Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2026-01-19

19 January 2026 · 21 other contributors

Opened by Alex Davies-Jones Lab Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Alex Davies-Jones raised concerns about public office (accountability) bill 2026-01-19 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • The Minister of Justice stressed the importance of the Public Office Accountability Bill for transparency and accountability.
  • She highlighted the need to balance transparency with national security concerns, particularly for intelligence services.
  • The Minister defended the delay, stating it is necessary to ensure the Bill is properly implemented.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Alex Davies-Jones Lab Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

The Minister of Justice emphasised the importance of the Public Office Accountability Bill for ensuring transparency, accountability, and support for families affected by state failures. She highlighted the need to balance transparency with national security concerns, especially regarding intelligence services. The Government has proposed amendments but faces criticism over delays and a lack of clear direction.

Other contributors (21)
  • Nick Timothy Con West Suffolk

    Timothy criticised the government for delaying progress on the Bill despite repeated promises to families affected by state failures. He questioned the government's ability to find a solution and proposed specific questions about timelines, decision-making processes involving intelligence agencies, and international perspectives.

  • Ian Byrne Lab Liverpool West Derby

    Byrne thanked the Minister for pausing the Bill but expressed concern over the delay in adopting amendment 23 which is supported by Hillsborough campaigners. He asked for clarification on why this amendment was not adopted and requested a clear timeline to avoid further delays.

  • Alex Davies-Jones Con Constituency Not Mentioned

    The Minister acknowledged the work of campaigners and committed to working with other parliamentarians, including the Intelligence and Security Committee, to find a way forward on the Bill. She emphasised that while the Bill is not kicking into the long grass, it must be done correctly and at pace without an arbitrary deadline. The Minister also discussed the need for collaboration between government officials and campaigners to ensure the legislation includes clear binding provisions.

  • Jess Brown-Fuller LD Chichester

    The Liberal Democrat spokesperson expressed frustration with the current state of limbo regarding the Hillsborough Bill, despite initial commitments by the Government. She criticised the carve-out for security services and requested that when presenting the Bill to the House, it should include a duty of candour applicable to all in intelligence services. The Lib Dem also asked for a commitment to ensure Report and Third Reading will take place promptly.

  • Paula Barker Lab Liverpool Wavertree

    Barker paid tribute to the families, campaigners, and MPs involved in the case. She expressed concern about the direction of travel regarding the Bill's compatibility with national security and urged the Minister to continue working closely with victims' families.

  • Ashley Fox Con Bridgwater

    Fox sought clarification from the minister on whether heads of intelligence services should determine what information is provided in investigations, questioning if it was possible for individual agents to be subject to duty of candour without creating security risks.

  • Anneliese Midgley Lab Knowsley

    Midgley criticised the response from the shadow Justice Secretary as inappropriate while families were present. She urged the Minister to work closely with the families and introduce an amendment that fully satisfies them on duty of candour.

  • David Simmonds Con Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner

    Simmonds raised concerns over ambiguity in the accountability at the heart of the Bill regarding disclosure oversight. He asked for clarity on who should make decisions about information disclosure to ensure effective oversight.

  • The Minister for the Cabinet Office Con Baroness Williams of Trafford

    Stated commitment to solving a complex issue involving national security, intelligence services oversight and accountability. Emphasised working with families, parliamentarians, and government departments to ensure protection, oversight and an amendment that families can support without compromising national security.

  • Justin Madders Lab Ellesmere Port and Bromborough

    Acknowledged the Minister's efforts to earn trust of the Hillsborough families. Called for public statements confirming agreement on the Bill, to counteract misleading headlines and political point-scoring.

  • Welcomed support from colleagues in championing the Hillsborough law. Described the bill as expanding legal aid for those affected by state-involved deaths, introducing new criminal offences of misconduct in public office and misleading the public, aiming to improve British life's culture.

  • Tessa Munt LD Wells and Mendip

    Questioned Government's reluctance on accepting amendment 23. Stressed the importance of transparency from security services given their history of misleading truth.

  • Emma Lewell-Buck Lab South Shields

    Asked for assurance that families will have full involvement and support in future stages of the Bill, highlighting emotional toll on victims' relatives and campaigners over years.

  • Ben Obese-Jecty Con Huntingdon

    Inquired about applicability of the bill to military intelligence services and special forces operations with no exceptions for retroactive application.

  • Clive Efford Lab Eltham

    Welcomed delay, emphasising that it is not just about Hillsborough families but also victims of other state-related scandals. Supported the need for a duty of candour from all public authorities including security services.

  • Seamus Ludlow Logan SNP Aberdeenshire North and Moray East

    Paid tribute to Minister's collaborative efforts, endorsed amendment 23. Asked if next draft will include a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee.

  • Alex Davies-Jones Lab Llanelli

    Welcomed the importance of changing the culture and ensuring full truth. Mentioned a visit to Liverpool next week to learn from world-leading work on duty of candour for public authorities. Emphasised ongoing work with Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Parliament, and Welsh Government.

  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    Thanked the Minister and praised Liverpool MPs for achieving balance between citizens and security agencies in the Bill. Asked for Minister to collaborate with Northern Ireland Assembly on ensuring duty of candour applies UK-wide.

  • Richard Burgon Lab Leeds East

    Acknowledged the importance of the campaign for the Hillsborough law led by ordinary people and praised Government's decision to pull back from a previous stance. Asked Minister to confirm that duty of candour applies to security services as well, and that an amendment is still under consideration.

  • Douglas McAllister Lab West Dunbartonshire

    Asked for updates on discussions with the Scottish Government regarding non-means tested legal aid access for families in fatal accident inquiries and inquests.

  • Josh Fenton-Glynn Lab Calder Valley

    Shared personal experience related to a terrorist attack at Manchester Victoria station and expressed gladness that victims' voices are being heard. Asked Minister to confirm commitment to ensuring the voices of all victims and families of state cover-ups will be central in future legislation.

Government Response

The Minister defended the government's position, emphasising the complexity of balancing transparency with national security concerns. She stated that the delay is necessary to ensure the Bill is fit and proper for implementation. The Government are committed to finding a way forward with the Bill, ensuring it is done correctly and collaboratively, while protecting national security. The Minister emphasised that there has never been a carve-out for intelligence services but clarified procedures around secure information handling. Emphasised commitment to protecting national security, stated no carve-out exists for intelligence services in the Bill. Assured ongoing work with families and public authorities to ensure truth-telling. Emphasised changing culture as aim at heart of Bill. Mentioned visit to Liverpool next week, ongoing work with devolved governments for UK-wide implementation. Confirmed collaboration on legal aid mechanism with Scottish Government.

Shadow Response

Nick Timothy

Timothy criticised the Government's handling of the Bill, questioning the lack of clarity on timelines and decision-making processes involving intelligence agencies. He asked several specific questions about the Government’s approach to resolving these issues.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy