Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Anneliese Midgley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Bill includes legal provisions to ensure that this can never happen again as a matter of law, but I have been clear—I have said this to the families on a number of occasions—that it is also the culture that has to change. The Bill is the architecture, but the culture of the state has to change.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Charlotte Hennessy, whose father Jimmy Hennessy was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, has had conversations with the Prime Minister in which he has assured her that the law does not need to be watered down and will be delivered in its entirety. She is in the Chamber today. Will he make that promise in this House today?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely. I looked the families in the eye and made that promise, and I meant it. I say it again from this Dispatch Box: this Bill will not be watered down. This is such an important re-orchestrating of the relationship between the state and its citizens. It will not be watered down. I am very pleased to be able to affirm that from this Dispatch Box.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

That day in April 1989 will never leave us. Fans went to the match and never came home. They were not lost; they were unlawfully killed. Authorities protecting themselves; decades of denial, distortion, and lies; a press slandering the dead and the grieving; a cover-up and systematic failure of the state that cut deeper and lasted longer than anyone could have imagined—and still not one successful prosecution. That is why we are here today. That is why the families and survivors continue to fight.

We have all seen their courage and determination, and I cannot express what it means to be in this place with so many members of the Hillsborough families with us in the Chamber today. One of them is Margaret Aspinall, from Huyton. She has asked me to say some words on her behalf. She has repeated many times to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General that the group wants the Hillsborough law to be delivered in its entirety, with no changes or watering down. That will create a system that is so much fairer for families who have lost a loved one in a state-related death. Today, it is the perpetrators who get the help, while the victims get a massive cover-up. It must never again be a one-way system.

Delivering on that promise means delivering the Hillsborough law in full. That means imposing duties on chief officers, rather than corporate bodies. This matters, because the duty should have been on the chief constable, Peter Wright, rather than on South Yorkshire police. Requiring proof of harm makes the “misleading the public” offence impractical and ineffective.

Delivering the Hillsborough law in full also means bringing forward an amendment to deal with combined and local authority inquiries. Without such an amendment, the result could be the intelligence services failing to properly provide the full facts to inquiries. We must avoid what the King’s Counsel to the families of those who tragically lost their lives in the Manchester Arena attack called “institutional defensiveness” and a lack of candour from MI5. As this Bill progresses, the families and Members of this House will continue to watch, in order to make sure that the Hillsborough law is exactly what this Government deliver.

Margaret’s son, James Aspinall, died at Hillsborough aged just 18. She was forced to accept 1,200 quid, which was supposed to represent compensation for James’s life—1,200 quid for the life of her son. She was forced to cash it against her will because she could not find the money to pay her share of the families’ legal costs. As she has said,

“Making a mother, like myself, accept a pittance to fight a cause. The guilt of this has lived with me for years.”

Such practices have not stopped; since the Hillsborough verdict, other families have been made to beg for legal aid.

Charlotte Hennessy is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Sir Mark Tami), who as a Government Whip does not have the opportunity to speak today and tell her story. Charlotte was just six when her dad, Jimmy Hennessy, went to the match and never came home. Jimmy was 29. He was a plasterer, a man of morals, a mod—he looked good—and a respected family man. For 23 years, Charlotte was told that he died of traumatic asphyxiation. It was not until 2012 that she learned the truth. Her dad was found alive on that pitch. A police officer testified that he felt life and gave him CPR. Jimmy was carried to the gym, where he was supposed to receive medical support. He was declared dead, but he was not dead; he was still alive when he was zipped into a body bag, and he vomited inside it. The pathology report was false: Jimmy did not die in the crush, but from inhalation of his own gastric contents.

Can you imagine dying like that? Can you imagine knowing that your dad died like that? Charlotte has told me about the agony of living with an official lie, but she has fought to piece together her dad’s truth. She told me:

“A Hillsborough Law, with a duty of candour, is imperative. It must stop corruption and prevent any other family from going through”

the pain that her family went through.

It is right that the Government have attempted to match the courage of the families and to be bold, but Hillsborough is not a one-off. Again and again, the state fails those who need the most protection. There must be justice for the 97, but also for every family who have faced the same nightmare, or might face it one day. We cannot let them down. This Bill must be delivered in full, with no watering down. I look forward to the Minister promising, as the Prime Minister has from the Dispatch Box today, that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law—that it will be strong enough to protect every victim of state failure and finally deliver justice for the 97.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)

Anneliese Midgley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lizzi Collinge]

Q So there is no easy way to show corporate collective actions, which are obviously the sum of a number of individual actions.

Pete Weatherby: The Bill creates some individual duties, so you can prove them against the individual, but on the corporate duty, the simple way of dealing with it is the one that we put forward. It is really simple: it is a couple of lines, as you can see from the amendments we have put forward. You make the head of the organisation responsible for the discharge of the corporate duty. There is no problem with that.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you very much, Pete, for coming to give evidence. Going back to the stuff that has been raised about the intelligence services, will you state plainly whether you think clause 6 strikes the right balance between candour and national security, and what is the problem that the Hillsborough Law Now briefing raises with regard to schedule 1?

Pete Weatherby: We have had very detailed discussions with the Government about this over the last year, and clause 6 was the culmination of those. The clause baldly states that the provisions apply to the intelligence services, but with a caveat. That caveat in clause 6 is fine. The Government came up with a slight issue, which was that intelligence officers might inadvertently, without realising it, notify things that affect national security. The caveat in clause 6 deals with that, and that is fine. What it does not deal with is the clause 2(4) duty to provide the evidence subject to the notification. I am sorry if this is a bit legalistic, but there is a clear difference there.

What would happen is that the intelligence service would notify the inquiry or investigation of the fact that it had relevant information or evidence to give, but then the individuals within the intelligence service would be required to provide the material. Because the intelligence service is sighted on that, the material from the individual intelligence officers goes through the intelligence services before it goes to the investigation, so the national security aspect is dealt with—no problem.

We thought that was what the Government had agreed to, but when we look at a rather obscure part of schedule 1, clause 2(4) still applies, except that you cannot make it apply, because it stops the issuing of a compliance notice, which is what kick-starts the application of clause 2(4). So that device disapplies it, and that is the problem. If you just changed the schedule 1 thing, clause 6 would be fine. That is what we thought we had agreed to, to deal with the legitimate national security aspect.

It is important that the individual responsibilities apply to intelligence officers as well, subject to the national security checks. We do not think that is a problem at all. We challenged the intelligence services to tell us how it is a problem, and they have not. If they do not apply, you end up in the Manchester Arena situation, where the evidence was corporate and was wrong. It was not until the chair, who was extremely good, called the intelligence officers themselves—on oath, in closed proceedings—that the false narrative that had been put forward corporately was unpicked.

I am sorry if that is a bit complicated, but that is the problem. It is easily solved, and there would be no effect on national security. It would make our intelligence services better, in the same way as the rest of the Bill makes local authorities, police forces and everybody else better.

[The Chair]

I have to draw this session to a conclusion. Mr Weatherby, thank you very much for you evidence; the Committee is indebted to you.

Examination of Witnesses

Professor Penney Lewis and Tom Guest gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

Q Can I just say how sorry I feel for you? It sounds dreadful and I am sorry. The question I should ask you is, “How confident are you that this will change the culture in public authorities?”, but I sense from what I have heard that I ought to ask, do you have any confidence that the Bill will change things?

Charlotte Hennessy: We are very confident. We have literally given 10 years of our lives, fighting to be here in this place. We have to acknowledge that Keir Starmer is the only Prime Minister who has endorsed the Bill. I would like to remind everyone that our Prime Minister made me a promise. He made a pledge to the public. It is now your duty to ensure that you fulfil that promise as well. If we were not confident in the Bill, we would not be sitting here today.

Steve Kelly: Just touching on something that Seamus was talking about before, about changing cultures within authorities and so on, I would like to give you an example that has never left me. During the Hillsborough inquests, a man in his 40s or early 50s was giving evidence. He was an ex-PC—at the time of Hillsborough, he was probably a young PC. He was being questioned about the culture within the South Yorkshire police force at the time in 1989.

I will never forget that man saying, “When you used to go Snig Hill, and you’d be walking along the corridor, you’d hold your head down when you’d see the bosses. You daren’t look at them, because we were frightened of them.” How could we encourage young officers like that to become whistleblowers? You couldn’t. We need a culture change. I thought that was a great point that this is something this law might do for not only policemen, but any public servants—anyone deserves support if they are trying to right a wrong.

That young policeman must have taken that with him to those inquests. I remember looking at his face and thinking, “That’s the first time you’ve got that out.” The burden was on him all those years as well. It should not be like that. Hopefully, the Hillsborough law will support that.

Sue Roberts: You are right; the culture changes have to be led from the very top—from the CEOs of these companies. Either they have to want to make this change happen or they need to move on.

[Anneliese Midgley]

Q I have two questions for the whole panel. To start with, thank you so much for everything that you have done. There is no doubt about it; we would not be here in this room today with the Bill where it is without your work. We heard in an earlier evidence session from Pete Weatherby KC, the director of Hillsborough Law Now, who talked about command responsibility. He said that without the amendment, a lot of the duties in the Bill are reduced to something that looks good, but is rather ineffective. He also talked about application to the intelligence services. Do you agree with what Pete Weatherby said to us today? Owing to the shortness of time, I will ask my second question as well: what do you think the Bill Committee needs to hear from you today?

Charlotte Hennessy: We completely support what Pete said earlier and the amendments that he has suggested. We are in full agreement with all the information that has been included in the Bill. Going forward, we need to acknowledge that Hillsborough is our story, but there are many, many others. We also need to acknowledge that the Hillsborough Law Now campaign group is made up of so many other examples of miscarriages of justice. They will have submitted their own evidence to you, so I will not name them all today, but we need to ensure that there is change going forward. We cannot keep allowing the same situations to repeat.

Not to be disrespectful, but ultimately we also need to acknowledge that the current laws that are in place failed to secure prosecutions against those that were responsible. David Duckenfield told that one lie while he stood over people who were scrambling for their lives. He got away with that because the Crown Prosecution failed to secure a criminal case against him. He was offered sympathy while family members had to sit and watch. He was allowed to place files so that he did not have to look at the family members that were sat in the public gallery.

We could sit and talk about examples all day. Norman Bettison was in this building. He briefed people about what happened at Hillsborough. He was allowed to do that. He was then made chief constable of Merseyside and then he was knighted. He was complicit in the cover-up. We have to change it. It has to stop.

Margaret Aspinall: I have to thank Maria Eagle—if you don’t mind, Maria. I always remember, a good few years ago, Maria having the power—the guts—to stand up in Parliament and say that it was “black propaganda” with Bettison. She was absolutely spot on.

When I look back over the years and think about what Charlotte was saying earlier, Mr Duckenfield—I call him Mr Duckenfield out of respect to all of you; otherwise I would not—walked away scot-free. He went missing for a couple of hours and not one person knew where he was. He could not remember where he had been; he could not remember where he was. He must have been the bloody Invisible Man because, good God, there’s no way. I think the police were scared to say exactly where he was. They were all scared; they were all covering up for each other. To me, that is an absolute, utter, utter disgrace of a system in this country.

I know we can’t bring judges up, but there is a few of them should be brought up. When we were at the private prosecution, where a judge could turn round and tell Mr Duckenfield, “Don’t worry, Mr Duckenfield, you won’t get a custodial sentence,” we knew then we had no chance—no chance. He directed the jury twice, because they came in and asked a question. For him to turn round and say, “What message are you sending out to the emergency services if you come back with guilty?”, what does that tell all of you? It tells you we had no chance whatsoever. We were up against a system that was corrupt from the very top to the bottom.

I feel sometimes we are on trial yet again for what happened at Hillsborough, because we are sitting here like this. I feel I am trying to ask all of you to do the right thing. I have asked the Prime Minister. He made that promise; he made a phone call to me that he would do the right thing. As Charlotte said, we thank him for that. He has made that promise; he will have to fulfil that promise. He has also promised it would not be watered down. For Hillsborough families—and for the likes of Ian as well, who was at that game and who knows what we have all gone through and what the survivors went through—we are here to change a system that should have been changed decades ago. When you look at all the cover-ups that have gone on—I can name them all, but I won’t, because I am sure you all know—it is a disgrace that we are sitting here now, 36 years on, trying to change the system. I am asking all of you, please don’t let anybody else go through what we have gone through. Please, I ask you all: do the right thing.

[The Chair]

Q Mrs Aspinall, I can assure you that, before this Committee, you are most certainly not on trial. Steve Kelly.

Steve Kelly: You asked us what the Hillsborough campaign wants from this. The Hillsborough campaign finished; Denton, Foster and Metcalf were found not guilty. I remember being there that day. Again, it came back that the case had been quashed. They walked away, after some of the most horrific things you could do as a policeman or a solicitor. I can remember, although I was surrounded by the campaigners and survivors who have supported us all these years, the feeling of loneliness, thinking, “What now?” We had been all these years fighting; looking for truth, which we never got—we got some truth; looking for justice, which we never got—we got justification; and looking for accountability—someone mentioned it before—and we have never had accountability.

I went home that day—I live alone—and I sat at home that night and sobbed. Why? I had done nothing wrong. I was just a lad from Liverpool; I’d done nothing. But those three men walked away with not a stain on their reputation, with their full pensions, and probably with a smile on their face—I had actually seen the smiles on their faces as they left the courts. You shouldn’t let anyone do that, to anyone. It is cruel. As I say, there was that feeling of loneliness and defeat. We had done nothing wrong. Why did I feel defeated? Because I couldn’t go to my mother’s grave and say, “We got them.” It shouldn’t happen.

Charlotte Hennessy: Can I just—

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)

Anneliese Midgley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Byrne]

Amendments 44 and 45 go to the heart of what we are trying to do regarding the Hillsborough law, which is about command responsibility. It is about cultural change. I got the briefing note from the Minister, which I am very thankful for, which outlines where we feel the Government are now, but I think there is a debate among many of us about whether we feel that is strong enough. I just want to outline why I feel that, and why I feel that these amendments are worthy of consideration by the Minister.

The duty of candour and assistance applies to both public authorities and individuals. Where the duty falls on an authority, responsibility for compliance and enforcement measures must land on individuals; otherwise, those measures are basically rendered ineffective. The clause 5 and clause 11 offences require intent or recklessness, a concept that is difficult to apply to a legal—rather than natural—person. Where the criminal law has corporate offences, including proof of intent or recklessness, liability is established by attributing the mental state of directing minds to the corporation. That may be appropriate in some contexts, but here, proof of wrongdoing or failure leads only to liability on the authority and a fine paid by the taxpayer. I just do not feel that goes far enough.

The original 2017 Public Authority (Accountability) Bill dealt with that by making the chief officer or chief executive responsible for the discharge of the corporate duty. We feel that that is both fair and practical, as it places the responsibility on the person with the ability to ensure that authorities are properly led, and a high hurdle of intent or subjective recklessness ensures that he or she does not get prosecuted for inadvertence, or if he or she is misled by others. That also provides an effective deterrent.

I go back to the fact that we are looking at cultural change here; I feel that understanding that they would be responsible would sharpen their minds. Prosecution of a corporation just means that the taxpayer pays a fine, and we have seen that before, with a slap on the wrist and no cultural change.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I remind the Committee that, on Second Reading, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box:

“This Bill will tackle that injustice so that when tragedy strikes and the state is called to account, in inquiries, inquests and other investigations, public officials—from police officers to the highest offices in the land—will be subject to that duty. That means that an injustice like this can never again hide in some dark corner of the state. Failure to comply—failure, therefore, to act with candour, transparency and frankness—will now carry criminal penalties, including being sent to prison.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 655.]

I just wanted to add that to this debate.