Ian Byrne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House for attending on a one-line Whip, which shows the strength of feeling. Their presence proves that the unresolved problems that have emerged for many in Liverpool West Derby represent a national scandal requiring a national response. In my constituency alone, 35 people have contacted me with serious concerns about the administration of their civil service pension. I speak for them, and for civil servants, pensioners and bereaved families across the country being badly let down. They have served the public, paid into their pensions and planned their retirements in good faith.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  A point well made. James Burke works for the Department for Work and Pensions in the Child Maintenance Service. James entered partial retirement, reducing his working week salary by about 20%, with his pension intended to replace the lost income and provide a lump sum. Neither has arrived. With his mortgage due for repayment on 30 July, his borrowing increased and his provider told him it could not offer a new product. James made nine calls to the helpline, sometimes waiting around two hours. He was promised resolution, then told payment was imminent before being informed that no timescale could be provided.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I will not be taking any more interventions, because people have put in to speak. Another of my constituents, Karen Morrow, took early retirement at the end of June. She will not receive a state pension for another two years. The civil service pension she earned was supposed to supplement her income. After two years of delay and inaction, she was told that her documents would be uploaded by 4 August and she might receive her pension by the end of that month. August came and went, and Karen received nothing. She has chased every single week. On her latest call, she waited three hours to be told only her that her case would be escalated—with no payment, no explanation and no reliable timescale. Karen has been left without an income since the end of June. The circumstances of the constituents’ cases I raise may differ in nature, but the pattern is the same: they earn their pension, yet carry the debt, uncertainty and stress created by a failing system. These are not minor administrative errors; they are major failures with serious human consequences. It is not just my constituents and many others around the country waiting for their pensions who have been failed by Capita; it is Capita’s own staff as well. Workers employed by Capita, including many in my city, have reported to the Public and Commercial Services Union that they are suffering due to the company’s failure to deliver on the contract. They struggle physically and mentally as a result of inadequate staffing levels, insufficient training, poor processes, inappropriate IT systems and constantly changing demands. More than half of Capita’s workers who took part in a PCS survey said that they experience stress every day or most days, with a quarter responding that they are frequently extremely stressed. One PCS member described their day-to-day experience: “every day is draining and it’s always a massive relief when my working day is over.” Many are resigning because working conditions have become intolerable. More than 75% told PCS that they are considering leaving their roles. Is there any wonder we are in this mess? We know that Capita has failed in its duty to run the civil service pension scheme, but clearly it is also failing its own staff. The Government’s actions confirm the scale of the crisis. In February, Ministers said that they were working to bring most aspects of the service back to expected levels by June. That deadline was missed. In July, after sending two separate letters to the Cabinet Office in December and March, the Government confirmed, in response to a written parliamentary question of mine, that Capita had failed to restore standard contractual service. Ministers rightly withheld the £9.9 million, deployed independent auditors, appointed a remedial adviser at Capita’s expense and recovered the cost of Government surge teams. Last Friday, Karl Flinders from Computer Weekly , having covered the scandal over the last year, reported that the Cabinet Office is establishing a team with direct access to Capita’s systems to independently validate its data. That is welcome, but is it not extraordinary that the Government have relied on Capita’s own management information in the first place? The contractor under scrutiny has been supplying the figures by which its performance is judged. How can Capita possibly be held to account in the way that it clearly needs to be? Despite those repeated interventions by the Government, on 7 September more than 1,000 bereavement cases were still more than 100 days old, alongside 308 death-in-service cases and 288 payment cases. Around 900 retirement quotations also remained from the backlog that Capita committed to clear. Bereavement, death-in-service and retirement are not cases on a spreadsheet; these are human stories—people facing some of the most difficult moments in their lives. The sequence is clear: a deadline was set, missed and followed by emergency measures, yet hundreds remain trapped in the backlog. Progress is welcome, but progress is not resolution. The question is no longer whether there has been a serious failure—that is absolutely beyond dispute. The question is when will civil servants, pensioners and bereaved families finally see the end of it? I have raised this repeatedly with Ministers; sought Cabinet Office engagements with the PCS general secretary, Fran Heathcote; supported parliamentary motions; and tabled questions on the backlog, compensation, sanctions and bringing the service back in-house. I secured this debate because constituents are still coming to me in absolute distress. This brings us to the fundamental question of outsourcing. We are told that outsourcing delivers efficiency and transfers risk, but when Capita failed, civil servants cleared the backlog, employers provided hardship funds and Government-appointed auditors and MPs became an escalation route, so where exactly was the risk transferred? Administration was outsourced; responsibility was not. A private company holds the contract while the public sector picks up the pieces, and all the while our constituents carry the consequences. This is the failed ideology of outsourcing laid bare: born under Thatcher, followed by successive Governments of all colours in the name of efficiency while delivering absolutely the opposite and putting the burden on ordinary people. Whether it is Fujitsu in the case of the Post Office Horizon scandal, or even our failing water industry, how many more examples must we bring before this House before the political establishment finally accepts that this experiment has completely failed? Today I ask the Minister for three clear commitments: recovery, compensation and accountability. First, on recovery, will the Minister set out a firm dated timetable for returning the scheme to normal service? That must include clearing overdue cases and urgently prioritising those without income and those with serious welfare, bereavement and ill-health cases. As part of that, the Government must also commit to publishing the number and age of outstanding cases until that has been achieved. The parliamentary caseloads that MPs have received on this issue should also be highlighted. Secondly, there is compensation. When failure creates debt, higher borrowing costs, mortgage problems or reliance on hardship support, people should not face another battle to regain the position they would have been in had the service worked as it should have. Will the Minister provide a clear, simple and accessible route to compensation for financial loss? Thirdly, there is accountability. The Government have announced a public interest test under which contracts worth more than £1 million will be assessed for in-house viability before renewal. If ever a service justified considering whether public provision would be more resilient, reliable and accountable, surely this is it. After months of failure under the administration of Capita and every indication that problems will persist, surely we have our answer. Will the Minister commit to bringing the administration of the civil service pension scheme back in-house, to put it back in the service of the people it exists to support? This is not an attack on the staff working hard to clear the backlog; it is about the system and the political choices that have put us in this position. David should be able to reduce his hours to care for his elderly parents, James should not fear losing his home, Karen should not be left without an income and spending hours chasing her pension, and the other 32 constituents who contacted me should not need their Member of Parliament simply to access the pension service they were promised and have earned. Civil servants have served our country and our communities; they have paid into their pensions and planned their futures in good faith. They have kept their side of the bargain; it is time for the Government and the system for which they are responsible to keep theirs. I ask the Minister for three things: recovery, compensation and accountability. The administration may have been outsourced, but responsibility cannot be outsourced with it. It is time for the system to do its part for our civil servants.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  These civil servants are entitled to expect accurate information, pensions paid when they are due and accountability when things go wrong. With the permission of my constituents, I want to place on the record three West Derby cases. Dave Barlow has spent around 18 months trying to obtain up-to-date pension information. He tells me that he has not received an annual benefit statement for several years. Dave, who is reducing his working week partly to care for his elderly parents, is due to begin partial retirement on 6 October, yet he still does not have the information needed to plan his finances. He was given no guarantee that his pension would be ready, no timescale for his statement and, incredibly, was told by Capita to approach his employer for hardship support if necessary. Think about that—a civil servant may have to seek hardship support because the private company paid to administer his pension has totally failed to do its job.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  That excellent point is well made, and I will raise it in my speech.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Revocation of Honours · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps her Department is taking to revoke the honours of disgraced individuals.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Revocation of Honours · Hansard source

  More

  In December last year, the Independent Office for Police Conduct found that Sir Norman Bettison, the chief inspector for South Yorkshire police at the time of the Hillsborough disaster, would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct had he still been a serving officer today. This related to his role in the Hillsborough cover-up, his deliberate dishonesty in the aftermath of the disaster, and his lying about his involvement during his application for the post of chief constable of Merseyside police in 1998. Yesterday I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask whether the Forfeiture Committee has taken December’s finding into account. Can my hon. Friend confirm that that finding is being considered by the Committee? If not, will he make representations that it should be?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree; I have signed the hon. Gentleman’s amendments and we have been in many Committees speaking on this issue. New clause 108 provides a proportionate and evidence-based mechanism to address this issue. The new clause does not name or target any individual company. It would establish a clear and principled test, rooted in international law and internationally accepted standards, that every contractor must meet. If a company such as Palantir cannot meet that test, it should never hold contracts in our NHS or with Government Departments. I have repeatedly urged the Government to trigger the 2027 break clause in Palantir’s contract to operate the federated data platform. I make that call again tonight. It is only through a measure such as new clause 108 that we can ensure that companies such as Palantir cannot operate in our public services again. It should be accepted, but the principle behind it should not end with the NHS. It should apply across every Government Department, led by the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office’s report on social value and procurement, published last month, was welcome, but it contained a glaring omission: a clear ethical foundation. My clause would provide that crucial and much-needed safeguard, ensuring a legislative framework that prevents companies with records like Palantir’s from securing public contracts in the future. Last week, I visited the Vatican and spoke with officials about how the United Kingdom could lead the world in the ethical use of artificial intelligence and advanced technologies. Tonight, my Government have a real opportunity to put a marker down and demonstrate that Britain intends to be at the forefront of that global movement. I look forward to helping them achieve that if they adopt my new clause. Let us make it clear that scrutiny, transparency and respect for human rights are not optional extras in public procurement, but conditions of entry for any company seeking to serve NHS workers and patients. That is what new clause 108 calls for, and that is the change that will be welcomed in Liverpool West Derby, across our country and, indeed, in the halls of the Vatican. I look forward to the Government’s response.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to my new clause 108, because the public rightly expect any company entrusted to operate within our national health service to meet basic standards of ethical conduct, both inside and outside the NHS. In my experience as parliamentary lead on the Hillsborough law, I regularly met members of the public who were shocked that a duty of candour that would compel public officials to tell the truth to the people they served did not already exist. I believe that many of my constituents will be equally shocked that the basic principles of ethical accountability are not already enshrined in Government procurement policy, but they are not. New clause 108 is not radical. It is a straightforward safeguard requiring the Secretary of State to review the NHS procurement framework and ensure that companies with proven involvement in violations of international law or breaches of internationally accepted standards of business conduct cannot be offered public contracts. Those standards include the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and the OECD guidelines on multinational enterprises. What exactly is there to disagree with? They ask the bare minimum of businesses: that do not contribute to harm, that they carry out proper human rights due diligence and that are transparent about how they handle the data of the people they serve. Yet we currently have a company operating at the heart of our NHS infrastructure, through the federated data platform, that fails to meet that basic standard. I am talking about the US tech firm Palantir. Palantir has consistently refused to publish a formal human rights impact assessment for its software used in Israel’s assault on Gaza, in violent ICE detentions in America, and in its use of NHS staff and patient data. Such a lack of transparency is not a technicality but a serious failure to meet the standards in the UN and OECD guidelines. I first raised concerns about Palantir’s NHS contract in a letter to the then health Secretary in August 2023, and these concerns have been echoed by many, many others. I am pleased that Parliament has started to push back, with calls from numerous Committees for Palantir to be dropped. I also fully support new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). Patients trust the NHS with the most sensitive information they possess.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Back in 2015, I had the number 96 tattooed on my wrist. It was not simply a tattoo; it was a promise. It was a promise that whenever life became difficult, I would never forget one simple truth: I was one of the lucky ones. I walked away from Hillsborough, but 96 did not. Today we remember the 97. That number on my wrist and the people it represents has become my compass. Every time I look at it, I think of those who never came home. I think of their families and of survivors like my dad, who was seriously injured. I think of every campaigner who has spent decades refusing to accept the lies, refusing to surrender to injustice and refusing to allow the truth to be buried. They have shaped my life far more than they will ever know. I owe them more than I could ever repay. In the years after Hillsborough, one question followed me everywhere. It is a question every survivor knows—every survivor of Grenfell knows it; every survivor of a public disaster knows it. It arrives uninvited in the silence of the early hours of the morning: “Why did I get to walk away when others didn’t?” For years, that question haunted me. What responsibility do you carry when your survival comes at such a terrible cost to others? What do you owe those who never got the chance to live the life you have lived? I began to find my answers long before I entered this place. In 2009, after finishing an early shift at my printing factory, I went with my dad and my mates—people who had stood beside me at Hillsborough—to the 20th anniversary memorial service at Anfield. We stood shoulder to shoulder with thousands of people. We remembered. Then came the chant that echoed around the stadium: “Justice. Justice. Justice.” Not because it was a slogan, but because it was all we had left. For two decades we had been lied to, families had been ignored, survivors had been smeared. Those who should have protected ordinary people protected themselves instead, and this House—with honourable exceptions—too often looked the other way. That is a stain on our democracy that I will never forget. But that cry for justice could no longer be ignored. It forced this place and the country to confront the truth and, ultimately, it led to the Hillsborough independent panel. At last, the truth broke through. It confirmed what the people of Liverpool had always known: the supporters were innocent. The lies were exposed, the cover-up was exposed, and the culture of unaccountable power was exposed. The families, the survivors and the people of Liverpool will never forgive those who deliberately vilified innocent people and orchestrated that cover-up. They will never forget what Rupert Murdoch, Kelvin MacKenzie, The Sun , Norman Bettison and South Yorkshire police did not only to the victims and survivors, but to an entire city. The wounds they inflicted went far beyond any newspaper headline; they damaged lives, reputations and trust in our institutions. That is why I will continue to campaign for Leveson part 2 and for Bettison to be stripped of his knighthood. The new inquests in 2016 finally recognised what should have been stated from the very beginning: the victims of Hillsborough were unlawfully killed. Those words mattered because the truth matters. But truth without accountability is never enough. Truth without justice leaves a wound only partially healed. The families deserved justice. The survivors deserved justice. We never got it for Hillsborough. Then, Bishop James Jones gave us not just a report, but a warning that should echo through every public institution in Britain: “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. Those six words alone should be studied by every public authority in this country, every Minister, every chief constable, every permanent secretary and every senior public official, because if we do not learn those lessons, we will carry on repeating them. Few reports have ever described the British establishment with such devastating accuracy. When power is unaccountable, truth becomes negotiable, justice becomes optional and ordinary people are sacrificed. The Hillsborough law was born from that understanding. Its purpose is simple: never again should a grieving family have to fight the state simply to discover the truth. In 2021 I was asked by my friend, now my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), to carry the baton for a Hillsborough law in Parliament and to bring the voices of the families and survivors into Parliament, to make sure no family ever again goes through what the Hillsborough families and survivors went through. There are moments in politics that define why we are here—why we have been given this privilege. This was mine. I never saw this as my campaign. It always belonged to the families; I was simply trusted to carry their voices into this House.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this hugely important debate and for his leadership on this issue over a long period. At its heart, this debate is about public service, trust, standards and whether being a Member of Parliament is a full-time duty to the people, or a platform for private enrichment and personal gain. Let us say plainly what people across this country already know: being an MP is not a side hustle, a brand or a boost to corporate boardrooms, consultancy fees, television contracts, crypto fortunes or commercial deals. Public office is not a business model; it is a privilege. We are sent here by our constituents and we are paid by the public. Our first, last and every loyalty must be to the people we represent. Since the 2024 general election there have been welcome reforms, but they are only small steps. Members of this House can still earn extraordinary sums through media work, publishing and corporate-linked interest. The public have every right to ask why. In Liverpool West Derby, people are working almost every hour they can and still struggling to make ends meet. Families are choosing between eating and heating. In the last six months, I have been across the country with the Right to Food Commission, and I have heard exactly the same stories: children growing up in poverty, parents skipping meals, pensioners dreading their next bill and workers taking second jobs not to get rich, but simply to survive and keep afloat. That is the reality that too many in this House are oblivious to. People are not living; they are surviving. Imagine what people think when they see Members of Parliament earning hundreds of thousands of pounds on top of an already excellent MP’s salary. Most workers cannot earn tens of thousands of pounds for a few hours’ work, yet that is exactly what this House permits. People are sick of Parliament being treated like a marketplace, sick of influence following money, sick of politicians speaking the language of working people while living by rules that working people could never access. That is not public service; it is grift. We have seen declarations of hundreds of thousands of pounds in outside earnings. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), claims to stand with left-behind communities while accepting a reported £5 million gift from a crypto donor in an industry he is campaigning to liberalise and deregulate. That is not anti-establishment—it is the establishment. It is money privilege wearing a different badge, and people can see that. It is not just the hon. Member for Clacton. Across this house there are Members, including some who represent the poorest communities in Britain, who have chosen to follow the same path. They use public office to pursue private financial gain. That is exactly the culture that the public have lost faith in. In Clacton and in Liverpool, people know the difference between graft and grift. Graft is the cleaner starting before dawn, the care worker finishing another double shift, the warehouse worker waiting to find out whether they have enough hours in the week, the nurse staying because the ward is short staffed, the mum going without so her children can eat and the dad skipping meals so the lights stay on. That is graft, not grift. Every time money buys excess, democracy is weakened. The mere fact that people are asking, “Who are they working for?” should really shame this House. When somebody writes to their MP, it is usually because they are desperate. They need help: they need advocacy, pensions, HM Revenue and Customs or child maintenance service; they are disabled, they are ill or they are struggling to navigate an inhumane benefits system. They deserve to know that their Member’s attention belongs to them—not to a corporate boardroom or a private client, but to them as individuals. This job is a privilege and a vocation; it is not an entitlement, and it is certainly not a commercial opportunity. Let us finish the job. Let us ban second paid jobs, with only genuinely exceptional public interest exemptions, strengthen transparency and enforce the rules: no loopholes, no excuses and no more cashing in on public office. This debate comes down to one simple question. Whose side are we on—the side of the people who graft, work hard, pay their taxes and expect integrity from those they elect, or the side who treat public office as a route to private wealth? I know where I stand. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who graft, not the people who grift. Public office is a privilege, not a business opportunity. This House belongs to the public. We are sent here for one reason and one reason only: to serve our constituents who put us in this place—nothing more, nothing less.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Culture, Media And Sport · Hansard source

  More

  The need for greater sustained investment in youth services and sports and leisure facilities in communities like mine in Liverpool West Derby is something that I care deeply about. I welcome the debate, but I want to focus on one simple change that would cost not a penny and could happen almost overnight: removing the “no ball games” signs that still cover streets and housing estates across our country. At a time when mobile phones and social media dominate young people’s lives, we should be doing everything we can to encourage children to play outside, yet between 2012 and 2022 more than 400 playgrounds in England closed, according to the Raising the Nation Play Commission. It also found that outdoor play had fallen by almost 50% in a generation, because families have lost safe public spaces on their doorstep. Austerity has hollowed out our communities and councils like Liverpool have been forced to close parks, pitches and youth facilities due to lack of funding. In many places, children now need to spend more than £50 to hire a private football pitch because the free alternatives have disappeared. The evidence is clear. The children, young people and the built environment inquiry recommended that the Government require housing providers to remove unnecessary “no ball games” signs. Earlier this year, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee reinforced that recommendation in its excellent “Game On” report, with support from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. That is welcome, but it is not enough. The Government continue to leave this to local authorities, yet councils are often understandably risk-averse and face pressure from housing providers. Without national leadership, progress will be patchy. When I was a councillor in Everton, I refused to put the signs up. If there were issues with residents, I would speak to the kids, have a discussion and try not to have the signs up, and I was 100% successful. I remembered how I was as a kid, playing football every summer. The chalk came out, and one day the local park became Centre Court; the next day it was Lord’s. Those memories were about sport, friendship, imagination and community, and one of my very best friends, Karen Burke, ended up playing for England women’s football team. So much talent was nurtured on the streets. There are many good examples. In 2015, Aberdeen city council removed these signs and has seen overwhelmingly positive results since. The benefits are obvious. Access to those benefits, though, should not depend on where a child lives. We cannot accept a postcode lottery, where a child in Aberdeen can walk outside and play freely while a child in Liverpool stays indoors because they have nowhere left to go. We urge the Government to act, to accept the recommendations of the Raising the Nation Play Commission, the CMS Committee and organisations such as Playing Out, and to introduce a national directive to remove unnecessary “no ball games” signs. It is an easy win. Let us get our young people playing again.

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State, like countless other Ministers over the years, has stood at the Dispatch Box to outline and apologise for yet another state cover-up. Can we agree that enough is enough? Will he personally intervene and beg the Prime Minister to pass the Hillsborough law in full—it has been promised to us on numerous occasions—before summer recess and end this culture of cover-ups?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit: People in Employment · Hansard source

  More

  As the proud parliamentary lead for the Right To Food UK Commission, I have heard powerful testimony from workers employed by large, profitable companies across the UK who are paid so little that they are driven to hardship, hunger and dependence on universal credit just to put food on the table. The DWP assesses that 1.2 million people on universal credit are working to their capacity, with their income topped up by the state because their wages are so low. That figure has increased threefold in six years. Does the Minister agree that the taxpayer should not be left to subsidise poverty pay paid by companies that employ more than 250 people? Will the Government require those companies to report on how many of their workers rely on universal credit because their wages are so low?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit: People in Employment · Hansard source

  More

  8. What assessment his Department has made of trends in the level of people in employment claiming universal credit.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  The latest Peter Mandelson scandal epitomises everything that my constituents in Liverpool West Derby detest about the political establishment and why so many are losing faith in this place. Here was a man who brought Government into disrepute on multiple occasions—a man who repeatedly placed personal interest and profit ahead of public service—yet instead of being consigned to political history, he was rehabilitated by senior figures in my own party and elevated through a position of extraordinary, unelected influence. Why? Because his value to the political establishment was never rooted in principle or public service; it was rooted in his history of brutal, factional manoeuvring, his network of powerful contacts and his ability to pull strings behind the scenes. Even his association with one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles was seemingly outweighed by the usefulness of those connections and—shamefully, for those responsible for his appointment—with no apparent regard for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her speech, which outlined that so powerfully. Though the latest documents reveal moments of embarrassing sycophancy, they tell us little that we did not already know. Mandelson’s fingerprints are all over this Government. His involvement stretched from Ministers and advisers to the very centre of power. Just yesterday evening, we learned that the Chancellor asked Mandelson to visit her at the Treasury to advise on trade matters while he was chair of the private lobbying firm Global Counsel. No record of the meeting was disclosed. Mandelson’s influence, exercised through figures such as the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, was vast, unaccountable and entirely undemocratic. Based on the great lengths that McSweeney and others went to ensure that Mandelson was given the job as US ambassador, including by applying pressure on civil servants, it is very reasonable to conclude that Mandelson’s influential position was reward for his support of the Labour Together faction. The damage that organisation has done to my party and this Government cannot be ignored, so I once again reiterate my call to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for a full, transparent and independent inquiry into Labour Together and all those involved in the organisation. The question many of my constituents are asking is: how could an unelected figure, whose public record is so controversial, wield such influence over the decisions of Government while facing so little scrutiny or accountability? That lack of accountability also helps to explain why the latest disclosures were not far more uncomfortable for Mandelson and those around him. As we know, despite requests to do so, he refused to hand over his personal phone as part of the evidence-gathering process. That speaks to a wider problem of culture in Westminster and Whitehall, and is exactly why we need a duty of candour that a Hillsborough law would introduce. There can be no more exemptions from transparency for the powerful; there can be no special rules for those at the top. Public confidence depends on accountability applied equally to everyone. I, like many others, await Government actions on the progress of that crucial piece of legislation, and I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister can shed some light on its stalled progress when he winds up the debate. The ongoing police investigation means that Mandelson may yet face further scrutiny. However, the absence of so much correspondence, together with the significant redactions in material already published, means the true extent of his influence over Government decision making may never be fully known. My particular concern centres on the relationship between this Government and the US technology firm Palantir, a former client of Global Counsel. The documents reveal that Mandelson arranged meetings with Palantir’s founder Peter Thiel—historically a supporter of Donald Trump—and Louis Mosley, the company’s UK head. Those meetings followed the Prime Minister’s visit to Palantir’s Washington headquarters in February—a meeting reportedly brokered by Mandelson, for which no official minutes or transcript were produced. Following this, later in the year, in September, during the state visit of Donald Trump, there was a pledge by Palantir to expand its work with the Ministry of Defence to a value of £750 million over five years. I and many others in this place and beyond do not believe a company associated with military operations in Gaza and the facilitation of aggressive immigration enforcement in the United States should be entrusted with expanding influence over any public services in this country. My greatest concern is Palantir’s growing role within our national health service—a matter that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee today described as “an unacceptable point of weakness”, which could leave our data “at the mercy” of hostile actors. I first raised concerns about this company in 2023 when the federated data platform contract was awarded. Since then, I have repeatedly called on the current and the last Governments to exercise the 2027 break clause and end this relationship. Yet despite widespread concerns from parliamentarians, healthcare professionals and members of the public, for some reason Palantir’s presence within our NHS and access to patient data has only continued to grow. That expansion comes despite significant concerns being raised elsewhere. NYC Health + Hospitals withdrew from its contract with Palantir earlier this year, while a proposed Metropolitan police contract was blocked last month. Those decisions reflected principled leadership and a recognition that public trust must come before corporate influence, and I thank Mayor Khan for showing that desperately needed leadership, which is a real example to others. The concerns that were acted on are shared by many NHS staff and many of my constituents, who are deeply uneasy about the growing role of Palantir in managing sensitive personal data. That is why I was particularly concerned when the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), ruled out ending Palantir’s contract earlier this year, citing efficiency gains, despite evidence that many NHS trusts using the platform had not reported clear benefits of the software. For me, it is here that the missing documents become extremely significant. Just months after Mandelson sought a meeting with Palantir UK’s Louis Mosley, the former Health Secretary, who we know was in regular contact with Mandelson, held a private meeting with Mosley himself, as reported by The Guardian among others. A legitimate question arises: did Mandelson facilitate that meeting in the same way he appeared to broker discussions between Palantir and the Prime Minister? While many in Westminster are preoccupied with the gossip, personal exchanges and political intrigue contained within these documents, I am far more concerned by what is absent: the gaps, the redactions, the missing correspondence that may never come to light because relevant material was withheld or “phones were stolen”. Those missing pieces would not simply demonstrate that Peter Mandelson was embedded within the machinery of government; they would reveal the consequences of that influence. They would show how decisions affecting our public services, our NHS and our democracy may have been shaped by unelected power, corporate interests and private relationships operating beyond public scrutiny. Until there is full transparency and genuine accountability for how decisions of national importance are made, public trust in this place will continue to erode, and that is a very dangerous place to be going. That principle should have applied to Peter Mandelson, but it clearly did not, and what a catastrophic mistake that was and continues to be. Moving forward, it must also apply to all those currently exercising power within this Government and anybody seeking to lead this Government in the years ahead.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome any debate that has the collective security of the British people at its heart, because I believe one of the greatest threats to our security is the economic system governing this country, which has consistently failed working-class people and communities, and which will undoubtedly be made worse still by the illegal and ill-planned war in Iran. Now more than ever, we need a radical restructuring of priorities and policies: more council housing, a total end to right to buy, and the nationalisation of our industries that were sold off and gutted by Thatcher, including water and energy. In 2026, no one in Britain should be going hungry, so I welcome the Government’s recognition in the King’s Speech that there is a food poverty crisis in the UK. However, the redistribution of surplus food will not begin to end the food insecurity faced by over 14 million people in this country. It is a sticking-plaster over a gaping wound. We need a solution that acknowledges the sheer scale of hunger across the UK. Over the last five months the Right to Food UK Commission, which I am proud to be part of, has travelled across these islands from Liverpool and Knowsley to Newcastle and Northumberland, and from Cardiff and Aberdare to Belfast, with Glasgow and London to come next month. It has listened to the people this country too often ignores—not economists in boardrooms, not corporate lobbyists, but working-class people in working-class communities. They understand better than anyone the scale of food insecurity in this country, and how it is impacting the lives and health of people who are living with hunger every single day—and living with its consequences. The commission has gathered evidence for what I believe will be the defining report of our generation—a road map to finally making the right to food the law of the land. In one of the richest countries on Earth, millions of our people are going hungry, and that should shame every single one of us in this place. I say this truthfully because what I have heard over the last few months has left me absolutely devastated. I have sat with parents who skip meals so their kids can eat. I have listened to disabled people tell us that they are sitting in freezing homes, deciding whether to put the heating on or to buy food—let alone a treat, a day trip or, God forbid, a holiday. I have met workers in full-time jobs relying on food banks to survive. That is the scandal of modern Britain, because these people are not failing: Britain is failing them. We heard evidence from Public and Commercial Services Union members that civil servants are using food banks because of low pay. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union reports that the very workers who make our food cannot afford to put it on their own tables. We should think about how obscene that is, and about how flawed our economic system must be if that is the result. We must stop pretending that this happens by accident; it does not. This is the result of political decisions: 40 years of neoliberal economics have seen people and communities disempowered and left behind, industries destroyed, trade union power weakened, public services hollowed out, and wages and incomes driven down while wealth has flowed upwards—and after all that, people are told to be grateful for charity. Food banks were never supposed to be part of British life. They are the clearest sign that our economy and society are broken, but an entire generation of children are growing up believing that they are normal. That is not normal or acceptable, and it is not inevitable, because hunger in Britain is not caused by a lack of food; it is caused by poverty. That is the truth at the heart of this debate: it is not about scarcity, but poverty—low wages, insecure work, sky-high rents, a broken security system, and an economic system that protects wealth while punishing the poor. That is why I say gently to Ministers that surplus food redistribution is not a solution to hunger. Yes, any support for struggling families matters—of course it does—but we cannot build a just society on leftovers. We cannot normalise emergency charity as permanent public policy, and we cannot allow food banks to become the fourth emergency service of the British state. Because if we do, we are accepting managed poverty instead of ending it, and I reject that completely. Earlier this week the Mayor of Greater Manchester spoke about the damage done by 40 years of neoliberal economics, and he was spot-on because everywhere the commissioners travelled there was a sense deep in communities that people have been abandoned. In Northumberland, one woman said something I will never, ever forget. She said, “Don’t you dare call us disadvantaged; call us asset-stripped.” My God she was right. That is exactly what has happened to working-class Britain—asset-stripped, hope-stripped, industry-stripped, security-stripped—and then those very communities are blamed and demonised for the consequences of political choices. But despite everything—despite all the hardship—those communities still fight for one another. That was the beautiful thing we witnessed everywhere we went. Solidarity is still alive in this country. Working-class people feeding each other, looking after each other and organising together show more humanity in church halls and community centres than many have ever experienced from Government. That is the spirit, and that is what the right to food campaign is built on, because people do not want charity forever; they want dignity, they want security and they want to know they can feed their families without fear. Hunger is a political choice, and if hunger is a political choice then ending hunger must become a political priority. That means universal free school meals. It means wages people can actually live on. It means secure work and stronger trade unions. It means proper enforcement of a legal right to food, and it means investments in community kitchens and local food programmes. It means finally rebuilding a welfare state that protects people instead of punishing them, and, yes, price caps on essential items. These are not extreme demands; they are the bare minimum standards of a civilised society, because in 21st-century Britain nobody should be going hungry. In the communities we have visited, everybody agrees that food is our most basic human right. Good food should be a fundamental human right for all, and a right to food would place this at the very heart of Government decision making. History will ask all of us in this House a very simple question: when millions of children were going hungry, what did you do about it? I know what side I am on.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words. The Minister and I both stood for election in 2024 on a clear manifesto commitment to deliver the Hillsborough law in full. The Prime Minister promised on multiple occasions that passing the Hillsborough law would be among the first acts of this Government, yet two anniversaries of Hillsborough and an entire parliamentary Session have passed without it being delivered. That is simply not good enough. I hear that certain Ministers oppose this legislation due to pressure from the security services and the Ministry of Defence, and that is precisely why leadership is required. The buck stops with the Prime Minister. We must push through disagreement and ensure that this Bill is delivered in its entirety. Every delay causes real and profound distress to bereaved families, survivors and campaigners—people who have spent decades fighting for truth, justice and accountability against a state that failed them and sought to cover up those failures. Crucially, as we have always said, this law is vital for the many people who do not yet know that they will one day need it, so it is essential that this carry-over motion is not merely a procedural device to keep this Bill alive, but a clear signal of the Government’s intention to implement the Hillsborough law in full at the earliest opportunity, as has been promised. This motion must now be matched with urgency and action. The truth is that if the political will existed, this could be resolved in a single day by the Government adopting my amendments, which would restore the Bill to the full Hillsborough law that was promised. I commend every single person who has fought for this legislation. It is my job in this place to ensure that the Government deliver a Hillsborough law worthy of the name. It is rightly described as a legacy for many, but more than that, if we get this Bill right, it will ensure that state cover-ups are far harder to carry out in future. That would be a legacy of real and lasting value to this country, for future generations, and for those whom we will never forget. A duty of candour that applies to all and ensures that nobody is above the law is essential to groups still fighting for justice. That includes families affected by the nuclear test scandal and those impacted by the Chinook disaster, whose pursuit of truth has been obstructed for far too long. In both cases, it is understood that thousands of documents remain restricted, despite the events being decades ago. There must be no built-in escape route, whereby any state body can decide for itself what evidence it provides to an inquiry or an investigation, as exists in the Government’s current provisions; that would be carte blanche for future cover-ups. Campaigners on these causes have stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight for a Hillsborough law, and I and many other hon. Members from across the House will not abandon them now, nor should this Government. Any proposed amendments that weaken that commitment must be withdrawn. My amendment 23, which is supported by more than 70 Members of this House, would remove the carve-out for the intelligence and security services that exempts them from the duty of candour. Since the Bill was shelved in January, no Minister has been able to explain why my amendments cannot be accepted, or why those services should not be subject to the same duty. The amendment, which is fully supported by all campaigns connected to the Hillsborough law, simply applies existing national security safeguards that are already used elsewhere to the duty of candour. This ensures that those bodies are not placed above the law, while maintaining full protection for national security. The Government’s stated concerns about national security therefore do not withstand scrutiny. My amendments would have zero adverse impact on national security, so as the parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough law, I ask again: why can those amendments not be adopted, and why can the full Hillsborough law not be passed when the House returns in the next Session? In what has been a difficult 18 months for this Government, marked at times by damaging and totally avoidable political choices, we must not allow this to become another self-inflicted wound, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Hillsborough law is far too important. Delivered in full, it would be transformational, placing social justice at the very heart of Government and showing the public clearly and convincingly whose side we are on. I know that that is what we both want, Minister. A firm commitment without delay to delivering on this Government’s promise is the very least that those who have fought for justice for so long deserve. It must happen as soon as this House returns in May.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  As I set out in my question to the Leader of the House on Thursday, I welcome the Government tabling this carry-over motion for the Hillsborough law, but in truth it should never have come to this. It is wrong and difficult to accept that we find ourselves here today with no Hillsborough legislation in effect. Responsibility for this delay rests solely with a Government who, at times, have refused to push past the vested interests that were always going to oppose transparency and accountability. It was never in doubt that we would face resistance—the Minister and I have discussed that before—but political courage and determination are essential in seeking to change a culture of cover-ups that has damaged our country and undermined trust in our institutions.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the Government’s tabling of the carry-over motion for the Hillsborough law. A lot of people who were extremely worried about what was happening will be relieved today. However, that motion must be matched with urgency. Ministers must end the delays and deliver the law in full, as promised, without carve-outs for the intelligence and security services. That will achieve the cultural change that the country desperately needs, as we have seen this week. Will my right hon. Friend remind some in government that negative media briefings against key figures in the campaign risk undermining confidence in the process and should cease? Following the Prime Minister’s commitment at PMQs last week, will my right hon. Friend ensure that I am directly informed and included in all meetings and briefings moving forward as the parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough law campaign?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Peter Mandelson once spoke of the Labour left being sealed in a tomb. Today, it is the toxic politics he came to represent that should be buried—politics that repels millions and that is far from the values on which our party was founded. If we are serious about renewal and about learning the lessons of this troubling episode, we must confront the culture that enabled it. That means looking at figures such as the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Mandelson, and at the network of influence around him. Mandelson’s appointment did not happen in isolation, as we have learned today. It reflects a wider direction under the Prime Minister, where those behind the Labour Together project wielded significant influence in developing the toxic culture that has been allowed to take hold of No. 10 and the governing of our country. It points to a political culture that lacks candour, that exists to promote wealth and power, and that ignores all else in pursuit of them. It is a culture where proximity to power outweighs principle, where access counts far more than accountability, and where the suffering of victims is overshadowed by connections. When decisions are driven by patronage and power is concentrated in an inner circle, it is not only our internal party democracy that suffers, but the integrity of our public institutions and our country. Too often, it is our civil servants—those who serve with professionalism and integrity—who are left to carry the consequences. I commend Sir Olly Robbins for giving evidence today. His professionalism and dedication, after a week in which he has been publicly hounded by some in government, were commendable, and it was good to see his trade union backing him steadfastly at the Committee today. Robbins will be a loss to the FCDO and the country, and it was all brought about by a series of catastrophic political decisions by No. 10. That is not right, not fair and not what the public expect of elected officials. Because of that, the public will rightly demand accountability and cultural change. That must begin with a thorough review of the political operation which brought the Prime Minister to power and which clearly continues to carry undue influence over this Government. As I have done on multiple occasions in both letters to the Prime Minister and speeches in this place, I once again call for a full, transparent and independent investigation into the activities and practices of Labour Together, both prior to and after the election of this Government. Only then will we fully understand how this exclusive political network has been able to undermine our democracy and institutions right at the heart of Government.

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  I first raised concerns about the Palantir contract in August 2023, in a letter I wrote to the Health Secretary in the previous Government. I am here today to raise my huge concerns again, because I believe that this contract is an affront to the values of our country and the NHS. Palantir’s co-founder and chairman Peter Thiel, a historic Donald Trump backer and donor, has said that the NHS makes people sick and has called for its privatisation. Palantir deals in chaos, oppression and war, all in the pursuit of power and profit—the antithesis of the values that our NHS was built on. I also note with keen interest that New York City Health and Hospitals has pulled out of a contract with Palantir due to ethical concerns, which I will now outline. In its own country, Palantir’s software enables the raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, that forcibly separate children from their parents and carry out prolonged detention and deportation. What is even more startling is a leaked document that showed the platform’s ability to generate dossiers on individuals and to mine data from the American Department of Health and Human Services. That is exactly the type of data that Palantir now has access to here. Palantir should be nowhere near our NHS data and patient data, and that view reflects the hundreds of emails that I have had from extremely concerned constituents, which is an experience that I am sure is shared by Members across this House. People are genuinely frightened, and a loss of trust in the NHS is potentially catastrophic to health outcomes in the UK, as the Minister will know more than most. Palantir’s reprehensible contribution to human rights abuses has been even more devastating in its complicity with the Israeli Government’s ongoing war crimes. A UN report in June 2025 found Palantir’s technology to have accelerated the Israeli Government’s campaign. It is shameful that Palantir is anywhere near anything that we have in this country. Our NHS was built on a simple, powerful idea: healthcare is a human right, not a commodity. It was built on the trust of patients who must share personal details to receive the care they are promised. As a company arming slaughter in the middle east, mining American citizens’ health data to conduct violent deportations and advocating the demise of the NHS, that trust cannot be Palantir’s to hold. We call on the Government to exercise the break clause in this contract in 2027, award no further contracts to Palantir and create a publicly accountable and ethically grounded approach to the handling of data.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. As the Prime Minister said, 37 years ago today, 97 innocent children, women and men went to a football match and were unlawfully killed at the hands of a corrupt state. I was at Hillsborough, and I was one of the lucky ones who survived and walked away.As parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough law campaign, I stand here with a huge sense of obligation to the 97, all the families—including my constituent Debbie Matthews—every survivor and every victim of this state cover-up, who are all part of this collective campaign. There are signs of progress after last night’s Government concessions, but we have heard this before. Prime Minister, this is your responsibility. It is within your power to take control of this process and make good on your promise to deliver this legislation. Will you commit today to ruling out any carve-out for the security services and finally delivering a full Hillsborough law worthy of the name, or will they be failed by the state once again?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and for his fight for truth and justice over many years. Many believe that this issue goes to the very heart of the Hillsborough law, or Public Office (Accountability) Bill, for which I am proud to be the parliamentary lead. My focus is on ensuring that the law delivers a true legacy for the 97 who died at Hillsborough and for all those who have suffered at the hands of a state that failed them. It may also form part of the solution to the issues we are discussing today, because this is about power without accountability, when institutions close ranks and ordinary people are left to fight alone. The Hillsborough law is about driving a cultural change in institutions that resist transparency, and that is precisely where the Financial Conduct Authority is falling short. Time and again, the FCA has failed to give straight answers to straight questions. This is not regulation; it is evasion. We have seen this culture before in Hillsborough, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the contaminated blood scandal and many others. This scandal may well join that damning list of state failure and cover-up. The 2024 report by the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services should have raised alarm bells for the then Government. A former FCA employee described it as having “the worst staff culture” of their 40-year career. We have heard that whistleblowers were sidelined, dissent suppressed and an official line enforced. This is not a regulator acting in the public interest—it is an organisation protecting itself. When regulators fail, people pay the price: water, energy, finance—the list goes on. Let me turn to hidden credit liabilities. The APPG report highlights serious concerns about the FCA’s handling of the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products to small businesses, including the failure to address hidden credit line risks and a pattern of evasion when challenged. Take the case of Andrew Candy. In 2008, he sought a simple fixed-rate loan. Instead, he was sold a complex product without being told by the seller at HSBC about hidden credit lines, margin calls or the risks involved. He was later hit with a £70,000 break cost that had never been disclosed. His business collapsed, and he sold his family home. What followed was 17 years of stress and injustice, with no proper accountability or resolution. That story is familiar to many sitting behind me in the Public Gallery. Even attempts at compromise were met with further loss and distress. This is not just a banking failure; it is a regulatory failure due to a fear of standing up to the big banks. Shamefully, the FCA stood by and did nothing. Worse, there are concerns that it obscured the truth, including the existence of hidden credit lines, and colluded in the practices, as we have heard from hon. Members today. Here lies the deeper issue: the FCA is a private company limited by guarantee. It has immunity from civil liability and can resist scrutiny in the courts. That cannot stand. If there is a gap through which the FCA can escape accountability, it is our duty to close it, because no regulator should be above the law, no institution beyond scrutiny and no citizen left to fight alone. Andrew Candy’s case is not isolated, as we have heard. It is a warning of what happens when power operates in the shadows. As parliamentarians, we must shine a light, demand truth and stand with those who have been wronged. I understand that amendments to the Hillsborough law are being considered to extend the duty of candour to regulators, including the FCA. The case for that will be compelling, certainly given what we have heard today, and is likely to command strong support in both this place and the Lords. If the Government take forward the call for an inquiry, as I hope they will and I fully support, the Hillsborough law could be a huge element in getting truth, accountability and justice. For people like Andrew Candy, it cannot come soon enough.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Nuclear Test Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to all those who served in our armed forces as part of the nuclear tests overseas, to those who suffered illness or died prematurely as a result of the tests, and to the bereaved families and family members who were born with rare disabilities as a result of the radiation that our nuclear test veterans faced. I am fortunate enough to have worked closely with some of the nuclear test veterans and families due to the Hillsborough law campaign, and I thank them for their incredible solidarity with the Hillsborough families and survivors. I thank my hon. Friend for her outstanding work in trying to gain truth and justice for the test veterans, who have been victims of a state cover-up. Will she join me, the nuclear test veterans and the LABRATS campaign in calling on the Government to deliver the Hillsborough law in full, without carve-outs for any state institutions, as a matter of urgency, so that we can get justice for our nuclear test veterans and their families?