The Bench Report

Send us a topic important to you.

Today we focus on the progress of the proposed Hillsborough Law (the Public Office (Accountability) Bill), introduced to address the institutional failure experienced by the victims and families of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. The government has acknowledged that the British state failed victims to an "almost inhuman level," characterized by "institutional lies, cover-ups, smears and betrayal". Key themes addressed by the Bill include achieving truth, expeditious justice, and consequences. The legislation seeks to transform the culture of the state by introducing a legal duty of candour and ensuring "parity of arms"—equal legal representation—for bereaved families during inquests. The debate also highlights the importance of strengthening the Independent Public Advocate's role and implementing a mechanism for national oversight of inquiry recommendations.

Key Takeaways

• The Hillsborough Law (Public Office (Accountability) Bill) aims to provide justice for victims of public tragedies following decades of struggle against official misconduct and concealment.
• The Bill introduces a legal duty of candour that requires public authorities and officials to be transparent and honest, with criminal penalties proposed for wilful deception.
• A crucial element is the "parity of arms," which ensures that people bereaved by a public tragedy receive funding for legal representation, preventing them from facing "armies of state-funded lawyers" unsupported.
• The law seeks to apply the duty of candour not only to the public sector but also to private bodies and contractors delivering public functions.
• Parliamentarians are urging the government to strengthen protections for whistleblowers and to increase the powers of the Independent Public Advocate (IPA).
• There is a recognized need for a national oversight mechanism to ensure that recommendations resulting from inquests and inquiries are actually implemented, preventing lessons learned from being ignored.

Source: Hillsborough Law
Volume 850: debated on Thursday 13 November 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack 

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: [email protected]

Follow us on YouTube,  X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.  

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0....

Send us a topic important to you.

The appointment of David Kogan as the Chair of the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) has caused controversy. The findings of the Commissioner for Public Appointments revealed breaches of the governance code linked to political donations Kogan made to the Secretary of State (Lisa Nandy). Nandy acknowledged the findings and took responsibility, although the Commissioner found the breach regarding her knowledge of the donations was "unknowing". The primary learning objective is understanding the tension between upholding strict public appointment standards and the pressing need to quickly implement the IFR to protect financially vulnerable football clubs and put fans first.

Key Takeaways

• David Kogan was appointed Chair of the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) on 6 October, following a recommendation for an independent regulator arising from the 2021 fan-led review.
• The Commissioner for Public Appointments investigated the process and found that the Secretary of State breached the governance code for public appointments.
• The Secretary of State took full responsibility for the Department's failings, but the Commissioner stated the breach regarding knowledge of the donations was "unknowing".
• As soon as she became aware of the donations, the Secretary of State declared them and recused herself from the remainder of the appointment process.
• Opposing Members questioned the integrity of appointing a known Labour donor, creating a perception of political bias.
• The Secretary of State defended Kogan's appointment, citing his extensive experience and noting that he was put on the candidate list by the previous Conservative Government.
• The fundamental goal of the IFR is to protect clubs—like Derby County, Wigan, and Sheffield Wednesday—from financial peril caused by bad owners.

Source: Independent Football Regulator
Volume 775: debated on Wednesday 12 November 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack 

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: [email protected]

Follow us on YouTube,  X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.  

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0....

Send us a topic important to you.

Public Inquiries are investigations set up by government ministers to respond to events of major public concern or to consider controversial public policy issues. We differentiate between statutory inquiries (governed by the Inquiries Act 2005, with powers to compel evidence) and non-statutory inquiries (which are more flexible but have fewer legal powers). The key objectives of holding an inquiry often include establishing the facts, learning from events, and providing public reassurance and accountability. We also examine the establishment process, the role of core participants, and the production of a final report with recommendations. (98 words)

Key Takeaways

• Public inquiries are formal investigations established by government ministers to address matters of public concern, such as large-scale loss of life or serious failures in regulation.
• Statutory inquiries (under the Inquiries Act 2005) have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence and produce documents, but they must follow stricter rules.
• Non-statutory inquiries lack the power to compel evidence but offer greater flexibility, sometimes allowing victims and bereaved families a more direct role in the proceedings.
• A public inquiry is not a legal court; it cannot find someone guilty of civil or criminal liability, but the evidence it uncovers can impact future legal proceedings.
• Ministers must consult widely and consider the benefits versus the costs before deciding to establish an inquiry.
• A public inquiry may produce interim reports to issue urgent recommendations that cannot wait for the final publication.

Definitions

• Public Inquiry: An investigation initiated by a government minister to respond to events causing major public concern or to review controversial public policy issues.
• Statutory Inquiry: An investigation governed by the Inquiries Act 2005, granting the chair specific powers, such as compelling witnesses to attend hearings or provide documents.

Source: Public inquiries
Research Briefing
Published Tuesday, 04 November, 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack 

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: [email protected]

Follow us on YouTube,  X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.  

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0....

Send us a topic important to you.

A recent e-petition signed by nearly 190,000 people addressed the growing frustration of gamers regarding consumer rights and video games. Many modern titles are "live services" that rely on company servers; when these servers shut down, purchased games become unplayable, leading to a loss of consumer investment, time, and cultural heritage. We explore the push for greater transparency and legal protections, such as requiring clear end-of-life strategies, refunds, or the provision of offline modes. While the Government acknowledges the cultural and economic importance of the £7.6 billion industry, there is caution about introducing mandates that could stifle innovation or create security issues.

Key Takeaways

• The video game industry is a significant UK cultural and economic powerhouse, contributing £7.6 billion and supporting over 75,000 jobs.
• When a game shuts down, consumers lose not only money but also their investment of time, imagination, and community, leading to a loss of cultural heritage.
• Existing UK consumer law, including the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), requires that digital content must be of satisfactory quality and accurately described by the seller.
• Campaigners advocate that publishers should provide options like offline modes or end-of-service patches to allow community-hosted servers, preventing "digital obsolescence".
• The Government intends to monitor the issue and may ask the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) to develop guidance, emphasizing that companies must communicate existing consumer protections better.

Definitions 

• Live Services: Modern video games that are constantly updated and server-dependent, requiring ongoing maintenance, which has fundamentally changed the nature of "owning" a game.
• Digital Obsolescence: The practice where a publisher deliberately disables copies of a game purchased by consumers, often by terminating server support, leaving the consumer with a product that no longer works.

Source: Video Games: Consumer Law
Volume 774: debated on Monday 3 November 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack 

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: [email protected]

Follow us on YouTube,  X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.  

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0....

Send us a topic important to you.

Football policing across the UK costs tens of millions of pounds annually, with the taxpayer currently covering the majority of the expense. This episode explores the financial arrangement where local police forces generally meet these costs. However, under Section 25 of the Police Act 1996, police can charge clubs for "special police services" on land owned or leased by the club, typically inside the grounds. A crucial 2017 court decision restricted cost recovery, confirming that police cannot charge clubs for services provided on public land outside the stadium, viewing this as normal policing duty. Government bodies and police leaders are now urgently exploring legislative reforms to ensure wealthy clubs bear more of the financial responsibility, arguing that the current rules are weighted too heavily in the clubs' favour.

Key Takeaways

• The government is concerned that the cost of policing football matches falling to the public purse is currently too high.
• Police forces can charge football clubs for policing only under special police service arrangements and only for services provided on land owned or leased by the club (e.g., inside the stadium).
• A 2017 Court of Appeal ruling clarified that costs incurred for policing public roads immediately outside a stadium are considered normal policing duties and cannot be charged to the club.
• In the 2023-24 season, the total cost for football policing in England and Wales was £71.69 million, with taxpayers paying £56.82 million of that amount.
• Police leaders have suggested that requiring professional clubs to cover the full cost would "free up funds for another 1,200 officers".

Definitions 

• Special Police Services (SPS): Services police forces can charge for under Section 25 of the Police Act 1996. The proportion of costs recoverable is restricted by case law.
• Polluter Pays Approach: A policy concept where the organizer of a profitable event that necessitates security and policing should be responsible for covering those policing costs, instead of the public.

Source: The cost of football policing
Research Briefing
Published Tuesday, 04 November, 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack 

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: [email protected]

Follow us on YouTube,  X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.  

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0....

Send us a topic important to you.

There is an urgent need to protect consumers from rogue builders, particularly those operating in the Repair, Maintenance, and Improvement (RMI) sector. We explore how "dodgy builders" ruin lives, causing homeowners significant financial distress, with losses estimated at £14.3 billion over five years. The key learning objective is understanding why current routes for redress—like civil courts and police intervention—are often ineffective because they treat apparent fraud as a costly, complex civil matter. We discuss proposed solutions, including mandatory licensing, an ombudsman scheme, and compensation funds, aimed at restoring accountability and consumer confidence.

Key Takeaways

• Rogue or "cowboy" builders operating in the RMI sector have cost homeowners an astonishing estimated £14.3 billion over five years.
• The fear of being ripped off is so widespread that one in three homeowners are put off having work done, equating to a possible £10 billion of lost economic activity.
• When homeowners seek redress, the court system is often too slow, complex, and expensive, especially for claims between the small claims limit and £1 million. Police frequently classify these issues as civil matters, even in cases involving significant financial loss and alleged fraud.
• A major issue is that rogue builders often repeatedly liquidate their companies (a practice known as phoenixing) to avoid paying debts or court judgments, only to restart a new business immediately and continue ripping off consumers.
• The entire home improvement process is laden with consumer protection (architects, surveyors, solicitors, lenders) right up until the money is handed over to the builder, who often has absolutely no regulation, qualifications, or protection mechanism for consumers.
• A compulsory licensing scheme for SME building firms is strongly supported by the industry itself, with 77% of SME builders and 78% of consumers agreeing to the proposal.

Source: Rogue Builders
Volume 775: debated on Thursday 13 November 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack 

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: [email protected]

Follow us on YouTube,  X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.  

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0....

Send us a topic important to you.

The UK's high alcohol duty rates have had a severe impact on the nation's vital wine sector and hospitality industry. Parliamentarians note that tax now makes up over 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine, making the UK one of the most highly taxed wine markets globally. The shift to a strength-based (ABV) duty system is challenging for wine, an agricultural product whose strength naturally fluctuates, creating immense bureaucracy. Crucially, higher taxes have become counterproductive: duty receipts have fallen by £300 million, suggesting the UK is on the "wrong side of the Laffer curve". The debate calls for duty freezes and fair relief for small producers to protect jobs and economic growth.

Key Takeaways

• The UK wine and spirits sector is a major economic strength, generating £76 billion in 2022 and sustaining more than 400,000 jobs.
• The UK transitioned to a strength-based system in 2023, taxing wine based on its alcohol by volume (ABV) in 0.1% increments. This is especially difficult for wine producers because a wine's strength naturally varies with climate and vintage.
• The duty on a 14.5% ABV wine has cumulatively increased by about 44% in just 18 months since August 2023.
• Despite rate increases, alcohol duty receipts were £300 million lower between April and September compared to the same period in 2024, indicating that higher taxes are leading to lower revenue.
• The current Small Producer Relief scheme is criticized because its 8.5% ABV cap excludes virtually all winemakers and distillers.

 Definitions 

• Strength-Based Duty System (Tax by ABV): A reform implemented in the UK where alcohol duty is charged based on the product’s alcohol by volume (ABV), leading to 30 different duty bands for wine, which complicates administration for producers.
• Laffer Curve: An economic theory referenced in the sources suggesting that the UK has reached a point where increasing alcohol duty rates actually decreases the total amount of tax revenue collected by the government.

Sources: Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector
Volume 775: debated on Tuesday 11 November 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack 

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: [email protected]

Follow us on YouTube,  X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.  

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0....

Send us a topic important to you.

There remains an urgent need for improved support for dyslexic pupils across the UK. Dyslexia is a common neurological difference affecting about one in ten people, yet four in five dyslexic children leave school without formal identification. The debate highlights severe inequalities, noting that the cost of diagnosis (around £600) means diagnosis often depends on parental income, leading to a postcode lottery. Without support, students suffer from low self-esteem, poor educational attainment, and mental health issues. Crucial calls for action include establishing a National Dyslexia Strategy, universal screening, comprehensive teacher training, and reforming exams to measure knowledge rather than just written ability.

Key Takeaways

• Dyslexia is a neurological difference, not a flaw, and often brings strengths in areas like creativity, problem-solving, and resilience.
• The majority of dyslexic children (80%) leave school without a formal diagnosis, despite the condition affecting over a million students in the UK.
• There is significant financial inequality in diagnosis: 90% of dyslexic children in high-income households are diagnosed compared with only 43% in lower-income households.
• Lack of early support impacts life outcomes, with dyslexic pupils achieving lower grades in English and Maths, and potentially suffering mental health distress.
• Young people with dyslexia are statistically over-represented in the criminal justice system, suggesting that failure in education and subsequent social exclusion heightens vulnerability.
• Proponents are demanding universal screening for primary-aged children, statutory teacher training on neurodiversity, and standard access to assistive technologies.

Discussion:  Given that timed exams testing written ability often punish dyslexic students, how might educational institutions shift their assessment methods to measure a student’s true understanding and celebrated strengths, such as problem-solving or creativity, instead of relying on memory recall and spelling accuracy?

Source: Support for Dyslexic Pupils
Volume 775: debated on Tuesday 11 November 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack 

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: [email protected]

Follow us on YouTube,  X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.  

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0....

Send us a topic important to you.

Autistic adults face significant challenges in securing and maintaining meaningful employment, despite the majority expressing a strong desire to work. Current statistics show that only 34% of autistic people are in employment, a rate significantly lower than other disabled or non-disabled groups. Key themes include systemic barriers, such as bureaucratic, slow support programs like Access to Work, and discriminatory "one-size-fits-all" recruitment practices. The conversation highlights that autistic individuals possess valuable cognitive strengths, like pattern recognition and sustained concentration, which employers are currently missing out on. The episode calls for widespread reforms, emphasizing that businesses must adapt their structures to allow autistic people to thrive and contribute their full potential.

Key Takeaways

• Only 34% of autistic people are in some form of employment, though 77% of unemployed autistic people want to work.
• The employment gap is compounded by inaccessible processes, long waiting times for support (like Access to Work), and the burden placed on autistic employees to advocate for their own necessary adjustments.
• When support fails to account for individual needs, it can lead to anxiety, stress, and autistic burnout.
• Autistic individuals bring valuable skills, such as remarkable cognitive abilities, attention to detail, and reliability, which can lead to significant productivity improvements for employers.
• Consistent implementation of best practices and specific training for employers (often delivered by those with lived experience) are necessary to foster inclusive workplaces.

Definitions

• Autism (Neurodivergence): A lifelong neurodivergence and disability that influences how people think, feel, and communicate. The sources emphasize that "when someone has met one autistic person, they have met one autistic person," stressing the need for individualized approaches.

Source: Autistic Adults: Employment
Volume 775: debated on Tuesday 11 November 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack 

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: [email protected]

Follow us on YouTube,  X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.  

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0....

Send us a topic important to you.

There has been a critical collapse of house building in London, where construction starts have dramatically fallen short of government targets. The debate centres on the Mayor's London Plan, which critics argue has failed due to its complexity and expensive demands, such as high affordable housing requirements (often 35% or 50%). We examine the resulting human cost, including record homelessness, with over 97,000 children in temporary accommodation. The discussion focuses on whether recent emergency measures, like partial infrastructure levy relief and a fast-track route requiring just 20% affordable homes, will successfully unlock stalled developments, especially on brownfield land.

Key Takeaways

• House building in London has collapsed dramatically, with starts falling to under 5% of the Government’s target in some periods.
• High costs, complex regulations (like the 500-page London Plan), and specific requirements (e.g., carbon targets and high fees) add expense and delay major projects.
• Demanding that 35% or 50% of privately built homes be affordable has made many housing projects financially unviable, deterring investment.
• The housing crisis is linked to severe social problems, including record homelessness, with councils spending £5 million a day on temporary accommodation.
• Temporary emergency measures include introducing partial relief from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and a new time-limited route for schemes delivering 20% affordable housing.

Important Definitions and Concepts

• Brownfield Land: Previously developed land, often industrial, that is seen as suitable for housing development, contrasting with protected green belt areas.
• Affordable Housing Targets: Local requirements specifying the proportion of new homes in a development that must be available at below-market prices or rents, often set at 35% or 50% in London.
• Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): A charge imposed on new developments, intended to help fund the infrastructure needed to support growth, such as schools and health facilities.

Source: House Building: London
Volume 774: debated on Wednesday 5 November 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack 

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: [email protected]

Follow us on YouTube,  X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.  

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0....