Tom Morrison
MP for Cheadle · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“This Bill will change the way that this country works and operates. A legal duty of candour on all public authorities will bring groundbreaking change not only legally, but culturally, and a cover-up culture will no longer thrive. In Committee, my hon.”
“I wish to speak to amendment 25, which has been tabled in my name, among others. Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, Windrush, Grenfell and the Manchester Arena are all tragedies that everyone across the country knows too well, because the campaigners, the survivors and the families of those who have been lost have bravely made sure…”
“What has been achieved by the families and all the campaign groups pushing for this legislation is nothing short of astounding. To take the most unimaginable heartbreak, and the most unimaginable grief and suffering, and turn it into positive action that will not only make our country safer and more just, but make the legacy of the 97 syn…”
“I remember the joy and relief that spread throughout that room, and the way that councillors from all parties came together to unite behind the families and campaigners who fought so hard, and for so long, to get that verdict. But there were more blocks and heartbreaking moments to come.”
“For example, we believed that the issues of wilfully destroying records and the provision of legal aid were not sufficiently addressed. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) has tabled new clauses 2 and 4, to make the legislation watertight.”
“The impact of the briefings given to the press by the police and senior politicians and advisers after Hillsborough is still felt today. It was a despicable smear campaign that demonised communities and a whole city, and even worse, it made the victims of the disaster appear to be at fault and somehow to blame for what happened.”
The complete record
Every one of 247 lines we hold for Tom Morrison, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Martin Hyman highlights that his grandparents, like many others, believed that civilisation, culture and the rule of law would protect them. But that was not the case. The Holocaust was not a sudden collapse of morality, but the end point of an insidious process in which discrimination was legalised, exclusion enforced, and dehumanisation made routine by ordinary people. Education plays a critical role in responding to that. Organisations such as the Northern Holocaust Education Group and the My Voice project work to ensure that survivor testimony and lived experience continue to reach schools and communities.”
“It is no secret that hate crimes have risen year on year, misinformation continues to spread like wildfire online, and politics is becoming increasingly polarised. I visited the Community Security Trust earlier this week and heard directly about the work and resource that goes into ensuring that Jewish communities are protected. But heartbreakingly, the Heaton Park synagogue attack on Yom Kippur just three months ago shows that despite every effort to ensure people are safe and secure, the evil of antisemitism poses a real and murderous threat to our Jewish communities. The latest statistics, published in October, showed that Jewish people had a higher rate of religious hate crimes targeted towards them than any other faith group. We have a duty today to remember, reflect and take action to stamp out this hatred now.”
“He eventually made it to England, where he earned a doctorate in chemistry at the University of London, before moving to Cheadle with his wife Joan. He was one of the first Liberal councillors to represent the Cheadle area and did so for four decades. During his time on the council, Paul held a many positions, including on the equal opportunities special panel and the social inclusion and community cohesion working party. His experience so early on in life drove his passion to prioritise inclusion and community in Cheadle, and he also fought tirelessly for refugees in our region. Paul knew more than anyone just how important it was to be the voice for those who could not defend themselves. I was deeply honoured to replace Paul on Stockport council, and still to this day I try to ensure that I live up to his legacy. I miss him dearly.”
“Martin said to me: “In 1938, 272 Jews were recorded as having lived in the street in Vienna where my mum grew up. She was one of only 13 who survived the Holocaust.” They reflect the experience of thousands of children whose lives were saved only because others acted. I am asking everyone in this House today to imagine the pain and suffering inflicted from just these singular stories and multiply that by 1,000 and then multiply it again. I would like to pay tribute to Paul Porgess, a survivor of the Holocaust who was not only my friend, but a mentor to me. Paul was born in Czechoslovakia to parents Victor and Olga. During the second world war, his family were deported to the ghetto in Warsaw. After falling ill, Paul was separated from his parents, but was helped to escape by the Polish resistance.”
“Leonard went on to lead a successful career and have a happy family home in Gatley, despite experiencing one of the hardest starts to life anyone could imagine. He was a proud administrator at Yeshurun synagogue, which sits proudly in the heart of Gatley. Peter Kurer was taken in by a Quaker family in Manchester with his brother and parents after they learned the SS were coming for his father. Later, Peter selflessly volunteered considerable time towards the establishment of a retirement home in Didsbury for Jewish refugees. Martin Hyman shared with me the story of his mother who grew up in 1930s Vienna and was expelled from school simply for being Jewish. Aged just 13, she was sent alone to Britain on the Kindertransport. She never saw her parents again. Sadly, these stories are not unusual.”
“Instead, those institutions enforced discriminatory laws, facilitated deportations, and normalised othering and, eventually, murder. Prejudice becomes policy when institutions fail to act against hatred. We are talking about a scale of suffering and terror that is beyond comprehension, and that is why personal stories are so crucial to our learning and reflection. I would therefore like to share some stories of my constituents who survived. In 1939, Leonard Kaufmann’s uncle managed to secure a place for him on the Kindertransport, leaving behind his siblings and parents who later died. At four years old, Leonard remembers sitting on a barstool on his arrival to the UK, all alone and waiting to be collected, not able to speak English, scared and completely unsure of what was to come.”
“Recent events both in the UK and abroad reiterate that “never again” cannot rest on remembrance alone; it needs conscious action. The Nazi regime systematically murdered 6 million Jews, including 1.5 million children. That is 6 million stories, 6 million people who loved, 6 million people who added immeasurable value to this world. That murderous regime also killed Roma and Sinti people, disabled people, gay men, political opponents, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others that they deemed undesirable. In total, around 10 million people were murdered. But the Holocaust was not carried out by mobs and Nazis alone. It was enabled by the systematic involvement and compliance of institutions, including the police, civil servants, universities, courts and local authorities—the very institutions that were created to protect and serve.”
“I am honoured to be here for this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for leading the debate, and opening it with such an incredibly moving speech. Genocide does not just happen. There is always a path: there is always a terrifying and evil journey towards it. The intention to destroy a group of people is an unspeakable idea. It is difficult to comprehend and yet it has happened not once but multiple times across the globe. Remembering the Holocaust is not just a Jewish issue; it is a human one. Education, reflection and, crucially, action become more and more important each day as we face increasingly fractured communities, inflammatory online rhetoric, and the casual othering of minority groups.”
“Q3. I visited Stepping Hill hospital in my constituency where I met the incredible team. They are working in some of the worst conditions. Staff showed me wards where sewage is coming up through the drains on to the floors, and ceilings dripping water on to vital equipment. The hospital has a £130 million repair bill, and the Prime Minister is the man who can change this. Will he meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) so that we can talk to him about this issue, get some investment and get the hospital that my constituents deserve?”
“Stockport council, along with two other boroughs, missed out on the recovery grant. The grant was not mentioned in the fair funding review or consultation. Why was it not mentioned, and is the Minister concerned that that opens up the whole process to legal challenge?”
“Bramhall and Heald Green are facing huge numbers of development proposals in their area, and the Government are today proudly announcing their policy to presume approval of developments around rail stations to improve sustainable transport. Gatley and Heald Green stations have the highest rates of cancellations in the north-west, and there has been no Sunday service in Bramhall for over a year and a half. The Minister should know that these stations are serviced by Northern—coincidentally, it is in effect a Government-run company—so how can my constituents trust this Government when it comes to building sustainable communities?”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to schedule a debate in the House on the protection of the green belt, and to resist destructive plans to sacrifice green fields, woodlands and wildlife habitats to unsustainable and unnecessary development, in favour of investing in sustainable housing solutions and protecting our natural environment for future generations. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003149]”
“I would like to thank Save Hall Moss Fields Action Group for this much-needed petition. In my Cheadle constituency, we are facing unrealistic and unsustainable developments that are already impinging on residents’ quality of life. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Cheadle, Declares that the green belt is under unprecedented threat from short-sighted planning policies that prioritise profit over people and concrete over countryside; further that once the green belt is gone, its biodiversity, beauty and balance are lost forever; and further that the Government must be held accountable for the systematic erosion of these protected spaces, which were established to preserve nature, safeguard our heritage and maintain the health and wellbeing of communities across the UK.”
“I beg to move amendment 35, in schedule 1, page 25, line 23, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert “should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.” See Amendment 38.”
“What it does do, though, is place a special responsibility on MI5 to be candid, because their evidence is often very important in very significant cases, where there has been significant loss of life, where people’s citizenship is being removed or where people are being deprived of their liberties.” –– [ Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 95, Q138.] Because of that, it is vital that we do not allow any carving out, intentional or otherwise, of the security services, to ensure that they, too, are held to account and must tell the truth. That will strengthen not only their work, but the trust that we place in them.”
“This amendment would not endanger national security. It would not impact the way in which some evidence is required to be provided in closed sessions. It would provide the security services with the necessary safeguards to ensure that secret and classified information is protected. This is what happens now. We heard from the journalist Daniel De Simone, who worked on the agent X story, where the security services tried to mislead and were found out. His testimony stated: “I do not think it is wrong that there are special advocates in closed material procedures; it is now an established part of a court process.”
“Last week we heard from Pete Weatherby, who, as well as working with the Hillsborough families, supported several families impacted by the Manchester Arena bombing. He said: “There was a major failure of the intelligence services and the way they dealt with the aftermath of the bombing…MI5 then put an incorrect narrative—a false narrative—to the inquiry itself. The judge, the chair of the inquiry, found that the corporate case that it had put was incorrect.” –– [ Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 6, Q3.] The amendment would ensure, as much as any law can, that that could not happen again, by explicitly ensuring that the security services are accountable to this Bill and therefore to a public who willingly consent to how these organisations work to protect us and our country.”
“Several of our witnesses last week gave evidence that laid out various examples of how the security services had failed to be fully candid, disregarded accountability, and, at times, misled inquiries. We also know that the Government assured campaigners, Members and other interested parties that there would be no carve-out for the security services in the Bill. The security services do an incredible job in keeping us safe and ensuring that our country’s interests are protected. It is right that their work is covered by the secrecy Act; no one wishes to change that. However, because of that power they should be held to highest standards of accountability. We know that in recent history that has not been the case.”
“It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. These amendments do nothing more than fix something in the current draft of the Bill, which seems inadvertently to have carved out the security services—an area that could be strengthened, as we heard during the evidence session last week. The amendments seek to extend the duty of candour and assistance to the intelligence services as organisations, ensuring that they as bodies are required to be open and co-operative with the inquiries and any investigations. The amendment balances accountability with national security, by stating that direction will not be given to public officials “if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence”.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for the points that he made; he is spot on that the lack of clarity in the Bill, particularly surrounding what came out of the evidence sessions, raises more questions than answers. However, I am pleased that the Minister has said that the Government are happy to work with us on tightening those gaps before Report. This is not about unrestricted evidence; it is about getting to the truth, which must be our focus throughout. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am not sure whether this is the right time to ask, but on the amendment paper, amendment 34 is down as a Liberal Democrat amendment, but on the groupings that were sent across to us, it was down as an SNP amendment. I just wanted to clarify where we are with that.”
“Does the hon. Member agree that, when someone is in that position of power over a public body, they have a huge responsibility, not just for the culture but for the training, the personnel, the HR practices and the policies? With that responsibility, someone needs to ensure that that goes throughout the whole of the organisation, and command responsibility focuses the mind to ensure that everything below them is working to clock.”
“Yes, sorry. In the last evidence session, we discussed a very similar situation when we heard from both Pete Weatherby and Daniel De Simone, one of whom is a KC trying to get to the truth through his work in the courts, and another of whom is a journalist trying to expose the truth, particularly around the Agent X story. We are not looking for a change to the Official Secrets Act or its operation. We simply want the Bill to encompass the security services explicitly. There is a list of public authorities on the Bill. The security services are not on there, which begs the question, why? I thank the Minister for saying that further work will be done on that and that she will be engaging with all Members across the House before Report. On that basis, we are happy to withdraw the amendments.”
“I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 9, page 8, line 2, after “work” insert— “including the retention and disclosure of digital records including messages relevant to their public functions”. This amendment ensures that digital messages and records are added to the duty of candour in relation to inquiries and inquests.”
“How people perceive what happens in this place, and in the organisations and public authorities that surround us and the power structures that are there, is vital to the legitimacy that we have and that those public authorities also have. By criminalising such conduct, the clause would reinforce the obligation on public authorities and officials to maintain and safeguard records, ensuring that inquiries and inquests can access all the information necessary to understand what happened and hold the responsible parties to account. This is a way to make sure that the truth can be found in those areas and hopefully ensure that WhatsApp messages are not deleted in future.”
“We spoke this morning about the issues dealt with by amendment 43, but to clarify, WhatsApp messages formed a big part of the evidence in the recent covid inquiry—it seemed to be government by WhatsApp at the time—and yet many of them seem to have disappeared. The amendment would provide an extra way of ensuring that public authorities and those responsible are keeping proper records and preventing that from happening again. New clause 3 would prevent the deliberate concealment of evidence that could obstruct investigations, hinder fact-finding and undermine public trust. I would like the Committee to consider the element of public trust here.”
“I thank the Minister for her comments. In the spirit of cross-party working, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Q Thank you for your evidence so far, Pete. You touched just then on how this will be a deterrent, but for that to be needed, there needs to be a culture change in public services. In the Bill, there is a lot of talk about trying to create codes of conduct. How do you envisage that working? Do you think that one standard code of conduct would go across all public services, or should each organisation be responsible for building its own code of conduct and then implementing it? Pete Weatherby: I think there should be a mixture. There have to be central tenets to it; otherwise, we will fall into the problem where a local authority or police force will have its lawyers lawyering up a code that does not do what it should do. I think there should be a mixture on that front.”
“In a real-life scenario, the police would have gathered much more evidence for the prosecution to consider, but it potentially would cover those situations.”
“Q This is for Tom Guest. The new offence of misleading the public would not apply for the purposes of journalism. How clear do you think the meaning of that exception is? I will give two examples: would it count if a Minister was writing a piece for a newspaper column or if a public servant was briefing the media after an event? Tom Guest: It is fair to say that it is quite widely drawn, and there can be good policy reasons for that. Clearly, it is important to uphold the freedom of speech and protect the interests of journalism—not having a chilling effect on journalism is important. We understand why it is drafted in that way, but it is drafted quite widely. It would appear to cover those examples. Again, I am giving that at a very broad level.”
“In the consultation, we have gone through certain elements in relation to which we have said that, operationally, we may not express candour at certain times: for example, in a live situation in which we lawfully employed the services of, say, an undercover police officer or an undercover officer online; or in a live firearms operation, a live kidnap operation or a product contamination operation. In those cases we may seek to use a little bit of subterfuge to make sure we gain the lawful aim and the right public outcome for the victim at the end of it. Does that explain it?”
“To reinforce the point, the other aspect is that whenever there is a misconduct meeting or hearing for police officers, there is always reference to the code of ethics—the ethical behaviours that are expected of officers and staff. The third bit of your question was about how we measure this. I would say that we measure it in three ways. The first is the training at the beginning. The second measure is around outcomes from our misconduct proceedings, as well as the proportionality of our misconduct proceedings and how they are used and referred to. The third measure —this is particularly important—is the measure of public opinion. As organisations, we respond to that, and we openly and candidly answer those questions.”
“We do recruit training, which in most forces happens over a period of 20 to 22 weeks, and recruits have a specific input on values-based decision making. We have something called the national decision model, which allows them to think about the consequences and the options they have in making their decisions. The code of ethics absolutely underpins what we do. It sits in the middle of our decision-making circle. It is trained, really, from day one. I am trying to bring it to life a bit: this sits in the middle of all the specialist public order training, post Hillsborough, for commanders at public events, particularly football, and their accreditation and training. For all our bronze, silver and gold commanders, the code of ethics sits inside the wheel in which we make our decisions.”
“Q You have already mentioned the code of ethics and code of practice, and we have had a lot of people talking about potential codes of conduct. Can you describe how your various codes filter through to the workforce, and how everyone is made aware of the codes they should be working to? As an organisation, how do you measure the success of the codes? Chief Constable Guildford: They obviously occur over a period of time. Certainly in my service—I have done over 30 years—they have come in the second half of my service, rather than the first. However, the way that we train them is very explicit: it is done on a values basis through initial training. We recruit and assess new candidates on the basis of values.”
“The person must have departed significantly from the expectations of their role, they must have caused harm to someone, they must have been responsible for significant or reputed dishonesty, it must be about a matter of significant concern to the public, it must be seriously improper, and they ought to know that it was seriously improper. That is an incredibly high threshold, and rightly so, but it is inconceivable that there is any legitimate journalistic activity that would satisfy the remarkably high threshold of all six tests that we would want to protect. On that basis, we do not think it is appropriate. The challenge for the Government is whether they could identify a circumstance in which any journalistic activity that would be in breach of those would be legitimate. I do not think they can; I think that is inconceivable.”
“Q I have a follow-up to Ian’s question. The new offence of misleading of the public would not apply “for the purposes of journalism.” That is the wording in the Bill. As has been so rightly pointed out, we know there has been a history of public officials who have been using the media in lead-ups to inquiries and so on. Critics, to a point of view that I might have, would say that any kind of stamping down or work on that would be an attack on freedom of speech. What would you say to that? Nathan Sparkes: In a lot of legislation there are special exemptions for journalism, and often that is justified, but I think it is for the Government to justify that exemption when they bring forward legislation. I do not think it can be justified in this case. Looking at that offence, there is a six-part test for it to apply.”
“That is why, when there is an exemption for an organisation, and it is not about individuals in an organisation, I think that does weaken it.”
“You ask what can be done if I do a story about you that is wrong and you want to hold me to account. I work for the BBC, and there is a complaints process for the BBC that can go even to Ofcom, if necessary, so there are ways of correcting a story or getting an apology if something is wrong. As a journalist, I work on difficult and challenging stories, and I obviously abhor some of the things you have spoken about today: false information being presented as fact and leading to really harmful consequences for people. I try to take personal responsibility and do the right thing, and I think that is the point—that is why it is important. The more you can foster a culture of people taking personal responsibility, the better.”
“Q This question is about your profession as a journalist. Obviously, you rely on sources—you have talked about that—and there is a balance to be struck between relying on your sources and the fact that throughout history, in respect of Hillsborough and other shocking scandals, journalists have probably been briefed with bad intent. How do we fix that in the Bill? Also, what holds you to account as a journalist? If you did a story about me that was dreadful, where could I go to hold you to account? Daniel De Simone: As I understand it, the Bill is aimed at public authorities—Government Departments, the police and others—so, as things stand, media organisations are not part of it. I do not know whether there is a proposal to make them part of it, but as things stand they are not.”
“Thank you to Jane, Tom and everyone watching for driving this cause all the way to the Houses of Parliament—that is no small feat. I hope we can all do you proud. This is your moment—it is your time. I look forward to continuing this campaign with all of you, and I promise that I will not stop until injured emergency service workers get the recognition they deserve.”
“Get this award off the ground, because those incredible people sat in the Gallery right now should not have to wait another day longer. Politically there is no resistance. This is a worthwhile investment that would increase national pride and community cohesion, and celebrate the incredible work of our emergency services. I thank the Minister for being here today and look forward to his remarks. I hope he will listen carefully to the debate, take heed and note with urgency that establishing an injury in service award is the right thing to do. I also thank all my colleagues who have joined this important discussion. It has been a long time coming. I hope it is worth the wait, and I hope it will transform the lives of many injured ex-emergency service workers.”
“Thanks to Tom Curry’s work, the proposal for the award reached the Cabinet Office before the general election. Multiple Members have brought it to light in both ministerial correspondence and on the Floor of the House, but the same line is trotted out time and again. With Elizabeth Emblems now being awarded as of December last year, it is yet another reminder to those overlooked and injured survivors that they are forgotten and have no recognition. Many family members of the fallen who have received the Elizabeth Emblem support the introduction of this award and agree that it is wrong that the injured are forgotten. This has been delayed for too long, so I urge the Minister to do the right and honourable thing.”
“Those killed in the IRA bombings have now been awarded the Elizabeth Emblem, but the officers injured on that day, including Pam who lost her job—the job she aspired to from a young age—are overlooked. All those emergency service workers will tell us that they are lucky, as they survived while some of their colleagues lost their lives in the line of duty. That is certainly true, but we cannot allow this to become an awful game of comparison. The people I have mentioned have all suffered in the most appalling ways. They suffered gunshot wounds, paralysis and other life-changing injuries—and of course post-traumatic stress disorder, with many of these brave men and women reliving their trauma day in, day out. I say to the Government that we cannot allow these people to wait any longer. They need the recognition now.”
“This impacts us all. Many colleagues will remember PC Keith Palmer, who sadly died in that attack. He was rightly awarded posthumous awards for gallantry and the Elizabeth Emblem. His bravery saved many lives that day, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude. Kris is also owed our thanks. He received no medal or recognition for his bravery. Instead, he lost his career and the job he loved. The medal would mean that emergency service responders who survive the most awful situations are met with respect, acknowledgement and honour. The medal would mean that Pam White’s bravery and injuries during the IRA attacks on Harrods in 1983 would be recognised. Despite her injuries and the terrifying uncertainty of the situation, Pam guided members of the public to safety. The injuries sustained were so bad that she was forced to leave the force.”
“The award could be offered to all living survivors, and the criteria would be threefold: a public servant, injured on duty, and medically discharged from the service due to that injury. The medal would recognise the health and career sacrifice of those who are injured on duty. The medal would mean that those who have made significant sacrifices could wear their medal proudly, and the public would be able to recognise and understand the bravery and service that they have contributed to this country. The medal would mean that brave emergency responders such as police constable Kris Aves, who is now paralysed and confined to a wheelchair, would rightly be recognised. Kris now lives a completely different life, unable to continue the job of protecting us because he was mown down in the terror attack on Westminster bridge in 2017.”
“The “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign believes that any new award for those injured in the line of duty should be similar to the Elizabeth Emblem, in that it should be awarded to all public servants. A constituent from Cheadle who works as a prison chaplain wrote to me this week and suggested involving prison officers, as they are essential workers who get little or no public recognition. They are another stark reminder of the way our public servants put their safety on the line for us. In 2019, a Ministry of Justice report stated that there were over 10,000 attacks on prison officers a year, with many ending in career-altering injuries and severe psychological trauma. We must make sure that all public servants are involved.”
“There are many who are injured and are then deprived of the long service and good conduct medals that are awarded after a sustained period of service. Until 2010, emergency responders had to have served for at least 22 years—later cut to 20 years—to get the long service and good conduct medals. The gallantry award is also insufficient, as the vast majority of attacked personnel are deprived of the opportunity of gallantry because they are sprung upon and ambushed. That means that through no fault of their own, there are tens of thousands of people out there without recognition simply because their cowardly attackers jumped them from behind.”
“Earlier this year, with Tom and Jane’s help I tabled an early-day motion that has since gained 111 signatures, making it one of the most supported motions in this Parliament. The signatories are from every single party, right across the political divide—the Liberal Democrats, Labour, Conservatives, Reform, the Green party and independents. This issue transcends party politics. It is a cause that we can and should all rally around, and one with a simple and obvious answer. From freedom of information requests to 44 police forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we know that there are over 16,000 injured police officers across the country, but we do not know the total number of injured servicemen and women across all emergency services, as that figure is not available. This is an injustice we have to put right.”
“He is truly a force of nature, and I can honestly say that it has been a pleasure to work with him this year to ensure that the injury in service award becomes a reality. Tom Curry has built the campaign from the ground up. A former Sussex police officer, he was cruelly injured just weeks before reaching 22 years of service and so was denied any recognition for his work in the community. He is a former detective, which really does show as nothing gets past him—especially Governments dragging their feet. I can attest to hon. Members in the Chamber that Tom is relentless. Our phones will not stop ringing and our inboxes will never be cleared until the medal of recognition is delivered—Tom has personally promised me that.”
“I met some incredible people that day, including Robert Barlow, John O’Rourke, Gary Pearson, Andy Walker, Robert Hindley, Shahid Mahmood, Simon Bywater and Kerry Snuggs, who has now set up the intrepid games: a sports event for service workers who have been injured or disabled while on duty. I know that a number of them are in the Gallery watching the debate; I hope that we can all do them proud. They deserve their moment. They deserve recognition for all they put on the line and sacrificed. It is a national shame that no Government have acknowledged them and thanked them for their service. That has to change now. While I am talking of people who deserve their moment, I have to mention Tom Curry. May I make it clear that this is Tom’s debate? Tom started the campaign and has fought tirelessly to get support across the House.”