Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Noted that Mr Speaker has selected amendments tabled after the usual deadline due to late changes in today’s business schedule.

Moved that clause be read a Second time, initiating debate on Part 5 of the bill concerning legal aid at inquiries in Scotland into fatal accidents and sudden deaths.

Asks the Minister to give way, suggesting a need for further discussion on the proposed amendment.

Asks the Minister to give way, indicating interest in discussing the new clause and its implications.

Praises the support for survivors and victims' families, expresses concern about the implementation of the law in partnership with devolved Governments. Emphasises the need for constructive engagement throughout the legislative process.

The speaker mainly acted as a moderator, maintaining order and responding to interventions. She did not provide her own position on specific amendments or clauses.

Intervened to ask if the Bill would end the current situation regarding Freddie Scappaticci, an IRA agent, and whether it would prevent MI5 from hindering public knowledge of his crimes.

Asked the Minister to give way during an intervention, but no detailed argument was provided in the given text.

Asked if the Bill would ensure that victims of the Chinook crash could receive a full public investigation and not be denied rights under the duty of candour.

Asked about whether independent panels, such as the expert working group on Primodos, would be covered by the Bill.

Praised those who pushed for the legislation and asked if a national oversight mechanism to ensure that Government responses are not self-assessed would be included in consultations.

Asked if a separate public body is needed for the national oversight mechanism to have teeth and address both inquiries and inquests effectively.

Cited evidence of hundreds of children with special educational needs and disabilities dying due to public authority negligence and misconduct, advocating for a national oversight mechanism and a preventable death tracker.

Asked if an independent body should oversee the Government's performance in responding to inquiry recommendations, suggesting that such oversight is necessary for improvement.

Welcomed the expansion of legal aid but raised concerns about ensuring advocacy for each family affected by disasters like Hillsborough, asking how this mechanism can be improved.

Asked if security-vetted counsel would be willing to work for £40 an hour as part of legal aid expansion, highlighting the current civil legal aid rate.

Ms. Davies-Jones intervenes to clarify that a duty of candour is distinct from a duty to disclose sensitive information, cautioning against conflating these concepts.

Mr. Twigg questions whether current legislation already provides adequate protection for intelligence services and inquires about specific gaps that need addressing.

Ms. Brown-Fuller points out that chairs of inquiries and inquests already have the power to hold closed sessions for sensitive information, suggesting that proposed changes are unnecessary.

Ms. Qureshi draws on her experience as a prosecutor to argue for existing procedures handling confidential sources and information effectively, without needing new legislation.

Mr. Snowden criticises the rushed nature of debate, emphasising the need for more comprehensive discussion on complex issues like this before voting.

Ms. Russell questions the assumption that inquiry leaders could be pressured by those seeking to undermine national security, suggesting they are well-protected against such pressures.

Ms. Munt references a recent letter from a former Defence Secretary alleging misinformation by his Department, challenging Mr. Timothy's trust in current leadership and systems.

Supports new clauses 5 and 6, tabled by Andy Slaughter. Welcomes the Prime Minister’s remarks regarding the duty of candour applying to security services. Acknowledges the long-standing fight for justice led by families and campaigners, including the Hillsborough Law Now campaign. Mentions the importance of safeguarding sensitive information while ensuring oversight through annual independent reports. Emphasises the need for legislation to prevent similar injustices in future tragedies like Manchester Arena bombing and Grenfell Tower fire. Pays tribute to victims and their families who have fought relentlessly for accountability.

Supports the amendment as it tightens gaps in legislation concerning security services, whistleblowers, and accountability mechanisms. Emphasises the importance of protecting individuals who disclose information at personal risk for public good.

Pays tribute to victims of the infected blood scandal from Treloar’s College and agrees that it has taken too long for justice. Supports the need for transparency and accountability.

Agrees with Derek Twigg's position, recognising the determination of families and Members who sought to improve state transparency. Acknowledges the challenge posed by extending the duty of candour to intelligence services and highlights the need for additional safeguards. Questions the sudden change in the Government's stance regarding existing legal protections being sufficient.

Intervened to highlight the irony of the Government considering legislation aimed at preventing obstruction of truth while simultaneously trying to silence families seeking an independent inquiry into a Chinook helicopter tragedy. Suggested that legal aid rates should be equitable, matching those for individuals and families fighting large organisations.

He introduced new clause 11 and amendment 150 to address failures in the duty of candour within the NHS, emphasising that families often have to fight for years to find truth about loved ones' deaths due to mistakes being ignored or covered up. He highlighted the need for legal services provided to NHS bodies to align with statutory duty of candour and principles of openness.

He supported new clause 11 and welcomed Government amendments, acknowledging the efforts of campaigners and families affected by various tragedies. He emphasised that this Bill is a result of ordinary people's determination to seek truth and justice despite facing obstacles.

Mr. Morrison supports amendment 25 to prevent misleading information from public authorities or officials to recognised news publishers, aiming to stop the cover-up culture and ensure accountability and justice for victims of state failures.

Supports amendment 20 to ensure democratic parliamentary scrutiny of intelligence services. Acknowledges the work of the Hillsborough families but criticises the government's rush to pass the bill without proper scrutiny. Emphasises the need for future-proofing against misuse by right-wing governments.

Madders supports the amendments, highlighting their importance in ensuring that security services are not exempt from the duty of candour. He emphasises the need for safeguards to protect national security while maintaining accountability and transparency.

Van Mierlo introduces amendment 149, seeking to include water companies within the scope of the duty of candour. He argues that privately owned water companies should be held to the same standards as publicly owned ones due to their public functions and lack of competition.

Supports new clauses 5, 6 and Government new clause 8. Acknowledges the resilience of families fighting for justice in cases like Hillsborough. Emphasises that the Bill will ensure state actors are held accountable. Praises colleagues' efforts to strengthen the duty of candour and prevent future cover-ups. Supports establishing a national oversight mechanism for inquests and inquiries to implement recommendations and prevent future harms.

Byrne argued that the Hillsborough law is crucial for preventing future injustices similar to those experienced by victims' families and survivors. He cited the need for public institutions to be accountable and transparent, highlighting past cases where power was unaccountable and ordinary people were sacrificed.

The duty of candour is crucial to rebuilding trust between public institutions and the people they serve. It ensures that truth prevails over institutional self-protection, preventing families from enduring secondary trauma after tragedies like Hillsborough or Grenfell. Alex Davies-Jones supports the amendments as a testament to the perseverance of victims' families who have fought for accountability and justice.

Intervened in support, emphasising that the Bill addresses wider issues than just Hillsborough. Referenced Donna Ockenden’s report on the Nottingham maternity scandal to illustrate how public officials failing to come forward with truth affects many families beyond those directly impacted by major tragedies.

Argues for ensuring truth-telling responsibilities are applied uniformly across all state services. Cites specific examples where intelligence agencies failed to disclose critical information, leading to tragic outcomes like the Manchester terror attack. Emphasises the importance of accountability and preventing similar occurrences in future.

Supports the duty of candour without carve-outs for security services, citing lack of evidence suggesting existing protections are insufficient. Proposes new clauses to establish national oversight mechanisms ensuring follow-through on inquiry recommendations to prevent future disasters.

Acknowledges tireless efforts of families and campaigners in pushing for this legislation. Calls for urgent progress on public inquiries, such as one into mental health trust scandal deaths. Supports new clauses for oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability across security services.

Supports clause 11 of the Bill which introduces a duty of candour for public bodies, making it harder for them to hide the truth and mislead the public. He emphasises the bravery required by Ministers to restrict their own power and advocates for extending this principle to all politicians given the rise of disinformation and autocracy.

Calls for a national compensation body, similar to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, to streamline future compensation processes. Advocates for an independent oversight body to ensure that recommendations from public inquiries are properly implemented without delay.

The Minister emphasised the importance of the Bill in fostering a culture where public bodies are open and candid when things go wrong. She acknowledged concerns about national security but clarified that the duty of candour does not override existing laws protecting sensitive information, and that intelligence services will assess the sensitivity of such information.

He reaffirmed the bill's significance, noting it is long overdue. Starmer highlighted his commitment to ensuring that justice belongs equally to all people in the country. He thanked campaigners, families of victims from various tragedies, and Members of both Houses for their cooperation throughout the Bill’s passage.

Mullan expressed admiration for the Hillsborough families but criticised the Prime Minister's handling of the bill. He argued that the Government made it difficult to legislate carefully and with consideration by introducing legislation with less than 24 hours' notice on an issue of national security. Mullan also highlighted repeated misleading statements from the Government regarding family support for the Bill.

Emphasised the importance of the Bill in honouring the commitment made to the Hillsborough families. Highlighted that the campaign for truth and justice does not stop here, but accelerates from this moment onwards. Stressed that the Bill aims to end the cover-up culture that has failed so many ordinary people.

Paid tribute to campaigners for their courage, tenacity, and determination. Acknowledged the need to protect whistleblowers and expressed hope that the Liberal Democrats will work cross-party with the Government on this issue. Stressed the importance of ending the culture of cover-up in state institutions.