Drone Procurement
23. What steps he is taking to reduce the time taken to procure drones for the armed forces.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Drone Procurement
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Minister may be aware of Domo Tactical Communications, a drone manufacturer in my constituency that I have raised in written questions before. Will he uphold the visit that was due to take place by his predecessor before the reshuffle? What proportion of drones purchased for UK armed forces are procured from UK-based drone manufacturers, and what can be done to increase that proportion?
- Hansard source
Drone Procurement
7. What steps he is taking to reduce the time taken to procure drones for the armed forces.
- Hansard source
Drone Procurement
I thank the Minister for his answer. The biggest drone manufacturer in Ukraine, Ukrspecsystems, is investing £200 million in Britain, opening a factory in Mildenhall in the west of my county and creating 500 jobs directly and through the supply chain. However, like all manufacturers, it is facing rising energy costs and a tax bill that is likely to go up. If the Minister wants greater drone capacity in Britain, what conversations is he having with his colleagues in the Energy Department and the Business Department to ensure that the whole Government are pulling in the same direction?
- Hansard source
Huntingdon Train Attack
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
Huntingdon Train Attack
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
- Hansard source
Huntingdon Train Attack
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Huntingdon Train Attack
Order. We are running out of time, so I ask for questions, and answers, to be shorter.
- Hansard source
Huntingdon Train Attack
Order. That is the end of the statement on the response to the Huntingdon train attack. I will give the Front-Bench teams a few moments to shuffle over.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I thank the hon. Member. The correction is now duly on the record.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
Is it really a point of order?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
Order. That is very important, but we cannot continue the statement, which has concluded.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
The shadow Home Secretary has most definitely got that on the record.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Order. I was trying to pay close attention, but I may have missed it; we do not accuse each other of giving misleading information at the Dispatch Box. One should be mindful of the language that one is uses.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so when I get to Back Benchers, speeches will be limited to six minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Army Recruitment
As General Lord Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff, said at the weekend, “if potential recruits to our Armed Forces do not believe that their government will stand by them when performing their duties in a lawful manner, why risk joining at all?” He was speaking about Labour’s new Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which could see Northern Ireland veterans, without whom there would never have been a Good Friday agreement in the first place, in the dock again by next year. The Minister called opponents of this “naive”. What is her response to the former head of the British Army and the brave soldiers he led—were they all naive, too?
- Hansard source
Army Recruitment
It’s in Hansard!
- Hansard source
Army Recruitment
It is in Hansard.
- Hansard source
Army Recruitment
The former Labour Security Minister Lord West said recently that we “shouldn’t be doing” this. Lord Glasman, the founder of Blue Labour, said: “We must reverse it as soon as possible.” The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) said that “to continue this against one side makes no sense.” With a Labour rebellion clearly brewing, and given that many Northern Ireland veterans were initially recruited from red wall seats, why are Labour Ministers insisting on driving their Back Benchers into the Division Lobby just to do Sinn Féin and their old comrades in the IRA a favour?
- Hansard source
“Soldier F” Trial Verdict
Conditional immunity.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
The Bill is the result of decades of campaigning and struggle by families fighting for answers. The thoughts and hearts of all of us in this House, regardless of party affiliation, are with the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. The tireless work of those families is ultimately responsible for uncovering the truth about Hillsborough and delivering an element of justice for the victims, whose memory was tarnished by the unwillingness of some individuals in authority to tell the truth. The Bill is also testament to the valuable work done by Bishop James Jones and his independent panel, for which we are truly thankful. The Bill is in no small part down to the effective campaigning of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); he has fought for those who joined him in going to Hillsborough on that terrible day in April 1989, but who lost their life, due to the terrible decisions made by the stadium operators and South Yorkshire police. Hillsborough stands as one of the most obvious and harrowing examples of the British state’s failure to remain accountable, truthful and candid. Unfortunately, it is not the only such example in recent years. We have had the Post Office Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, the families of pub bombing victims in Birmingham and Guildford denied justice following police misconduct, and the failure of the British state to properly acknowledge and tackle the rape and grooming gangs that have terrorised communities across the country. Each and every one of these failures undermines the British public’s faith in their Government, and each was a scandal made worse by institutions’ attempts to hide from responsibility, and to put their reputations and interests ahead of transparency and justice in the clearest possible examples of abuse of power. Calls for greater candour and accountability are legitimate and welcome; those of us in this place must always remember that our sole duty is to serve the interests of the British people and to do right by them. I thank all those hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this Second Reading. I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that the Government will table an amendment to extend the duty of candour to cover local inquiries, which was a clear gap in the Bill as introduced. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) spoke about the often heard cry of “never again”. We must make sure that when this Bill enters the statute books, it turns that cry into a reality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) expressed legitimate concerns about the effectiveness and administration of some public inquiries, and I know those concerns are shared by some Ministers in the Government. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) spoke about the need for a change in culture that goes beyond legislation, so that taking responsibility, rather than covering up failings, becomes the norm, and not just a legal requirement. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) reminded us of the outrageous experimentation on disabled pupils at Treloar school and the lengths that authorities went to hide responsibility. Hopefully some of the Bill’s measures will be of some help to those pupils. The hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke movingly about how failings in the NHS were made worse by a lack of openness, and about families simply not feeling heard. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) reminded us of the long battle fought by nuclear test veterans. As noble as this Bill’s intentions may be, we must be ever vigilant for the unintended consequences of well-intended laws. As this Bill proceeds through the House, we will scrutinise it closely to minimise the harms that may arise. In particular, we must make sure that the Bill does not inadvertently create a situation in which Government and public services can no longer function effectively, not because they are falling foul of the Bill, but because they fear that they may fall foul of it if its provisions are applied in ways that the Government did not intend. We must clarify how this Bill will interface with legal and disciplinary frameworks, including the civil service code. We must clarify how new standards of ethical conduct will interface with those and other frameworks, and we must have a clear definition of what it means to mislead the public. Under the Bill, that charge of misleading the public carries a criminal sanction. We obviously recognise some of the safeguards that have been included, but they are not as tightly defined as they might be. If politicians are to be able to represent the public effectively, we must be absolutely certain that this definition is watertight, because otherwise the Bill may give rise to a situation whereby legitimate decisions made by Ministers are subject to politically motivated lawfare. We rightly expect our parliamentarians, officials and Ministers to speak honestly, truthfully and with integrity, whether in the Chamber or outside, but clause 11(3)(a), by defining dishonesty in terms of “falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise”, risks leaving Prime Ministers, other Ministers and even constituency MPs at constant risk of vexatious complaints. We may differ about the adequacy, and even the accuracy, of some of the responses that the Prime Minister gives us at Prime Minister’s questions, but those disagreements must be a matter for the ballot box rather than the courtroom. We must also have a clear definition of the public interest, which is the idea on which so much of the Bill rests. In our political system, the public interest is not for bureaucrats or judges to decide. The public express their will through the democratic process, and elect Members of Parliament to implement that will on their behalf. Can the Government be sure that the definition of the public interest in the Bill will not conflict with efforts made by future Governments to implement those democratic wishes? It would be profoundly dangerous for any single Government to attempt to define the public interest in a way that would bind future Governments without giving sufficient weight to the role that the public themselves play in determining and articulating that interest. At their best, public inquiries offer opportunities to genuinely learn rather than to seek retribution; to establish what happened and how, so that action can be taken to stop such events being repeated, more harm being done to more people, more lives being lost unnecessarily, and more futures being stolen away, so that the oft-repeated words “never again”, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough spoke so well, can actually have some meaning. However, that can only happen with honesty, openness and a degree of trust—in short, with candour from all those involved. If this Bill can help to achieve that, it is well worth supporting. That is why, although we will work to tighten some parts at later stages to ensure that it operates properly, we will support it tonight.
- Hansard source
Huntingdon Train Attack
More generally on knife crime and on magistrates, is there a disconnect between the fact that under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, someone can be given a custodial sentence of 51 weeks, and the presumption under the Sentencing Bill that a 12-month custodial sentence will not be required? What might the Home Secretary do to get around that and ensure that magistrates have more sentencing powers? Possession of a knife is not use of a knife, but sadly one so often leads to the other. There is clearly a legislative disconnect, and I hope the Home Secretary will look at that.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Now that the Secretary of State has warmed up a bit by calling the SNP a threat to our national security, will he have another go and say whether China is a threat to our national security?
- Hansard source
“Soldier F” Trial Verdict
The Secretary of State baulked at the word “equivalence”, so I will have a go with another one. Does he believe that Northern Ireland terrorists should be treated equally to Northern Ireland veterans? If he does, why does he not issue letters of comfort to those Northern Ireland veterans?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T7. Last month, the SNP Government in Edinburgh released their latest independence propaganda paper. Unbelievably, it said that nuclear weapons would have no place in an independent Scotland. Does the Minister agree that Scottish independence would be a gift to Britain’s enemies and would put at risk the hard work of our armed forces in keeping us safe at home?
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
On Saturday 15 April 1989, I visited my grandfather. I was a 15-year-old boy, and he had been taken into hospital a week or so before after a heart attack. He was a former chief constable in Wiltshire police. His immediate and clear response to what had happened that day was to say that the police were at fault. Two days later he died and we never followed it up, but that conversation had a profound effect on me. Over the years since, as I aspired to come to this place, I have seen what has happened. It is truly lamentable that the British state failed to come to terms with what happened. I have listened to the speeches from the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) with a degree of humility at their determination to change what has happened in this country over many, many scandals. I want to make a small contribution this evening to reflect on my exposure to the infected blood scandal when I was in office as a Minister until last year. I also want to pay tribute to my successor, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who has done an excellent job in taking forward what was required in the spirit of the cross-party consensus that exists on this issue. I completely support the principle of the legislation before the House this evening, and I am totally clear about the inadequacy of the existing mechanisms for holding public officials to account. Over 18 days I visited 40 groups who have been affected and infected as part of the infected blood scandal, and every one of those people I spoke to had had a negative experience with officialdom at some point during their time seeking justice for themselves or their loved ones. It was profoundly depressing to think that, despite all the apparent determination of Government after Government and Minister after Minister, we were still dealing with this 40 or 50 years after the scandal occurred. It is a tragedy that we can no longer rely on common law offences and have to move to a statutory regime that codifies expectations, but I do believe that this legislation will bring greater scrutiny and interrogation of the acts and omissions of public bodies. I want to make a point about public inquiries. They have grown significantly in number in recent years. As of last month, a record 25 public inquiries are open. Between 1990 and 2025, 87 public inquiries were launched, compared with just 19 in the previous 30 years. Despite their proliferation, inquiries often fail to deliver timely justice or to prevent future tragedies. In fact, they are taking longer than ever to conclude. I do hope that, as part of the response to those facts, we collectively examine what we think should happen in public inquiries. Public inquiries cannot be shut down by accountable Government Ministers; they rely on the chair to shut them down. I was looking at the infected blood public inquiry, and I am not casting any doubt over the integrity of the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, but upwards of £150 million has been spent on that inquiry. I feel that it is wrong that we in this House, sent here to do a job of work in whatever area of Government, have got into the habit and practice of delegating more and more responsibility for resolving matters to arm’s length bodies and public inquiries in the belief that it will create a more virtuous, correct and timely outcome.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
I absolutely do, and I sincerely believe that it is likely to achieve that, but we must not miss the opportunity to reflect on what is going wrong with this principle of not taking more proactive responsibility for wrongs that have happened. My exposure through the infected blood compensation scheme taught me that over 40 years there had been deliberate attempts to slightly change the emphasis in responses, to give a concession of a little bit of compensation here or there. The truth is that those delays—most importantly—made things massively worse for the victims, but they also cost the public purse enormous sums of money. I welcome this legislation, but I ask the Minister to address that point when she responds. Bishop James Jones referred in 2017 to: “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. What a powerful phrase, and one that should humble all of us and help us all to ensure that whatever provisions, whatever definitions, and whatever “candour, transparency and frankness” means, the legislation is enforceable and meaningful and that we can avoid some of the absolutely appalling outcomes, which have been so horrendous in undermining the general public’s confidence in this place and in our Government.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The F-35 Lightning II aircraft is a cutting-edge system, the helmets for which come from my constituency, but the Public Accounts Committee has the MOD in missile lock over the cost of introducing the new nuclear freefall bombs with the F-35A. Can the Minister give the House some reassurance that the decision to bring in tactical nuclear weapons is not going to cost us a bomb?
- Hansard source
“Soldier F” Trial Verdict
It is important that we in this House remember that terrorists killed Members of this House, including Airey Neave only a few hundred yards from where we stand today. The Secretary of State on previous occasions has indicated that something like nine inquests could now restart. He has said that Loughgall, an exemplary special forces operation in which brave men stood up against terrorists and nullified them, will be one of those. He has not said which other eight will be reopened. Can he take this opportunity to do that here today?
- Hansard source
Video Games: Consumer Law
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the Members who have spoken passionately about this issue, in particular the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who led the debate, and to the people who signed the petition. Video games are a significant part of the entertainment and creative industries and give pleasure to millions. As we have heard, they have a cultural relevance today that was perhaps not seen in previous generations. The lazy stereotype of a sector dominated by teenagers is far from reality: research has found that one in six adults in the UK regularly plays video games. If we include under-18s, there are currently 40 million gamers across the UK. Franchises such as “Call of Duty”, “FIFA” and “Assassin’s Creed” attract millions of players and have production values and graphics that earlier generations of gamers could barely dream of. The UK can be proud of its video games industry, which is the largest in Europe. “Grand Theft Auto” and “Tomb Raider” are just two of the most significant examples to come out of the UK games creative industry. Some estimates suggest that the UK games market could reach £8 billion by 2027, which would be more than the UK film industry today. That is why the previous Conservative Government took measures to support the video games industry and created the £13.4 million UK games fund, which supported the acceleration of growth in the UK games sector between 2022 and 2025. An independent 2025 review of the UK games fund estimated that overall, “the current three-year iteration of the UKGF will generate in the range of £30m to £58m in productivity benefits for the UK economy due to salary uplifts for supported video game developers.” The previous Government also set up the right economic environment to create the conditions for growth, including the announcement in the spring 2023 Budget that video games expenditure credit would be introduced from 1 January last year. VGEC is calculated directly from qualifying expenditure and has a credit rate of 34%, which provides a greater benefit than the earlier video games tax relief. Turning to the issue raised by the petition, the Stop Killing Games campaign did a tremendous job of raising awareness of video games publishers disabling, discontinuing or removing access to parts, or in some cases the entirety, of their games. Some Members in this Chamber have a favourite video game, some of which we have heard about, and they in particular will understand just how frustrating and disappointing it would be not to be able to play that game again. In a perfect world, everyone would have access to their favourite games forever, but this is not a perfect world. We need to strike a balance between consumer interests and the burdens on some video games producers. We need to tread carefully, and in particular avoid introducing changes that would increase the cost to successful video games companies of supporting older games with a declining number of players. That money might otherwise be spent on developing newer, better games. However, we have heard anecdotal evidence today of games being withdrawn without obvious reason, despite seeming to generate considerable profits and have a considerable number of consumers.
- Hansard source
Video Games: Consumer Law
The hon. Member makes a perfectly valid point with which I sympathise. It is certainly true that there are a number of different games providers and some are backed by large amounts of money and debt. We have to distinguish clearly between the variety of games providers out there; I will go on to say something about the smaller providers, but the principles that underlie this issue seem clear. It is incumbent on games companies to make it absolutely clear to consumers when there is the possibility that their games may become unplayable after a period of years. I hope that the video games industry will be happy to accept that responsibility by using clear consumer messaging; I would certainly expect the two industry trade associations to ensure that that happens as a matter of course. As I noted, however, we must also bear in mind the cost to video game publishers of continuing the software; this could become an unfair burden, especially on games producers that are comparatively small, independent businesses, which are all already facing increased costs. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the industry generally that she is battling for the interests of the creative industries as a consideration in the forthcoming Budget that the Chancellor is in the process of writing? The Government also have responsibility for evaluating whether the protections in place for consumers are both effective and sufficient—we cannot simply assume that they are. Consumers are predominantly protected by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The CRA ensures that if software on sale is not supported by the provider, that should be made clear—on product webpages and on physical packaging and labelling, for example. Does the Minister believe that existing labelling and consumer information are sufficient? As I said, we cannot simply assume that because the law and regulations exist. We have had recent experiences in other fields—Oasis tickets and Ticketmaster, for example—where the Competition and Markets Authority found that consumers were not given sufficient information. If the number of games being disabled or deactivated is increasing, perhaps it is time to consider whether the existing information is suitable. If digital content does not meet the CRA’s quality rights, the consumer is entitled to a repair or replacement or, if that is not possible, money back up to 100% of the cost of the digital content. Those rights apply to intangible digital content, such as a PC game, as well as tangible content, such as a physical copy of the game. Has the Minister made an assessment of how successful consumers are at seeking redress from video publishers? Consumer protection rights, which the last Government put into primary legislation, prohibit commercial practices that omit or hide information that the average consumer needs to make an informed choice, and prohibits traders from providing material in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. As with the CRA right to redress, does the Minister believe that the existing route—via Citizens Advice, trading standards, and, where appropriate, the CMA—is an appropriate avenue for consumers? Can the Minister update us on how many consumers have achieved compensation via those routes? The Government have already confirmed that they have “no plans to amend existing consumer law on disabling video games.” That may be a proportionate approach on the basis of what we currently know. However, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 will give Ministers the power to add, amend or remove a description of a commercial practice that is, in all circumstances, considered unfair. Will the Minister be willing to use those powers in the case of video games, if the evidence suggests that the industry’s commercial practices fall short? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the disabling of games is monitored to determine whether it is increasing? Can she confirm that the CMA will look at the existing information requirements for consumers to identify whether it is adequate? All said, the previous Government recognised the importance of the sector. I hope the Minister ensures that, while she considers whether more can be done to address this issue, any new measures do not stifle growth. Consumers must be protected, but we have a great UK video games sector. The Opposition want to see it go from strength to strength.
- Hansard source
Drone Procurement
According to their own written answer, the Government ordered only three drones for the British armed forces in their first financial year. At June’s Defence oral questions, I suggested that Labour could find the money to buy drones at the scale we need by scrapping the crazy Chagos deal. They rejected my proposal then, but given that the Secretary of State has just failed to deny £2.6 billion of cuts at the MOD this year, is it not even more urgent that they scrap their crazy £35 billion surrender and spend every penny on the uncrewed revolution for our own armed forces?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
In the Secretary of State’s strategic defence review statement to Parliament on 2 June, he said that the defence investment plan would be “completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 72.] Will he keep that promise?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Secretary of State did not answer the question. I am afraid the worry is that it is yet another delayed defence Command Paper. That prompts the obvious question: what exactly are the Government delivering for defence except delayed defence Command Papers? Is not this the truth: they are putting the British Army back in the dock, they are surrendering Diego Garcia for £35 billion, and all the while—they have not denied this today—they are cutting £2.6 billion from the frontline this year? Don’t the men and women of our armed forces deserve better?
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
As a six-year-old, I remember the death of Joe McCarthy, who lived on my road in west London, so it is not just about those who lived in Sheffield or elsewhere. It affected everyone across the country, and this Bill is so important for that reason.
- Hansard source
Draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond. I thank the Government for bringing these draft regulations to us today. As members of the Committee will be aware, the Conservative Government set out their ambition to ban the most problematic plastic waste products in their 2018 resource and waste strategy for England. Action was taken to prohibit the supply of single-use plastic straws, plates and cutlery, plastic-stemmed cotton buds and drinks stirrers. In addition, that Government introduced a successful single-use carrier bag charge policy, which by 2024 had reduced the number of bags given out by the main supermarkets by over 98%. The resource and waste strategy outlined that to ban products, it must be considered an appropriate action and there must be sustainable, plastic-free alternatives. It was under that premise that in April 2024, the Conservative Government announced their intention to ban wet wipes containing plastic, which were quite rightly identified as a significant contributor to plastic pollution in rivers and oceans, with harmful microplastics entering that environment. I note the Minister’s comments about the impact that that has on the environment and the animals and wildlife therein. That announcement from the Conservatives was particularly welcome to me as someone who has long called for us to tackle the scourge of plastic pollution in our rivers and seas. In the last Parliament, I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which shone a spotlight on the scourge of plastic waste through its specific inquiry and report into the matter. It recommended, among other things, the banning of plastic waste exports. I pay tribute to the Conservative Environment Network, of which I am a member, which has long called for action on plastic pollution in our waters and which was instrumental in helping to shift the dial and lead us to where we are today. With the timing of the election last year, the previous Government did not have the opportunity to lay these regulations. I am pleased that the new Government have brought them before us today. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Putney for her hard and concerted cross-party work in this area. The regulations make sensible exemptions, including for medical and industrial uses, to ensure that where wet wipes containing plastic are necessary and there are no viable alternatives, they can still be supplied. In a 2022 article for the National Health Executive, Professor Jean-Yves Maillard, professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at Cardiff University, highlighted the medical reasons that plastic is still required in wet wipes. He said that if the plastic, which is loaded with detergents, cleaning agents and in some cases powerful disinfectants, is removed, “you’re left with a less effective, less useful wet wipe”, which has “real-world consequences for patient care and patient safety in healthcare.” The Government have noted that most manufacturers have already commenced the transition to producing plastic-free wipes. It is important that these regulations do not limit access to plastic wet wipes where they are still required. What assessment has been made of the effect of the regulations on the supply and cost of plastic wet wipes for medical or clinical environments and other settings where plastic wet wipes are still required due to there being no viable alternatives? We should still aim to become plastic-free, even in professional products, but we are not quite there yet. When do the Government anticipate that full transition will be possible? When will effectiveness in the medical, clinical and scientific environments no longer be affected? I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on how the enforcement powers will work during the transition period. Will she confirm that the enforcement powers will not be used disproportionately? Will she confirm that the regulations are not intended to prohibit or penalise members of the public who have an existing stock of wet wipes at home and want to use them up? Will the Minister publish a table of enforcement action by councils, to provide transparency on how councils are interpreting and enforcing the regulations? Given that the regulations have attracted criticism from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, what steps have been taken to address that Committee’s concerns? Although it is right that action is taken to limit unnecessary sources of pollution, we must avoid unintended consequences. I hope the Minister can provide clarification and reassurance.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Today is the day that, first and foremost, at the front of our minds will be one group of people, some of whom join us in the Gallery: those harmed by the state, those misled by the state, those lied to by the state. But those same people refused to accept that and would not take no for an answer. Those people knew the truth—the truth of what happened to them and to their relatives—and fought on to make sure everybody else knew it as well. The movement towards greater accountability and transparency in public life owes everything to them. The Hillsborough disaster stands as the example that many of our constituents will perhaps think of first. Ninety-seven lives were lost on 15 April 1989, and many others were profoundly affected, as the Prime Minister so powerfully articulated. As the Prime Minister also pointed out, among them was a Member of this very House. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) was 16 years old at the time and was a spectator at the match. He has been an unrelenting advocate for those who shared with him the horror of that day and what happened afterwards. As if the tragedy of those events was not enough, what followed served only to compound it over generations. In the decades that followed, despite multiple inquiries, reviews and inquests, the truth of what happened remained obscured by lies—by a cover-up. We would all wish to be able to say that this is the only example of institutional defensiveness, of covers-ups and of the reputation of organisations being prioritised over doing what was right, but as this House sadly knows, it is not. Between the 1970s and early 1990s, thousands of UK patients contracted HIV and hepatitis after receiving contaminated blood, blood products and tissues. Reflecting on the findings of his inquiry into the matter, Sir Brian Langstaff said quite simply that: “People put their faith in doctors and in the government to keep them safe and their trust was betrayed.” Experimentation, deception, cover-up. And there are more examples. We have all been shocked to hear about the trauma and experiences of our postmasters and their families, as they were ruthlessly pursued by the Post Office and the Crown Prosecution Service over many years, with the failure of successive Governments to exercise their oversight to protect them. We have seen other failures in healthcare, policing and housing, some well known and others not so well known. But whether 97 lives are lost or just one, the impact on families is lifelong and severe. The themes have been consistent: the resistance of the state to accept its wrongdoing; the aggressiveness of the state in responding to challenge; and the willingness of individuals working for the state to put themselves first over the people they are expected to serve. Again and again, David and Goliath battles are played out as the resources of the state, in all its forms, have been deployed against innocent people, innocent victims. As we reflect on the proposed measures before us, it is sensible to consider the changes that have been made in this area. On legal representation, the means test for legal help and representation at inquests for applications to the exceptional case funding scheme has been removed and we have seen a steady number of applications over recent years. Measures were introduced to promote candour in policing, when the offence of police corruption was created in 2017. In the health service, the duty of candour was introduced following the Francis inquiry into catastrophic failings in health at Stafford hospital. Through part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we legislated for the creation of an Independent Public Advocate, whose role is to ensure victims and bereaved families are properly supported and represented after major incidents. However, a desire to do more has remained. Bishop James Jones’s report, “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, reflected on the experiences of the Hillsborough families and set out key lessons for public bodies. It called for the bereaved to have “proper participation” at inquests where public authorities are represented, and identified other key areas for reform; alongside work by the Law Commission, it provided a key basis for the Bill before us. It should be noted, however, that Bishop James emphasised that legislation alone is insufficient. As mentioned, a statutory duty of candour already exists in parts of the public sector, particularly in the NHS, but question marks remain over the success of its implementation. The lesson is clear: legal change must be accompanied by cultural change. In principle, we welcome the aims that underpin the Bill and which we are asked to consider on Second Reading. It is, however, always incumbent on this House to reflect on and consider whether the legislation we pass is as good as it can be, no matter how laudable the aim, and to ensure that we avoid any unintended consequences. It is no secret that despite a very long-standing commitment on the Labour Benches to bring legislation of this nature forward, the Government themselves wrestled with how to do so appropriately. This Bill should be one that Members scrutinise closely. Members and our staff are quite rightly on the extensive list of public servants who will be in scope, under schedule 4. We will be able to look at the implications of the Bill and reflect on how it might interact with our work, where contention and disagreement are often at the heart of our decisions. As such, there are a number of questions and points for consideration that I would like to raise with the Government. First, are we sure that the language in the Bill will provide the necessary legal clarity to underpin its successful operation? The Bill makes use of terms like “reckless” and “seriously improper”. It also states, for example, that the Act is designed to “ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…in the public interest”. How often do we disagree in this House on what constitutes the public interest? How often do we question the truth of what is being said? Although superficially it might seem obvious—in the examples we have considered today, which are at the forefront of our minds, the failure to act in the public interest is clear and unquestionable—in other situations, we might be left with conflicting views as to what the public interest is. How will we differentiate between interpretations of the public interest in a way that does not allow individuals to escape the measures being proposed in the Bill? We have seen Government decisions that the Government consider to be in the public interest challenged repeatedly, and often successfully, in the courts. Individual public servants will also have their own views on what is or is not in the public interest; we will need to consider that, too. Further, how will the Bill be utilised by campaign groups that wish to legally challenge the Government in support of what they consider to be in the public interest? That is not to say that we cannot make the Bill work, but we need to consider its terminology carefully. Part of the Bill deals with misconduct in public office. This represents one of the most significant changes to the way in which we hold public officials to account. Under the proposals, the common law offence of misconduct in public office will be replaced with two new statutory offences: seriously improper acts, and breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. This follows recommendations by the Law Commission, which suggested that the current offence be replaced with a clearer statutory provision that is both less broad and easier to interpret. The Opposition fully recognise that this is an area of the law in need of clarity, but, for all its many imperfections, the common law offence has at least provided flexibility as a means of addressing serious misconduct that might not fit clearly into an approach based on specific statutory offences. I would be grateful for the Government’s reassurance on that point. Will the Government also share their view on the reduction in the maximum penalty from life imprisonment, as available under the current common law offence, to between 10 and 14 years’ imprisonment under the statutory offence? Misconduct in public office strikes at the heart of public trust in Government and the rule of law, and we must ensure that the penalties available to the courts reflect that seriousness. The area where I would most welcome assurance is in considering whether the measures in the Bill will fall most squarely and most strongly on the right shoulders. In its critique of the existing legal framework for misconduct in public office, the Law Commission said there was “a concern that it tends to be used primarily against relatively junior officials, rather than more senior decision-makers that members of the public might more readily expect to be held criminally accountable.” Of course, public servants, no matter how junior, are accountable for their actions, but how can we be sure that these measures will ensure that accountability goes all the way to the top? We all know that influence and power can be exercised over junior staff without there ever being an email, written instruction or any other proof. Junior staff in an organisation with the wrong culture can come to understand what is expected of them and that there are consequences if they do not comply, regardless of what we might be able to readily prove in court. I know that this Bill will be deeply welcomed by campaigners and Members who have long called for its measures. I mentioned one particular Member at the start—the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby—but I know that Members across the House, across different causes and across different constituencies have challenged these issues. The principle of what the Government are trying to do—to stop the voice of the state and public bodies drowning out the voices of our constituents, whether through use of resources or misconduct—is the right one. We all know the fallibility of the state and the ways in which the wrong people take the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons: for their self-interest, to protect themselves or to protect their organisations. No Bill alone can guarantee against that, and perhaps there are ways in which this Bill can be improved. However, the Opposition welcome the start of its consideration, and we stand ready to play a constructive role.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T5. According to media reports, the Secretary of State recently revealed in a speech that the UK had deployed troops to Israel to monitor the ceasefire in Gaza. Could he take this opportunity to update the House on the number and activities of any troops deployed there?
- Hansard source
Defence Industrial Base
I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the appalling attack in Huntingdon over the weekend. We all know that the Government cannot deliver a strong defence industrial base without seriously boosting defence spending, yet multiple media outlets have very recently reported that the Secretary of State’s Department is asking the armed forces to make cuts of £2.6 billion this financial year. Very simply, can he tell us what will be cut to find the money?