Ian Byrne
MP for Liverpool West Derby · Labour · United Kingdom
“First, will the Government work with the Charity Commission to issue guidance so that trustees know what due diligence is expected, to avoid funding organisations or people directly or indirectly involved in enforcing the illegal occupation of the west bank?”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. First I want to pay tribute to Father Bashar, a Palestinian priest who spoke so movingly this afternoon about his experiences of settler violence in his town of Taybeh in the west bank. What he said about what people were living through was extremely moving.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The regulations we are discussing today give the Foreign Secretary the power to enforce his calls. I raise that in the context of charities. It has been reported that a UK charity gave around £5.7 million between 2017 and 2021 to a school in an illegal settlement in the occupied west bank.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We cannot condemn illegal settlements while failing to confront the money that sustains them. The Government have rightly strengthened their powers. What Parliament, charities, businesses and, above all, the Palestinian people now need to know is when the powers will be used.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the care we must all take over the language we use when we discuss troubles-related affairs. He may recall that the Law Society and the Bar Council have called recent references by some hon. Members to supposed “IRA lawyers” grossly irresponsible and said that it puts people at risk.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I look forward to working with him and the Department to ensure that what comes out in the House of Lords is the Hillsborough law, that it does exactly what we wanted and that it applies to Northern Ireland, because families should never, ever depend on the goodwill of institutions wh…”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,020 held · 610 searchable for Ian Byrne. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I thank my hon. Friend for that, and she is absolutely right; a commitment was made not to weaken that. Clause 2(5) of the Bill imposes a duty on the chief officer or chief executive to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure corporate compliance, but that is not command responsibility—I think that is a really important point. It is far weaker, and I feel it will be ineffective. Command responsibility is straightforward and places the responsibility for the discharge of the corporate duty on the head of the body.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Section 3 extends clauses 5 and 11 offences to officers within authorities, such as managers who deal with particular investigations or statements, but only when they can be identified as the wrongdoers. It is a welcome provision, but it is only complementary to command responsibility. It would catch all those contemplating a cover-up lower down the authority, but it does not impose command responsibility on those at the top. We saw that with the evidence last week with regard to the NHS. Healthcare regulations have been pretty ineffective in this regard, partly because enforcement applies only to the organisations, and not the command. That lies right at the heart of the Bill.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot envisage a circumstance where clause 2(5) would be enforced. All reasonable steps could include deferring to the authority lawyers or senior leadership teams. We have seen exactly this example in the Kerslake inquiry following the Manchester Arena attack, where the former chief constable of Greater Manchester provided a false narrative regarding the police response. At the subsequent public inquiry, he accepted he had made a grave error but still blamed the senior leadership team and lawyers. It is unlikely that he would have risked misleading said inquiry if he had command responsibility, which goes to the absolute heart of this legislation.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Absolutely. Many of us here have experience trying to get to the truth. What we tried to do will be highlighted in the Independent Office for Police Conduct report. Unfortunately, the people who should have been punished will not be punished, but that is a story for another day, I suppose.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A fine on a public body, paid by the taxpayer, does not concentrate minds in the way that personal responsibility does. In a recent joint inquest into three self-inflicted deaths at HMP Lowdham Grange, the hearing was adjourned twice due to the Ministry of Justice’s failure to comply with directions for disclosure. The coroner’s court ultimately took the unusual step of fining the Ministry of Justice because of that. That example shows that existing powers to fine organisations that fail to comply with directions of disclosure do not effectively address the persistent lack of candour, duty and transparency from public bodies. That is why I feel the amendment is so important, and I really hope the Minister takes it onboard.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Without clear responsibility resting with the chief officer or chief executive, the corporate offences in the Bill will be basically impossible to enforce, leaving bereaved families, like those we will listen to today, and survivors with an aspirational duty, I feel, rather than a practical one. We cannot allow that to happen, and this opportunity to be missed. Minister, you have done so much to get us to this position. So much of this legislation is down to your efforts, and our collective efforts over the last six months, but I urge you to listen to the fears that are being voiced today by Members on both sides of the Committee, because I firmly believe that, in its present form, this provision fatally undermines the effectiveness of the Bill, and the intention behind it, which we all support, to change the culture of cover-ups.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome you to your place, Mr Dowd. As I rise to speak, the four people who gave evidence to us on Thursday are holding a press conference regarding the Independent Office for Police Conduct report, and their opinions of what it consists of. I am sure that they feel as though they have been robbed of any justice. With that in mind, Minister, let us go through the amendments we spoke about just before the Committee adjourned. It is so important that we emphasise how fundamental command responsibility is to the Bill. We must never have a repeat of what those families will be saying in the next 30 minutes.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my right hon. Friend for outlining that beautifully. It goes to the heart of where we are now. As I said, we are watching a live example of why this matter is so fundamental to the Bill, and how effective it will be. I urge the Minister to listen to those concerns and work with us.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the Minister can hear the concern from Members on both sides of the Committee that this will not be as effective if there is no individual responsibility, and if those who have done wrong can hide behind the corporate wall and ride off into the sunset with their full pensions, with no accountability or justice. Once the Minister listens to the evidence, and certainly the response of the families today, hopefully we can reflect on whether we feel this is a loophole that could be utilised by those who are responsible. It is our responsibility in this place to shut that down. I hope the Minister will listen to and reflect on what we have said today, and meet me after this sitting.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Equality Act secured cultural change in matters of equality and anti-discrimination; the Hillsborough law we are debating today seeks cultural change in matters of ethics and candour. The “all reasonable steps” standard is appropriate and improves legal clarity, and I believe it is needed, so I hope that the Minister considers the amendment.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“All reasonable steps is a standard with which employers and employment tribunals are familiar. Section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out an employer’s duty to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent discrimination. Those reasonable steps include training for new workers, annual performance reviews, opportunity for discussion on equality and discrimination, clear messaging on posters and regular mandatory equality training for all workers. The Minister touched before on how we change culture and standards through training. A comparison with the Equality Act 2010 is not only legally relevant; it is a source of evidence about how the law can achieve cultural change through the “all reasonable steps” standard.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What we are talking about is culture change. Interestingly, in last Thursday’s evidence session, culture change was mentioned 69 times. When talking about standards of ethical conduct, I think it is extremely important. That is why I have tabled these amendments, and I hope the Minister considers them. Turning to amendment 46, the Bill currently states that public authorities “must promote and take steps to maintain high standards”. That wording permits minimal or symbolic compliance, which is exactly what the Bill sets out not to do. Clause 2(5) sets out that a public official must take “all reasonable steps” to secure public authority compliance with the duty of candour and assistance. The same “all reasonable steps” should bind public authorities to the duty of candour in chapter 2—not “promote and take steps”.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 9, page 8, line 15, leave out subsection and insert— “(b) the making by any person of disclosures which are protected disclosures in terms of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or which would be such disclosures had they been made by a worker or employee, including information about any policies the authority has adopted in relation to the making of such disclosures; (ba) the affording of enhanced protection to any persons making disclosures under paragraphs (a) or (b), including policies ensuring that those persons are not subjected to bullying, harassment or any other form of detriment in relation to the making of such disclosure;”.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 50 is intended to strengthen the protections, and I hope the Minister accepts it and considers it in the round with what she said about listening and hoping to strengthen the protections once we have had the relevant discussions.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I go back to the change of culture we have been talking about. Thankfully, the Minister has touched on the idea of a listening exercise regarding strengthening the laws around whistleblowing, but it was clear from the evidence we heard last week that there is real concern that the existing measures to protect whistleblowers are insufficient to remove the fear of reprisal, and that they do not adequately protect persons who make protected disclosures. This is fundamental to what we are attempting to do. The protection of whistleblowers is a hugely important issue that many Members from all parties are fearful about.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am filled with confidence by the Minister’s response on whistleblowers. I know that she will be taking this seriously, because it goes to the heart of changing the culture of organisations that have failed us time and time again. This whistleblowers element is extremely important. I am happy to hear that Minister is up for engaging with us across the Benches to strengthen these provisions, which is desperately needed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If those words are simply intended to avoid putting command responsibility on a Minister for the actions of their Department, with respect to the compliance with the duty of candour and assistance, it potentially goes too far. Schedule 2(3)(6) excludes civil servants from inclusion as public officials if they exercise all their functions outside the UK. I do not see the reason for this exception, and I am seeking some clarification through amendments 59 and 60. I have also tabled amendment 58 for similar reasons to those I have stated for amending schedule 2(5), which would delete sub-paragraphs (3)(d) and (2).”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to amendments 55 and 58 to 60, which would strengthen command responsibility. On amendment 55, schedule 2(5) appears to mean that responsibility for the actions of a Government Department is corporate only, and there is an exclusion for civil servants exercising their functions wholly outside the UK. Surely responsibility should lie with the chief executive of the Department, usually the Secretary of State, which I feel that amendment 55 would achieve. Amendments 59 and 60 would once again strengthen the command responsibility. The purpose of deeming what was done by an office holder as being done by a Department itself is unclear.”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for her explanations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 2 agreed to. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jade Botterill.)”
House of Commons2 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How accountability works there is that individual agents, as you put it—officers, we would say—do give evidence. If you look at the courts, even though not all the material can be presented in open court, closed material procedures are in place in the courts.”
House of Commons27 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My fear, as things stand, is that that will not happen with the security services. Lord Evans of Weardale: I understand why you have that concern. As is often the case in these difficult cases, we have two competing public goods. As a country, we benefit from having an intelligence community that can keep us safe; we need to protect that and ensure, therefore, that the agency is not hampered in doing its job. In my previous answer, I tried to explain why I would have, and continue to have, concerns about that being done on a bilateral, immediate basis, without the agency itself being aware of the disclosure. That could be one model, but I do not think it is the right way to do it. Of the three agencies, I am most familiar with MI5.”
House of Commons27 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q Thank you, Lord Evans, for your support of a Hillsborough law. We heard clear evidence this morning about the Manchester Arena bombing, and we are going to hear later on from a BBC reporter that the Security Service is not immune from the problems that the Bill has been created to address. My question is, if the Security Service has to go before an inquiry, why should they be treated any differently from a police officer? Surely, it should be the actual agent who answers the questions, and not the corporate body. We saw clear differences in Manchester, where many agents were summoned to give evidence, from what the corporate body was saying. As you outlined, we have to remember what this is about: it is about getting to the truth to give justice and accountability.”
House of Commons27 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q Lord Evans, would you accept that the Bill requires no additional disclosure beyond what is already required, and that it is actually about whether the information supplied is true? Therefore, it poses no extra risk to national security; it is just about the truth of the information that is supplied. Lord Evans of Weardale: I do not think the Bill, as presented, poses a threat to national security. May I say one thing about chapter 2?”
House of Commons27 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I could give many more examples—I will not sit down and list them all—but the point is that there is a specific and persistent issue with corrupt relationships between public officials and the media. Our concern about this Bill is that it does not have anything substantive to address that. The long title of the Bill is very clear; it will “require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority”. Our submission your Committee is that the Bill cannot achieve that unless it also addresses the specific phenomenon of corrupt relationships. Our proposal is that the best way of dealing of that is with a public inquiry.”
House of Commons27 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That was during a period where a succession of Metropolitan Commissioners enjoyed excessively close relationships with News UK; it included a time where even an editor for News UK was hired by the Met, and there were records of eight dinners between heads of the Met and News UK editors over that period. In more recent years, there are allegations that police fed information about the victims of the Manchester bombing to the media. Christine Flack, the mother of the late television presenter Caroline Flack, believes that police were briefing the media in relation to her case. Mazher Mahmood was a News UK reporter, and there is an allegation in a recently published book that the Met protected him from prosecution and exposure during the noughties on account of the closeness of that relationship.”
House of Commons27 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Police officers were not the only public officials involved in that; the local MP was, and there is a disputed allegation that a representative of the Thatcher Government was as well. There was a huge amount of public official impropriety in that media cover-up operation. Unfortunately, that is not the only case; after Orgreave, similarly, there was a cover-up perpetrated between public officials and the media. The history of the phone hacking scandal is a 15 to 20-year series of occasions where overwhelming evidence of criminal activity being carried out on behalf of News UK was presented to the Metropolitan police force, and every time it failed to properly investigate until it absolutely had to.”
House of Commons27 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q We are here today for the journey of legislation to stop the culture of state cover-ups in this country. Certainly at the heart of the state cover-up of Hillsborough was the media and the role it played. There was a hugely powerful headline in The Sun by the dreaded Kelvin Mackenzie—“The Truth”—which resonated around the world, shaped the narrative and did so much damage to our ability to get truth, justice and accountability. I have a simple question for Nathan and Jacqui: are there any areas you would both like the Bill to go further with, and if so, where? Nathan Sparkes : As you point out, there was a phenomenon of police officers briefing The Sun newspaper after the Hillsborough disaster, which was a huge part of the cover-up.”
House of Commons27 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That can change today, with this Bill. As it passes through Parliament, I and others will examine it line by line to ensure that it remains fit to bear the name Hillsborough. While I thank the Government for getting us here today, I must raise a few issues that need to be addressed in Committee and on Report. The Bill rightly creates both corporate and individual duties, which are so fundamentally important when we look to avoid another Grenfell. Clause 2(5) requires the person in charge of a public body to take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance, but it does not make the chief officer or executive liable. Without that individual accountability, the deterrent power of command responsibility is lost and the culture of cover-ups that we are trying to end may continue. I urge hon.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It must include every strengthening measure promised by Ministers, including a duty of candour that applies to all inquiries including local ones, and parity of funding must be enshrined as a clear principle within it. Time and again, grieving families have faced the full might of the state, armed only with determination, while public bodies deploy teams of lawyers to protect reputations and shield those responsible. The imbalance is grotesque, and absolutely deliberate. Let us be clear: the establishment will try to weaken the Bill. They will say it is too complex, too costly, too disruptive, but what they really mean is that it is too effective, because it threatens their impunity. The scale of state cover-ups should shame this House, but over the years this place has played a key role in their creation and concealment.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are so many to name; so many are sitting here today, so many will be sitting at home watching this on the TV, and some are no longer with us. I pay tribute to the campaign groups behind Hillsborough Law Now: the Hillsborough families and survivors; Truth About Zane; nuclear test veterans; contaminated blood campaigners; Post Office Horizon scandal victims; Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice; Grenfell United; the Fire Brigades Union; the Manchester Arena families; Primodos campaigners; and of course Inquest. All have faced the same wall of silence, the same institutional defensiveness, the same decades-long fight for truth, and the pain that that brings. That is why the Bill must not be watered down.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The anger, dismay, and betrayal that he felt reading the lies written in his name is something that I will never ever forget, and it is why this means so much to me. It took 23 years for South Yorkshire police to admit the scale of its cover-up, yet by 2020—31 years after Hillsborough—no public servant had been convicted, and no police officer disciplined. In fact, Norman Bettison, who was absolutely central to the cover-up, not only escaped sanction but was rewarded with a knighthood for his efforts—a title he disgracefully retains to this day. So yes, we got the truth, but justice? No. That is why we are here today. This Bill must be worthy of the 97 who were unlawfully killed. It must be worthy of all who have suffered at the hands of a state that covers up its failures. I want to thank everyone who has helped us reach this point.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The cover-up that followed was deliberate—a calculated attempt to rewrite history and shift the blame on to the victims. Let us never forget what the chief constable of South Yorkshire police admitted in 2012, after the Hillsborough independent panel: “In the immediate aftermath senior officers sought to change the record of events. Disgraceful lies were told which blamed the Liverpool fans for the disaster. Statements were altered which sought to minimise police blame.” I saw that with my own eyes. I sat beside my dad, who was seriously injured at Hillsborough, in the Liverpool office of Elkan Abrahamson, who is here today—one of the architects of the Bill, along with Pete Weatherby—when he received his revised statement.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This moment carries immense weight for me and for so many others here today—for all those who have lost loved ones, those who carry the scars, and those who survived but never recovered from the trauma of being dragged innocently into a state cover-up. This Bill is not just about legislation, although that is vital; this Bill is about legacy. It is about truth, justice and accountability—three words that the establishment has resisted at every turn, and three words that we have fought to place at the heart of the Bill. Let me speak briefly about why I have fought so hard for those words. Like so many, I was at Hillsborough in 1989. Like so many, I witnessed the cover-up unfold. Ninety-seven innocent men, women and children were unlawfully killed, and countless more lives shattered, but the tragedy was only the beginning.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Colleagues, we did not get here without a long, collective effort from so many, and we must continue that same collective effort to ensure that truth, justice and accountability are finally—finally—enshrined in law. The Bill must honour those already wronged by the state, those who fought for justice on their behalf and those who might come after us, but it must also mark the beginning of the end for the suffering of innocent working-class people dragged into the vortex of a state cover-up. My message remains crystal clear: anything less than the Hillsborough law delivered in full would be a further betrayal of the 97, and indeed unworthy of the name Hillsborough. All of us in this place, and those watching, will carry on, relentless, until we get that legacy.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a fair point; this is a great start but there is a long way to go yet, and we need to keep our foot to the pedal. The Government recognise the need for a statutory duty of candour to change the culture of cover-ups. Candour is not incompatible with national security. The duty to tell the truth must apply to everyone, including intelligence agencies. Carve-outs for individual officers undermine this Bill and, frankly, have no place in legislation about candour. Accountability would improve the performance of our security services and surely enhance our safety, not lessen it. The Government have been offered a simple amendment to fix this issue in the Bill, and to ensure that accountability, by the lawyers connected to Hillsborough Law Now. I urge hon. Members and the Government to support it.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I place on record my thanks to the people of Sheffield? On that day, they were magnificent in looking after the Liverpool fans who, as my hon. Friend has said, had no way to phone home. They showed unbelievable human kindness to those fans.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“First, I pay tribute to the volunteers who serve on the safety advisory groups—a thankless but hugely important task—who will be really worried about today. The safety of football fans has, at times, been at the very bottom of priorities in this place. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the safety of supporters is absolutely paramount in the Government’s thinking, rather than the politics around this matter?”
House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) stated that Maccabi Tel Aviv have “played a game in Istanbul where there was no trouble at all.” UEFA moved the game to Hungary after Turkish authorities refused to stage it in Turkey. Hungarian authorities then had it played behind closed doors, hence no trouble.”
House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗