feel old, but I was just nine years old when Hillsborough happened. But I can vividly remember the news coming through that day. I can remember the newspapers and TV reports in the days and weeks that followed. I remember, in the aftermath, the shocking speed with which the completely false allegations were invented and deliberately spread—the lies that were told at the time about people like me, from communities like mine, by people in positions of power, including in this place. Well, we are in this place now, and we have a Government in power who have said repeatedly that they are committed to introducing the Hillsborough law and supporting victims and their families. We hold the power and we need to use it while we have it, because our enemies always do.

I know that the Minister rightly cannot and will not share the details of private conversations, but I can say that in every conversation I have had with her, her commitment and determination to get this right has come through loud and clear, for which I thank her. Enough is enough; nobody should have to fight for truth and justice over the death of a loved one. The way the Hillsborough families have fought for so long is inspirational but also unacceptable. They should never have been put through it. The state protected itself instead of the victims after Hillsborough, which it has done since time and again. It will be able to do it again unless we change things.

I will finish by saying publicly what I have said to the Minister and others privately: I cannot and will not support anything that the Hillsborough families do not support. This is not a time to be timid. The Government have been given the mandate to do this and to do it properly. If Ministers can bring forward a Bill, as I hope they will, which has the support of the Hillsborough families and those of other victims who have had to fight too hard for too long for justice, I will take great pleasure in supporting it fully and standing up to the vested interests that have delayed it for too long. Let us get it right and let us get it done.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. At the start of this Parliament, I was glad to hear that the Government promised a Hillsborough law, which would place a duty on public workers to act in the public interest. We know from Hillsborough, Grenfell, infected blood and Horizon that too often public bodies treat inquiries as reputational risks.

In Corby and East Northamptonshire, many constituents feel let down. Zena and Nicola Stanton spent years campaigning for Jorgie, Nicola’s daughter and Zena’s granddaughter, who died in Kettering general hospital in 2016. A coroner later found that hospital staff failed on five separate occasions in Jorgie’s care. That led to dehydration, sepsis, multiple organ failure and ultimately her death.

Zena and Nicola never gave up. They exposed the unhealthy culture in the ward, later confirmed in a report. Senior staff have now admitted mistakes. I believe that without that family’s fight, the truth may never have come out. I am glad that we finally secured meetings and apologies for them, but victims should not have to fight for years and rely on their MP simply to be heard. Families like Jorgie’s are fighting for every other family who will come to rely on that same ward.

We need reporting systems that reveal failures quickly. Hospitals and other public services should have transparency. I also believe that this is about culture. We need to end defensiveness in public services. It is wrong that public bodies spend unlimited taxpayer money fighting victims. Staff must also feel free to speak up and speak out. For Jorgie’s, Zena’s and Nicola’s sake, let us deliver a Hillsborough law worthy of its name, which makes candour a duty, gives families fair representation and ensures that yesterday’s injustices never become tomorrow’s.

I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), on his excellent speech.

I was present in this House in 1998 when the then Home Secretary Jack Straw made a statement on the conclusions of the Justice Stuart-Smith review of the evidence and papers relating to the Hillsborough disaster, which I will quote. If anything, this justifies and underlines why we need this change in the law:

“Taking those and all other considerations into account, the overall conclusion that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith reaches is that there is no basis for a further public inquiry. He also finds no basis for a renewed application to quash the verdict of the inquest, and he concludes that there is no material that should be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police disciplinary”.—[Official Report, 18 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 1085.]

The independent panel report and the subsequent inquest followed. How misspoken was that set of words in this House. That justifies why we need this change in law.

We are again seeing continued delay. This a question of government machinery. As we have seen through the history of the campaign, delay has followed delay. There is often pushback from Whitehall and the wider public sector machine, finding problems but not solutions. It is a concern that there are issues that have not been resolved by now, and the continued delay breeds suspicion and distrust in the state’s ability to act competency and fairly. I do not doubt that there are legal matters that need addressing, but why have they not been resolved by now?

In previous Parliaments, progress was made with respect to the Hillsborough justice campaign when there was firm direction and action from Ministers, including from two previous Home Secretaries—the right hon. Alan Johnson and Baroness May of Maidenhead. They set up the independent panel and took action on its subsequent groundbreaking report. If there is a will, and direction and determination from Ministers, solutions can be found and barriers removed. There must be a duty of candour for civil servants and public servants, and parity of legal representation. Such a Bill could help to improve and repair public confidence in the Government.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing it.

The Government committed to a Hillsborough law in their first year, and it should be delivered without delay and in full. The case for action is starkly illustrated by the experience of bereaved families in my constituency and neighbouring areas whose daughters died under the care of Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS trust, known colloquially as TEWV. Three teenage girls—Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore—lost their lives in that trust’s care. The independent reports by Niche Health and Social Care Consulting into their deaths were unequivocal: the statutory duty of candour was not met, families were not told the truth and were not supported after the tragedy, and lessons were not learned. The candour that Parliament demanded in 2014 was absent in practice.

The trust has since acknowledged those failings, but wider evidence shows that that is not an isolated case. The Department of Health and Social Care’s recent call for evidence found that only 40% of NHS staff thought that the purpose of the duty was clear, and fewer than a quarter believed that it was correctly applied after serious incidents. Most damning of all, 94% of patients and families felt that providers failed to engage with them meaningfully or compassionately when things went wrong. Rob Behrens, the ombudsman, said that avoidable deaths in mental healthcare are “too common” and that the duty of candour does not work.

That is why we need an updated duty of candour—one that binds public authorities and individual leaders with consequences when truth is withheld. Crucially, bereaved families must have automatic access to funded representation. For too long, the state has been represented while ordinary families have had to fight alone. I therefore add my voice to those calling for a public inquiry into the deaths of Christie, Nadia and Emily. Indeed, other bereaved families have more than justifiable cause for complaint. Only a full inquiry can reveal the truth, demonstrate why the current duty is insufficient and ensure that lessons are learned. If “never again” is to mean anything, let us deliver the Hillsborough law in full so that openness, honesty and justice become the defining standards of public service.

Before I call Patrick Hurley, let me say that there are two Members who want to speak but are not on the list. I want everybody’s voice to be heard, so I will give them two minutes each at the end.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing the debate. We served on Liverpool city council together many years ago, so I know how long he has been fighting this fight.

Inquiries into all the disasters and scandals that have been mentioned have shown how difficult it can be for ordinary people to get to the truth. Too often, they face the immense challenge of navigating complex legal procedures and processes without the same resources as the public authorities involved. Too often, bereaved families have to crowdfund their own legal representation, while the state tools up with expensive barristers to defend itself. What will the Government do to ensure proportionality and parity for bereaved families at inquests?

The duty of candour seeks to change the current process. It would put a legal obligation on public servants to act openly and honestly in the public interest. Institutions must proactively co-operate with inquiries, rather than retreat into the usual defensiveness. There must be parity of legal representation so that the regular person on the street is not disadvantaged at inquests. Parity of arms is essential to uncover the truth and deliver justice.

This is not just about historic injustices. The current public inquiry into the murders in my Southport constituency last year will soon examine all aspects of failure that led up to the attack. A statutory duty of candour would make a real difference there, providing a duty to tell the truth, and an opportunity for the families to achieve justice. For me, this is not just about blame, but about building a culture of openness in public life—one that helps us to learn from tragedy, supports families and prevents future harm. If we get this right, that is how we respect those we have lost and how we protect future generations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I want to speak about transparency and accountability in healthcare, and about my constituents Ryan and Sarah, and their daughter Ida. Ida died in 2019 at seven days old. She died from brain damage caused by failings in her care. Those failings could have been avoided. There were eight missed opportunities to save Ida, and in the wake of her death, Ryan and Sarah have had to fight every step of the way to get the truth. After the hospital trust’s completely inadequate internal investigation declared that there were no issues with Ida’s care, her death was graded as “moderate harm”. Ryan and Sarah had to contact a senior coroner to request a full inquest, and only during that inquest this year—six years later—did the trust finally accept its failings. That is five and a half years in which Ryan and Sarah have had to fight for the truth; five and a half years in which the trust not only denied its failings, but covered them up.

For truly safe healthcare we must strengthen the ability of staff to speak up and speak out safely. People need to be thanked for raising concerns. But when problems are covered up, there needs to be accountability. For Ryan and Sarah, the grief of Ida’s death was made even harder by the denial and cover-up that followed.

This is a harrowing story about Ida and Sarah. Does the hon. Member agree that not every person who is impacted by failings of state, and who has lost family and loved ones, has the resources, time and energy to fight for five and a half years?

I absolutely agree. People should not have to have this fight. They should not have to have resources to take on hospital trusts or the state. They should not have to do that; his point is well made.

When mistakes are hidden or dismissed, families lose faith not only in an individual hospital or organisation, but in the very systems that are meant to protect them. It is our responsibility to ensure that no other family has to endure what Ryan and Sarah went through, and that no other baby dies in that way. Accountability cannot be optional, and honesty cannot be negotiable.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this timely and important debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on grief support and the impact of death on society, I approach this issue through the lens of what bereavement means for families, communities and society as a whole. The Hillsborough disaster, Grenfell and the infected blood scandal all exposed what happens when the bereaved are met with defensiveness instead of candour and support. The proposed Hillsborough law is therefore about much more than legal mechanics; it is about whether families can begin to process grief, secure in the knowledge that they have been told the truth and given a fair voice in the proceedings.

An inquest conducted in a spirit of candour can provide a form of closure. It cannot bring back loved ones, but it can help to answer the haunting questions of what happened and why—questions that, if left unresolved, prolong grief and deepen trauma. No legislation can make amends for the terrible treatment that the families of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster endured at the hands of our public authorities, but a duty of candour can seek to ensure that such treatment is never repeated. If we truly want a culture of candour, we must see it not only as an obligation to tell the truth, but as a duty to work alongside the bereaved to give them closure where possible and to signpost them to the help they need. That is the legacy that the Hillsborough families have called for. It is the least that a compassionate state should provide.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing this debate. On behalf of my party, I too pay tribute to the Hillsborough families in this landmark debate.

After years of delay by the last Conservative Government —the Conservatives are, shamefully, barely represented here today—Liberal Democrats in Parliament and Liberal Democrat councillors such as Carl Cashman welcomed this Government’s commitment in the King’s Speech to create a statutory duty of candour on public authorities to force them to tell the truth. However, given the urgent need for such a duty, it is unacceptable that the Hillsborough law was not introduced in time for the 36th anniversary of the disaster, as the Prime Minister himself had promised.

Ninety-seven men, women and children lost their lives as a result of the shameful events on that terrible day in 1989, yet the families of the victims were forced to wait decades for the truth, in the wake of institutional silence and deceit from state institutions. For years they were told that Liverpool fans were to blame, but they were not. It was police incompetence, a failure of safety and then a cover-up—a deliberate attempt by public officials to shift blame, rewrite the narrative and protect institutions instead of people. It was not only public institutions that were responsible for warping narratives. I will not name the title, but we all know a particular newspaper that still lives a legacy of shame for the way it demonised fans on that day.

A legal duty of candour would not erase that tragedy, but it might have spared the families years of gaslighting, indignity and conflict. Similar is true of the Grenfell disaster, as the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) has powerfully said. Seventy-two lives were lost in that shocking disaster, including that of emerging photographer and artist Khadija Saye, who I knew. It was a tragedy that should never have happened, and a scandal that revealed deep systemic failures in not only fire safety but the way public authorities treat working-class communities, especially when they are black or brown.

Even after the fire, we saw the same pattern again: a slow trickle of information, shifting stories and an instinct—a culture—of institutional self-preservation. We must ask ourselves, how many times will we allow this cycle to repeat? How many lives must be lost before we accept that the public deserve honesty from those in power?

My hon. Friend is right about the need for the state to be open and honest in all these cases. As I mentioned earlier, the duty of candour already exists in the NHS. Nevertheless, in inquests where the duty of candour should be to the fore, the state comes along with barristers, lawyers and their supporters, and the victims of actions in the past are not represented at all. If the same resource that went into protecting the reputations of NHS staff went into supporting patients, these issues would not happen.

Order. May I remind Members that we have very little time? Can we keep interventions short?

The point my hon. Friend makes is testament to the importance of parity of legal representation.

To continue, how many lives must be lost before we accept that the public deserve honesty from those in power? When will we get to the truth proactively, not just when institutions are dragged to the witness box? That must change.

I pay tribute again to the tireless campaigners—the bereaved families of the Hillsborough disaster and the Grenfell tragedy, those wronged in the Post Office scandal and more—who have refused to accept institutional silence and deceit. However, it should not be up to victims or their grieving families to fight for decades to get answers; it should be the duty of the state to give them those answers—early, clearly and completely.

The Government must act without further delay. I therefore urge the Minister to announce a timeline for a new statutory duty of candour now. I urge that it is not watered down under any circumstances, and it must be accompanied with parity of legal representation for bereaved families during inquests and inquiries into disasters or state-related deaths. This Parliament must be the one that says, “No more lies, no more hiding and no more protecting institutions over protecting people.”

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate. He has been a tireless advocate for bereaved families and communities affected by tragedy. His determination to keep these issues before Parliament commands respect across the House. We owe a debt of gratitude to the campaigners and families themselves. From Hillsborough to Grenfell, from the infected blood scandal to the Post Office Horizon affair, they have shown extraordinary courage in pressing for truth and accountability. Their persistence is the reason why we are here today, and it must not be forgotten.

The Hillsborough disaster in 1989 is the clearest example of why the call for a duty of candour has become louder over the years: 97 lives were lost and countless other people were traumatised, and it was very powerful for us all to hear from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, who was there on that day at a young age. In the years that followed, there were inquiries, judicial reviews and inquests, yet for far too long, the true circumstances of what happened were hidden.

In 2017, Bishop James Jones was asked to reflect on the experience of the Hillsborough families. His report set out in stark terms the lessons that need to be learned. He said that it was vital that the state ensure “proper participation” of the bereaved at inquests at which public bodies are represented. He identified four strands to achieving that: first, publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families when public bodies are represented; secondly, an end to the practice of public bodies spending limitless sums on their own representation; thirdly, a culture change so that public bodies see inquests not as a reputational threat, but as an opportunity to learn; and finally, changes to procedures and the training of coroners so that bereaved families are placed truly at the centre of the process.

His report also served a reminder that legislation alone is not enough. As others have mentioned, we already have a statutory duty of candour in parts of our system—particularly the NHS—but too often that duty has become a tick-box exercise, satisfying process rather than securing trust. If the Hillsborough law is to mean anything, it must embed a genuine culture of truth-telling and accountability, as well as changing the law.

It is against that backdrop that the idea of a statutory duty of candour has emerged and persisted. Sir Brian Langstaff, in his recent report into the infected blood scandal, reinforced the same point: too often, institutions have closed ranks, failed to disclose information openly and thereby compounded the suffering of victims and families.

The King’s Speech in 2024 committed the Government to bringing forward a Hillsborough law, including a statutory duty of candour and provisions on legal representation. The stated aims were to improve transparency and accountability and reduce the culture of defensiveness, and to ensure that failures such as those on Hillsborough or infected blood are not repeated.

Conservative Members are sympathetic to those aims, and it is worth remembering that some steps have been taken. Part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 legislated for the creation of an independent public advocate to give victims and families a stronger voice in the aftermath of major incidents. The previous Government also worked with police chiefs, prosecutors and fire leaders to establish the Hillsborough charter, which commits signatories to put the public interest above organisational representation.

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.

I will go on to talk about some of the other steps that we did take. Labour Members might reflect on the many things that, in opposition, they called for, demanded and promised to deliver, but that they are finding considerably more challenging to get done in government. That is our experience of Government in many respects.

As I said, there are other things that we did. On legal representation, the then Government removed the means test for legal help and representation at inquests, particularly in relation to the exceptional case funding scheme, and measures were introduced to promote candour in policing. The offence of police corruption was created in 2017, and in 2020 a new duty to co-operate was written into the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020.

As the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby highlighted, however, more needs to be done. In its 2023 report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights looked closely at equality of arms at inquests. It highlighted that during the first Hillsborough inquests, public authorities and senior police officers had multiple legal teams, all funded from the public purse, while bereaved families received no public funding at all. As I said, changes we have made would mean that that would not happen again in future in the same way. The Committee concluded that this inequality hindered the effective involvement of families, and risked damaging the ability of inquests to get to the truth.

Yet, as recent events have shown, the issue is not straightforward. As detailed in the letter the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby published earlier this year, the Government’s draft Bill was rejected by Hillsborough families, who argued that its proposed safeguards against dishonesty by public servants were not strong enough. The Prime Minister has met them on several occasions, both since taking office and previously in his role as Director of Public Prosecutions, and has emphasised that any legislation must command their confidence. As yet, however, no Bill has been introduced to Parliament.

In April, further reports suggested that draft legislation did not include provision for funding parity. Campaigners expressed real concern, and Ministers in the House of Lords offered reassurances, but admitted that there was concern in Government about the overall availability of legal aid funding.

Further reports over the summer suggest that resistance in the Treasury is slowing progress. The Justice Secretary has apparently made it clear that her Department could not fund the costs within existing budgets, and the Ministry of Justice was said to have sought over £1 billion in additional legal aid funding.

In July, the Prime Minister made the point that although he was fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, including a duty of candour, he wanted to take the time to get it right before putting it to Parliament. On the same day, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby brought forward his private Member’s Bill on candour and accountability.

The desire for progress is strong, but the practicalities remain contested. We are sympathetic to the principle of a statutory duty of candour. We agree that bereaved families should not face the state’s lawyers without adequate support of their own, and we recognise the force of the campaigns that have led us here. However, we also understand the difficulty of translating principle into workable law. How do we ensure fairness for families without creating unmanageable costs and adverse unintended consequences? Those are not small questions, and they deserve careful thought.

In closing, I return to where I began: the families. Families who lost loved ones at Hillsborough, families devastated by Grenfell, families affected by infected blood and families ruined by Horizon—they have all faced unimaginable grief and years of struggle to uncover the truth. We cannot undo their loss, but we can ensure that the state learns, that institutions are held to account and that families in the future are treated with the openness, honesty and fairness they deserve. Families and victims deserve nothing less.

Before I call the Minister, I ask her to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge to respond. I thank everyone because we got everybody in today.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I pay tribute to my fellow Red, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). His tireless campaigning on behalf of victims and survivors—the 97, the Grenfell families, the MEN arena families and every family failed by the state, of which there are sadly so many more—has been remarkable and inspiring, and he has always ensured that they have had a voice in this place. I also thank colleagues from across the House for coming to this important debate and for all of their engagement, encouragement and support as we seek to make sure that this legislation is truly worthy of being called a Hillsborough law.

I have heard that the time for warm words is over, but I want to reaffirm this Government’s ironclad commitment that we will put the Hillsborough law on the statute book. We will deliver on our manifesto commitments to place a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities, and we will provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related deaths. The Hillsborough disaster is one of the greatest stains on British history, and the families, survivors and those who lost loved ones have shown endless determination to get justice. As others have said, they should have been allowed to grieve, love and remember in peace. Instead, they have spent decades searching for truth and justice.

The Government are clear that what happened following the Hillsborough disaster must never happen again. As Members are aware, the Government committed to bringing forward a Bill ahead of the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, on 15 April this year. We did not meet that deadline, and I regret that. Any further delay simply compounds and prolongs the families’ fight to ensure that nothing like Hillsborough can happen again.

The Government worked with campaigners on a draft Bill, and when it became evident that that Bill would not fulfil the aims of the campaign, or meet the expectations of the families, we decided to take more time and get this important piece of legislation right—to deliver a legacy, to deliver a Bill that is truly worthy of being called a Hillsborough law. We committed to working further with them, and we have done that. I pay tribute to everyone who has helped with the process.

We are working in collaboration with stakeholders, campaigners and families as we develop this policy. We are clear that our approach must be families first. Before we bring any legislation to either House on this important issue, or announce precisely how we intend to deliver the manifesto commitments, we must bring this to families first. That is the least they deserve.

On timelines, will the Minister elaborate on how long the Government expect to need before they can present something to the House?

I am grateful for that question. I have heard the frustration and anger, both in this place and outside it, in relation to the need to introduce this quickly and urgently, but we have also heard directly from families about the need to get this right. It is our opportunity to do this, once and for all, and we will not rest until we get that right. I therefore refuse to put a timeline on it, but I do know that we need to do this quickly, and I have heard that today. First and foremost, however, it has to be done with the families first, and we will not proceed with anything that does not have their blessing and backing.

The passion that the Minister is showing today also underlines that the engagement over the summer has been really worthy of this Labour Minister. Inquiries will take place between now and when the Bill is given Royal Assent. Will she confirm that the duty of candour will apply to those inquiries that are live at the time that Royal Assent is provided by the King?

I can confirm that. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will apply immediately and cover any inquiry that is taking place. That includes the Government statutory inquiry that we have announced on Orgreave, the Government inquiry on grooming gangs, and any inquiry or inquest that will be taking place.

The Minister mentioned getting this right, yet the Government were presented with a fully drafted Bill by a learned counsel. Can she give an indication of where the discrepancies and differentiations are between the Bill that was presented—properly drawn—and the current Government position?

I will happily do that for my hon. Friend. I want to put on record our thanks to Pete Weatherby KC, Elkan Abrahamson, all those at Hillsborough Law Now, Andy Burnham and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for the Bill that was drafted in 2017. That Bill has been our guiding north star as we seek to draft a workable, practical and actually deliverable piece of legislation.

We need to remember that we will be legislating on a duty of candour for more than 1.9 million public servants. We need to get that right, with no unintended consequences, and it needs to be worthy of the families. I will happily meet with anyone, but my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will be aware that I cannot outline the details at this stage. However, I will in due course.

I want to place on record my thanks to Inquest, as other Members have. In February, it held a family listening day for the Government on this very important issue. We rightly refer to the Hillsborough families in this debate. However, as we have heard, the campaign is much bigger than that. It is for anyone who has ever had to fight for the truth in the face of state denial and institutional cover-ups. It will stop anyone else having to go through what they endured. It is for those affected by the infected blood scandal and for those who fought for the truth and to clear their names in the Post Office Horizon scandal. If is for those affected by the horrific fire in Grenfell Tower, for nuclear test veterans, for those affected by Primodos, the MEN arena victims and, sadly, many, many more.

Inquest brought together representatives from those areas as well as other campaign groups, including those who have had difficult experiences at inquests. The event asked the question: what would make a good Hillsborough law? Inquest’s report from that day, titled “All or Nothing”, which is available online, has been instrumental for the Government in understanding exactly what is needed to rebuild trust and help improve the experiences of those involved in inquests and inquiries.

My hon. Friend is right, and I thank her for that important point. Sadly, I have heard time and again that it is David versus Goliath at inquests and inquiries, with predominantly vulnerable, working-class families left without support, having to crowdfund for a barrister—it is the Mini versus Rolls-Royce example of which we heard previously. We are committed to ensuring a parity of arms so that no family will ever have to go through that again. That was in our manifesto, and we will deliver on that promise.

The Government are keen to meet that wider group again to thank them for their time and to explain how their experiences have shaped the Bill’s development once the policy is finalised. However, I cannot mention the Hillsborough law without mentioning Hillsborough Law Now and the families bereaved by Hillsborough, because without them there would be no Bill; that cannot be forgotten. Their bravery, strength and unwavering love for their loved ones is more than admirable. They have spent decades fighting for the truth while watching the names of their loved ones be tarnished and having had their reputations and actions called into question. Too often, they have felt that everything was stacked against them. Their determination is selfless and inspirational, and it has no doubt inspired others who have sought justice when it seemed all but impossible.

I met Hillsborough Law Now and family members several times over the summer, which was an honour and a privilege. I thank them again for giving up their time. Our engagement has been open and constructive, and their feedback crucial in helping to find solutions that achieve the campaign’s intentions without any unintended consequences for the public sector. We believe that we are close to finalising a Hillsborough law that families and campaigners will be proud of.

I welcome much of what the Minister has said. She said in the early part of her speech that there would be a duty of candour and legal aid for people, so can she be clear about why there is a delay? If that is what will be in the Bill, why is there a problem?

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It has taken some time to get this right, but we are committed to introducing the Hillsborough law with parity of arms and that statutory legal duty of candour, and we hope to bring that forward as soon as possible. We have worked in conjunction with the families and campaigners to make sure that we have got it right, and we feel that we are almost there.

The Bill will help to ensure that what happened following the Hillsborough disaster will never take place again, and it will undoubtedly change the culture in public authorities for the better. Until that moment, it is crucial that we are guided by the families-first principle. Engagement and conversations on this policy must take place with them before any update is given to the House or the media. Hon. Members will therefore appreciate that I am limited in what I can say today. However, I confirm that our Bill will include the pillars that are vital to the families: that legal duty of candour for public servants, with criminal sanctions for those who do not comply, and measures to rebalance the inquest and inquiry processes to tackle the disparity of power that can exist between the state and bereaved families. We will make good on our manifesto commitment to provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related deaths.

I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the Government are absolutely committed to the Bill. Any absence of update has been not an absence of work but because we have had to put the families first. It is vital that we get this landmark legislation right for them, and that when the Bill finally becomes law, it achieves the change expected by those who have campaigned tirelessly for so long. After all, the Bill is for them.

When the legislation comes into force, it will stand as part of the legacy of Hillsborough and change the country for the better. It will be a law for everyone who has suffered when truth and justice has been concealed behind the closed ranks of the state.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered duty of candour for public authorities and legal representation for bereaved families.