Ian Byrne
MP for Liverpool West Derby · Labour · United Kingdom
“In the years after Hillsborough, one question followed me everywhere. It is a question every survivor knows—every survivor of Grenfell knows it; every survivor of a public disaster knows it.”
“Then came the chant that echoed around the stadium: “Justice. Justice. Justice.” Not because it was a slogan, but because it was all we had left. For two decades we had been lied to, families had been ignored, survivors had been smeared.”
“The families, the survivors and the people of Liverpool will never forgive those who deliberately vilified innocent people and orchestrated that cover-up. They will never forget what Rupert Murdoch, Kelvin MacKenzie, The Sun , Norman Bettison and South Yorkshire police did not only to the victims and survivors, but to an entire city.”
“Truth without justice leaves a wound only partially healed. The families deserved justice. The survivors deserved justice. We never got it for Hillsborough. Then, Bishop James Jones gave us not just a report, but a warning that should echo through every public institution in Britain: “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.”
“Back in 2015, I had the number 96 tattooed on my wrist. It was not simply a tattoo; it was a promise. It was a promise that whenever life became difficult, I would never forget one simple truth: I was one of the lucky ones. I walked away from Hillsborough, but 96 did not. Today we remember the 97.”
“The Hillsborough law was born from that understanding. Its purpose is simple: never again should a grieving family have to fight the state simply to discover the truth. In 2021 I was asked by my friend, now my right hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Ian Byrne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“The Hillsborough law was born from that understanding. Its purpose is simple: never again should a grieving family have to fight the state simply to discover the truth. In 2021 I was asked by my friend, now my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), to carry the baton for a Hillsborough law in Parliament and to bring the voices of the families and survivors into Parliament, to make sure no family ever again goes through what the Hillsborough families and survivors went through. There are moments in politics that define why we are here—why we have been given this privilege. This was mine. I never saw this as my campaign. It always belonged to the families; I was simply trusted to carry their voices into this House.”
“Truth without justice leaves a wound only partially healed. The families deserved justice. The survivors deserved justice. We never got it for Hillsborough. Then, Bishop James Jones gave us not just a report, but a warning that should echo through every public institution in Britain: “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. Those six words alone should be studied by every public authority in this country, every Minister, every chief constable, every permanent secretary and every senior public official, because if we do not learn those lessons, we will carry on repeating them. Few reports have ever described the British establishment with such devastating accuracy. When power is unaccountable, truth becomes negotiable, justice becomes optional and ordinary people are sacrificed.”
“The families, the survivors and the people of Liverpool will never forgive those who deliberately vilified innocent people and orchestrated that cover-up. They will never forget what Rupert Murdoch, Kelvin MacKenzie, The Sun , Norman Bettison and South Yorkshire police did not only to the victims and survivors, but to an entire city. The wounds they inflicted went far beyond any newspaper headline; they damaged lives, reputations and trust in our institutions. That is why I will continue to campaign for Leveson part 2 and for Bettison to be stripped of his knighthood. The new inquests in 2016 finally recognised what should have been stated from the very beginning: the victims of Hillsborough were unlawfully killed. Those words mattered because the truth matters. But truth without accountability is never enough.”
“Then came the chant that echoed around the stadium: “Justice. Justice. Justice.” Not because it was a slogan, but because it was all we had left. For two decades we had been lied to, families had been ignored, survivors had been smeared. Those who should have protected ordinary people protected themselves instead, and this House—with honourable exceptions—too often looked the other way. That is a stain on our democracy that I will never forget. But that cry for justice could no longer be ignored. It forced this place and the country to confront the truth and, ultimately, it led to the Hillsborough independent panel. At last, the truth broke through. It confirmed what the people of Liverpool had always known: the supporters were innocent. The lies were exposed, the cover-up was exposed, and the culture of unaccountable power was exposed.”
“In the years after Hillsborough, one question followed me everywhere. It is a question every survivor knows—every survivor of Grenfell knows it; every survivor of a public disaster knows it. It arrives uninvited in the silence of the early hours of the morning: “Why did I get to walk away when others didn’t?” For years, that question haunted me. What responsibility do you carry when your survival comes at such a terrible cost to others? What do you owe those who never got the chance to live the life you have lived? I began to find my answers long before I entered this place. In 2009, after finishing an early shift at my printing factory, I went with my dad and my mates—people who had stood beside me at Hillsborough—to the 20th anniversary memorial service at Anfield. We stood shoulder to shoulder with thousands of people. We remembered.”
“Back in 2015, I had the number 96 tattooed on my wrist. It was not simply a tattoo; it was a promise. It was a promise that whenever life became difficult, I would never forget one simple truth: I was one of the lucky ones. I walked away from Hillsborough, but 96 did not. Today we remember the 97. That number on my wrist and the people it represents has become my compass. Every time I look at it, I think of those who never came home. I think of their families and of survivors like my dad, who was seriously injured. I think of every campaigner who has spent decades refusing to accept the lies, refusing to surrender to injustice and refusing to allow the truth to be buried. They have shaped my life far more than they will ever know. I owe them more than I could ever repay.”
“Let us ban second paid jobs, with only genuinely exceptional public interest exemptions, strengthen transparency and enforce the rules: no loopholes, no excuses and no more cashing in on public office. This debate comes down to one simple question. Whose side are we on—the side of the people who graft, work hard, pay their taxes and expect integrity from those they elect, or the side who treat public office as a route to private wealth? I know where I stand. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who graft, not the people who grift. Public office is a privilege, not a business opportunity. This House belongs to the public. We are sent here for one reason and one reason only: to serve our constituents who put us in this place—nothing more, nothing less.”
“That is graft, not grift. Every time money buys excess, democracy is weakened. The mere fact that people are asking, “Who are they working for?” should really shame this House. When somebody writes to their MP, it is usually because they are desperate. They need help: they need advocacy, pensions, HM Revenue and Customs or child maintenance service; they are disabled, they are ill or they are struggling to navigate an inhumane benefits system. They deserve to know that their Member’s attention belongs to them—not to a corporate boardroom or a private client, but to them as individuals. This job is a privilege and a vocation; it is not an entitlement, and it is certainly not a commercial opportunity. Let us finish the job.”
“That is not anti-establishment—it is the establishment. It is money privilege wearing a different badge, and people can see that. It is not just the hon. Member for Clacton. Across this house there are Members, including some who represent the poorest communities in Britain, who have chosen to follow the same path. They use public office to pursue private financial gain. That is exactly the culture that the public have lost faith in. In Clacton and in Liverpool, people know the difference between graft and grift. Graft is the cleaner starting before dawn, the care worker finishing another double shift, the warehouse worker waiting to find out whether they have enough hours in the week, the nurse staying because the ward is short staffed, the mum going without so her children can eat and the dad skipping meals so the lights stay on.”
“Imagine what people think when they see Members of Parliament earning hundreds of thousands of pounds on top of an already excellent MP’s salary. Most workers cannot earn tens of thousands of pounds for a few hours’ work, yet that is exactly what this House permits. People are sick of Parliament being treated like a marketplace, sick of influence following money, sick of politicians speaking the language of working people while living by rules that working people could never access. That is not public service; it is grift. We have seen declarations of hundreds of thousands of pounds in outside earnings. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), claims to stand with left-behind communities while accepting a reported £5 million gift from a crypto donor in an industry he is campaigning to liberalise and deregulate.”
“Since the 2024 general election there have been welcome reforms, but they are only small steps. Members of this House can still earn extraordinary sums through media work, publishing and corporate-linked interest. The public have every right to ask why. In Liverpool West Derby, people are working almost every hour they can and still struggling to make ends meet. Families are choosing between eating and heating. In the last six months, I have been across the country with the Right to Food Commission, and I have heard exactly the same stories: children growing up in poverty, parents skipping meals, pensioners dreading their next bill and workers taking second jobs not to get rich, but simply to survive and keep afloat. That is the reality that too many in this House are oblivious to. People are not living; they are surviving.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this hugely important debate and for his leadership on this issue over a long period. At its heart, this debate is about public service, trust, standards and whether being a Member of Parliament is a full-time duty to the people, or a platform for private enrichment and personal gain. Let us say plainly what people across this country already know: being an MP is not a side hustle, a brand or a boost to corporate boardrooms, consultancy fees, television contracts, crypto fortunes or commercial deals. Public office is not a business model; it is a privilege. We are sent here by our constituents and we are paid by the public. Our first, last and every loyalty must be to the people we represent.”
“The Secretary of State, like countless other Ministers over the years, has stood at the Dispatch Box to outline and apologise for yet another state cover-up. Can we agree that enough is enough? Will he personally intervene and beg the Prime Minister to pass the Hillsborough law in full—it has been promised to us on numerous occasions—before summer recess and end this culture of cover-ups?”
“In 2015, Aberdeen city council removed these signs and has seen overwhelmingly positive results since. The benefits are obvious. Access to those benefits, though, should not depend on where a child lives. We cannot accept a postcode lottery, where a child in Aberdeen can walk outside and play freely while a child in Liverpool stays indoors because they have nowhere left to go. We urge the Government to act, to accept the recommendations of the Raising the Nation Play Commission, the CMS Committee and organisations such as Playing Out, and to introduce a national directive to remove unnecessary “no ball games” signs. It is an easy win. Let us get our young people playing again.”
“The Government continue to leave this to local authorities, yet councils are often understandably risk-averse and face pressure from housing providers. Without national leadership, progress will be patchy. When I was a councillor in Everton, I refused to put the signs up. If there were issues with residents, I would speak to the kids, have a discussion and try not to have the signs up, and I was 100% successful. I remembered how I was as a kid, playing football every summer. The chalk came out, and one day the local park became Centre Court; the next day it was Lord’s. Those memories were about sport, friendship, imagination and community, and one of my very best friends, Karen Burke, ended up playing for England women’s football team. So much talent was nurtured on the streets. There are many good examples.”
“Austerity has hollowed out our communities and councils like Liverpool have been forced to close parks, pitches and youth facilities due to lack of funding. In many places, children now need to spend more than £50 to hire a private football pitch because the free alternatives have disappeared. The evidence is clear. The children, young people and the built environment inquiry recommended that the Government require housing providers to remove unnecessary “no ball games” signs. Earlier this year, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee reinforced that recommendation in its excellent “Game On” report, with support from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. That is welcome, but it is not enough.”
“The need for greater sustained investment in youth services and sports and leisure facilities in communities like mine in Liverpool West Derby is something that I care deeply about. I welcome the debate, but I want to focus on one simple change that would cost not a penny and could happen almost overnight: removing the “no ball games” signs that still cover streets and housing estates across our country. At a time when mobile phones and social media dominate young people’s lives, we should be doing everything we can to encourage children to play outside, yet between 2012 and 2022 more than 400 playgrounds in England closed, according to the Raising the Nation Play Commission. It also found that outdoor play had fallen by almost 50% in a generation, because families have lost safe public spaces on their doorstep.”
“As the proud parliamentary lead for the Right To Food UK Commission, I have heard powerful testimony from workers employed by large, profitable companies across the UK who are paid so little that they are driven to hardship, hunger and dependence on universal credit just to put food on the table. The DWP assesses that 1.2 million people on universal credit are working to their capacity, with their income topped up by the state because their wages are so low. That figure has increased threefold in six years. Does the Minister agree that the taxpayer should not be left to subsidise poverty pay paid by companies that employ more than 250 people? Will the Government require those companies to report on how many of their workers rely on universal credit because their wages are so low?”
“Until there is full transparency and genuine accountability for how decisions of national importance are made, public trust in this place will continue to erode, and that is a very dangerous place to be going. That principle should have applied to Peter Mandelson, but it clearly did not, and what a catastrophic mistake that was and continues to be. Moving forward, it must also apply to all those currently exercising power within this Government and anybody seeking to lead this Government in the years ahead.”
“While many in Westminster are preoccupied with the gossip, personal exchanges and political intrigue contained within these documents, I am far more concerned by what is absent: the gaps, the redactions, the missing correspondence that may never come to light because relevant material was withheld or “phones were stolen”. Those missing pieces would not simply demonstrate that Peter Mandelson was embedded within the machinery of government; they would reveal the consequences of that influence. They would show how decisions affecting our public services, our NHS and our democracy may have been shaped by unelected power, corporate interests and private relationships operating beyond public scrutiny.”
“Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), ruled out ending Palantir’s contract earlier this year, citing efficiency gains, despite evidence that many NHS trusts using the platform had not reported clear benefits of the software. For me, it is here that the missing documents become extremely significant. Just months after Mandelson sought a meeting with Palantir UK’s Louis Mosley, the former Health Secretary, who we know was in regular contact with Mandelson, held a private meeting with Mosley himself, as reported by The Guardian among others. A legitimate question arises: did Mandelson facilitate that meeting in the same way he appeared to broker discussions between Palantir and the Prime Minister?”
“NYC Health + Hospitals withdrew from its contract with Palantir earlier this year, while a proposed Metropolitan police contract was blocked last month. Those decisions reflected principled leadership and a recognition that public trust must come before corporate influence, and I thank Mayor Khan for showing that desperately needed leadership, which is a real example to others. The concerns that were acted on are shared by many NHS staff and many of my constituents, who are deeply uneasy about the growing role of Palantir in managing sensitive personal data. That is why I was particularly concerned when the former Health Secretary, my right hon.”
“My greatest concern is Palantir’s growing role within our national health service—a matter that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee today described as “an unacceptable point of weakness”, which could leave our data “at the mercy” of hostile actors. I first raised concerns about this company in 2023 when the federated data platform contract was awarded. Since then, I have repeatedly called on the current and the last Governments to exercise the 2027 break clause and end this relationship. Yet despite widespread concerns from parliamentarians, healthcare professionals and members of the public, for some reason Palantir’s presence within our NHS and access to patient data has only continued to grow. That expansion comes despite significant concerns being raised elsewhere.”
“Those meetings followed the Prime Minister’s visit to Palantir’s Washington headquarters in February—a meeting reportedly brokered by Mandelson, for which no official minutes or transcript were produced. Following this, later in the year, in September, during the state visit of Donald Trump, there was a pledge by Palantir to expand its work with the Ministry of Defence to a value of £750 million over five years. I and many others in this place and beyond do not believe a company associated with military operations in Gaza and the facilitation of aggressive immigration enforcement in the United States should be entrusted with expanding influence over any public services in this country.”
“I, like many others, await Government actions on the progress of that crucial piece of legislation, and I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister can shed some light on its stalled progress when he winds up the debate. The ongoing police investigation means that Mandelson may yet face further scrutiny. However, the absence of so much correspondence, together with the significant redactions in material already published, means the true extent of his influence over Government decision making may never be fully known. My particular concern centres on the relationship between this Government and the US technology firm Palantir, a former client of Global Counsel. The documents reveal that Mandelson arranged meetings with Palantir’s founder Peter Thiel—historically a supporter of Donald Trump—and Louis Mosley, the company’s UK head.”
“The question many of my constituents are asking is: how could an unelected figure, whose public record is so controversial, wield such influence over the decisions of Government while facing so little scrutiny or accountability? That lack of accountability also helps to explain why the latest disclosures were not far more uncomfortable for Mandelson and those around him. As we know, despite requests to do so, he refused to hand over his personal phone as part of the evidence-gathering process. That speaks to a wider problem of culture in Westminster and Whitehall, and is exactly why we need a duty of candour that a Hillsborough law would introduce. There can be no more exemptions from transparency for the powerful; there can be no special rules for those at the top. Public confidence depends on accountability applied equally to everyone.”
“No record of the meeting was disclosed. Mandelson’s influence, exercised through figures such as the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, was vast, unaccountable and entirely undemocratic. Based on the great lengths that McSweeney and others went to ensure that Mandelson was given the job as US ambassador, including by applying pressure on civil servants, it is very reasonable to conclude that Mandelson’s influential position was reward for his support of the Labour Together faction. The damage that organisation has done to my party and this Government cannot be ignored, so I once again reiterate my call to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for a full, transparent and independent inquiry into Labour Together and all those involved in the organisation.”
“Even his association with one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles was seemingly outweighed by the usefulness of those connections and—shamefully, for those responsible for his appointment—with no apparent regard for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her speech, which outlined that so powerfully. Though the latest documents reveal moments of embarrassing sycophancy, they tell us little that we did not already know. Mandelson’s fingerprints are all over this Government. His involvement stretched from Ministers and advisers to the very centre of power. Just yesterday evening, we learned that the Chancellor asked Mandelson to visit her at the Treasury to advise on trade matters while he was chair of the private lobbying firm Global Counsel.”
“The latest Peter Mandelson scandal epitomises everything that my constituents in Liverpool West Derby detest about the political establishment and why so many are losing faith in this place. Here was a man who brought Government into disrepute on multiple occasions—a man who repeatedly placed personal interest and profit ahead of public service—yet instead of being consigned to political history, he was rehabilitated by senior figures in my own party and elevated through a position of extraordinary, unelected influence. Why? Because his value to the political establishment was never rooted in principle or public service; it was rooted in his history of brutal, factional manoeuvring, his network of powerful contacts and his ability to pull strings behind the scenes.”
“It means finally rebuilding a welfare state that protects people instead of punishing them, and, yes, price caps on essential items. These are not extreme demands; they are the bare minimum standards of a civilised society, because in 21st-century Britain nobody should be going hungry. In the communities we have visited, everybody agrees that food is our most basic human right. Good food should be a fundamental human right for all, and a right to food would place this at the very heart of Government decision making. History will ask all of us in this House a very simple question: when millions of children were going hungry, what did you do about it? I know what side I am on.”
“Working-class people feeding each other, looking after each other and organising together show more humanity in church halls and community centres than many have ever experienced from Government. That is the spirit, and that is what the right to food campaign is built on, because people do not want charity forever; they want dignity, they want security and they want to know they can feed their families without fear. Hunger is a political choice, and if hunger is a political choice then ending hunger must become a political priority. That means universal free school meals. It means wages people can actually live on. It means secure work and stronger trade unions. It means proper enforcement of a legal right to food, and it means investments in community kitchens and local food programmes.”
“Earlier this week the Mayor of Greater Manchester spoke about the damage done by 40 years of neoliberal economics, and he was spot-on because everywhere the commissioners travelled there was a sense deep in communities that people have been abandoned. In Northumberland, one woman said something I will never, ever forget. She said, “Don’t you dare call us disadvantaged; call us asset-stripped.” My God she was right. That is exactly what has happened to working-class Britain—asset-stripped, hope-stripped, industry-stripped, security-stripped—and then those very communities are blamed and demonised for the consequences of political choices. But despite everything—despite all the hardship—those communities still fight for one another. That was the beautiful thing we witnessed everywhere we went. Solidarity is still alive in this country.”
“That is the truth at the heart of this debate: it is not about scarcity, but poverty—low wages, insecure work, sky-high rents, a broken security system, and an economic system that protects wealth while punishing the poor. That is why I say gently to Ministers that surplus food redistribution is not a solution to hunger. Yes, any support for struggling families matters—of course it does—but we cannot build a just society on leftovers. We cannot normalise emergency charity as permanent public policy, and we cannot allow food banks to become the fourth emergency service of the British state. Because if we do, we are accepting managed poverty instead of ending it, and I reject that completely.”
“This is the result of political decisions: 40 years of neoliberal economics have seen people and communities disempowered and left behind, industries destroyed, trade union power weakened, public services hollowed out, and wages and incomes driven down while wealth has flowed upwards—and after all that, people are told to be grateful for charity. Food banks were never supposed to be part of British life. They are the clearest sign that our economy and society are broken, but an entire generation of children are growing up believing that they are normal. That is not normal or acceptable, and it is not inevitable, because hunger in Britain is not caused by a lack of food; it is caused by poverty.”
“I have listened to disabled people tell us that they are sitting in freezing homes, deciding whether to put the heating on or to buy food—let alone a treat, a day trip or, God forbid, a holiday. I have met workers in full-time jobs relying on food banks to survive. That is the scandal of modern Britain, because these people are not failing: Britain is failing them. We heard evidence from Public and Commercial Services Union members that civil servants are using food banks because of low pay. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union reports that the very workers who make our food cannot afford to put it on their own tables. We should think about how obscene that is, and about how flawed our economic system must be if that is the result. We must stop pretending that this happens by accident; it does not.”
“They understand better than anyone the scale of food insecurity in this country, and how it is impacting the lives and health of people who are living with hunger every single day—and living with its consequences. The commission has gathered evidence for what I believe will be the defining report of our generation—a road map to finally making the right to food the law of the land. In one of the richest countries on Earth, millions of our people are going hungry, and that should shame every single one of us in this place. I say this truthfully because what I have heard over the last few months has left me absolutely devastated. I have sat with parents who skip meals so their kids can eat.”
“However, the redistribution of surplus food will not begin to end the food insecurity faced by over 14 million people in this country. It is a sticking-plaster over a gaping wound. We need a solution that acknowledges the sheer scale of hunger across the UK. Over the last five months the Right to Food UK Commission, which I am proud to be part of, has travelled across these islands from Liverpool and Knowsley to Newcastle and Northumberland, and from Cardiff and Aberdare to Belfast, with Glasgow and London to come next month. It has listened to the people this country too often ignores—not economists in boardrooms, not corporate lobbyists, but working-class people in working-class communities.”
“I welcome any debate that has the collective security of the British people at its heart, because I believe one of the greatest threats to our security is the economic system governing this country, which has consistently failed working-class people and communities, and which will undoubtedly be made worse still by the illegal and ill-planned war in Iran. Now more than ever, we need a radical restructuring of priorities and policies: more council housing, a total end to right to buy, and the nationalisation of our industries that were sold off and gutted by Thatcher, including water and energy. In 2026, no one in Britain should be going hungry, so I welcome the Government’s recognition in the King’s Speech that there is a food poverty crisis in the UK.”
“As I set out in my question to the Leader of the House on Thursday, I welcome the Government tabling this carry-over motion for the Hillsborough law, but in truth it should never have come to this. It is wrong and difficult to accept that we find ourselves here today with no Hillsborough legislation in effect. Responsibility for this delay rests solely with a Government who, at times, have refused to push past the vested interests that were always going to oppose transparency and accountability. It was never in doubt that we would face resistance—the Minister and I have discussed that before—but political courage and determination are essential in seeking to change a culture of cover-ups that has damaged our country and undermined trust in our institutions.”
“A firm commitment without delay to delivering on this Government’s promise is the very least that those who have fought for justice for so long deserve. It must happen as soon as this House returns in May.”
“My amendments would have zero adverse impact on national security, so as the parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough law, I ask again: why can those amendments not be adopted, and why can the full Hillsborough law not be passed when the House returns in the next Session? In what has been a difficult 18 months for this Government, marked at times by damaging and totally avoidable political choices, we must not allow this to become another self-inflicted wound, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Hillsborough law is far too important. Delivered in full, it would be transformational, placing social justice at the very heart of Government and showing the public clearly and convincingly whose side we are on. I know that that is what we both want, Minister.”
“My amendment 23, which is supported by more than 70 Members of this House, would remove the carve-out for the intelligence and security services that exempts them from the duty of candour. Since the Bill was shelved in January, no Minister has been able to explain why my amendments cannot be accepted, or why those services should not be subject to the same duty. The amendment, which is fully supported by all campaigns connected to the Hillsborough law, simply applies existing national security safeguards that are already used elsewhere to the duty of candour. This ensures that those bodies are not placed above the law, while maintaining full protection for national security. The Government’s stated concerns about national security therefore do not withstand scrutiny.”
“That includes families affected by the nuclear test scandal and those impacted by the Chinook disaster, whose pursuit of truth has been obstructed for far too long. In both cases, it is understood that thousands of documents remain restricted, despite the events being decades ago. There must be no built-in escape route, whereby any state body can decide for itself what evidence it provides to an inquiry or an investigation, as exists in the Government’s current provisions; that would be carte blanche for future cover-ups. Campaigners on these causes have stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight for a Hillsborough law, and I and many other hon. Members from across the House will not abandon them now, nor should this Government. Any proposed amendments that weaken that commitment must be withdrawn.”
“The truth is that if the political will existed, this could be resolved in a single day by the Government adopting my amendments, which would restore the Bill to the full Hillsborough law that was promised. I commend every single person who has fought for this legislation. It is my job in this place to ensure that the Government deliver a Hillsborough law worthy of the name. It is rightly described as a legacy for many, but more than that, if we get this Bill right, it will ensure that state cover-ups are far harder to carry out in future. That would be a legacy of real and lasting value to this country, for future generations, and for those whom we will never forget. A duty of candour that applies to all and ensures that nobody is above the law is essential to groups still fighting for justice.”
“Every delay causes real and profound distress to bereaved families, survivors and campaigners—people who have spent decades fighting for truth, justice and accountability against a state that failed them and sought to cover up those failures. Crucially, as we have always said, this law is vital for the many people who do not yet know that they will one day need it, so it is essential that this carry-over motion is not merely a procedural device to keep this Bill alive, but a clear signal of the Government’s intention to implement the Hillsborough law in full at the earliest opportunity, as has been promised. This motion must now be matched with urgency and action.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words. The Minister and I both stood for election in 2024 on a clear manifesto commitment to deliver the Hillsborough law in full. The Prime Minister promised on multiple occasions that passing the Hillsborough law would be among the first acts of this Government, yet two anniversaries of Hillsborough and an entire parliamentary Session have passed without it being delivered. That is simply not good enough. I hear that certain Ministers oppose this legislation due to pressure from the security services and the Ministry of Defence, and that is precisely why leadership is required. The buck stops with the Prime Minister. We must push through disagreement and ensure that this Bill is delivered in its entirety.”
“Friend ensure that I am directly informed and included in all meetings and briefings moving forward as the parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough law campaign?”
“I warmly welcome the Government’s tabling of the carry-over motion for the Hillsborough law. A lot of people who were extremely worried about what was happening will be relieved today. However, that motion must be matched with urgency. Ministers must end the delays and deliver the law in full, as promised, without carve-outs for the intelligence and security services. That will achieve the cultural change that the country desperately needs, as we have seen this week. Will my right hon. Friend remind some in government that negative media briefings against key figures in the campaign risk undermining confidence in the process and should cease? Following the Prime Minister’s commitment at PMQs last week, will my right hon.”
“As I have done on multiple occasions in both letters to the Prime Minister and speeches in this place, I once again call for a full, transparent and independent investigation into the activities and practices of Labour Together, both prior to and after the election of this Government. Only then will we fully understand how this exclusive political network has been able to undermine our democracy and institutions right at the heart of Government.”
“His professionalism and dedication, after a week in which he has been publicly hounded by some in government, were commendable, and it was good to see his trade union backing him steadfastly at the Committee today. Robbins will be a loss to the FCDO and the country, and it was all brought about by a series of catastrophic political decisions by No. 10. That is not right, not fair and not what the public expect of elected officials. Because of that, the public will rightly demand accountability and cultural change. That must begin with a thorough review of the political operation which brought the Prime Minister to power and which clearly continues to carry undue influence over this Government.”