What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I note that the No. 1 song at the moment in Switzerland is “Dai Dai” by Shakira and Burna Boy, which I thought was about two Welshmen. One of the lines in the song is “Dream a little higher”, and I think that is what we need to do. There are a lot of British businesses and Swiss businesses that fit alongside each other in a perfect way, and we therefore need to address these issues face to face.
Government policy is represented by our manifesto commitments, but a boy is allowed to dream.
I can wholeheartedly commit the Minister for Trade to organising precisely such a meeting in the near future. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the financial services industry, some of which is based in the City of London, will benefit from this deal, but it is actually about the whole of the United Kingdom—as I was trying to lay out, there are financial services and tech industries across the whole of the UK that will benefit from this deal, whether that is in Glasgow, across Scotland, in Leeds, Manchester or wherever it may be. That is an important part of what we are trying to achieve.
Well, it would have been difficult for us to secure more in this deal, because 99% of all tariffs on goods are at zero between the UK and Switzerland already, so there was not more to achieve in that. I would simply point to the fact that the India deal enters into force tomorrow, immediately cutting tariffs on Scotch whisky from 150% to 75%, and then further to 40%, which has been welcomed enormously in Scotland. I would also say that the financial services industry and a whole series of tech businesses across not just the mainland of Scotland, but the islands, will stand to benefit from this deal, because we are in the main a services country.
Packaged together, all these trade deals represent a significant additional set of opportunities for British businesses. I have said this before, but I think it bears repeating: only one in 10 British businesses exports. Something like twice that number of French businesses export, and it is three times that number in Germany—the numbers are not precisely correct, and it is difficult to compare, but it is not far off. That is a problem for the UK, so we need to get much better at exporting. Our Department’s job, once we have all these trade agreements signed, is to try to persuade and enable people to understand how they can do that. Now, we have some funds—the Ricardo fund, for instance, is available for people to take down trade and other barriers where they see them. We also try to make financial support available for people to take advantage of these opportunities across the whole country, including in the south-west.
One of the great things about Northern Ireland, of course, is that it gets the double benefit of being both in the European single market and in the UK’s single market. That has undoubted benefits. If I could point to one tiny area where having left the European Union has caused us an enormous headache this year, it would be steel. It seems bizarre, in the end, that the UK and Europe, which are not one another’s problem for steel production—other countries in the world are, where there is over-production and unfair subsidies—should have to negotiate access between one another. It would make much more sense if we were able to achieve some kind of shared deal. As this is perhaps my last appearance as Minister for Trade—[Interruption.] Well, who knows? I just want to thank my private office. As every single Minister will know, our private office is the only way that we ever get anything done. I want to say an enormous thank you to everybody in my team, so to Alisha, Josh, Josh—there are two Joshes, senior and junior—Lola, Georgia and Tarek, I say an enormous thank you. We would not have got any of these deals over the line if it had not been for them.
I congratulate the Minister on securing this deal, which is the sixth from his Department—not bad for a Government made up of public sector workers, as derided by those on the Opposition Front Bench. I was interested in what he said in his statement about this being a statement of intent for future co-operation. I hope that he stays in his position under the new Prime Minister. If he does, what sort of future co-operation would he like to see?
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is an absolute privilege to bring the Bill back to the House on Report. I know that Members across the House have long supported it and have been waiting for its return. At its heart, this legislation is about what people should expect from the state when the worst happens: honesty, transparency and a system that stands with victims and families, not against them. For too long, that has not been the experience of too many people in this country; bereaved and traumatised families have been forced into exhausting, heartbreaking battles to uncover the truth. Institutions have closed ranks and ordinary people have been left to fight the full weight of the state at the very moment when they most needed its support. The Bill seeks to put an end to that. It will drive the culture change that the country so desperately needs so that when public bodies fail, the response is candour, not cover-up.
I am going to make some progress, but I will give way. It is essential that there is accountability, not denial, so that those affected get the support they need, not obstruction. We often refer to this Bill as the Hillsborough law. Without the determination of the Hillsborough families, we would not be debating this legislation today. Their determination has been driven by a selfless belief that no other families should ever go through the ordeal that they have suffered. But sadly their story is not unique: we have seen scandal after scandal and cover-up after cover-up, where families have had to fight for the truth and their trust in the state to be forthcoming and truthful has been shattered. The Bill began with the Hillsborough families, but in the last decade their fight has become a movement, with a coalition of families and campaigns and those searching for the truth; the Bill belongs to every one of them. I am sure that the House joins me in thanking every single family member and campaigner from the Hillsborough families, the Manchester Arena families, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal and many other campaign groups, as well as many other individual cases that fall outside those campaigns.
I will make some progress, and then I will take interventions. Many have graciously—often at huge personal and emotional cost—shared their experiences with us to shape the Bill. The changes that it brings forward are so needed. It is thanks to their campaigning, perseverance and willingness to work with us to find solutions that the Bill is back before the House today. The House and the country owe them a debt of gratitude. I know that some of them are in the Gallery with us today—thank you. Before I turn to the Government amendments, I must pay tribute to the work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). I was on the Bill Committee, and I know how hard she worked to get us to this point. I also thank the Attorney General, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and colleagues across Government for coming together to resolve these complex issues, so that we could bring the Bill back before the House today. From the start, we have been clear that this is a Bill for the families concerned. That means listening to their views, and ensuring that the legislation delivers and has their confidence. It was in that spirit that the Manchester Arena families raised their concerns about the duty of candour and how it would apply to the intelligence services; I thank them for doing so. It is right that when a concern is raised, we pause, take stock and, where necessary, change course. The process has not been easy, and it has taken some time, but we had to get this right, and assess all possible implications and unintended risks resulting from how the duty would work in practice. I thank Pete Weatherby KC, the Intelligence and Security Committee and experts across our national security community, campaigners and Members of both Houses.
I thank the right hon. Member for her intervention. She has my assurance that we are clear that the Bill needs to apply across the United Kingdom, and we are working with devolved nations to ensure that happens.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are seeking a full culture change, and are trying to prevent any kind of attitude of covering things up. I am happy to meet him further to discuss that specific case. All the work that has been undertaken has enabled us to find a solution that provides full application of the duty, while protecting national security, which is absolutely essential.
I am going to make some progress, and then I will take interventions again. The amendments before the House ensure that the duty of candour and assistance applies to all individual intelligence officers, while establishing secure procedures for the disclosure of sensitive information. First, the Bill as introduced did not allow compliance directions to be issued to individual intelligence officers; rather, they were issued to the organisation that officers worked for. There were concerns that this effectively amounted to a carve-out for the intelligence services. Our amendments allow compliance directions to be issued to individual intelligence officers, so that the duty applies consistently across the public sector. Secondly, the amendments establish secure models for the disclosure of sensitive national information. The Government’s objective has always been clear—it has been to ensure that where information can be disclosed, it should be disclosed, while ensuring that proper protections are in place. We have therefore adopted the approach proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), which is to apply existing safeguards to the new provisions. When an individual working for a national security body receives a request for protected information, they must pass that information to the head of the authority, not directly to the inquiry or investigation. The head of the authority is then responsible for sharing it with the inquiry or investigation, subject to all existing arrangements for protecting information in law and practice. Restrictions on disclosure can still be sought, where necessary. Existing arrangements for secure inquiries remain available, and established practices, such as the use of security-vetted counsel, can continue. Under these arrangements, national security bodies will now be under the same duty to notify as other public authorities, but we have a limited provision to ensure that the right public authority is making the notification, and that this happens in an orderly and secure manner. While the Government support removing this exemption, nothing in this Bill, and none of its practical effects, change our position, which is that national security and the safety of our citizens and public servants must never be compromised.
I am very happy to meet the hon. Member and others, specifically in relation to the Ministry of Defence, and to give reassurance on how this can work and be done safely.
If it is specifically in relation to security services, and to security at the moment—
It is important to stress that nothing in this Bill, and nothing about its practical effect, changes our position in relation to national security. Many in our public services work in sensitive roles, and revealing their identity could put them or others at risk. The Bill does not require anyone to breach any other law. It expressly states that it does not override existing legislation, including the Official Secrets Act 1989. The Bill contains a specific protection from the requirement to notify for employees of the intelligence services and other select bodies, where they cannot come forward. However, there may be other situations where notifying may carry a similar risk. I want to make it clear that a public servant does not have to come forward until it is safe to do so, but steps must be taken without delay to ensure that a notification can be made safely. The Bill requires notification to be made as soon as reasonably practicable, after the authority or official becomes aware of the investigation. The explanatory notes will clarify that it would not be considered reasonably practicable if that meant a person was at risk of harm in making that notification. In those rare circumstances, the official must contact their current or former employer, or another third party if necessary, so that arrangements can be made with the inquiry or investigation for a notification to be made safely. Those actions must be taken without delay. Those leading inquiries and inquests must act reasonably, and authorities have a responsibility to protect their current and former employees. We will also set out guidance to accompany the duty. It will explain what individuals should do, and will make it clear that public authorities and investigations must work together to put arrangements in place for authorities and individuals to meet their duties while protecting personal safety and national security. If the investigation cannot provide those means, existing legal processes already provide ways to convert it into a form of investigation that can. Now that we have the right model for applying the duty in a national security context, we are extending that model to Defence Intelligence, the National Crime Agency and Counter Terrorism Policing, where the same considerations about the sensitivity of their information and work apply. Clause 8 includes them in the list of relevant public authorities for the purpose of clause 6. We have also made several amendments to ensure that the compliance directions operate as intended. The explanatory notes for schedule 1 clarify that directions should be made only where the person leading the investigation believes that a compliance direction would genuinely assist, and that they are not, for example, obliged to issue multiple directions to individuals who may all have the same information. We have also made a small change to clause 2 to make it clear that we are not inviting individuals to speculate on what may or may not be relevant. It is for the inquiry or investigation to define relevance through its terms of reference or equivalent. Finally, we have amended schedule 1 to require the investigation lead to consult the head of the public authority before issuing a compliance direction to an individual employee where national security is concerned. This aligns the new duty process with existing practice, in which public authorities and chairs of inquiries work together to determine how protected information can be provided safely. This will assist inquiries or investigations in practice because, given the way national security bodies operate, they will not usually know which individuals hold the relevant information, or how to receive it without creating unnecessary risks. The Bill also includes a power to extend the duty of candour to other types of investigations. We intend to make broad use of this power, and will bring forward secondary legislation, following consultation with the relevant sectors and investigatory bodies. I can confirm that that will extend the duty to investigations into police misconduct; to serious healthcare incidents, including major maternity reviews, such as the Leeds and Sussex maternity services reviews; to serious health and safety investigations; and to key ombudsman investigations, transforming the ability of these investigations to get to the truth.
It is absolutely right that recommendations are tracked and that we ensure there is a clear way of giving everyone confidence that recommendations will be implemented. The Cabinet Office is doing a significant piece of work to ensure that that is put in place, and both the Cabinet Office and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to share with her the work that is happening, both on recommendations from inquiries and on the prevention of future deaths and inquests.
The Government have already taken steps to improve transparency in response to inquiry recommendations, including launching the new gov.uk dashboards, which demonstrate progress in delivering accepted inquiry recommendations. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently considering how the implementation of recommendations resulting from future public inquiries should be scrutinised, and we welcome that.
The Office of the Chief Coroner has continued work to improve access to prevention of future deaths reports, while the Government seek to strengthen arrangements for responding to concerns raised through them, including better and more strategic use of technology. In addition to the work that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is undertaking, there is clearly work to be done in relation to inquests and in relation to inquiries and their recommendations, and I look forward to working on that.
It is clear that there needs to be public confidence about what happens to any recommendations, and this is therefore an area of work that is being considered. I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend is kept up to date with the work as it continues. I will now make some progress. Transforming the ability of investigations to get to the truth is essential, and I hope that the House recognises how far we have come. On Second Reading, the Prime Minister said that we would only strengthen this Bill, while affirming that we would always protect national security. The amendments I have mentioned do both. I now turn to the Government’s remaining amendments. On legal aid, families attending inquests have for too long found themselves, in their darkest moments, facing public authorities represented by large legal teams while they have been left to navigate complex proceedings without legal representation. The Bill finally addresses that imbalance through the largest expansion of legal aid in a generation, granting access to non-means-tested legal aid to families at any inquest where a public authority is an interested person. We have tabled amendments to ensure that this new entitlement operates as intended—first, to make it clear that legal aid will also be available when an individual is named as an interested person on behalf of a public authority or Government Department and, secondly, to simplify how the legal aid system operates so that it is more effective and easier to manage for providers and the Legal Aid Agency. The amendments mean that the expansion will operate efficiently from the outset.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the time she has spent with me in raising this and other issues. Under our proposed expansion, multiple family members will be able to receive non-means-tested legal help to prepare for an inquest hearing where a public authority is an interested person, and that includes help with preparing documents to send to the inquest. Increasing the number of legal representatives when it comes to advocacy is an area of some concern. Inquests are fact-finding proceedings designed to determine the circumstances of a death, and we would hope that, in general, one legally aided advocate would be sufficient to support each family through an inquest hearing. However, we have heard her concerns, and I hope for her assistance in continuing to look at the issue as the Bill progresses. [Interruption.]
I will—my hon. Friend assists me in finding my place in my notes again, so I thank her.
My hon. Friend has been a passionate advocate in relation to legally aided work, and I know that she will take every opportunity to raise concerns about the rates. The amendments mean that the expansion will operate efficiently from the outset, giving bereaved families the support that they need while avoiding delay. Let me turn to the amendment relating to archivists. They play an important role in preserving historical records, but do not account for the actions within them, so we have tabled Government new clause 8 to ensure that public record officers and keepers of public records are not subject to the duty of candour in relation to their record-keeping duties. We have worked closely with the devolved Governments on the Bill, and I am grateful for their co-operation and collaboration. We have tabled amendments to ensure that the offence of misleading the public and the two statutory misconduct in public office offences apply on a UK-wide basis. Those are amendments 40 to 42 and 70, and new clause 9 and amendments 44 to 51 respectively. At the request of the Scottish Government, we have also extended access to legal aid in Scotland for fatal accident inquiries where the state is represented. That will include a power for regulations to establish detailed criteria, which will be agreed by the Scottish Parliament. Before I close, let me address concerns that have been raised about implementation. The Government are well aware that the Bill is long overdue. Families and victims rightly deserve no further delay, but this is about cultural change, and change of such breadth and depth cannot be achieved by legislation alone. Some measures can come into force quickly; others depend on guidance and systems being in place to ensure that they work as intended. We are therefore stress-testing the earliest possible commencement points for each measure. We will update the House as soon as possible and publish a clear timeline for implementation. We are, as we have been throughout, absolutely committed to working with the families and other stakeholders to ensure that the Bill delivers real change. Everyone should be able to expect honesty from the state when the worst happens. They should expect a system that helps them establish the truth, rather than forcing them to fight for it. That is the purpose of this Bill.
The Bill allows a Minister to extend the duty and allows the flexibility to apply it to reviews where it would be most beneficial. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long on this point, and I would be happy to talk to her about how that takes place. In conclusion, the Bill is about restoring trust between the public and the state, ensuring that when public bodies fail, they respond with openness rather than defensiveness and with support rather than obstruction. Above all, it is a testament to the families who have, despite every setback, courageously campaigned for change and their determination to ensure that no other families ever again suffer as they have. I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their extraordinary bravery. I commend the Government amendments to the House.
With the leave of the House, it is an honour and a privilege to close today’s debate. This Bill exists because people refused to be silent, and because families who had lost everything were told to move on, stop asking questions and accept half-truths at best, bare-faced lies at worst. Instead, they chose to fight. For too long in this country when a disaster has struck, the balance of power has lain with the state, not with the people who suffered harm. The people it should have protected were left to battle institutions with limitless resources, lawyers paid for from the public purse and a culture focused on defending reputations rather than discovering the truth. This Bill will finally put that imbalance right. It shifts the system away from secrecy and defensiveness towards openness, honesty and accountability. I want to thank Members from all parties who have contributed so passionately today and throughout the passage of the Bill. I am so grateful for the way they have worked with us constructively and collaboratively, rightly challenging us, but always with a shared purpose. That is this House at its very best, coming together to rise above party political advantage for justice and the good of the British people. That is what we have done with the Hillsborough law, and it means that we have been able to bring forward amendments that genuinely strengthen this Bill, not water it down. I will address the points made in the debate. First, on national security, this Bill was paused to ensure we get it right. This legislation is about addressing the wrongs we have seen at Hillsborough and in so many other scandals. The duty of candour is about being honest when things go wrong; it is emphatically not about changing assessments of whether national security information can or cannot be disclosed publicly in legal proceedings, and it is a mischaracterisation to suggest that it does so. The families and campaigners have never wanted information to go into the public domain that would put people at risk. Certain types of legal proceeding can compel national security information—that happens now—and law and practice have been developed over time to protect information. The Bill and the amendments repeatedly make it clear that the Bill does not override existing laws, but instead draws on existing safeguards. We have always had the tools in law to protect national security information—for example, restriction orders and public interest immunity applications. Determining what and how sensitive information could be published was my main area of practice as a barrister for many years before coming to this place. Nothing in this Bill takes those away, and we have used the past months to stress-test these provisions rigorously and ensure that is the case. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) asked about the time taken and if our position had changed. The Government have been consistent that the risk comes from individuals who may not be aware of the full picture, and it has therefore been essential to be able to address that. The shadow Justice Secretary’s amendment and the Government amendments are based on the same premise: that there needs to be a corporate check on national security information going from an individual employee to an inquiry, because individuals may not know the full sensitivity. But the Government amendments provide a more precise process for what the head must do with that information, using existing national security safeguards, and so avoid the broad discretion that had caused Members concern.
I am afraid I will not. To respond to as many points raised as I can, I do not have time to take interventions. The Bill is about the duty of candour to an inquiry or investigation, and the onward disclosure of information will be determined by each inquiry, inquest or investigation as to what is appropriate and relevant. I would be eager to meet the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash to discuss what more can be done through the implementation of the Bill and separately to achieve the culture change that we want to see. Other Members raised the Nottingham maternity review, which I have followed closely, as I have the work of the Government’s maternity adviser, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), because of my experience in Nottingham when I was giving birth to my eldest son in 2014. Each contraction meant that his heartbeat stopped and what began as a normal labour suddenly turned to panic and ended with an emergency caesarean to save his life. I was one of the lucky ones, because I got to take him home. I will always hold in my mind the 500 mothers and babies who suffered potentially avoidable harm or death around that time in Nottingham. The message that we are sending with this legislation is that cover-up culture is over and that women and families must be listened to. Public bodies, including NHS trusts, must be open and candid when things go wrong. We are clear that we will apply the duty of candour to the Leeds and Sussex maternity reviews. On the national oversight mechanism and the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), we have taken steps to improve transparency in how we respond to inquiry recommendations. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently considering how the implementation of recommendations resulting from future public inquiries should be scrutinised. We welcome that and will continue to work with the Committee on next steps. The Office of the Chief Coroner is also continuing work to improve access to the prevention of future death reports while the Government seek to strengthen arrangements for responding to the concerns raised through them, including better and more strategic use of technology. On the Independent Public Advocate, I welcome the contribution and work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). I thank my right hon. Friend and the others who have raised this, and I take on my right hon. Friend’s points. Legislation requires that there be a review on the role within 18 months of the IPA being stood up, and that is in train. The Ethics and Integrity Commission will also be developing guidance on the code of ethics and will have a role in monitoring and overseeing it. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) raises in his amendments some serious concerns about disinformation and the risk of eroding trust in our institutions and weakening our country. While Back-Bench MPs are not included in the new offence, as they are responsible for scrutinising the decisions of the Government of the day, Parliament does already have processes for determining whether Members have misled the House and has its own arrangements for ensuring truthfulness and accuracy from Members. However, I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend to look at how we strengthen matters in relation to his concerns. On whistleblowing and amendments 3 and 6, the Bill provides safeguards for sensitive information and whistleblowers, and the code of ethics must contain information on whistleblowing policies. We are actively exploring opportunities for reform, as set out in the anti-corruption strategy 2025, and a consultation on whistleblowing will be launched this summer. We have heard many contributions about placing water companies under obligations of a code of ethical conduct, and although the code of conduct provisions do not apply to private water companies in England and Wales, the Bill contains a power to extend this. The Government will consult on that in due course. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) raised concerns about the additional work needed and the additional measures coming into force being put in place as soon as possible. We are conscious that families have waited long enough for this law. Putting commencement dates on the face of the Bill could cause practical difficulties, but we are doing all we can to ensure that it is in place as soon as possible. Members have also spoken about amendments relating to former public officials. To be clear, those individuals will remain subject to the duty of candour, provided that an investigation or inquiry relates to their former role, and the offence of misleading the public will also still apply, even if they have retired. On subcontractors, the main contractors will be accountable for their subcontractors’ performance. The Government are open to exploring further measures to strengthen accountability and candour through supply chains. Concerns about journalism have also been raised. The Government have already narrowed the journalism exemptions and made it clear that the offence covers misleading recognised news publishers. Sufficient safeguards are provided through the requirement for consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions before any prosecution can proceed. I wish to thank a number of people before I conclude. I pay tribute to all those who have shaped the Bill, ensured that it delivers as intended, held us to account and made sure that we got to this point. I thank the families and campaigners for their courage and for sharing their experiences, often at great personal cost. They have challenged successive Governments and worked constructively with us, and without them we would not be here today. I also thank the Members of this House who have stood alongside the families and campaigners over many years, championing their cause and helping to strengthen this Bill. In particular, I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Attorney General. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for all his assistance and expertise on the Government amendments on the security services. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), whose contribution was so powerful. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), whose passion for this matter long predates his return to this House. Nothing can bring back those who were lost, and we can never undo the suffering that so many families have endured. But what we can and must do is ensure that the truth is never again buried by institutions whose first instinct is to protect themselves. That is what the Bill is designed to combat, and I am incredibly grateful to all involved that we have been able to bring the Bill back before the House. As Victims Minister, I am determined to see the Bill deliver the lasting cultural change that families have fought for over so many years. I hope that in years to come it will be remembered not only for the duties and offences it creates, but because it helped to change the relationship between the state and those that it exists to serve. We have listened, and we have acted. We will continue to listen as the Bill makes its way through the House. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 9 Abolition of common law offence: Northern Ireland “(1) The offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland is abolished. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to— (a) any act which was done before the coming into force of this section, or (b) any act which began before the coming into force of this section and continues after its coming into force. (3) Subsection (1) does not affect— (a) the liability of any person for an offence other than the offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland, or (b) the civil liability of any person for the tort of misfeasance in public office.”—(Catherine Atkinson.) This new clause provides for the abolition of the offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. Clause 2 Duty of candour and assistance Amendments made: 151, page 2, line 25, leave out “likely to be” and insert “that is”. This amendment clarifies that information must be provided under the duty of candour and assistance if it is relevant to the inquiry or investigation concerned. Amendment 152, page 2, line 30, leave out “likely to be”.—(Catherine Atkinson.) See the explanatory statement to Amendment 151. Amendment proposed: 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert— “(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.”—(Jess Brown-Fuller.) This amendment requires public authorities or officials who are assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation. Question put, That the amendment be made.
On the hon. Member’s point about mental health, does he recognise that a number of treatments for depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, can affect the body’s ability to regulate temperature? It is all written in the small print with the medication, but doctors and practitioners do not always pass on the information. Does he agree that people suffering with those conditions need to be more widely informed?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate. I recently attended a screening of the national emergency briefing in my constituency. One sentence stuck with me, which was, “this is the least extreme climate we will experience in our lifetime.” As we swelter through another heatwave, many people are welcoming the hot and sunny weather, but it is unprecedented to have record-breaking temperatures three months in a row, and that is only set to continue. Experts estimated that there were more than 2,700 excess deaths during the May and June heatwaves attributed to heat-related causes. We are now seeing dangerous climate change-fuelled heat claiming lives, disrupting schools and hospitals, and shutting down transport and infrastructure. We need to adapt urgently. In recent weeks, I have heard from teachers and workers across my constituency who have struggled to keep buildings at a comfortable temperature. Teachers cited the guidance from the Department for Education, which suggested opening windows as a solution, as deeply unhelpful. The National Education Union rightly criticised the Department for underestimating the scale of the problem. Although I welcome the £710 million of funding to improve school and college buildings, which includes funding to install solar panels to bring down energy bills, it must be coupled with measures to provide good ventilation and cooling systems such as air-conditioning. Remember that not every school can simply open the windows, particularly not schools for children with special educational needs and difficulties, where it could be contrary to risk assessments. I have also been contacted by train drivers, bus drivers and delivery drivers who have been working in extreme temperatures with no air-conditioning. I have even heard that some supermarkets deliberately chose new delivery vehicles without air-conditioning to reduce their costs. That is unacceptable, as workers’ wellbeing should always be a priority over saving a few pounds. I have long supported the campaign for a law on a maximum working temperature, led by all the major trade unions, but it must be matched with the mitigating adaptations to ensure that productivity and the economy can continue in the face of climate challenges. When I worked in the operating department before coming to Parliament, maintaining temperature and humidity at certain levels was crucial to reducing infection risks while balancing the need to maintain a patient’s core temperature. Operating theatres are usually windowless rooms filled with electrical equipment, and even the best laminar flow and ventilation systems would struggle in hot weather. The lack of legislation on working temperatures and the pressures of waiting lists meant that we often had to carry on regardless and try to minimise the risk along the way. We need to act now to adapt to extreme heat to outpace the health risks and impacts on daily life. That requires a combination of immediate operational changes and long-term architectural upgrades to maintain safe and comfortable learning, working and living environments. What are the Government doing to adapt to this new normal, Minister? Will comprehensive guidance and support be provided to help schools, workplaces and public buildings mitigate the impact of extreme heat? Will the Government follow the lead of Spain, Belgium, Latvia and others, and answer the calls from trade unions to implement a maximum working temperature in this country? This country is built for a climate that no longer exists. Without immediate action, we will see more health implications and more disruption. We are at a tipping point. Adapting to extreme heat will strengthen our national and economic resilience and improve everybody’s lives.
Does the hon. Member recognise that it is not unusual for NESO to issue emergency measures? There are normally peaks and troughs during the day, such as when people come home from work, put the kettle on and turn on the air-conditioning. NESO has stated that that is quite normal.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Around one in five pigs in the country are reared in my part of the world: Norfolk and Suffolk. That means that when we talk about the future of the pig sector, we are not talking about an abstract issue; we are talking about thousands of local jobs, family farms, and a sector worth billions to our local economy. The industry faces plenty of challenges. Rising costs, global competition and pressure on farm incomes have been covered, so I want to focus on the one issue that could undo everything else if we get it wrong: biosecurity. African swine fever remains the single biggest threat facing our pig industry. It has spread across Europe and Asia, but thankfully has never been detected here in the UK. We have a window of opportunity to keep it that way, but only if we take border biosecurity seriously. If ASF got into this country, the consequences would be devastating for farmers and could cost the industry an estimated £100 million. Once it is here, we cannot simply rewind the clock, so prevention has to come first. What consideration has the Department given to providing the public with more information about the risks of bringing meat products into the UK, strengthening checks on personal imports and introducing measures such as amnesty bins before customs clearance? The previous Government created what many in the industry see as a weakness in our border arrangements by moving customs checks to Sevington, over 20 miles inland from Dover. That leaves a significant stretch between the port and the inspection site. Will the Minister look again at whether that arrangement provides the level of biosecurity our farming sector deserves? I would suggest that it does not. Good biosecurity is not just about stopping disease at the border; it is also about making sure that farms are as resilient as possible if the worst should happen. The animal health and welfare pathway is a good example. It provides funded veterinary visits, including dedicated biosecurity advice, yet I understand that uptake remains at only about 7%. What more is being done to ensure that farmers know about the scheme and feel confident in accessing it? Finally, I want to touch on vaccines. When witnesses from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I asked about the resilience of veterinary vaccine supply chains. Their evidence highlighted the risk posed by manufacturing disruption, changing demand and wider global shocks. What is the Department doing in support of international efforts to develop an effective ASF vaccine and to ensure that, when one is available, we have resilient supply chains capable of getting it to farmers when they need it? Our pig farmers produce world-class food to some of the highest welfare standards anywhere. They deserve a Government who match their effort by taking biosecurity just as seriously. If we get this right, we will protect livelihoods, strengthen food security and avoid an entirely preventable crisis. I hope the Minister will continue to make that his priority.
South Norfolk is one of the fastest growing constituencies in the United Kingdom, but that population growth is putting increased pressure on local GP services like the Humbleyard Practice. Given the Government’s ambition to expand neighbourhood health provision, will the Department consider funding a neighbourhood health centre or community diagnostic centre in Long Stratton and Hethersett?
I join the City of London and the British Chambers of Commerce in welcoming this deal—I’m smiling too, Minister! I am sure that the large number of my residents in Chelsea and Fulham who work in financial services will be delighted, too, and that they will have a lot of questions to ask. I wonder whether I could invite the Minister to come and have a meeting with them in my constituency to sell and make quite clear to them the opportunities, both in the City and across the country, that this deal now presents.
The hon. Member will know that, with the extreme heat and reduced rainfall, a lot of water companies are introducing hosepipe bans to mitigate the risk of drought. Does he agree that that seems a bit redundant, given that artificial intelligence data centres use between 11 million and 19 million litres of water a day? Does he agree that, as we prepare to experience more extreme heat over the summer periods, there is an urgent need to address the water consumption of data centres to reduce the risk of drought across the country?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate. A report by Plymouth Marjon University used the phrase “pretty poverty” to describe places such as mine in South East Cornwall, where visitors see our coastline, fishing villages and tourist economy, but behind the curtain are local families facing low wages, insecure and seasonal work and a shortage of affordable homes. Poor transport links, patchy digital connectivity and challenges in accessing healthcare, education and employment are part of the challenge. The realities of living in rural and coastal communities cannot be measured by populations, because the distances, travel times and cost of service delivery really matter. They impact whether someone can actually get to an appointment, their college or a job interview. We need more bus provision to enable them to do so. Those realities should be reflected much more consistently in funding decisions. Tolled crossings, such as the Tamar crossings, which many of my constituents rely on every day, adding yet another cost. High levels of second homes and short-term holiday lets put additional pressure on the local housing market, reducing the supply of homes for local people and often forcing them to move away the communities where their support networks are based. The social infrastructure in South East Cornwall, made up of pubs, social clubs and other places, is thriving, but these places are under pressure, and we must do more to support them. Property values in Cornwall are driven up by homes that local people could never realistically afford, which impacts our experience. Tourism is vital to our economy, but those visitors cause significant additional pressures; young people often feel they have to leave home to find opportunities. I want Cornwall to become not only one of the UK’s leading tourist destinations, but a place where young people can build careers in digital industries, defence, clean energy and maritime tech, as well as other advanced manufacturing. We have so much potential; we have led the country before and we will do so again. With greater support from the Government, we can face these challenges head on, because Cornwall certainly does not lack ambition.
I appreciate the way in which the Minister has responded on the national oversight mechanism, but if this is to have teeth, and if it is to deal with both inquiries and inquests, do we not need a separate public body? It is a substantial piece of work.
I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it and bringing it back to the House before the summer recess. It is the result of years of committed campaigning, led by the families of the victims and survivors of Hillsborough. Many of the worst corporate miscarriages of justice, from infected blood to Grenfell, would have been exposed years or even decades ago, had the Bill become law sooner. We should celebrate a landmark piece of legislation that—like the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, introduced under the last Labour Government—gives power to the citizen and makes the state accountable. I will focus my remarks on two new clauses that I have tabled, which build on growing calls for a national oversight mechanism. This would be a new, independent public body that collated, analysed and followed up on the conclusions and recommendations made after official investigations into deaths and state failings, in order to improve oversight and implementation of them. At present, there is a critical gap in accountability between the issuing of a report or recommendation and its eventual implementation. It can be extremely difficult for bereaved families, victims and the general public to get information on what changes have actually been made following the identification of failings.
I know that case means a huge amount to the hon. Lady as a constituency MP, and I thank her for all the work she does on the Justice Committee. I think we have only begun to scratch the surface. This Bill will be a transforming piece of legislation. I will make one final comment. Several Members have welcomed, as I do, the huge increase in the provision of legal aid that will come, but for that to be effective, we have to look at legal aid rates and the availability of legal aid practitioners. Simply having the funding available does not ensure that there will be representation and equality of arms, which I think we all wish for.
I think I have taken enough time, but I thank the Member for that intervention. This afternoon, the Justice Committee signed off a new major report on legal aid, which will be published on Friday. Those who are interested can read more there. In conclusion, this is a landmark piece of legislation, which we should all welcome, and I commend it to the House.
It is a true privilege to have been present for this debate, and to have heard some of the most incredible contributions that I have ever heard in this place. I will be mercifully brief. I recognise that it is to the Prime Minister’s considerable credit that he has fulfilled his manifesto commitment and got the Bill to this point within a year of his remarks at the Labour party conference in Liverpool last year. I also put on record my recognition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) for his persistent work on this subject for many years. Principally, however, it is the families of Hillsborough victims, the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, Pete Weatherby KC, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and many others who have to be recognised for not letting the matter rest, and for their tireless determination to get us to where we are today. We must not forget the Manchester Arena victims, the Grenfell families, the Chinook families, the contaminated blood families, the British nuclear test veterans, and all those who have been part of this campaign. The duty of candour on the NHS did not deliver for the families of my constituents Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore, and many others who died in the scandal at the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys mental health trust. I have welcomed confirmation of a public inquiry, and the information that applications have been received to chair it, but families need that inquiry to be up and running. I hope that the Health Secretary can progress that urgently this summer. We are being asked to support dozens of Government amendments today that were tabled with little notice, and without our having been able to scrutinise them in detail, but I am led by the families to support those amendments. I recognise the calls for oversight and monitoring mechanisms, such as those set out in new clause 5, tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), and in new clause 1, by my old friend and doughty campaigner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). Those measures would assure us that the new Government amendments will function effectively and, among other things, allow us to hold to account police officers and members of the armed forces and the security services, as we are led to believe. I sense that many Members across this House would like to hear more from our Front Benchers about commitments made to ensuring oversight and monitoring. Perhaps the Minister can address that when she responds to the debate. The expectation of honesty and transparency is not, and never can be, a threat to national security. Will the Minister set out how the application of the duty of candour and the prevention of carve-outs will be applied to the work of the Northern Ireland Legacy Commission, which is being established by the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government will table amendments to that Bill, or can otherwise provide guarantees that the measures in the Bill cover the families who have suffered so much in Northern Ireland. The common characteristics of these appalling human tragedies are the most unimaginable trauma, pain and grief, and the demands are the same. They are for truth, justice and accountability, and today provides the means to deliver on those demands. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member from Liverpool, West Derby: if anything tells us why we come to this place to change the country for the better, surely it is what we are doing today, and I very much welcome this landmark legislation.