Hillsborough Law

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for placing this item for us to discuss. I have to admit a certain inadequacy. I thought when I put my name down that there would be many other speakers, and I wish to raise only a particular, narrow point.

In a way, the debate has had the wind taken out of its sails by the fact that we now have the Bill and we have had the Second Reading in the House of Commons. I urge all noble Lords to read the whole transcript, because the extent of the problems and the issues that need to be dealt with are brought home very strongly when we do so.

Of course, this is popularly known as the Hillsborough law. I was struck by what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice said, echoing the words of the Prime Minister, in winding up the debate. He said the legislation

“was not born here in Westminster; it was born out of heartbreak, out of unimaginable loss, out of the tireless courage of those who refused to be silenced”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/25; col. 720.]

We need to recognise that in the debate. It was brought home to me by reading in Hansard all the different cases that were raised and where action is required. I have to pay testimony to my honourable friend Ian Byrne MP, who—I think we can fairly say—led this campaign but, of course, is part of a coalition with what were described as the scouse MPs, and MPs from across the country. The campaigners really deserve the credit for what is being achieved here.

Two things struck me in the debate. I will get on to my specific point shortly, but it is worth saying that what came out of it was the range of issues, and—it has already been touched on by my noble friend Lord Wills and by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton—that it is not just about the duty of candour. It stuck me that, in trying to achieve the target of a rebalance of power between the state and working people, the issues of legal aid, whistleblowers, press regulation and Leveson 2, and the questions of inquiry follow-through and having a clear, specific locus for national oversight of these issues were raised.

The second point, which brings me to the specific question I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister, is about the range of issues that have raised concern. Obviously, Hillsborough is the centre of this; people also mention Grenfell and Windrush. I went through underlining all the different problems that MPs raised, which are clearly of crucial importance to them. They vary greatly. Windrush was very specific and tragic, and it destroyed families. My big question is: what range of issues is going to be covered by this legislation? Here, I declare my interest as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services.

I am widely concerned. During the previous debate, I had to nip up to Committee Room 14 where there was a meeting of the all-party group. Committee Room 14 was packed with people who have suffered financial harm and are looking for some form of better support than they have received so far from the apparatus of the state. The harm you receive from being defrauded is straightforward, but the psychological harm, in some cases, leads to people’s deaths. I am not specifically suggesting here that the law should be expanded to cover all circumstances, but it is an issue that we need to consider. Financial harm can be as severe on people as the other problems that were discussed in the House of Commons. I hope we will be able to have a full discussion about the scope of what is covered by this legislation and what the state needs to do to rebalance power from the state, as regulators of the financial sector and individual people.