Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Monday 3rd November 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberPublic Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I come to the Bill, I put on record in this House my own tribute to the police, to the first responders and in particular to the heroic actions of the driver and members of staff on board the Doncaster to London train, where such a vile and horrific attack took place this weekend. We all share in the revulsion at this shocking incident, but there is no doubt that their collective action—their brave action—saved countless lives. I know that the whole country is grateful for that.
Thirty-six years ago, 97 men, women and children went to a Liverpool football match in Sheffield—it was an FA cup semi-final, an occasion of joy—and they never came home to their families. I invite the House just to reflect on that simple statement of fact and what that might feel like.
Nearly 15 years ago, when I was the Director of Public Prosecutions, I met many of the Hillsborough families during the independent panel led by Bishop James Jones. I will never forget what they told me in their testimony—painful to tell, painful to hear. It included the testimony of Jenni Hicks, who told me how she and her husband drove their two teenage girls to the game that day. They had to drive back later with an empty back seat. Every single story, every single experience is painful to the core—unimaginable to the core.
So before I come to the contents of the Bill, I want to begin this debate with a simple acknowledgment, long overdue, that the British state failed the families and victims of Hillsborough to an almost inhuman level. But those victims and their families—their strength, their courage, their refusal to give up; and their determination, no matter what was thrown at them, to fight for people they will never know or meet, to make sure that they never go through something like this again—they are the reason why we stand here today with this Bill, they are the reason why it will be known as the Hillsborough law, and they are the reason why we say clearly again what should have been said immediately: that their loved ones were unlawfully killed and that they never bore any responsibility for what happened in Sheffield that day, and we say it from this Dispatch Box today because the entire country knows what happened next.
We often call Hillsborough a tragedy, but it is more than a tragedy, because the disaster was not down to chance—it was not an accident; it was an injustice. And then further injustice was piled on top when the state subjected those families to enduring, from the police, lies and smears against their loved ones, while the central state, the Government, aided and abetted them for years and years and years. It was a cover-up by the very institutions that are supposed to protect and to serve, and it is nothing less than a stain on the modern history of this country.
And yet, can we truly say that Hillsborough was an isolated example? No, because there are also the Horizon scandal, Grenfell Tower, infected blood, the grooming gangs, Windrush, and more besides. We should also be blunt about the fact that there is a pattern common to all these scandals: time and again, the British state struggles to recognise injustice because of who the victims are—because they are working class, because they are black, because they are women and girls. That is the injustice that this Bill seeks to correct, and I hope that it commands the support of the whole House.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a couple of things are missing from this otherwise excellent Bill? The first is an acknowledgment of the role that the media played in covering up many of the wrongs that happened, and the second is a national oversight mechanism which would ensure that when recommendations are made, they are carried out.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for that intervention. Of course we must acknowledge the role that the media and others played in this—it was a cover-up at so many levels. As for an oversight mechanism, I do not think that the Bill is the place for it, but I do agree with the proposition that when there are inquiries, there needs to be a better way of ensuring that they are followed through.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Prime Minister has listed a litany of scandals where there have been cover-ups. Will he reflect on including the Chinook disaster, in respect of which there have been repeated attempts to cover up the truth—the state of the aircraft that was sent out that night, in which we lost so many valued members of our intelligence service? Is that not a wrong that now needs to be righted?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that. This Bill is obviously intended to deal with all the situations in which there needs to be a duty of candour, with consequences if that is not adhered to.
The Prime Minister
I will make some progress, but I will take further interventions later.
Let me now turn to the Bill itself, and first of all to the duty of candour. There are three parts to this, and the first is a new statutory duty of candour. At the Hillsborough independent panel, Bishop James Jones found that over 100 statements made by junior police officers had been deliberately altered to remove evidence unfavourable to South Yorkshire police—100 statements had been deliberately altered. I do not think there is anyone in this House who could possibly disagree that we must never let anything like that happen again. It is a disgrace, and the Bill before the House will tackle it.
Jim Shannon
I commend the Prime Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward. I think it heartens us all to see its contents. Does the Prime Minister not agree that, with the rise of social media, there is more public scrutiny than ever before and less trust in our institutions? As he has outlined, the Bill is an opportunity to begin that journey of restoring public trust, but we must be mindful that nothing less than accountability can be acceptable. The public understand that mistakes can be made, but they cannot and should not forget when cover-ups take place.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Bill includes legal provisions to ensure that this can never happen again as a matter of law, but I have been clear—I have said this to the families on a number of occasions—that it is also the culture that has to change. The Bill is the architecture, but the culture of the state has to change.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Charlotte Hennessy, whose father Jimmy Hennessy was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, has had conversations with the Prime Minister in which he has assured her that the law does not need to be watered down and will be delivered in its entirety. She is in the Chamber today. Will he make that promise in this House today?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. I looked the families in the eye and made that promise, and I meant it. I say it again from this Dispatch Box: this Bill will not be watered down. This is such an important re-orchestrating of the relationship between the state and its citizens. It will not be watered down. I am very pleased to be able to affirm that from this Dispatch Box.
The Prime Minister
I will take one more intervention and then I will press on.
Ayoub Khan
I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most powerful lessons from Hillsborough, and indeed from the Grenfell Tower and Post Office scandals, is that truth delayed is justice denied? And does he agree that, while this Bill rightly places a duty of candour upon public authorities, it must also compel Ministers themselves to uphold that same duty when addressing this House, so that accountability begins at the very top? That includes the misleading information that was given from that Dispatch Box by his Minister last week in relation to the hooligan Maccabi Tel Aviv fans.
The Prime Minister
I really think that, with the Hillsborough families here in the House with us—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I was trying to pay close attention, but I may have missed it; we do not accuse each other of giving misleading information at the Dispatch Box. One should be mindful of the language that one is uses.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also think that we owe the families a better debate than this descending into party political point scoring. I hope we can continue the debate in that way.
This Bill will tackle that injustice so that when tragedy strikes and the state is called to account, in inquiries, inquests and other investigations, public officials—from police officers to the highest offices in the land—will be subject to that duty. That means that an injustice like this can never again hide in some dark corner of the state. Failure to comply—failure, therefore, to act with candour, transparency and frankness—will now carry criminal penalties, including being sent to prison.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
As a sponsor of the private Member’s Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), I fully welcome this Bill’s introduction, and I welcome that the protections include criminal offences of misconduct in public life. Can the Prime Minister assure me and others that those new offences will be able to be applied retrospectively?
The Prime Minister
No, they will not be able to, but that is not a deficiency of this Bill; it is a long-standing constitutional rule. This will be about offences moving forward. But I will just make the point—because I do think it is important—that these measures will apply across the United Kingdom, and I would like to place on record my thanks to the devolved Governments for their collaboration on this.
I can also announce that the Government intend to bring forward an amendment to extend this duty to local authority investigations in England, which will make sure that when an inquiry or investigation is set up by a local authority—for example, the Kerslake inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombings—there can also be that duty of co-operation and candour in the search for the truth.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I recognise the strength of the case that the Prime Minister is making. He will understand the interest that the Intelligence and Security Committee has in clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for certain exemptions for those who work for the intelligence agencies. It then says that those people should report internally within their organisation any information that may be of use to an inquiry or investigation. Will he give some thought to how the Government might develop a concept of what then happens to that information, about which the Bill is broadly silent? He will understand that many will be concerned to ensure that when information is reported internally within the intelligence agencies, it none the less finds its way to those who should have it, in order to give reassurance about what the Government are seeking to achieve more broadly in this Bill.
The Prime Minister
Obviously, a lot of thought has been given to the particular issue of the security and intelligence services. The Bill is clear that the duty applies, but has a different way of applying it. I think that gets the balance right, and obviously there are various national and public interests to protect in so doing.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and thank him for bringing forward this Bill, which represents an epic struggle by the Hillsborough families, who are to be much admired and praised, but this will extend beyond Hillsborough, as the Prime Minister has said. I thank him on behalf of the families of Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore, who suffered great loss under the auspices of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS foundation trust, which lacked a duty of candour when those terrible tragedies struck. I hope that he can give consideration to a full, judge-led public inquiry, because the families are in search of truth, justice and accountability.
The Prime Minister
To reassure my hon. Friend, the House, the families and all others affected by such scandals, these are clauses in a Bill that will soon be sections in a piece of legislation, but they are more than that: they change the nature of the relationship between the state and its duties to its people. That is so important. Yes, this Bill is the legal architecture, but something much bigger than this has to be put in place.
The Prime Minister
I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention, then I will come to my right hon. Friend.
Tessa Munt
I welcome this Bill. Will the Prime Minister reassure me and my constituents that organisations that are contractors for public authorities and public bodies will also be covered the provisions of the Bill? It is important that where responsibilities are deferred to other bodies, they too are captured by the clauses in this Bill.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady anticipates my next point, which I will make before taking an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). We have to recognise that in some scandals, such as the Post Office Horizon scandal, the boundaries between the public sector and the private sector are complicated. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, clause 4 of this Bill applies the duty to some private bodies, particularly those delivering public functions and those with relevant health and safety responsibilities, as well as relevant public sector contractors—in the Post Office case, Fujitsu—for that very reason. We have to recognise that the boundaries are blurred, and we need to make sure that the duty extends appropriately.
Maria Eagle
The Prime Minister knows that, for over two decades, the legal system failed to provide truth and justice to the Hillsborough families, and it was only a non-legal process—the Hillsborough independent panel—that finally set things right on the road to truth, justice and accountability. Does he see any prospect, therefore, that we will include in the legislation at a later stage provision to ensure that a Hillsborough independent panel-type process can be offered to families involved in future disasters, to try to circumvent the long-standing failure of the criminal justice system to offer truth and accountability to families quickly?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her work and campaigning on this issue over many years. She makes a powerful point about the independent panel. I first met Bishop James Jones 15-plus years ago now, and I genuinely think he was among the first to listen properly—knowing what listening means—to those who were giving evidence to his panel, which is why the report that he made was so well received and respected. We will certainly give consideration to whether panels like that can serve a useful purpose in future.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is being very generous in taking all our questions. I congratulate him on introducing this Bill, but can the duty of candour be applied fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not just statutory inquiries? Does he agree that the command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge, not simply with the institution?
The Prime Minister
This does apply to non-statutory inquiries, so my hon. Friend’s point is covered in the Bill. I will press on.
The second part of the duty of candour is a professional duty of candour for all public servants, because the Nolan principles of public service—honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership—are not some kind of optional extra, but the very essence of public service itself. Every public authority will now be legally required to adopt a code of ethical conduct based on those principles, and to set out consequences for staff who do not comply, including disciplinary sanctions up to and including gross misconduct.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
The Bill is a huge step forward for accountability and transparency for families who face what must feel like the most impossible of circumstances. Some families living in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Corby are still trying to get clarity about the possibility that dumped toxic waste and contaminated land have caused health complications. Could the Prime Minister spell out how the Bill will ensure that any public official who abuses their power and tries to cover it up will be held accountable?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can confirm that. I want to emphasise the point again, because it is so significant, that out of the most unbelievable suffering, these families—these victims—have pushed for a change that took far too long, but that will now benefit and safeguard people whom they will never meet and never know. I find that kind of campaigning humbling, and we thank them for it.
The Prime Minister
I will just make a bit of progress, and then I will take further interventions.
Finally in relation to the duty of candour, it is underpinned by a new criminal offence of misleading the public, which is aimed squarely at public servants who wilfully mislead the British people in a reckless, intentional or improper way. In cases such as Hillsborough, lies and dishonesty from the state grievously harmed the very people it was supposed to serve, and that must never happen again.
However, the Bill is not just about the duty of candour, because anyone familiar with how justice failed families and victims must also recognise that the lack of parity in our legal system played a significant role. I remember Margaret Aspinall—I met her many years ago now, and she is with us today—telling me that she had to scrape together every last penny for legal representation, including the money paid out by insurers for the death of her son James, who at the time was pretty much the same age as my son who comes to football with me. That is what she had to do, and we have to recognise that injustice piled on the other injustices.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I join others across this House in welcoming this important Bill, and I welcome and align myself with all the points the Prime Minister has made. Will he join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for his tireless campaigning to push for this law to reach the statute book? The Prime Minister is absolutely right that grieving families have faced the might of the state alone, and were forced to crowdfund lawyers while public bodies hired whole legal armies. Does he agree that, by guaranteeing legal aid at inquests, we can finally end those David and Goliath battles for justice once and for all?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely extend that tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who I think was at the game and who has campaigned tirelessly in this place and beyond to help us get to the position today where we can introduce the Bill. I do pay tribute to him and I am very pleased to do so from this Dispatch Box, as we introduce this important legislation.
The Prime Minister
I will just make some progress and I will come to the hon. Member.
On the question of parity, what happened and what happens in so many cases is that families either have to scrimp and try to find the money for legal representation, or they have none. And what are they met with—the Hillsborough families were met with this—at inquests and inquiries, the working people who have had to save for justice? They have been met, time and again, by armies of state-funded lawyers; the deep pockets of the state—taxpayer money—has been harnessed for the explicit purpose of fighting against justice. The Bill aims to correct that inequality so that justice and the state serve all, with a new duty on public authorities to engage lawyers at inquests and inquiries only where necessary and proportionate, and to ensure that their representatives behave with the sensitivity and respect that victims and their families deserve.
The Bill will also ensure that no bereaved family has to face an inquest alone, with the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade granting access to free legal aid for all inquests where the state is an interested party, so that working people like Margaret and the Hillsborough families will never again be faced with such inequality on legal representation, or, as in many cases, simply left with none.
I will take the intervention I promised.
Carla Lockhart
I thank the Prime Minister. He is speaking very powerfully about families and about human stories. I commend him for the number of human stories he has talked about today in this place. Will he agree to meet the families of the Chinook disaster, when 29 lives were lost and two pilots wrongly blamed? The families have been consistently refused even a meeting with Ministers, officials and Prime Ministers who have gone before. Will he do the right thing and meet them, and ensure that the Bill also covers them?
The Prime Minister
I think there may have been meetings. If not, we will get meetings set up. [Interruption.] I am being told that there will be one, but I take on board what the hon. Lady says. I will make sure that there are the appropriate meetings, and will update her on exactly what form they will take and when they will take place.
The rebalancing of legal representation is a fundamental change in the balance of power in our justice system, and I genuinely hope that the whole House will support it.
Taken together, the measures in the Bill can be a landmark piece of legislation. I am determined—as I said in an intervention, having given my word to the Hillsborough families and having worked in partnership with them on this legislation—that the Bill will not be watered down. When it is in statute, it will rank as one of the great Acts of this Labour Government, a moment when the tireless campaigning of working people to right a historic wrong was finally recognised in this place and made our country better. That is all the campaigners have ever wanted. This has never been just about Hillsborough and those families; it has always been about everyone.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if they were to come down to this Dispatch Box—I won’t extend the invitation, because I suspect they readily would—I know, because I have heard them many times before, what they would say. They would say, “You must keep going. This is not done until it is done.” I want to therefore put on record in this House my deep gratitude to everyone who has worked with us on the journey to this point: Hillsborough Law Now; my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool West Derby, for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who were all at the game; so many hon. Members from across Merseyside, past and present, as well, of course, as the Mayors of Liverpool and Manchester, all of whom have never stopped fighting for this Bill; Inquest, which facilitated so much of the engagement so we could be a Government who listened; Bishop James Jones, who chaired that crucial Hillsborough independent panel; the countless other campaigns that this issue touches on, many represented in the Gallery today; and, most of all, Margaret, Steve, Charlotte, Sue, Jenni, Hilda and every single member of the families affected by Hillsborough. I know that what they really want is not thanks or acclaim; they want change and they have waited 36 long years for change.
It is my honour, as Prime Minister, to bring the Hillsborough law before the House and to open today’s debate. It should never have taken this long, but we are here now and we must get it over the line: a legacy of justice, change and national renewal for the 97. That is what we are here to deliver today.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Today is the day that, first and foremost, at the front of our minds will be one group of people, some of whom join us in the Gallery: those harmed by the state, those misled by the state, those lied to by the state. But those same people refused to accept that and would not take no for an answer. Those people knew the truth—the truth of what happened to them and to their relatives—and fought on to make sure everybody else knew it as well. The movement towards greater accountability and transparency in public life owes everything to them.
The Hillsborough disaster stands as the example that many of our constituents will perhaps think of first. Ninety-seven lives were lost on 15 April 1989, and many others were profoundly affected, as the Prime Minister so powerfully articulated. As the Prime Minister also pointed out, among them was a Member of this very House. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) was 16 years old at the time and was a spectator at the match. He has been an unrelenting advocate for those who shared with him the horror of that day and what happened afterwards.
As if the tragedy of those events was not enough, what followed served only to compound it over generations. In the decades that followed, despite multiple inquiries, reviews and inquests, the truth of what happened remained obscured by lies—by a cover-up. We would all wish to be able to say that this is the only example of institutional defensiveness, of covers-ups and of the reputation of organisations being prioritised over doing what was right, but as this House sadly knows, it is not.
Between the 1970s and early 1990s, thousands of UK patients contracted HIV and hepatitis after receiving contaminated blood, blood products and tissues. Reflecting on the findings of his inquiry into the matter, Sir Brian Langstaff said quite simply that:
“People put their faith in doctors and in the government to keep them safe and their trust was betrayed.”
Experimentation, deception, cover-up. And there are more examples. We have all been shocked to hear about the trauma and experiences of our postmasters and their families, as they were ruthlessly pursued by the Post Office and the Crown Prosecution Service over many years, with the failure of successive Governments to exercise their oversight to protect them. We have seen other failures in healthcare, policing and housing, some well known and others not so well known. But whether 97 lives are lost or just one, the impact on families is lifelong and severe.
The themes have been consistent: the resistance of the state to accept its wrongdoing; the aggressiveness of the state in responding to challenge; and the willingness of individuals working for the state to put themselves first over the people they are expected to serve. Again and again, David and Goliath battles are played out as the resources of the state, in all its forms, have been deployed against innocent people, innocent victims.
As we reflect on the proposed measures before us, it is sensible to consider the changes that have been made in this area. On legal representation, the means test for legal help and representation at inquests for applications to the exceptional case funding scheme has been removed and we have seen a steady number of applications over recent years. Measures were introduced to promote candour in policing, when the offence of police corruption was created in 2017. In the health service, the duty of candour was introduced following the Francis inquiry into catastrophic failings in health at Stafford hospital. Through part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we legislated for the creation of an Independent Public Advocate, whose role is to ensure victims and bereaved families are properly supported and represented after major incidents.
However, a desire to do more has remained. Bishop James Jones’s report, “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, reflected on the experiences of the Hillsborough families and set out key lessons for public bodies. It called for the bereaved to have “proper participation” at inquests where public authorities are represented, and identified other key areas for reform; alongside work by the Law Commission, it provided a key basis for the Bill before us. It should be noted, however, that Bishop James emphasised that legislation alone is insufficient. As mentioned, a statutory duty of candour already exists in parts of the public sector, particularly in the NHS, but question marks remain over the success of its implementation. The lesson is clear: legal change must be accompanied by cultural change.
In principle, we welcome the aims that underpin the Bill and which we are asked to consider on Second Reading. It is, however, always incumbent on this House to reflect on and consider whether the legislation we pass is as good as it can be, no matter how laudable the aim, and to ensure that we avoid any unintended consequences.
It is no secret that despite a very long-standing commitment on the Labour Benches to bring legislation of this nature forward, the Government themselves wrestled with how to do so appropriately. This Bill should be one that Members scrutinise closely. Members and our staff are quite rightly on the extensive list of public servants who will be in scope, under schedule 4. We will be able to look at the implications of the Bill and reflect on how it might interact with our work, where contention and disagreement are often at the heart of our decisions. As such, there are a number of questions and points for consideration that I would like to raise with the Government.
First, are we sure that the language in the Bill will provide the necessary legal clarity to underpin its successful operation? The Bill makes use of terms like “reckless” and “seriously improper”. It also states, for example, that the Act is designed to
“ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…in the public interest”.
How often do we disagree in this House on what constitutes the public interest? How often do we question the truth of what is being said?
Although superficially it might seem obvious—in the examples we have considered today, which are at the forefront of our minds, the failure to act in the public interest is clear and unquestionable—in other situations, we might be left with conflicting views as to what the public interest is. How will we differentiate between interpretations of the public interest in a way that does not allow individuals to escape the measures being proposed in the Bill? We have seen Government decisions that the Government consider to be in the public interest challenged repeatedly, and often successfully, in the courts. Individual public servants will also have their own views on what is or is not in the public interest; we will need to consider that, too. Further, how will the Bill be utilised by campaign groups that wish to legally challenge the Government in support of what they consider to be in the public interest? That is not to say that we cannot make the Bill work, but we need to consider its terminology carefully.
Part of the Bill deals with misconduct in public office. This represents one of the most significant changes to the way in which we hold public officials to account. Under the proposals, the common law offence of misconduct in public office will be replaced with two new statutory offences: seriously improper acts, and breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. This follows recommendations by the Law Commission, which suggested that the current offence be replaced with a clearer statutory provision that is both less broad and easier to interpret.
The Opposition fully recognise that this is an area of the law in need of clarity, but, for all its many imperfections, the common law offence has at least provided flexibility as a means of addressing serious misconduct that might not fit clearly into an approach based on specific statutory offences. I would be grateful for the Government’s reassurance on that point. Will the Government also share their view on the reduction in the maximum penalty from life imprisonment, as available under the current common law offence, to between 10 and 14 years’ imprisonment under the statutory offence? Misconduct in public office strikes at the heart of public trust in Government and the rule of law, and we must ensure that the penalties available to the courts reflect that seriousness.
The area where I would most welcome assurance is in considering whether the measures in the Bill will fall most squarely and most strongly on the right shoulders. In its critique of the existing legal framework for misconduct in public office, the Law Commission said there was
“a concern that it tends to be used primarily against relatively junior officials, rather than more senior decision-makers that members of the public might more readily expect to be held criminally accountable.”
Of course, public servants, no matter how junior, are accountable for their actions, but how can we be sure that these measures will ensure that accountability goes all the way to the top? We all know that influence and power can be exercised over junior staff without there ever being an email, written instruction or any other proof. Junior staff in an organisation with the wrong culture can come to understand what is expected of them and that there are consequences if they do not comply, regardless of what we might be able to readily prove in court.
I know that this Bill will be deeply welcomed by campaigners and Members who have long called for its measures. I mentioned one particular Member at the start—the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby—but I know that Members across the House, across different causes and across different constituencies have challenged these issues. The principle of what the Government are trying to do—to stop the voice of the state and public bodies drowning out the voices of our constituents, whether through use of resources or misconduct—is the right one. We all know the fallibility of the state and the ways in which the wrong people take the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons: for their self-interest, to protect themselves or to protect their organisations. No Bill alone can guarantee against that, and perhaps there are ways in which this Bill can be improved. However, the Opposition welcome the start of its consideration, and we stand ready to play a constructive role.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
This is the first time that any Government have brought forward legislation to tackle what went wrong at Hillsborough. It is a fulfilment of a Labour manifesto commitment and a commitment by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, and I congratulate him on it.
I rise to support the legislation. The duty of candour with effective sanctions and equality of arms are all good, and will make a difference. However, I think that the Bill should also seek to boost the powers and capabilities of the office of the new Independent Public Advocate, and I want to explain why.
I was first elected to this House in May 1997, and I have been making speeches about the Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath ever since. The disaster happened a full eight years before I was elected more than 28 years ago. As a trainee lawyer in Liverpool, I got to know some of the bereaved families only a year after the disaster, in 1990, as they sought to recover damages for nervous shock, which was a way of reaching a legal finding of culpability against the police. The bereaved families did not want to make money; they wanted the police to accept the blame that they should have accepted. This was one of a number of legal actions ongoing at the time. I worked on some of those cases at the direction of my principal, who was on the steering committee of solicitors conducting that civil litigation, and while I did not have conduct, I was familiar with matters and met some of the families at the time.
Some of the bereaved families became constituents of mine when I was elected in 1997. Indeed, some of the very first meetings I had with constituents after my election were with members of the executive of the Hillsborough Family Support Group—Trevor and Jenni Hicks, Hilda and Phil Hammond, and Doreen Jones, who between them lost five family members at Hillsborough. Four of them were my constituents, and three of them still are all these years later.
I think that my long and close involvement with some of the families gives me some insight into what went wrong, and I have some observations. My first observation about the disaster, as I have alluded to already, is that the legal system—the entire justice system—showed itself to be totally unable to deal properly with the aftermath or even to fulfil its basic functions in the face of a national disaster. This disaster unfolded live on TV at a very high-profile national event; we all saw what happened. There was a large appetite in society to get to the bottom of what had happened.
Within four months of the disaster occurring, the interim report of the public inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor had correctly identified the loss of police control as the main cause of the disaster, excoriating South Yorkshire police for its attempt to evade responsibility for what occurred by trying to blame Liverpool fans and telling the force to modify its behaviour. That is where truth and accountability could have been established. But South Yorkshire police simply ignored the findings of the public inquiry and used all subsequent legal proceedings—all paid for with public money, with expensive lawyers doing the job—and most notably the first inquest, to redouble its efforts to evade responsibility.
Eight years of legal action had failed to get to the truth by the time I was elected in 1997. There was no justice for those involved, and particularly for those who, as we now know, were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. There was not a sniff of accountability for those whose gross failings had led to the disaster or those whose subsequent behaviour in blaming the victims and survivors led to so much anguish over so many years for so many families and survivors. That is despite the fact that every possible kind of legal action had been undertaken in that time—none of them worked. Once the justice system gets it wrong, and appeals and judicial reviews do not succeed, it is almost impossible to get it right subsequently using the same system.
It seemed like the truth did not matter to the justice system. The system was content to settle on a lie, with inquest verdicts of accidental death and no criminal or disciplinary proceedings for those at fault. It was content to allow the perpetrators to peddle the appalling falsehood that the disaster was caused by Liverpool fans being drunk, late and ticketless. This was a South Yorkshire police cover story, and what they aimed at establishing as the truth through the systematic changing of police statements. That effort failed spectacularly at the public inquiry and was repudiated within four months of the disaster, but the justice system allowed the perpetuation of this mendacious false narrative by those who had been identified as at fault: senior South Yorkshire police officers.
The first inquests allowed ongoing reports in the newspapers for over a year about the inquest proceedings, firmly to establish in the public mind that the false narrative was true. It was as if the public inquiry and its findings had never happened. Those who had caused the disaster were retired early on enhanced pensions. Society got the impression that the disaster was about football hooliganism, and the unlawful killings were said to be just “an accident”—despite the findings of Lord Justice Taylor in the public inquiry.
That is where the justice system, and the lawyers and judges, got us to. The way I see it, the justice system might properly be said to have failed in all respects and at every turn in this most appalling miscarriage of justice imaginable. The legal system failed. Multiple lawyers, judges and causes of action failed: failed to get to the truth, failed to do so in a timely fashion and failed to make those responsible accountable. The system failed the bereaved families, it failed the survivors and it failed those who died.
To the extent that this Bill suggests that more lawyers and an equality of arms before the law is enough to guarantee truth and justice, I say it is not enough. That, to me, is one of the main lessons of Hillsborough, and I say that as a lawyer, because I am indeed a lawyer. It is a good thing that an equality of arms is to be set up in legal proceedings, and it is a good thing that families can get the help that they need. I support that, but it does not guarantee truth, justice or accountability.
I have met many families bereaved by public disasters—not just those affected at Hillsborough but the MV Derbyshire families, the Alder Hey organs scandal families, Manchester arena bombing families—and they all want pretty much the same thing. They want the truth, and they want it as quickly as possible. They want accountability for those at fault, not official cover-ups. They do not want any other families to go through what they have endured; they all say that—they want lessons learned and what went wrong put right for the future. That is simple. It is not too much to ask. Those are the three tests by which I judge the adequacy of legislation that sets out to learn the lessons of Hillsborough, including this Bill.
I was a sponsor of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, introduced in 2017 by Andy Burnham, which was the precursor to this legislation. I can see nothing wrong at all with having a duty of candour in statute. It helps get across to public officials subject to it the importance of telling the truth to inquiries and investigations and that their functions should be carried out with candour, transparency and frankness. I would have hoped that they would all have known this anyway, but apparently some of them need to be reminded.
I note that this legislation takes up more rather more pages establishing a duty than the original 2017 Bill, but I have no doubt that these changes and their import will be fully scrutinised in Committee and we can understand the intention fully. I know that there will be significant interest in the legislation, not only in this House but in the other place.
Bishop James Jones’s 2017 report—“The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, which is about the lessons learned from Hillsborough—recommended, along with his 24 additional points of learning, enacting Andy Burnham’s Public Authority (Accountability) Bill. However, lying liars are going to lie, and although I am not convinced that, had this legislation been in place at the time of Hillsborough, the cover-up would not have been attempted, I am gratified to see—this is certainly the case—that there would have been more opportunities to punish those caught lying when they were caught. The more serious punishments in the Bill for breaching a duty of candour are a good thing, but would this have stopped the cover-up or the long years of agony endured by families and survivors? We have to take this opportunity—it will be the only one—to enact legislation that has a chance of achieving this.
I have spent the last few years trying to tackle the way in which we deal with the aftermath of disasters from a slightly different angle. Since 2016, I have been introducing to the House an independent public advocate Bill, which I have worked on with Lord Wills in the other place. He has been introducing it there since 2014. It was drafted after work we did with some Hillsborough families and those affected by other disasters. It arises out of the following insight. The legal system has failed repeatedly in the aftermath of disasters, but the Hillsborough independent panel succeeded spectacularly. It was established in 2009 by the Labour Government of Gordon Brown after the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough, and it reported in 2012, under the Conservative Government, who allowed it to complete its work despite the era of austerity, thanks in large part to Theresa May.
Finally, the truth that the South Yorkshire police had tried to cover up for all those years was established in the public consciousness. The fans were not at fault. The police caused the disaster. Many of those who died could have been saved had they received timely medical assistance. The police engaged in an appalling cover-up, and set out to deflect blame from themselves on to fans, including by attempting a wholesale revision of police witness statements to better reflect the cover-up story, and to erase any statements that seemed to point the blame at senior officers. They also took blood alcohol readings, even from the children who died—the youngest was 10, let us remember—to try to smear them as somehow being at fault.
There were shocking revelations in the report, and it led to an immediate re-appraisal of the public view of what had occurred. It led to an apology to the families by David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the day, and a striking down of the accidental death inquest verdicts, which were eventually substituted with unlawful killing verdicts—but not before South Yorkshire police had again tried to tell its cover-up story, over an agonising two-year legal process, in the second inquests. This was a terrible ordeal for families, and it only concluded in 2016.
The Hillsborough independent panel was not a legal proceeding. It was about the transparent release of documents, freedom of information, and a narrative account arising out of the study of the documents. Lawyers were not involved. The Bill that I keep introducing to the House would enable a public advocate to assist families in getting to the truth much sooner, in the event of a disaster, because it would replicate that same process at a much earlier stage in the disaster’s aftermath. I believe that would promote the telling of truth at a much earlier stage. Shining the light of transparency on the activity of public officials in the aftermath of a disaster will torpedo cover-ups before they can get very far—and at a significantly lower cost to the public purse and faster than our justice system has shown itself able to.
The Hillsborough independent panel did in two years what the justice system had failed to do in 24 years. This kind of proceeding has the potential to enable families to side-step the years of overlapping legal actions that they get caught up in after public disasters. I think it would be a useful addition to the armoury for families who want the truth and accountability quickly, and who want lessons to be learned. Families bereaved by public disasters should have the option of asking for such a process at a much earlier stage in the aftermath, and that should be up to them.
A version of the Independent Public Advocate was brought in by the previous Government towards the end of their time in office, and an appointment to the office has been made by the current Government. However, I do not believe that she has sufficient powers or resource to do the job that my Bill envisaged being done. I may well try to explore in Committee, where it is in order, what can be done about that. I believe that provision for an independent public advocate would increase the range of options for bereaved families in the aftermath of public disasters like Hillsborough. It would mean that families had a greater choice of how to take forward their efforts. It would be a good addition.
The truth, quickly; accountability, not cover-up; justice for those affected; and lessons learned and swiftly, and implemented so that nobody else has to suffer the same way—that is what families want, and this Bill must be judged on how well it promotes those aims. I think it will do so very well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so when I get to Back Benchers, speeches will be limited to six minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). I thank her for her impassioned speec,h and for shining a light on a broken system since 1997. Today is her day, as much as it is the day for all those campaigning for change.
On 15 April 1989, fans of Liverpool football club undertook what everyone assumed would be a routine pilgrimage to watch their team play Nottingham Forest in the FA cup semi-final; it would be anything but that. As everyone will know, that match at Hillsborough stadium was to descend into carnage and commotion, causing a mass crush in the fenced sections housing Liverpool supporters. It led to 97 fatalities and hundreds of injuries, as well as immeasurable trauma for the families and friends of the victims, and left a dark mark on our nation’s history. The Hillsborough disaster is now talked about in schools, but it is not just a moment consigned to our history books; it has served as a catalyst for change, which we finally see brought here today.
Immediately after the disaster, questions were asked about how and why such a tragedy could occur, and immediately the path to truth was blocked by people in positions of power and trust. It is abundantly clear now that a system was in place that allowed the narrative to be filled with lies, aimed at protecting the public bodies who bore responsibility for the safety of those fans attending the match. In the days and weeks that followed, blame was pinned on the Liverpool fans—the victims—by sections of the media. Stories were fed to journalists by those who were ultimately found responsible for the disaster, which undermined inquiries into the events. The false allegations of drunkenness and hooliganism painted a dark stain over the victims and their families, which hindered their attempts to grieve and seek justice, and prevented any meaningful learning from the tragedy for many years.
Conditions on the public bodies and in the justice system provided the perfect environment for a co-ordinated cover-up, designed to absolve South Yorkshire police of blame and all them to protect their own. Their actions led to decades of delayed justice. Families were denied the truth, and individuals whose failures had caused the tragedy remained in power.
The tireless and heroic campaigning of the victims’ families and the survivors of Hillsborough has slowly uncovered the truth that the stadium’s dangerous design was well known, and that the police made catastrophic decisions on the day that cost lives, but it has been an uphill battle. Ordinary people with limited resources were forced to push back against state institutions, fighting with the odds stacked against them at every turn.
I pay tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are in the Gallery, for their courage and perseverance over 36 long years. Their efforts have brought us to the point at which we can begin to level the playing field for countless others affected by miscarriages of justice, be it the Post Office scandal, infected blood, Grenfell, nuclear weapons testing, pelvic mesh, LGBT veterans or any of the many others. These are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods, or suffered life-changing injuries. Those scandals have been uncovered, despite the best efforts of public institutions to keep them buried. Institutions that should have been transparent and accountable instead used public money to protect their reputation and deflect blame. Every single victim deserved better.
The Bill is long overdue, but it will finally allow basic values of fairness to be restored within our justice system. A duty of candour, providing a basic but essential level of transparency and fairness, and a duty for public officials to act with openness when dealing with public investigations, are vital steps supported by the Liberal Democrats and hon. Members across the House.
The Bill also offers a crucial opportunity to push for cultural change in public organisations that are outside the legislation. It marks a shift away from defensive, inward-looking approaches that prioritise reputation over responsibility, and a move towards an open, learning culture that puts the public first and learns from mistakes, rather than concealing them. Public bodies should welcome these reforms as a means of rebuilding public trust and avoiding the drawn-out, costly legal processes that have so often characterised past scandals.
The two new statutory offences—one for those who fail to fulfil the duty of candour, and the other for those who mislead the public while in office—are welcome and necessary additions. They will serve as consequential reminders for those in public office that their primary duty is to the public, and that they must go beyond self-interest. The introduction of provisions on proportionality and cost-effectiveness is a welcome step that will not only increase fairness but ensure that taxpayer money is never spent silencing victims.
The extension of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests is also long overdue and greatly needed. For too long, the system has been weighted against ordinary people seeking justice. Those seeking to bring these scandals into the light have faced well resourced and highly motivated public bodies intent on protecting their reputations. Ending the need for large-scale public fundraising will ensure that everyone, regardless of wealth, has an equal opportunity to be heard.
However, the Liberal Democrats believe that there are gaps in the legislation. We will, of course, engage with the Government collaboratively and constructively throughout the Bill’s stages. On legal aid, we are concerned that the measures are too limited, as they support only the families of bereaved victims. Those who are seriously injured, or who, as in the Horizon scandal, have lost their livelihood and cannot afford legal challenges are not supported by the Bill, and will still face burdensome legal aid tests. There are precedents from the infected blood scandal and the Post Office scandal for extending legal aid support beyond the bereaved families.
There are also instances of misconduct that should be captured in the Bill. Officials who are not actively engaged in wrongdoing, but who are turning a blind eye to it, should be held accountable. The Bill also fails to address day-to-day decision making outside formal settings. We have seen an increasing number of cases in which communications on services such as WhatsApp have gone missing prior to investigations. An example is the covid inquiry. That represents a major gap in accountability. These communications must be included in future investigations, as we are moving into a world where we use such services more frequently in working life.
Many of these scandals have come to light because of the brave work of whistleblowers—individuals who have shared information at great personal risk, while standing up against entrenched power structures. The Liberal Democrats have long called for the strengthening of whistleblowing protections to ensure that wrongdoing in organisations and public bodies is swiftly exposed and brought to justice. We therefore call for the UK’s whistleblowing framework to include anonymous reporting, legal representation funding and a statutory duty on organisations to foster a speak-up culture. As in our manifesto, we call for an independent office for the whistleblower, which would be transformative in enforcing standards in whistleblowing cases.
We would also like the Bill to be implemented immediately after Royal Assent. Campaigners such as those at Hillsborough Law Now have fought for years to ensure the enacting of these changes, and victims should not have to wait a moment longer for them to be introduced.
Finally, we have a concern, which I think is shared across the House—it has been reflected in the opening speeches—about the lack of redress from the media. In many of the scandals that we have discussed, the amplification of falsehoods and the blaming of victims has been a recurring issue. In the case of Hillsborough, The Sun conspired with South Yorkshire police to spread the lie that the fans were responsible. Media regulation remains largely unchanged since the original Leveson inquiry, despite its recommendations. The second part of that inquiry, which would have examined the relationship between the press and the police—precisely the issue in cases like Hillsborough—was never completed.
The Government call for integrity, and Labour has promised Leveson 2 in the past. Much more needs to be done to strengthen accountability, transparency and openness, including within social media companies. The Molly Rose Foundation, which campaigns on suicide prevention, has correctly pointed out that despite recent powers on disclosure targeting social media companies, those organisations have significant commercial and reputational incentives to delay and obstruct investigative proceedings. We support the calls for an amendment to the Bill that would extend the duty of candour to social media companies, so that those organisations are held to account in the same way. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed whether that was in the scope of the Bill.
We are all familiar with the many failings at the heart of public institutions that have, in recent years, been brought to light by brave individuals who are prepared to speak out against organisations that should have been trustworthy. Many of those campaigners are here to see the law finally progress today. It is to their credit that the legislation will bring improvements in public standards, accountability and transparency that will spare others from suffering what they had to endure. I thank them. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill further and ensuring that it delivers for our public services and our citizens.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is a privilege to be here today debating a Bill that has been decades in the making. Before I begin, I want to join those who have already spoken in paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of the Hillsborough survivors and those who lost loved ones in the disaster. They have been through an unimaginable ordeal spanning decades, but throughout they have shown remarkable courage, dedication and tenacity to deliver justice for their loved ones. Even after the truth about the tragedy emerged, the families have not stopped campaigning. They have long called for a systemic change to prevent anything like this from happening again. We as a country owe a great debt of gratitude to their efforts, because without them we would not be debating this Bill today. As someone who grew up in a part of the world that has lived under the shadow of Hillsborough, I know how much this means to my constituents, and not least to the families of those that have lost loved ones, so I am proud that we have acted on the pledge that we made to implement this law.
The Bill addresses the key problems that we have identified time and again. How will we ultimately judge whether the Bill is a success? Two words: never again. That is the standard against which the Bill must be held. Never again should victims be wrongly blamed by the state for their deaths. Never again can we allow public bodies that are meant to protect us to lie in order to protect their own reputations. Never again must ordinary people fight tooth and nail against the seemingly endless resources of the state just to get to the truth.
As we have heard, Hillsborough is by far not the only example of the scandals and cover-ups that have emerged in recent years. The well-rehearsed list gets longer every year, and it includes infected blood, the Post Office, Grenfell, nuclear test veterans and many others that we have debated in this place. The test is that we do not add to that list, and that when tragedy strikes again and serious mistakes are made, truth and accountability are on display immediately. Let us be clear, legislation is only the starting point for this. As the Prime Minister said, a culture change is also required.
Establishing a legal duty of candour that requires bodies to act proactively, promptly and with full disclosure to assist inquiries, inquests and other investigations is a huge step forward, but it has to be delivered in practice, and that is the real challenge that we face. All too often—we have seen it in this place, have we not?—institutions act defensively, obfuscate and focus on protecting themselves when placed under scrutiny. With the guidance provided by codes of ethics and the threat of criminal sanctions, bodies and those working inside them should be forced to refocus and to put the public and their safety as their No. 1 priority, not to lie, and to actively support investigations and inquiries. That is what the public expect institutions to be doing already. While it should never have been required, this Bill will enshrine that basic principle into law at long last.
As we have seen in the NHS, however, that is easier said than done. It is nearly 10 years since the freedom to speak up guardians were introduced, but from what I can observe, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the good intentions behind that initiative are truly embraced across the board. Only in the past week I have been contacted by several people currently working in the NHS who believe that their concerns have not been listened to, or that they have been on the end of mistreatment because they have spoken out. Legislation is one thing, but culture is another, and I would suggest that changing the culture is something that needs leadership and buy-in from every single person across every single part of every single organisation.
I want to say something about equality before the law. Victims must no longer be browbeaten by lawyers in their quest for the truth, but I have some concerns about how that will work in practice, because when a public body is looking at something serious under this Bill, which it inevitably will, it will want the most senior representation it can get. If a public body can afford hundreds of pounds an hour for its lawyers, it will instruct them, but such fees will clearly be well in excess of existing legal aid rates. In that scenario, who is going to tell the public body that it has to choose cheaper lawyers? How will true equality before the law be achieved, especially if authorities only have to “have regard” to these principles? We need an overarching, independent way of monitoring this and of ensuring that recommendations from inquests and inquiries are effectively publicised and their implementation is monitored and delivered, ideally with progress reports to this place.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Clause 6 relates to the intelligence agencies, and there is an exemption for those who handle material that falls within the definition of security and intelligence. Our constituents will want to be certain that these organisations have oversight, so would the hon. Gentleman agree that this could be an additional power for the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Justin Madders
That is an interesting suggestion. I think a lot of Members are concerned about how this will relate to the security services, because we have had many examples in the past of where they have done things that we would rather had not happened. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, there will be some good dialogue about an appropriate way to deal with those difficult balances that have to be achieved.
I also want to raise a couple of concerns about clause 11 and the offence of misleading the public. The requirement for there to be “harm” to a victim could significantly reduce its effectiveness, which aims to deter cover-ups and obfuscation. In addition, part 2 of the Bill goes on to define who is included within the definition of a public body, and it specifically excludes the devolved bodies and both Houses of Parliament. I know that is because of the long-standing convention that Parliaments deal with their own affairs, but I am concerned that this sends out a negative message about our responsibilities in this matter. Parliament has in the past allowed other bodies to become involved in the way it does business with, for example with the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, so there is precedent there for us to look at that again.
We should all be treated equally before the law. When trust and confidence in our institutions are at an all-time low, it is hard to underestimate the impact of the changes this Bill can deliver, but it should apply to everyone equally. Repeated examples of scandal and state cover-up are corrosive to trust and only serve those who want to sow division, so we have to get this right. This moment can mark a stark change in the way we deal with these issues, but we have to deliver it. Once it becomes law, we have to be consistent and vigilant to ensure that the Bill’s good intentions are delivered. That will mean a profound cultural shift. Hopefully the Bill will restore trust in our democracy and our institutions, so that when in future we say that something should never happen again, we can be confident that it will not.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
On Saturday 15 April 1989, I visited my grandfather. I was a 15-year-old boy, and he had been taken into hospital a week or so before after a heart attack. He was a former chief constable in Wiltshire police. His immediate and clear response to what had happened that day was to say that the police were at fault. Two days later he died and we never followed it up, but that conversation had a profound effect on me. Over the years since, as I aspired to come to this place, I have seen what has happened. It is truly lamentable that the British state failed to come to terms with what happened. I have listened to the speeches from the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) with a degree of humility at their determination to change what has happened in this country over many, many scandals.
I want to make a small contribution this evening to reflect on my exposure to the infected blood scandal when I was in office as a Minister until last year. I also want to pay tribute to my successor, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who has done an excellent job in taking forward what was required in the spirit of the cross-party consensus that exists on this issue.
I completely support the principle of the legislation before the House this evening, and I am totally clear about the inadequacy of the existing mechanisms for holding public officials to account. Over 18 days I visited 40 groups who have been affected and infected as part of the infected blood scandal, and every one of those people I spoke to had had a negative experience with officialdom at some point during their time seeking justice for themselves or their loved ones. It was profoundly depressing to think that, despite all the apparent determination of Government after Government and Minister after Minister, we were still dealing with this 40 or 50 years after the scandal occurred. It is a tragedy that we can no longer rely on common law offences and have to move to a statutory regime that codifies expectations, but I do believe that this legislation will bring greater scrutiny and interrogation of the acts and omissions of public bodies.
I want to make a point about public inquiries. They have grown significantly in number in recent years. As of last month, a record 25 public inquiries are open. Between 1990 and 2025, 87 public inquiries were launched, compared with just 19 in the previous 30 years. Despite their proliferation, inquiries often fail to deliver timely justice or to prevent future tragedies. In fact, they are taking longer than ever to conclude. I do hope that, as part of the response to those facts, we collectively examine what we think should happen in public inquiries.
Public inquiries cannot be shut down by accountable Government Ministers; they rely on the chair to shut them down. I was looking at the infected blood public inquiry, and I am not casting any doubt over the integrity of the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, but upwards of £150 million has been spent on that inquiry. I feel that it is wrong that we in this House, sent here to do a job of work in whatever area of Government, have got into the habit and practice of delegating more and more responsibility for resolving matters to arm’s length bodies and public inquiries in the belief that it will create a more virtuous, correct and timely outcome.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Member agree that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to stop the cover-ups and save the public purse money?
John Glen
I absolutely do, and I sincerely believe that it is likely to achieve that, but we must not miss the opportunity to reflect on what is going wrong with this principle of not taking more proactive responsibility for wrongs that have happened.
My exposure through the infected blood compensation scheme taught me that over 40 years there had been deliberate attempts to slightly change the emphasis in responses, to give a concession of a little bit of compensation here or there. The truth is that those delays—most importantly—made things massively worse for the victims, but they also cost the public purse enormous sums of money. I welcome this legislation, but I ask the Minister to address that point when she responds.
Bishop James Jones referred in 2017 to:
“The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.
What a powerful phrase, and one that should humble all of us and help us all to ensure that whatever provisions, whatever definitions, and whatever “candour, transparency and frankness” means, the legislation is enforceable and meaningful and that we can avoid some of the absolutely appalling outcomes, which have been so horrendous in undermining the general public’s confidence in this place and in our Government.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Today is the culmination of over three decades of determined advocacy and persistence by a dedicated group of campaigners in search of social justice, many of whom are in the Gallery and were referred to by name by the Prime Minister. I wish to put on the record my thanks and admiration to all those who, in many cases, have put their own lives on hold in their search for justice—a justice denied for so long to so many people. It should not have taken this long, and we are still not quite there yet. But a significant milestone has been reached, and I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment today and his commitment to ensuring that the Bill will not be watered down, and I thank the ministerial team as well.
The time has arrived to deliver on the promises made to the families and friends of the victims of so many scandals that have damaged the integrity of so many of our institutions. Put simply, those institutions involved in cover-up, disingenuity, duplicity, deceit, manipulation, artifice, contrivance and silence, among other descriptors, have been found wanting, to say the least. Hillsborough, the Post Office, infected blood, Grenfell Tower, Windrush, Orgreave, the Manchester arena, and no doubt many others, have dishonoured those institutions but not necessarily, of course, all the many dedicated people who work in those institutions. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has also given his commitment that the Bill will not be watered down. I am pleased that Ministers have given a commitment to work with families to improve the Bill as it goes through Parliament.
The Bill is not an end in itself, per se. There will, of course, be the drafting of the code of practice for public officials, which will need input from families to ensure that the provisions of the Bill will be built upon. That has been referred to by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright).
It is fair to say that after so many years of disappointment and disillusionment, campaigners have every right to be guarded, cautious and possibly sceptical as the process runs its course, but I know that many Members in this House and the other House will examine the Bill closely with commitment and passion.
I started by putting on the record my thanks to the campaigners, and I reaffirm that. I would like now to put my thanks on the record to other campaigners, including lawyers, associated professionals and so many others who have been there all the way.
As a blue, I rarely, if ever—in fact, never—thank a red for anything. But as long as we keep it in this Chamber and it does not go public, I will make an exception or two. First, my red hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) has, along with another red, the Liverpool metro Mayor Steve Rotheram—I am getting a bit anxious now—worked to push this process along in partnership with the families, but I know the input and guidance from a blue, Manchester metro Mayor Andy Burnham, has been invaluable. Dare I say it? Liverpool 2—Everton 1, but it is still not full time.
It goes without saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) has been a long-standing advocate for this legislation. Her contribution was witness to that tenacity, as her work has been over decades in this House on this matter.
Liverpool FC’s legendary manager Bill Shankly said,
“For a player to be good enough to play for Liverpool, he must be prepared to run through a brick wall for me then come out fighting on the other side.”
The survivors and the families of the victims of those scandals I mentioned and others have faced and broken through so many brick walls and are here, remarkably, still playing. I hope that their fight has now, at last, come towards an end. I hope that this legislation will be a living monument to all those who have lost lives, livelihoods, loved ones and freedom. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to all the campaigners to whom we owe so much.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
That day in September 2012 remains vivid in my memory: the day the independent panel, chaired by Bishop James Jones, finally confirmed that public officials had hidden the truth about the Hillsborough disaster. It was a day the families had waited for so long for, a day they had worked tirelessly to bring about. It was the first day that their persistence prevailed, the first breakthrough in what would become a chain reaction that has led us here today.
During that time, I was a councillor in Liverpool. I remember knocking on doors that evening and being met by absolute relief on people’s faces—the tide was starting to turn. The families came that day to speak to the council. The emotions in that room were among the strongest that I have ever experienced. For the first time, the families felt that power could be held to account and justice might one day be served.
However, to this day, no one has been held accountable for the Hillsborough disaster. The 97 and their families are still living without the justice they deserve. Yet the families remain selfless, motivated by the greater good, working to protect others in the future—people unknown to them. Their campaign has continued for three decades, but it must have felt like a lifetime. The truth has taken so long to be uncovered that key campaigners like Anne Williams, Phil Hammond, Rose Robinson and Barry Devonside are sadly no longer here to see the legislation come before the House, but their fortitude and determination were nothing short of astounding. They have mine and the nation’s utmost respect.
To be wrongly and publicly shamed, smeared and blamed for a tragedy of such scale is something that no one can imagine experiencing. Then to face the institutions of state in court, without the means to navigate the law and our complex legal system professionally, is nothing short of devastating. The fact that public bodies that can effectively silence citizens, who must find millions of pounds to stand up against them, is simply unacceptable. To not only endure but passionately oppose lying, victim-blaming, delays and denials for years takes unwavering strength.
What the fans and their families endured is all too familiar to many others across this country. The Bill is not about only one place or one group of victims; it is about how we can hold power to account. Those who have suffered, both directly and indirectly, from the state-driven scandals that have been mentioned are familiar with the feelings of powerlessness, grief and justified anger. The infected blood scandal is just one example of unimaginable suffering—people endured not only physical harm but haunting social stigma and lasting damage. Children as young as seven were told that they would die. Some lost multiple members of their family, only to be left in social isolation. That is not to mention a serious lack of transparency and years of delays, and many victims dying before justice or compensation even began. Sir Brian Langstaff rightly called the delays for the blood scandal victims
“an injustice all of its own.”
No Government can be allowed to act on serious state failures behind closed doors, without a legal duty of candour. People who bravely seek justice must no longer be ignored and pushed aside by successive Governments. It is admirable that those affected by the multiple tragedies since Hillsborough have continually come together to fight for prevailing and lasting change. The Hillsborough Law Now group is a formidable force. Yet it should not be that way. People should not have to sacrifice their lives to see change. Successive Governments should not be pushing back and dragging their feet at every turn.
This Bill should have been introduced to the House far, far earlier than the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough. If it had been in place 36 years ago, all the pain, trauma, repeated legal proceedings and investigations would never have happened. I join the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, Inquest, the Law Society and numerous other groups that have expressed their relief about this law finally being put in place. Although compensation for those scandals is crucial, victims and the British public want to see justice and change. That is why the Bill is a victory for sufferers of all the state-caused scandals in our recent history. It is owed to each and every one of them.
Although we must all ensure that the Bill retains its strength during its journey through Parliament, more can be done. We can push for stronger whistleblowing protections, robust enforcement mechanisms, non-means-tested legal aid for survivors, and a Leveson 2 inquiry to hold the media to account. The Bill will ensure that silence in the face of wrongdoing no longer prevails. Public organisations will no longer be able to place reputation management above the truth. The Bill will be a legacy for the 97 who never came home, and their families, who will never walk alone.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
This has been a long time coming. We finally have before us a Bill that is, in the eyes of those who matter—some of whom are sat in the Gallery today—worthy of the name “Hillsborough law”. That is a huge achievement and, as others have said, it is the result of a lot of hard work and campaigning by a lot of people.
The fact that victims have had to fight so hard just to get to this point shows exactly why the Bill is needed. Nobody should have to fight the state for truth and justice after the death of a loved one—nobody. The way the Hillsborough families have fought for so long is inspirational, but the fact that they have had to do so is unacceptable. They should never have been put through it.
I was just nine years old when Hillsborough happened. I vividly recall the news and images coming through that day. I can remember seeing the TV reports and the national newspapers in the days and weeks that followed. Most of all, I remember the shocking speed at which completely false allegations were invented and deliberately spread about the victims and the ordinary fans who tried to help them. I remember the lies that were told about innocent men, women and children who simply went to watch a football game. Those lies were told, encouraged and believed by people in positions of power—including in this place—whose duty was supposed to be to protect ordinary people. Those lies stuck. They piled insults and further harm on top of unimaginable pain, grief and loss.
It has taken 36 years to get to this point—to have the Prime Minister introduce a Bill in this place, with a Government so clearly committed to delivering this law and a worthy legacy for victims not just of Hillsborough but of other scandals such as Grenfell, the Manchester Arena attack, Orgreave, the infected blood scandal and so many others—it would take the rest of my available time to mention them. By doing so, we pay tribute to the victims, survivors and families not just in words but in action, to better protect ordinary people now and in the future.
I have met and known families who were affected by Hillsborough, including the Aspinall family. Margaret Aspinall is in the Gallery today, and her daughter Kerry is a lifelong friend of my wife. I have seen the impact that it has had on their family. They live and breathe it to this day.
Time and again, innocent ordinary people have been treated appallingly while at their most vulnerable. The state, which should be there to protect them and serve them, has too often deliberately got in their way, obstructed justice and protected itself instead of the victims. I have always said that I cannot and will not support anything called a Hillsborough law if the Hillsborough families did not feel that it was worthy of that name, so I am delighted that they support the Bill before us. I am also pleased to hear that, so far, all the talk has been of strengthening the Bill, not watering it down.
However, the Bill is not perfect, and the Hillsborough Law Now campaign group— many of whom are in the Gallery—has identified areas in which we can improve and strengthen it. I have known one of that group’s members, Debbie Caine, who is not here today, for many years. She has campaigned tirelessly for years to get us to this point, and I thank her for everything that she has done. The campaign group want to ensure that the duty of candour applies consistently to all public authorities, including the security and intelligence services. They ask for certainty about the commencement of the Bill, and insist—not unreasonably—that it should come into force upon Royal Assent, not at some unspecified later date. They ask for enhanced whistleblowing protections specific to disclosures made under the new duty of candour. They also have concerns about the current wording on “harm”, which is limited to an identifiable victim. As we know from numerous shameful examples, public deceit can cause institutional or systemic harm rather than individual injury, and we need clarity on that.
I am sure that those and other issues will be the subject of some debate in Committee. I want to be clear that, from this moment, the process must result in a stronger Bill, not a weaker one. Too many people have had to fight too hard for too long just to get to this point. We must see this through and get it right. This is no time to be timid. We were elected with a mandate to deliver this law and to do so properly. The victims of Hillsborough and too many other tragedies deserve nothing less.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I echo many other Members across the House in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families. I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland, but I have to confess that I am a red. We heard of their plight and took that plight on as our own.
I cannot see up to the Gallery, but I say to Margaret and everybody else up there: we are thinking of you and hold you in our hearts today. This is your day. What you have managed to do has reverberated not just throughout Liverpool and the whole of the United Kingdom, but throughout the world. You have set the gold standard—a price that we should never have expected you to pay.
To lose family members at any time is extremely traumatic, but to lose them in the way that you lost your loved ones, and the subsequent cover-up—as other Members have mentioned today, this is not simply about statutory organisations and their response; it is also about the role of the press.
Last summer, whenever this Parliament sat for the first time, the Prime Minister said that this would be a Government of service, and I really do believe that this legislation is the best example of that so far. This Bill is all about service to people and service to community. When I entered Parliament last year, I found a kindred spirit in my friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). This subject is personal to me and my constituents, because many people in Lagan Valley and Northern Ireland were impacted by the infected blood scandal; some of those families are my constituents. This is about a pattern and, as others have referenced—I will say it out loud for the avoidance of doubt—there is also a strong element of class within this. People do not understand. If you have been brought up and raised by the state, for want of a better word—reliant on it for financial and other support—if you are pregnant and someone tells you to take a pill because you have morning sickness, you take the pill and believe that you will be okay. And when people start to ask questions, you don’t ask why.
So many women across the UK took that pill: Thalidomide, Primodos, sodium valproate, aggressions against women as they were labouring, the Ockenden report—so many issues littering across our culture and our United Kingdom. And the pattern is always the same: transgressions against people who sometimes do not even know how to raise the alarm. If you were to ask the person on the Clapham omnibus, “Do you know what the Public Interest Disclosure Act is? Do you know how to utilise your rights in regard to that piece of legislation?”, they are going to look at you; they are going to turn around and say, “I’m not gonna tout on the boss.” That is a cultural phenomenon, and it is one that persists because we have such inequality within this country—inequality in housing and in education. We can see a huge social gulf widening every day. Why should we be surprised whenever people who are done wrong by the state feel that they have nowhere to turn? They cannot even see themselves that they have been done wrong.
This matter transcends politics, and it has been heartening to hear that echoed across the House today. This is not a matter of party politics; this is about representing our constituents to the best of our ability. This legislation is so important because it represents the UK Government finally recognising that honesty and transparency are not optional virtues; they are the foundations of justice.
Today in the Northern Ireland Assembly, my colleagues have spoken about one of the biggest health scandals of our time: the cervical smear scandal in the Southern trust, which includes part of my Lagan Valley constituency. Some 17,000 women had their smear tests read incorrectly. Two of them have already passed away: Erin Harbinson and Lynsey Courtney, both young mothers. We are still waiting for adequate responses as to why that happened, and that is in just one part of the UK.
There is another reason that this is legislation is so important and personal to me: the experience of my Lagan Valley constituents, the Conroy family. I am really grateful to my friends and Members from Northern Ireland for mentioning the Chinook crash—the case of flight Zulu Delta 576. Twenty-nine people on board were killed and there were no survivors, but what happened afterwards should be considered, and is, a stain on the corporate body of the UK. It should not be materially relevant, but fact is that all those people on board gave their lives in service to protecting people. And they were repaid by the state denying justice and just saying that the four special forces pilots were wrong—that was it; nothing to see.
If were it not for the persistence of the families of Flight Lieutenants Rick Cook and Jonathan Tapper, the families would have walked away by today. It was not until over a year ago that a documentary aired and some of the families found out that, actually, the findings relating to the Chinook crash are sealed for 100 years. I understand that is because of information related to the people on board the craft, but we can get round that with a public immunity certificate. The families deserve answers, and if this Government are serious about this legislation, this should be the first test case.
Richard Foord
At present it is not obvious what public servants should do if relevant material cannot be disclosed because it is of an intelligence or security nature. Does the hon. Lady think that strengthening the reach of the Intelligence and Security Committee might help to bring some oversight of the sort that her constituents, and mine, would expect?
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
This moment carries immense weight for me and for so many others here today—for all those who have lost loved ones, those who carry the scars, and those who survived but never recovered from the trauma of being dragged innocently into a state cover-up. This Bill is not just about legislation, although that is vital; this Bill is about legacy. It is about truth, justice and accountability—three words that the establishment has resisted at every turn, and three words that we have fought to place at the heart of the Bill.
Let me speak briefly about why I have fought so hard for those words. Like so many, I was at Hillsborough in 1989. Like so many, I witnessed the cover-up unfold. Ninety-seven innocent men, women and children were unlawfully killed, and countless more lives shattered, but the tragedy was only the beginning. The cover-up that followed was deliberate—a calculated attempt to rewrite history and shift the blame on to the victims. Let us never forget what the chief constable of South Yorkshire police admitted in 2012, after the Hillsborough independent panel:
“In the immediate aftermath senior officers sought to change the record of events. Disgraceful lies were told which blamed the Liverpool fans for the disaster. Statements were altered which sought to minimise police blame.”
I saw that with my own eyes. I sat beside my dad, who was seriously injured at Hillsborough, in the Liverpool office of Elkan Abrahamson, who is here today—one of the architects of the Bill, along with Pete Weatherby—when he received his revised statement. The anger, dismay, and betrayal that he felt reading the lies written in his name is something that I will never ever forget, and it is why this means so much to me.
It took 23 years for South Yorkshire police to admit the scale of its cover-up, yet by 2020—31 years after Hillsborough—no public servant had been convicted, and no police officer disciplined. In fact, Norman Bettison, who was absolutely central to the cover-up, not only escaped sanction but was rewarded with a knighthood for his efforts—a title he disgracefully retains to this day. So yes, we got the truth, but justice? No. That is why we are here today. This Bill must be worthy of the 97 who were unlawfully killed. It must be worthy of all who have suffered at the hands of a state that covers up its failures.
I want to thank everyone who has helped us reach this point. There are so many to name; so many are sitting here today, so many will be sitting at home watching this on the TV, and some are no longer with us. I pay tribute to the campaign groups behind Hillsborough Law Now: the Hillsborough families and survivors; Truth About Zane; nuclear test veterans; contaminated blood campaigners; Post Office Horizon scandal victims; Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice; Grenfell United; the Fire Brigades Union; the Manchester Arena families; Primodos campaigners; and of course Inquest. All have faced the same wall of silence, the same institutional defensiveness, the same decades-long fight for truth, and the pain that that brings. That is why the Bill must not be watered down. It must include every strengthening measure promised by Ministers, including a duty of candour that applies to all inquiries including local ones, and parity of funding must be enshrined as a clear principle within it.
Time and again, grieving families have faced the full might of the state, armed only with determination, while public bodies deploy teams of lawyers to protect reputations and shield those responsible. The imbalance is grotesque, and absolutely deliberate. Let us be clear: the establishment will try to weaken the Bill. They will say it is too complex, too costly, too disruptive, but what they really mean is that it is too effective, because it threatens their impunity. The scale of state cover-ups should shame this House, but over the years this place has played a key role in their creation and concealment. That can change today, with this Bill. As it passes through Parliament, I and others will examine it line by line to ensure that it remains fit to bear the name Hillsborough.
While I thank the Government for getting us here today, I must raise a few issues that need to be addressed in Committee and on Report. The Bill rightly creates both corporate and individual duties, which are so fundamentally important when we look to avoid another Grenfell. Clause 2(5) requires the person in charge of a public body to take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance, but it does not make the chief officer or executive liable. Without that individual accountability, the deterrent power of command responsibility is lost and the culture of cover-ups that we are trying to end may continue. I urge hon. Members to press the Government to strengthen that provision.
David Baines
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for all the work that he has done for years to help to get us to this point—it is incredible. I completely agree with him about the things that need to be done to strengthen the Bill, but does he agree that this is the start of the process—just another step on the journey—and not the end by any means?
Ian Byrne
My hon. Friend makes a fair point; this is a great start but there is a long way to go yet, and we need to keep our foot to the pedal.
The Government recognise the need for a statutory duty of candour to change the culture of cover-ups. Candour is not incompatible with national security. The duty to tell the truth must apply to everyone, including intelligence agencies. Carve-outs for individual officers undermine this Bill and, frankly, have no place in legislation about candour. Accountability would improve the performance of our security services and surely enhance our safety, not lessen it. The Government have been offered a simple amendment to fix this issue in the Bill, and to ensure that accountability, by the lawyers connected to Hillsborough Law Now. I urge hon. Members and the Government to support it.
Colleagues, we did not get here without a long, collective effort from so many, and we must continue that same collective effort to ensure that truth, justice and accountability are finally—finally—enshrined in law. The Bill must honour those already wronged by the state, those who fought for justice on their behalf and those who might come after us, but it must also mark the beginning of the end for the suffering of innocent working-class people dragged into the vortex of a state cover-up.
My message remains crystal clear: anything less than the Hillsborough law delivered in full would be a further betrayal of the 97, and indeed unworthy of the name Hillsborough. All of us in this place, and those watching, will carry on, relentless, until we get that legacy.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
This Bill certainly is long overdue. I previously contributed to the excellent debate in Westminster Hall that was secured by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has just made another fantastic contribution to the campaign. He has been a tireless campaigner for justice since the disaster in 1989.
The Scottish National party supports the Bill and we will work with the UK Government to change the culture of secrecy and cover-up, which for far too long has characterised too much of our public life. Scotland and the rest of the UK are well served by the exceptional dedication and commitment of our public officials, who work every day to keep our communities safe. However, it is right that we should be able to trust that those who serve in a public role fulfil very high standards of behaviour and conduct throughout their careers.
The sad reality is that when these failures were discovered, far too often the wagons were circled, rather than good-faith efforts being made to provide transparency and justice. So often in my own career in health and social care, I witnessed public bodies and senior executives responding to adverse events in defensive ways, declining to offer apologies to avoid financial cost and seeking to hide the truth to protect careers. But the buck stops in this place ultimately.
To reiterate, the SNP Scottish Government are supportive of the aims of the Bill and have been engaging closely with the UK Government on this legislation, including on how it may be extended to Scotland and which Scottish legislation will require amendment. If so, a legislative consent motion will be presented to the Scottish Parliament for debate. In the meantime, public servants are, of course, expected to continue to follow all existing codes, and professional and legal obligations, until the Bill is fully implemented. The SNP Scottish Government have already taken legislative steps to introduce a duty of candour in areas of public life in Scotland, but this Bill must now be the catalyst to change organisational culture across these islands for good.
I fully agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that the Bill would benefit from the establishment of an office of the whistleblower. That has to be one of the outcomes of the eventual passing of this legislation. We fully support the measures dealing with enforcement and compliance, but the key question is: when will we see an end to cover-up, denial, obfuscation and defensiveness? This law must extend not only to intelligence services, but their individual officers. It must make it clear that there is a single, clear point of accountability for chief executives of public bodies and other leaders with command responsibilities. Some legal experts believe that the Bill’s wording on that may be weak, and there is a case for reviewing and strengthening this part of the Bill.
We welcome the proposed code of ethical conduct, and the extension of the law to private bodies with public service health and safety responsibilities. Clause 5 allows for a prison sentence of up to two years for the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour. That could be unduly lenient when one considers some of the more serious scandals.
The inclusion of the concept of “victim harm” in clause 11 may not be as helpful as it sounds, as it would potentially exclude those who, for example, simply falsify statistics, for whatever reason, and are not directly creating any specific victims. That wording could be reviewed. We welcome the commitment to equality of arms in court proceedings, and to ensuring that victims and their families have full recourse to legal aid. In the past, the absence of public funding has too often been an insurmountable obstacle.
On a further matter of detail, already mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester, the Bill makes no reference to newspapers or other media outlets, some of which were up to their necks in law breaking, as demonstrated by the Leveson inquiry. As hon. Members will know, Leveson 2 was meant to investigate the relationship between the press and the police, but it was cancelled by the Cameron Government. As a result, there is little or no accountability in this area. There is still deep hurt in Liverpool at the conduct of some editorial staff and journalists at The Sun newspaper all those years ago. There are other examples of misconduct and even law breaking. Will the Bill provide some solutions relevant to the media? If not, how do the Government intend to address this issue?
I alluded at the outset to devolved matters. There is a clear need to work proactively with devolved Administrations on legal provisions that will require amendment. There have been so many examples in recent times of an utter failure to consult, liaise or communicate with the devolved Administrations, but that cannot happen in this instance. I hope that we will see maximum co-operation on these matters. My party and I stand ready to make a constructive contribution as this Bill passes on to its next stages.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill. I start by thanking the Prime Minister for delivering on our manifesto promise to bring the Hillsborough law before the House. As a Liverpool MP and someone who had family and friends at Hillsborough—they fortunately all came home—I would not have accepted anything that was not accepted by the families, and I know that my neighbouring colleagues feel the same. I am grateful, as I know the families will be, to the Prime Minister for confirming that he will accept no watering down of the Bill during its parliamentary passage. I sincerely hope that those in the other place have heard that pledge loud and clear.
I pay tribute to my constituent Mark Corrigan, who is in the Public Gallery, along with many family members of the 97. Mark’s brother Keith McGrath was one of the 97 who was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. His parents, Mary and Joe Corrigan, fought all the way to the end for truth and justice, and demonstrated the strength, dignity and resilience of all the families.
Our city, on the banks of the Mersey, knows about solidarity, love and empathy. We have one another’s backs, and we know all too well that an injustice to one is an injustice to all. I can say proudly that the bonds that were forged in the fire of 15 April 1989 are as a strong today as ever. As I have said previously in this place, Scousers have long memories. We shall never forget. We will continue to mourn our lost loved ones, and we will always fight for truth and justice, opposing those who continue to spread the appalling lies about that fateful day with every fibre of our being.
On that point, Margaret Aspinall, who lost her son James at Hillsborough, has said:
“Today Hillsborough Law is finally debated in Parliament. But justice won’t be done until the S*n, too is made to answer for its abuses. The Prime Minister promised us that he would see this through. It is time for him to deliver the justice he promised, to build on today’s vital achievement by making Leveson 2 a reality, and ensure the media is held to account for its role in state failures and cover-ups.”
Appallingly, The Sun played a key role in the cover-up of the Hillsborough disaster by working with South Yorkshire police to spread lies about what happened and hide the truth.
The Bill before us does not contain any references to Leveson 2 or the role of the press and is exclusively focused on public officials and authorities. As welcome as that is, I would be grateful if the Prime Minister could update the House as soon as possible—I note that he is no longer in his place. Will he consider establishing a public inquiry into the relationship between the police and The Sun? Will he keep his promises by meeting with victims of press abuses and working with them to introduce further legislation to tackle press standards and corruption? If any small flicker of light can come from the darkness of Hillsborough, it must be protection for succeeding generations from the pain and anguish of the lies, the misinformation and the cover-ups that we witnessed and suffered from for more than three decades.
I welcome the fact that this law will ensure that families bereaved by public disasters are treated far better and do not have to fight for decades, and I welcome the duty of candour, although I can hardly believe that we must legislate for people to tell the truth. The fact that it has taken more than three decades to get to this point is a grotesque abdication of responsibility by those in this place to those whom we represent, those who do not pull the levers of power, and those with little resource other than their collective determined voice.
When we say “Never again” to Hillsborough, we are also saying “Never again” to Grenfell, the Manchester Arena attack, the Horizon scandal, nuclear test veterans, the infected blood scandal and so many more. If the law does not place itself on the side of ordinary, good and decent people, it will consign itself to being a hobby tool for the privileged and powerful in safeguarding their own interests.
We should never hear just the voices of those in this place; we should listen to the people who do not walk these corridors of power. Let us give power to them and amplify their voices. Anything less is an injustice. We need to pass this Bill in full for the families, the victims, and the survivors. Justice for the 97!
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to my role as vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation?
The Bill places new obligations of transparency and frankness on public authorities and officials, leaving them nowhere to hide from public scrutiny of their actions. I absolutely applaud those aims. We have been offered the opportunity to strengthen the Bill, and I have a contribution to make that stems from more than a decade of listening to whistleblowers. The UK has no proper law on whistleblowing or for protecting whistleblowers. Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, gives a measure of protection from detriments to workers and employees who make what are termed “public interest disclosures”. However, that provision treats such detriments as essentially employment matters; it does not once use the words “whistleblowing” or “whistleblower” and does not extend beyond workers and employees. It is highly technical, puts all sorts of barriers and difficulties in the way of workers and employees who make public interest disclosures, focuses exclusively on the employment context, and rarely—if ever—leads to any wider investigation of the substantive matters about which the worker or employee makes a disclosure.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill misses an opportunity: it could and should have recognised the important role played by whistleblowers in ensuring accountability. The whistleblower is, or should be, the best friend of every chief executive officer, every board, and every Minister. Whistleblowers want to see an end to crime, corruption and cover-up; they do not want to be fired for raising their concerns. Almost everyone will recognise the major scandals in which whistleblowers have reported what was happening again and again but have not been believed or, worse, have been invited or forced to leave their role. The case against whistleblowers is all about protection of reputation and the imbalance of power, and I recognise entirely what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said.
Explicit recognition was given to the role of whistleblowers in the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on 9 July 2025, with the support of the Hillsborough victims. Clauses 2, 5(1) and 9 in that Bill would have been of huge significance in advancing the protection of whistleblowers. For the first time in legislation, the Bill gave explicit recognition to whistleblowing—a word which had hitherto not featured in the legislative lexicon. The ten-minute rule Bill sought to extend the concept of public interest disclosures beyond employment law; it would have extended whistleblower protection to all who blow the whistle, many of whom will be outside the scope of employment law. If that Bill had proceeded, whistleblowing as a legal concept would have broken out of the confines of employment law.
Clause 9 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill requires public authorities to publish codes of ethics. It would be easy for the Government to take into their Bill the provision from the earlier Bill requiring public authority codes of ethics to recognise the need to protect whistleblowers. It is deeply disappointing and unfortunate that it does not, and I ask the Minister to address that point and amend the Bill in her mission to strengthen it. If that were to happen, it would be a start, but further reform would still be needed. First, the provision would apply only when the potential wrongdoer was a public authority within the scope of the Bill. Secondly, such protection as would be given would arise only indirectly through the existence of a code of ethics. Thirdly, the Bill would lack teeth to deal with breaches of the code of ethics. Fourthly, there would still be no mechanism for investigating and following up the wrongdoing that a whistleblower might have uncovered.
There remains an urgent need to set up the office of the whistleblower, and to extend the Bill’s scope to include contractors in the private sector—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. May I remind the hon. Lady of the scope of this Bill?
Tessa Munt
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sought to pick up on the Minister’s and Prime Minister’s intention of ensuring that the Bill is as strong as it can be.
The Bill should cover contractors in the private sector as well as the public sector, as was mentioned, if it is to have real teeth and ensure that wrongdoing is fully investigated and that wrongdoers are brought to account. Will the Minister meet me and whistleblowers to explore the scope of this Bill?
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
That day in April 1989 will never leave us. Fans went to the match and never came home. They were not lost; they were unlawfully killed. Authorities protecting themselves; decades of denial, distortion, and lies; a press slandering the dead and the grieving; a cover-up and systematic failure of the state that cut deeper and lasted longer than anyone could have imagined—and still not one successful prosecution. That is why we are here today. That is why the families and survivors continue to fight.
We have all seen their courage and determination, and I cannot express what it means to be in this place with so many members of the Hillsborough families with us in the Chamber today. One of them is Margaret Aspinall, from Huyton. She has asked me to say some words on her behalf. She has repeated many times to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General that the group wants the Hillsborough law to be delivered in its entirety, with no changes or watering down. That will create a system that is so much fairer for families who have lost a loved one in a state-related death. Today, it is the perpetrators who get the help, while the victims get a massive cover-up. It must never again be a one-way system.
Delivering on that promise means delivering the Hillsborough law in full. That means imposing duties on chief officers, rather than corporate bodies. This matters, because the duty should have been on the chief constable, Peter Wright, rather than on South Yorkshire police. Requiring proof of harm makes the “misleading the public” offence impractical and ineffective.
Delivering the Hillsborough law in full also means bringing forward an amendment to deal with combined and local authority inquiries. Without such an amendment, the result could be the intelligence services failing to properly provide the full facts to inquiries. We must avoid what the King’s Counsel to the families of those who tragically lost their lives in the Manchester Arena attack called “institutional defensiveness” and a lack of candour from MI5. As this Bill progresses, the families and Members of this House will continue to watch, in order to make sure that the Hillsborough law is exactly what this Government deliver.
Margaret’s son, James Aspinall, died at Hillsborough aged just 18. She was forced to accept 1,200 quid, which was supposed to represent compensation for James’s life—1,200 quid for the life of her son. She was forced to cash it against her will because she could not find the money to pay her share of the families’ legal costs. As she has said,
“Making a mother, like myself, accept a pittance to fight a cause. The guilt of this has lived with me for years.”
Such practices have not stopped; since the Hillsborough verdict, other families have been made to beg for legal aid.
Charlotte Hennessy is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Sir Mark Tami), who as a Government Whip does not have the opportunity to speak today and tell her story. Charlotte was just six when her dad, Jimmy Hennessy, went to the match and never came home. Jimmy was 29. He was a plasterer, a man of morals, a mod—he looked good—and a respected family man. For 23 years, Charlotte was told that he died of traumatic asphyxiation. It was not until 2012 that she learned the truth. Her dad was found alive on that pitch. A police officer testified that he felt life and gave him CPR. Jimmy was carried to the gym, where he was supposed to receive medical support. He was declared dead, but he was not dead; he was still alive when he was zipped into a body bag, and he vomited inside it. The pathology report was false: Jimmy did not die in the crush, but from inhalation of his own gastric contents.
Can you imagine dying like that? Can you imagine knowing that your dad died like that? Charlotte has told me about the agony of living with an official lie, but she has fought to piece together her dad’s truth. She told me:
“A Hillsborough Law, with a duty of candour, is imperative. It must stop corruption and prevent any other family from going through”
the pain that her family went through.
It is right that the Government have attempted to match the courage of the families and to be bold, but Hillsborough is not a one-off. Again and again, the state fails those who need the most protection. There must be justice for the 97, but also for every family who have faced the same nightmare, or might face it one day. We cannot let them down. This Bill must be delivered in full, with no watering down. I look forward to the Minister promising, as the Prime Minister has from the Dispatch Box today, that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law—that it will be strong enough to protect every victim of state failure and finally deliver justice for the 97.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
In welcoming this Bill, I am very mindful of the tenacity and courage of the campaigners who got us to this point, both outside and inside this House. They can take some comfort from this Bill today. I trust that it is a Bill that will live up to its promise. As I mentioned in my intervention on the Prime Minister, I trust that it will bring justice to the Chinook families, for example, who have been treated to serial cover-ups in respect of that appalling incident.
However, there are issues with the Bill that I want to probe. It declares in its very first clause that:
“The purpose of this Act is to ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…(a) with candour, transparency and frankness, and (b) in the public interest”.
But will it be at all times? We discover in the Bill that the only criminal sanction applies to those who do not show candour, transparency and frankness to a public inquiry or a public investigation. In many such cases, there would already be the threat of perjury, so where is the commitment to ensure that there is candour at all times?
Jim Allister
If the Minister wants to make an intervention, I am quite happy to take it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments, but the Bill literally says that there is a duty of candour “at all times”.
Jim Allister
It does, and then it goes on to tell us in clause 1(2) how it imposes that duty. There are five ways in which it does so. The first is by
“imposing a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations and imposing criminal liability for breach of that duty”.
That is the only criminal liability that would arise from a breach of the duty of candour. The second way is by imposing an ethical code on public authorities. No criminal offence is committed if someone breaches that ethical code—none whatsoever. The third, fourth and fifth ways, in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), are by
“imposing criminal liability on public authorities and public officials who mislead the public in ways that are seriously improper”,
by
“imposing criminal liability for seriously improper acts by individuals holding public office and for breaches of duties to prevent death or serious injury”,
and by
“making provision about parity at inquiries”
about legal aid.
The Prime Minister told us that the Bill would apply across the whole United Kingdom, but sadly it does not. Clause 24, the extent clause, makes it plain that the last three paragraphs of clause 1, which I have just read out, do not apply to Northern Ireland or to Scotland. The Bill in its entirety applies only to England and Wales, meaning that clause 11, for example—which is an important clause, because it does create a criminal offence, that of misleading the public—does not apply anywhere other than in England and Wales. Why should that be? Why is this Bill not drafted in such a way that those clauses apply to the whole United Kingdom, after which the Assemblies of Scotland and Northern Ireland can deploy the mechanism of legislative consent?
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The hon. and learned Member may or may not be aware that in order for those sections to apply across the UK, the Scottish Government would have to agree to a Sewel motion—a legislative consent motion—that would allow this place to legislate for Scotland. Justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament—it has been since the Act of Union and before. That is something that is valued, so there would have to be that agreement. It is not something that can be laid at the feet of this Minister.
Jim Allister
That is exactly what I said. Why does clause 11 not apply to the whole United Kingdom on the basis of a legislative consent motion? Such a motion could be sought from Stormont and from Edinburgh, and in that means we could have uniformity across the United Kingdom. That is the mechanism for doing it, but the starting point is to make the clause applicable across the United Kingdom, and then to have the legislative consent motion that would enable it to be enforced. That is how Parliament works with the devolved institutions. [Interruption.] Members can shake their heads as much as they like, but I was a Member of a devolved institution and know that that is how it works—that emphatically is how it works.
Patricia Ferguson
The hon. and learned Member was a Member in Stormont. I was a Member of the Holyrood Parliament, where I was also the Minister for Parliamentary Business for three and a half years. It was my responsibility to take through legislation in that Parliament and to oversee the Sewel convention, and I can assure him that that is not how it happened.
Jim Allister
I disagree. Many, many times in the Stormont Assembly, Bills that were passing through this House, which included measures such as new criminal offences, were subject to a legislative consent motion. That then gave consent to proceed, and that mechanism could equally be used here. My question to the House is this: if this Bill is delivering the duty of candour by the five steps set out in clause 1(2), how can it do that for the whole United Kingdom if three of those steps do not apply throughout the United Kingdom?
Alex Davies-Jones
This is not a debate about the constitution; it is a debate about the duty of candour. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that the intention is for all nations in the United Kingdom to be bound by this legislation. However, he will be fully aware of the devolved competencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland in this case. We are having positive engagement with both nations, and that is the intention of the Bill. I just remind him to perhaps bring the debate back to exactly what this Bill is about, with the families in the Gallery today.
Jim Allister
I therefore hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will indicate that, subject to legislative consent, she will indeed make this Bill apply across the whole United Kingdom, because my constituents are as entitled as anyone else to the same duty of candour that arises elsewhere.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. and learned Member is making a powerful point. The Minister referred to devolved competences. Does he agree that this Parliament is sovereign and has on many occasions intervened in laws in Northern Ireland that are devolved? It is therefore upon this Government to do the right thing and make all of this legislation applicable to Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
I agree absolutely, and such interventions have happened many times. If we are serious about saying there is a basis of equal citizenship across this United Kingdom, and that is what it is to belong to a United Kingdom, the duty of candour being given to England and Wales should equally be given to all of the United Kingdom. I welcome it for England and Wales, and I welcome it so far as it goes in Northern Ireland, but it does not go far enough. I am disappointed by the Government’s reticence to accept that this Bill, like any other, could be improved. A mighty step forward in improving it would be ensuring that it provides that duty of candour across the United Kingdom.
Jim Allister
I would give way, if I had not run out of time. I say to the Government, yes, let us go forward with this Bill, but let us make it a better Bill that gives the same rights across this United Kingdom.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I rise in support of this Bill today as the MP for Liverpool Riverside, as a very proud Scouser and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice. As we all know, Hillsborough stands as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen. This Bill is about a simple, powerful idea: truth and justice. Those two words should underpin our systems of power, but from Hillsborough to Orgreave, the Manchester Arena tragedy, the Shrewsbury 24, Grenfell and Windrush, we know that too often that simply is not the case.
For decades, working-class communities and the families who have lost loved ones have had to fight tooth and nail against institutions that were meant to protect them, only to find those same institutions closing ranks and themselves facing delay, denial and deceit. This Bill, and the Hillsborough law it seeks to deliver, are about ending the cycle once and for all.
Let us be honest, though: that progress did not happen by chance. It is down to the tireless efforts of families and campaigners who refused to give up. I pay tribute to those families and campaigners who were in the Gallery, and to those who fought very hard, but are no longer with us. They kept this issue alive when others tried to move on and bury it. I also want to say thanks and pay tribute to my good friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham for their work so far on bringing this Bill forward.
We know that this Bill, even with the best of intentions, may face obstacles. We have already heard about the possibility of it being watering down in the other place. We all know how things work in Westminster, and while it is welcome that the Government have brought the Bill forward, we are also being warned that it might be watered down, with its bite blunted and meaning diluted. It is on this House and all of us here to ensure that we fight back against that.
On that shocking day in 1989, 97 innocent people were unlawfully killed, but we must recognise that the injustice did not end that day. The real scandal began in the days, months and years that followed, when the machinery of the state turned on the victims and the families. Police statements were altered. Blatant lies were printed on the front pages, particularly by “The Scum” newspaper. Families were smeared and forced to relive the trauma for decades, just to prove what they already knew: that their loved ones were not to blame. That is why we need a Hillsborough law, with a statutory duty of candour on all public officials so that truth is not optional and cover-ups are impossible. If that duty had existed in 1989, those families might not have had to wait 36 years for justice.
If that duty had existed, perhaps we would not have seen the same play used again at Grenfell, or Orgreave, or with the infected blood scandal, the Post Office, Windrush and so many more that we have heard about in the Chamber this afternoon. We owe it to those families and to every family who has suffered injustice at the hands of the state to make sure it never happens again. That is why I want to take this opportunity to recognise the Cammell Laird workers, who were unjustly imprisoned in 1984 for standing up for their rights. Their struggle remains a stain on our history, and they are yet to receive justice. My good friend the former Member for Birkenhead is a staunch leader in that campaign, and I thank him for his incredible work. Their case, like Hillsborough, shows exactly why accountability in public office matters. When the state closes ranks, ordinary people pay the price.
This Bill must establish a legal duty of candour on public officials—a duty to tell the truth, to co-operate fully with investigations and inquiries and to act in the public interest, not for self-interest. It must ensure parity of legal funding for bereaved families, because justice should never depend on someone’s postcode or pay packet. The Bill must deliver real accountability with real consequences for those who lie, mislead or obstruct justice, because if we have learned anything from Hillsborough, it is that words without consequences are meaningless.
I am forever honoured to represent my home in this House. My city has lived and breathed this fight for more than three decades. It knows what institutional failure looks like and what courage, solidarity and persistence can achieve in the face of that failure. For the people of Liverpool, the fight for justice has never been abstract; it is deeply personal and born out of tragedy, betrayal and an unbreakable demand for truth. We are a proud city—proud of our history, our culture and, above all, our sense of solidarity. The campaign for justice after Hillsborough helped shape our modern identity, with a fierce refusal to be silenced, a stubborn loyalty to the truth and an unshakeable belief in collective action.
Liverpool has shown this country what dignity looks like in the pursuit of truth. Now it is time for this country to show Liverpool that it has learned the lessons. I urge colleagues from all parts of the House to support this Bill with the strength and integrity that the people of Liverpool and people across the UK expect from us. We must fight for every detail until it is over the line and passed into legislation. Let us make truth, justice and accountability not just passing words today, but enshrined in our Hillsborough law forever.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It has been a massive privilege to have all the families appearing with us today. Without their presence, this law would not be being passed. Let me also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), and all the Liverpudlian Members sitting behind me who have worked so hard over the years.
The failure to hold public officials accountable when they are at fault has been the foundation of innumerable scandals in our history. Just a few of them are Orgreave, Windrush, Grenfell, the nuclear test veterans, the infected blood victims and the post office workers. All those people have suffered at the hands of the state through no fault of their own, but, to our eternal shame, their suffering has been compounded by indifference, inaction and, in some cases, malice on the part of the very bodies that are meant to serve and protect them.
The need for change is clear. It is vital that we have a Hillsborough law worthy of the name, and I am very pleased that the Bill will meet that standard: I am certain that my colleagues on the Bill Committee and my colleagues in the other place will ensure that that happens. The introduction of a Hillsborough law was one of the most important manifesto commitments for me, if not the most important, and I greatly appreciate the Government’s affirmation that they will resist any attempts to water the Bill down. I believe that my colleagues and friends will do the same, and, as the Member of Parliament for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, I know that many of my constituents will strongly welcome that commitment.
On 15 April 1989, we were home to the country’s biggest sporting disaster. At the time, I lived just around the corner from the football ground, and I have never forgotten that day. I went out to buy a card for my best friend’s birthday, and I was walking down my street just after it had happened, when people were leaving the ground. At my local shops there was one telephone box, and there must have been 80 to 100 people queuing up beside it, in complete silence. Not a word was being spoken. As I carried on towards home, it became apparent that the people walking around in our community were completely dazed and traumatised by what they had seen happening on that day.
Gill Furniss
My neighbours and members of my community were opening their doors to people and giving them cups of tea, because they were clearly in shock, and also letting them use their telephones to tell their loved ones that they had survived. At that time, I was about nine and a half months pregnant. My daughter was born on 1 May, and every year when that date comes around I think of those who did not have a daughter at home, whereas I was lucky enough to have my baby. Today is a very emotional day for Sheffield, or at least for me, as I remember how it was—as I remember that that happened in the city where I was born and the city that I love. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for reminding me that the few little bits that we could do meant something to those people, and I will be ever proud of my constituents for what they did.
The Bill is long overdue, and I apologise to the people sitting in the Gallery for that, because we should have done better in the past. For a long time, public bodies have not considered themselves to be accountable, which is why the word “accountability” is in the Bill’s title. I think we are now bringing home to people out there—people who work in other areas—the fact that they have always been accountable. We are just reminding them, and ensuring that there will be consequences for those who think that it does not apply to them, including prison sentences. That is only right.
I feel today that we are putting right the wrongs that have been long with us in our society. I agree with those who have said, “This is having a go at the working class, because they do not know any better, they have no money, and they cannot easily get hold of legal aid”—which, indeed, does not even exist now. I should like to think that today is a celebration of the people who have campaigned tirelessly over the last 36 years, because without them, we would not be here. I say to them, “You guys were really tenacious as friends of the victims, and you have kept going and telling everyone what was wrong.”
I absolutely concur with what Members have said about The Sun. I would never buy a copy of that paper, and I never have after that day, because the part that it played in this tragedy should be subject to an open inquiry so that we can see who collaborated in ensuring that it looked as though people were drunk, people were out of their heads on stuff and people had caused the tragedy, when they already knew that it was their fault. Let us never, ever see another such episode. I believe that the Bill is the way we will get through this, and that today will go down in history as the moment when the truth became known.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it. It is the result of years of committed campaigning led by the families of the victims and the survivors of Hillsborough. Many of the worst corporate miscarriages of justice, from infected blood to Grenfell, would have been exposed years or even decades ago had it become law sooner.
The Bill requires the state and its agents to tell the truth about their misconduct, and gives rights to the victims, not least the right of representation on fair and equal terms in inquests and inquiries. Let us therefore celebrate a landmark piece of legislation which, like the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act under the last Labour Government, gives power to the citizen and makes the state accountable; but let us also look for ways to improve it by strengthening what is in it and adding what has been left out.
I welcome the duty of candour in clause 2, which requires public authorities and officials to act with “candour, transparency and frankness”. Clause 4 extends the duty of candour to bodies or individuals who are not public authorities or officials, but who had a “relevant public responsibility”. However, it requires
“a direct contractual relationship with the public authority”,
which means that subcontractors or subsidiary companies would not be caught by the duty of candour, and I think that is wrong.
Clause 11 introduces a new offence of misleading the public. It is a strong test, but the Bill also contains exemptions and caveats that may make it less comprehensive or effective. First, the “harm” test in the clause is unnecessary. The object of the clause is to prevent the public from being misled. That may cause harm to an individual, but it should not be a requirement. Preventing reliance on wrong information is an end in itself.
Secondly, the carve-out for the security services is too broad. Schedule 1 not only exempts legitimate safeguards such as national security, but gives a general exemption to intelligence officers at all levels up to and including director. Thirdly, clause 11 provides an exemption from the offence of misleading the public for acts done
“for the purposes of journalism.”
However, the scope of this exemption is unclear. For example, does it extend to individuals being interviewed as well as those conducting the interviews, or to public officials who also, for instance, publish news columns or host news programmes? We know all too well from Hillsborough that the actions of the media can lead to injustice for victims.
However, aside from that exemption, the role of the media has been overlooked by the Bill. South Yorkshire police defamed the Hillsborough families and survivors, but they did not do so alone. Their lies and smears were promoted by several newspapers, most notably The Sun.
It was the culture, and the connections between the newspapers and the police, that enabled this to happen, and there is no evidence that that has changed. Just as South Yorkshire police were protected by The Sun after Hillsborough, the Metropolitan police were responsible for astonishing oversights in the investigations into phone hacking at News of the World.
The culture of complicity was due to be investigated by part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Margaret Aspinall, who is here today, was among those due to give evidence to Leveson. Her son died at Hillsborough; he was only 18. Margaret has written powerfully in the Liverpool Echo today about the need for this Bill and for the press to be held to account.
I would like to voice my support for the expansion in legal aid for inquests that will be brought in by the Bill. The Bill provides that families will be eligible for non-means-tested legal aid if a public authority is an interested person at the inquest. I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on how that expansion in legal aid will be funded. What is the estimated cost of providing representation at inquests and inquiries, and how will it be funded? Will it be, for example, from existing budgets?
Finally, I will mention a couple of provisions that I think should be added to the Bill. There is no mention of the Independent Public Advocate. It would be good to hear from the Government on how they think that office—for which the Lord Chancellor has just made an excellent appointment in the person of Cindy Butts—can work to support victims through the Bill.
There is also no national oversight mechanism provided for in the Bill, despite widespread support for one as a necessary guarantee of the successful implementation of public inquiries and prevention of future deaths reports. A national oversight mechanism, which has been proposed by the charity Inquest—which I know has been working closely with the Hillsborough families—would ensure that recommendations from inquests and inquiries were effectively publicised and that their implementation was monitored. Too often, the recommendations of inquiries sit on shelves and are not implemented, and no one goes back to see that they are. A national oversight mechanism is a major omission from the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point when she winds up.
I invite the Minister to respond to the points I have raised this evening. The Bill is an overdue, but no less welcome, piece of legislation that the whole House should wish to improve and enact.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Following the next contribution, I will reduce the time limit to five minutes—so, on a six-minute time limit, I call Abtisam Mohamed.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
As the Member for Sheffield Central, I approach this Second Reading debate with pride that we have finally got here, but with the deepest frustration and sadness at the time that that has taken. Many of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), will be pleased that we are finally here, and I am sure that they will stand in complete solidarity with the families affected.
For over three decades, our city was part of a tragedy that repeatedly scarred families and communities who lived far beyond South Yorkshire. Not only were 97 lives lost at Hillsborough; those people were unlawfully killed—and instead of those lives being honoured and mourned, the families of the 97 had to swallow their grief and fight decades of institutional injustice, indifference and denial.
The failures were not limited to what happened on that day in April 1989. They continued for months, years and decades after: wave after wave of betrayal for families already living with the unimaginable pain of losing their loved ones; wave after wave of betrayal by those in leadership positions who just closed ranks; wave after wave of betrayal by the media, leading to cover-ups, delays and dishonesty.
With this Bill, we can say that this will never happen again—to anyone; because, while the bereaved families have sought justice for their loved ones, the cover-ups have continued. They include Grenfell, Horizon and the infected blood scandal, to name just a few. Time and again, families have watched as the same playbook is used to smear working-class communities and protect those at the very top.
It is right that the Hillsborough families have pushed hard for non-means-tested legal aid, because while those who covered up benefited from the public purse to fund their legal fees, families had to scrimp, save and borrow just to enter the legal system on the same footing.
I am pleased that this Bill will ensure that there is change, and that that change will start now. Fair access to justice means that no victim will be left to fight the state alone. With the duty of candour, public bodies must act truthfully, they must support investigations and they must behave in line with the Nolan principle of integrity. Now when things go wrong—when tragedy strikes—lessons must be learned, not buried.
This is the Hillsborough law, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for their tireless efforts to ensure that those lessons are protected through the Bill. Their legacy, and that of the bereaved families, is the one that will be remembered. Their tireless campaigning has resulted in change at the very top, and their relentless fight has forced the Government and public institutions to abandon a culture of cover-ups. There must be accountability, and there must be no dilution. At the bottom and at the heart of this, there must always be justice for the 97.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
On a five-minute time limit, I call Dame Nia Griffith.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Let me pay a huge tribute to all those who have fought so hard for this day: the Hillsborough families, who fought and fought and fought for 36 years. I pay particular tribute to Margaret Aspinall for her feisty and determined campaigning. It is hard to believe it has taken this long; in fact, it is scandalous. I also pay tribute to all those who fought against cover-ups and lies to get to the truth: those hounded and even criminalised by the Post Office Horizon scandal, and those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal.
I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, within just over a year of Labour taking office. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to seeing it on the statute book and will not allow it to be watered down in any way.
I remember finally getting the Conservative Government’s response to Bishop James Jones’s report back in December 2023—six years after its publication. I went to the briefing meeting, fully expecting the then Justice Secretary to say that the Government would be introducing a Hillsborough law, but I was bitterly disappointed to find Conservative Ministers talking about a voluntary charter. But my disappointment was nothing compared with the grief, anguish, frustration, anger, disbelief and despair that the Hillsborough families have been left feeling, time and again, at the cover-ups, the obfuscation and the procrastination.
In the cases of the contaminated blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, the cover-ups and the failure to listen to those experiencing the issues meant that there were new victims. In the Post Office Horizon scandal, people who need never have become victims—hard-working postmasters and postmistresses—were subjected to the appalling mental anguish of feeling that their beloved communities, and indeed members of their own families, did not believe them. We know how tragically that ended for some. With the infected blood scandal, there were people who need never, ever have been infected.
In brief, tragedies happen and mistakes are made, but a different culture, with a willingness to admit mistakes—a workplace environment that treats whistleblowers and those who speak up as constructive, critical friends, not troublemakers—and driven by an expectation of a duty of candour, could so often prevent further victims and suffering. Today we are finally welcoming a Bill that introduces a new duty of candour—a full Hillsborough law to force those in public office to co-operate fully with investigations, with tough penalties, including prison, for those who fail—and guarantees legal aid funding to enable those affected to challenge public institutions.
I was pleased that back in July, in keeping with another of our manifesto promises, the then Home Secretary announced the Orgreave inquiry. Can the Minister advise us whether this Hillsborough Bill will become law in time to be applicable to that inquiry? Further to that, amidst rumours of boxes of relevant police papers being destroyed, is there anything that she or her Cabinet colleagues can do, even before the Bill becomes law, to prevent potential evidence from being destroyed?
Colleagues have referenced that appalling front page of The Sun, headlined “The Truth”, which alleged that fans had stolen from the deceased and abused police officers, and put the blame for the disaster on the fans. The Sun knew perfectly well that what it said was anything but the truth; it was an outrageous attack on Liverpool fans and nothing short of a cover-up for the police. Although this Bill will introduce a duty of candour for our public sector workers—and I do not want to do anything to delay or confuse that in any way—we should nevertheless, sooner rather than later, address the fact that there is no duty of candour for the media.
For 36 years, The Sun has escaped all accountability for its contribution to the cover-up. Even today, there are no independently enforced standards for the press that would end the ability of parts of the media to conspire with the authorities to mislead the public. The fact is that the Independent Press Standards Organisation falls well short of Leveson part 1’s requirements for independent and robust press regulation. As a result, there is nothing to prevent a cover-up perpetrated by the press from happening again.
I congratulate the Prime Minister and my colleagues in Government on the Bill, but I urge them to heed the call made by Margaret Aspinall today: introduce further legislation to make good on Leveson 2, bring in tougher regulation of the press and stop certain elements of the press destroying innocent people’s lives. As we say in Welsh, “Nid da lle gellir gwell”: don’t be satisfied with the good if we can do better.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
This legislation is long overdue. Looking back at the scandals where the state has deceived the people, some of which go back to the aftermath of the second world war, we see a long list of how the great British state has let down the people it is there to serve. In all these scandals involving the state versus the people, it is ordinary people who had to fight long and hard to get justice. In the contaminated blood scandal, it has taken over 50 years. For nuclear test veterans, it goes back to the 1950s. In the case of Hillsborough, it took 36 years. The list goes on. All these scandals demonstrate that there is something wrong at the heart of our state—that the state places itself above the people, will not allow itself to be seen to be wrong and, worse, refuses to offer redress for its wrongdoing.
I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood—addressing one of the worst examples the state deceiving people over many decades. At the start of his May 2024 report, Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood inquiry, sets out the depth of the state’s deception—how the state knew as early as the mid-1940s the dangers posed by transfusions of plasma, and the consequences. The risk of spreading infections through transfusions was known in the early days of the NHS, yet this did not result in research or any attempts to ensure that blood was being sourced from safe providers. The state doubled down on its denial while continuing to use products that put people at greater risk. Sir Brian goes on to accuse the state of a catalogue of failings, deliberate lies and obfuscation. He exposes the scale of the deception and how the state failed to carry out research to make products safer, which could have saved lives and reduced infections. This in turn led to products not being HIV-free.
At Treloar’s school, pupils with haemophilia were given contaminated blood products as part of an experiment. That is probably the most chilling part of the whole scandal. The former pupils of Treloar’s have called themselves “human guinea pigs”; those are their own words. What is worse is that the pupils were told that they had glandular fever. Their families were told not to tell anyone that it was HIV. The lack of a duty to tell the truth allowed the state to ignore the needs of the victims and their families. They were offered no help, support or counselling. The silence allowed the state to avoid being held to account—something that we have seen again and again in the Hillsborough story, the Post Office Horizon story and all the rest. This has to stop, and the Bill will at last give a voice to victims.
Although candour in public officials is welcome, the Bill fails to impose a similar duty on our media. Time and again, we have seen a significant section of our national media collaborate with officials, which has obstructed justice, misled the public and led to harassment of survivors and their families. Perhaps the most devastating example is the role of The Sun in respect of the Hillsborough tragedy; the paper directly conspired with South Yorkshire police to accuse fans of causing the disaster. I hope that as the Bill passes through all its stages, we can address this omission.
I welcome the Bill. We MPs come here to speak truth to power on behalf of our constituents. Now our constituents will have the right to force power to speak truth to them.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the campaigners, but I want to pay special tribute to the Scouse MPs, who in the last few months put their foot down and said that they were having nothing but the Hillsborough Bill. I thank them on all our behalf.
I want to raise a point about the duty of candour, transparency and frankness, and the duty to operate in the public interest. I would like someone to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that there is a duty to co-operate with the complainants or the victims in the pursuit of truth. I say that not about a historical event, but about an event that is happening today: the Mitting inquiry into the undercover operations carried out on a number of our campaigns. In that inquiry, the authorities, the police and the intelligence services are belligerently fighting not to tell the truth. I will explain briefly.
Twenty-eight years ago almost to the day, my constituent, a young Asian lad named Ricky Reel, went on a night out with his mates in Kingston upon Thames. He went missing and never came home. We now know that he was racially abused. A week later, we found his body in the river. The police inquiry was appalling, and we begged for police resources to be applied. They were applied, but we discovered later that they were applied to surveil our campaign. We had undercover police officers surveilling our campaign, not investigating the case. We were told, “Don’t worry, we weren’t really surveilling you. You were collateral damage.” It was a collateral invasion of privacy, we were told.
Then we met workers who were being blacklisted, so we set up the Blacklist Support Group. We discovered that the police and the intelligence services were surveilling those workers and providing information to employers. Some of those workers never worked again in their life.
Then, of course, we worked with the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. We discovered a hero: a police officer called Peter Francis, who was part of the unit that undertook the surveillance. He said what actually went on, and he blew the whistle. He is now giving evidence to the Mitting inquiry. My constituent Mrs Reel is also giving evidence, as are the Lawrences and other campaigners, but the police are refusing to attend. They claim to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They claim that they are so unwell that they cannot provide the evidence. As a result, we will not get to the truth unless there is an overpowering duty in this legislation that forces them to co-operate.
People have said that this is about class, but it is also about race. The Lawrence family were surveilled. Why? So that information could be provided to the media to discredit them. In the Ricky Reel campaign, it became farcical. We went to visit the Metropolitan police and said, “You’ve now admitted that you were surveilling us. We would like to see the documents about that surveillance.” We were each given our own copy, but it was redacted to such an extent that there was maybe only a sentence or a word visible. To be frank, we fell about laughing. We got up to take the copies out, but we were told that we could not, and the reason why was that we might have put them all together and made sentences. That is how bad the situation was. We have still not got to the truth—to the full files—and we are still calling for another investigation, so this Bill is highly relevant. We want a duty that is not just about telling the truth, but about co-operating with those who are complaining and the victims. Until we get that spirit of co-operation, I do not think that we will ever get to the point at which we can hold officials and others to account.
I am worried about the different way that the intelligence services will be treated. Surveilling the blacklisted workers involved a rare mixture of police, special branch and others. I would like to see the intelligence services held to account under this legislation. It almost gives them a private guarantee that even whistleblowers will never be heard in public in a way that allows us to expose what goes on. There will be a lot more to say about this legislation, and we will need to amend it.
My final point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). I remain angry about The Sun. I remain bitterly angry about its role and what it did. We were promised Leveson part 2, but we have dropped it, and I do not think there is any justification for that. If anything good comes out of today’s debate, maybe it will be the Government reconsidering introducing Leveson part 2 and legislation that prevents newspapers acting as The Sun did. I have to say, if social media had existed back then, can you imagine how horrendous it would have been?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Gordon McKee.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
On a sunny spring afternoon, Linda Howard watched her husband and son walk down the path from her house. Even now, decades later, she can recall the details of that morning with perfect clarity. Young Tommy pestered his dad to let him join him at the football match. His mum did not want him to make the trip to Sheffield, but she saw the anticipation in his eyes, and was unable to say no and break his heart. As she said goodbye and watched them walk down the path, Tommy turned to wave one more time. She did not know it in that moment, but it would be for the last time, because her husband and son were heading to a disaster. Their lives would be cruelly taken in a tragedy caused by a failure of care, control and courage, and an instinct not to act, but to look away, as the crisis deepened.
Ninety-seven people lost their life in the Hillsborough disaster, and thousands more lost trust because of the events that happened afterwards. The same instinct that led to inaction on that day led to deceit in the days that followed. The fans of Liverpool football club were smeared as a gang of drunks. The grotesque implication was that the dead were somehow responsible for their own demise, and grieving mothers, brothers, fathers and sisters were treated by the police not as bereaved family, but as accomplices to some indescribable crime. They were taken to a gym hall and forced to look through photographs of the dead to find out the fate of their family. Hillsborough was not just a collapse of a crush barrier; it was the collapse of trust. It was a moment when public officials saw their fellow citizens not as people to be protected, but as problems to be managed.
I am ashamed to say that this is not unique in our history. Just ask the grandmother who came to this country on a boat, and contributed for decades, only for the state to turn around and tell her she was no longer welcome in her own country; or the tenant who warned that their building was unsafe, but found their home engulfed in flames before anyone would listen; or the local businessman who held together a community, but who found that the output of a faulty computer system was treated with more deference by the authorities than his own word and honest reputation. These are not isolated stories; they are the same story. This was described by the Right Rev. James Jones in his report as the
“patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.
That posture has no place in a just Britain, because power without accountability is not strength, but corruption. In a true democracy, the state exists to serve the working-class widow on the Wirral just as much as the chief constable of a police force. The binding promise of justice in a democracy is that, together, we belong to a country to which we each contribute, and by which we are treated equally. It is the promise also of the movement to which I belong, which 100 years ago said that working men and women no longer required a patronising disposition; instead, they required representatives of themselves to bestow power on the powerless, and to impose on all of those who hold state authority a duty of candour. That is what the Bill does. It instils in the public contract an immovable commitment that the truth shall sit above all else, regardless of consequence. The people of this country do not demand perfection. They understand the inevitability of mistakes, but what they cannot accept is a state that obscures the truth from its own people.
We cannot bring back the victims of Hillsborough, and we cannot erase the years of pain or decades of denial, but we can make sure that no grieving family ever again has to fight their own Government for the truth, so that when the next mother watches her son walk down the path, she knows that if tragedy does rear its ugly head, her country will stand with her, not against her, in the fight for justice.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in support of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which so many of us know as the Hillsborough law.
This Bill was born out of a state-sponsored injustice against working-class people. It was forged from the courage and persistence of those families—ordinary working-class people—who refused to be broken by the weight of injustice. They did not have privilege or power on their side. What they had was solidarity and an unshakeable belief that the truth matters. For too long, people in this country have felt that, when the system fails them and when those in power get things wrong, sometimes with devastating consequences, no one is ever truly held to account, and families are left to fight for decades just to be heard.
This Bill begins to change that. The new duty of candour says to every public official, “You work for the people of this country, and when something goes wrong, you tell them the truth—no more cover-ups, and no more protecting institutions over people’s lives.” It will make honesty a legal duty and create criminal offences for those who mislead the public or obstruct investigations. That matters, because we have all seen the cost of denial—from Hillsborough to Grenfell, from the Post Office scandal to infected blood—and this Bill will help to end that culture once and for all. The extension of legal aid at inquests and inquiries finally levels the playing field, with no more families having to crowdfund or face state-funded lawyers alone in the fight of their lives. That gives ordinary people a fair chance, a voice and the power to hold the state to account. This is real accountability. This is democracy in action.
However, if we truly want a culture of honesty, we must protect those inside the system who dare to speak up when something is wrong. Whistleblowers are often the first to see the cracks, and too many have paid for their integrity with their career. Honesty should never cost someone their job, their home or their peace of mind. If we want this law to work, we must make sure that whistleblowers are protected, their concerns are investigated and their courage is valued.
When I think about what this Bill means, I of course think about the Hillsborough families standing year after year inside and outside Anfield, saying simply, “Justice for the 97”. This Bill honours their fight. It says that never again will ordinary people be treated as a problem when all they did was tell the truth. For working-class families across Britain, this Bill is a promise that truth will no longer depend on wealth, that justice will no longer depend on power, and that the voices of ordinary working-class people will never again be drowned out by the machinery of the state.
This is a Bill that finally says: no more cover-ups, no more lies, no more hiding—just truth, fairness and accountability. That is what the Hillsborough families fought for and it is what the victims of so many injustices have fought for. On behalf of those families, on behalf of every whistleblower who has spoken up, and on behalf of every working-class person everywhere who just wants a fair hearing and an honest Government, let me say that I am so very proud to support this Bill.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I thank the Government so much for bringing this much-needed, vital Bill to the House. It shows what a Labour Government can actually do, and how a Labour Government can effect change. It was really positive to hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that there would be an absolute guarantee that the Bill would not in any way, shape or form be diluted.
That is really important to everybody.
It is not a day for celebration; it is a day far too long in coming. It is not just about history; it is about justice, it is about class, it is about the truth. The tragedies we have all lived through—the Hillsborough disaster, Orgreave, Windrush, Grenfell, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, plus many, many more—are not isolated events. They are symptoms of a deeper sickness: a system that protects power over people, reputation over responsibility, and privilege over truth. In each case, working-class lives were treated as expendable. Innocent people were pitted against institutions that closed ranks, denied wrongdoing and delayed justice, sometimes for decades. At Hillsborough, 97 Liverpool fans lost their lives, not by accident but because of institutional indifference. They were branded hooligans, not victims, by officers who held deep-seated prejudice against working class communities.
It is about legacy, truth and accountability. It is not just about the Bill today. It has been said today in this Chamber that this was like people turning a blind eye to what happened. It is not turning a blind eye, for heaven’s sake! It is about huge, detailed, organised and orchestrated deliberate cover-ups using billions of taxpayer pounds against ordinary working people.
It has been mentioned today that the chief constable got a knighthood. He has not received any form of discipline whatever. Ninety-seven people killed and not one person has been taken through the courts and prosecuted, but he was given a knighthood. What an absolute disgrace. It shows a huge disregard and indifference to working people. They were allowed to trample on the graves of the victims in the belief that they could do whatever they wanted, because they were the ones with the power and the influence.
That cannot be allowed to continue. We have to remember that justice means justice. Who indeed made these decisions? What police officer shut the blinds, put the coffee on the table and said, “Right, look, we’ve had 97 people sadly passed on, but we’re going to make out like it really wasn’t our fault”? Who then signed it off, because, by the way, I think every one of these injustices gans a lot further than just police officers and people in the public sector at the very top? It has got to have had ministerial sign-off, I am afraid, because it would not have happened.
I support the Bill in its entirety. No more delays. Justice for all. This is a long overdue Bill, which I fully support.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I am proud to support this important Bill and to pay tribute to the Hillsborough families, whose courage and determination have brought us to this moment. Their decades of struggle have changed our country and created a chance to ensure that no family ever again has to fight for truth alone. The Bill is about truth, fairness and accountability. It is about ending the culture of cover-ups that has marked too many national scandals, from Hillsborough to contaminated blood, and from Post Office Horizon to Primodos, whose families I have been honoured to represent and campaign for in this House for the past 13 years. I have stood here many times to raise that issue and to lead debates, because it is not a new story.
The Primodos scandal has been known about for decades. What has been missing is not information, but honesty. Primodos was a hormone pregnancy test given to 1.5 million women in Britain until the late 1970s. It was linked to miscarriages, stillbirths and babies born with life-changing disabilities, yet the families were met not with transparency, but with denial.
In 1967, Dr Isabel Gal published research in Nature showing a possible link between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects. Rather than being supported, she was dismissed and discredited. Both the manufacturer, Schering, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines knew of the risks. The committee issued a notice in 1975 warning of a possible link, and another in 1977 confirming that the link had been established, yet Primodos was not withdrawn until 1978 and the women who had already taken it were never told the truth. That was not candour. It was concealment.
Decades later, the pattern repeated. In 2017 the Government’s own Commission on Human Medicines established an expert working group, which concluded that there was “no causal association” between Primodos and harm—wording that was added later after pressure from senior officials. Families were shut out, evidence was excluded and regulators defended themselves instead of admitting failure.
Then, in 2023, the same families were forced into court against Bayer and the Government. Despite the independent Cumberlege review, which occurred after the 2017 expert working group, confirming that avoidable harm had occurred, their case still collapsed before trial when the families were threatened with £11 million in legal costs if they refused to withdraw. It was a David versus Goliath battle, with ordinary families facing the full legal force of the state and a global corporation.
This Bill could hope to change that. It establishes a duty of candour, a duty to assist investigation and the principle of parity of arms, which seeks to ensure that families are not denied justice because they lack resources. However, the duty of candour must apply fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not just statutory inquiries. Command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge and not with the institutions. The offence of misleading the public must not be weakened by the need to prove individual harm.
The Bill is really important. I hope it is not diluted. I hope that people like those who suffered because of Primodos will get due justice.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I start by saying that it was fantastic to have Hillsborough law campaigners in the Gallery today. I worked for them for several years before I was elected to this place on behalf of victims of the Ballymurphy massacre—one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. I am a relative of one of the victims of that massacre, Father Hugh Mullan, a Catholic priest who was unlawfully killed by members of the Parachute Regiment. It took my dad’s family 50 years to have the words “entirely innocent” put on the public record; in the intervening years, people tried to smear Hugh as a gunrunner, obfuscating justice. It is a pattern that we see repeated across so many of the stories we have heard today.
We should not forget why this legislation matters. All the campaigners and campaigns supporting the Hillsborough law are distinct: victims of Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, Grenfell and Horizon, the covid-19 bereaved families, victims of the Windrush scandal, the troubles and many more. These are events that span decades and involve different arms of the state in different parts of the UK; the circumstances and consequences of each differ greatly. However, after each event, when families began to seek justice, they often faced similar challenges and circumstances: first, the smearing of innocent victims as guilty; secondly, the closing of ranks among authorities, shutting off routes to justice; and thirdly, a legal system where the scales of justice are stacked in favour of the state. The human consequences are severe. Mr Kalia, a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal from Bromley, which I represent, found his own children mistrusting him after he was unable to clear his name. His marriage almost broke down and he contemplated suicide.
This Government have the potential to put an end to these obstacles and create a turning point in transparency, accountability and justice in public life to ensure that Mr Kalia’s experience, and those of so many others, is never repeated again. That means full parity of arms at inquests, putting an end to David versus Goliath battles in court, where the state, flanked by an army of lawyers, takes on families who have scraped together for a single barrister. It means a full duty of candour, with proper consequences for those who fall foul of it. It means creating an obligation for full disclosure, ensuring that public bodies are wired to help families to achieve justice, not to close ranks and protect their own.
I thank the Prime Minister today for his reassurance that this Bill will not be watered down and for his work and that of the Justice Secretary and the Attorney General in the other place in driving the Bill forward. I am also grateful for the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) in tirelessly campaigning on this issue.
Passing this Bill will lead to a rebalancing in the relationship between state and citizen. We will also have fulfilled the purpose of power—to give it away—and will have empowered families to pursue the settlement that they want. I again thank every campaigner and every family for their work on this Bill.
I will finish with an Irish proverb:
“Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine”—
it is in the shelter of each other that the people live. I know that what the Hillsborough families and many other families have done today is to provide shelter for others for many years to come.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Bill before us stands as a testament to the decades of campaigning by the Hillsborough families. I want to pay special tribute to them and to other families I have been humbled to work with, including Grenfell families and the family of Zane Gbangbola, who are still fighting for justice. They have backed this Bill because they do not want to see others endure what they had to.
I want to commend the tireless work of Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who as Member of Parliament for Leigh helped drive a Hillsborough law from inside this House. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne)—my close friend—for all he has done over the years, before becoming an MP and now, to fight to get us to where we are today. Thanks are also due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and Steve Rotheram, Liverpool metro mayor.
As shadow Justice Secretary in 2017, I was proud to commit that a future Labour Government would deliver a Hillsborough law. In fact, it is almost eight years ago to the day since around 90 Labour MPs signed a letter co-ordinated by myself and the then shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member means to say the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney somewhere or other—apologies for not knowing.
Richard Burgon
She has been forgotten too many times in this place, but I will put that to one side.
The letter from the then shadow Home Secretary and I called on Theresa May to introduce a Hillsborough law in the aftermath of Grenfell. I commend this Labour Government for bringing forward this legislation. A duty of candour, new criminal offences for failing to uphold that duty, expanded legal aid and a parity of representation to end the David versus Goliath nature of inquiries—these are all big steps forward. There will be areas where the Bill can be strengthened, and I hope to play my part in ensuring that it is improved as it goes through this House, but fundamentally it is a good Bill and must remain so as it passes through the House.
On that point, I want to send a very clear message today to anyone hoping to water the Bill down as it passes through Parliament: do not try it. Far too often in this country politics has acted as a dam, holding justice back rather than helping it to flow. Class and power imbalances and, yes, racism have repeatedly denied people justice in the face of state abuses. We have seen the truth sacrificed to protect the powerful. Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, Bloody Sunday, Orgreave—these are all examples of times when the state used its immense power not to deliver truth and justice but to block it year after year. In all those cases, the state was accused of a cover-up by those affected. Distrust was sown, and justice delayed and denied.
We know that there are forces who did not want this Bill to get this far and who do not want it to go forward in this form—forces who do not want the scales of justice tilted in favour of working-class people. I welcome the Prime Minister saying that there will be no watering-down of this Bill, but if any civil servants, Members of this House, those in opposition and in the House of Lords, those in the media or others within the machinery of the state attempt to dilute or derail this Bill, they will have the fight of their lives on their hands. We will use every power at our disposal, including naming and shaming under parliamentary privilege, if we hear of any attempts to water down this fundamentally important Bill.
Let this be a rare moment when the House delivers legislation that we can all be proud of. Martin Luther King once spoke of how
“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”.
It has not felt like that for so many families. Let us make sure it does by supporting this Bill and making it law. It has been too long, and today is an important day.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Hillsborough law we debate today is not an historical problem; it is something that my constituents need right now. I have already spoken in this place about baby Ida Lock, who died after failings in her care, and the incompetent investigation and lack of transparency that followed.
Today I want to talk about another constituent of mine. Vicki had autoimmune diseases, and she had regular treatment for them, often needing steroids. In 2021, Vicki fell pregnant and had a flare-up, which was treated with steroids. Not long after she tragically suffered a miscarriage. Days later she was admitted to hospital with severe abdominal pain and an increased heart rate, and she began to deteriorate.
The differential diagnosis was either an infection or a flare-up of her autoimmune disease.
Vicki kept getting more poorly. She was treated with antibiotics but not given any steroids. Her care was fraught with errors: her lipids were scored incorrectly; the right tests were eventually requested but not carried out in a timely way; and a pharmacist spotted that she had missed crucial medication, but nothing was done. According to her family, the doctors got caught in a loop of circular thinking—they focused on sepsis and covid—even when there was another possibility, particularly with her history of autoimmune problems.
There is a rare but known complication of autoimmune disease called hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, which is a massive overreaction of the immune system that causes hyperinflammation, damaging vital organs. If the hospital had listened to Vicki and done a bone marrow test earlier, that HLH could have been identified, and it is possible that it could have been treated successfully. But once the decision to do the test—it gives results in only 10 minutes—was finally made, it took 18 hours for it to be done. The bone marrow test confirmed that Vicki had HLH. Twenty-four hours later, she died.
Vicki knew that she was having a flare-up, and she said so, but she was not listened to. From her hospital bed, she had written a letter of complaint to the patient advice and liaison service; then, just a week later, she was dead. Her family just want the truth to be recognised, because, in their experience, it has not been. Their experience echoes that of Ida’s parents. The pain is compounded because the family had felt that she was in the right place to be cared for. They trusted the hospital to get it right.
We know that no one goes to work in healthcare to do harm, but doctors and nurses are humans; they will make mistakes, and it is difficult for them to admit that they have harmed someone, so we need to create institutional cultures in which people feel able to speak up and raise concerns. Mistakes are often one-offs, but what is not is the institutional response to these tragedies. The institutional response of cover-up is part of a wider, long-standing pattern of poor culture and weak accountability. What harmed families tell me in the wake of these tragedies is that it is not necessarily the mistake itself that causes so much harm to them but the cover-up and the denial. Families, instead of grieving their loss, are forced to fight for the truth.
My hope is that the Bill will protect victims and their families—like Vicki’s, like Ryan and Sarah Lock and those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough—from this prolonged trauma. They deserve honesty, accountability and humanity from the very start, because that is how we rebuild trust.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I will focus on chapter 2 of part 2 of the Bill, which provides that public bodies must operate in accordance with the highest ethical conduct. That is very important to my constituents in Glasgow.
Shortly after I was elected, I met a mum and dad at one of my surgeries. They want to know how their beloved child died while being treated as an in-patient in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. They know that they cannot get their beloved child back; they just want to know that lessons have been learned so that other families do not suffer the same anguish every day.
This family wrote to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde two months after the death of their child; the first response was less than candid. They asked for proper investigations; one partial report was issued 10 months after their child’s death. The second report was completed over two years after their child’s death, and that report itself was concerning as the NHS could not identify one of the doctors involved in the child’s treatment and could not source two nurses involved, so they were not interviewed. How can it be that the NHS cannot identify three people who worked in a hospital on the day in question?
The family do not have answers even now, two and a half years after the death of their beloved child. I have tried my best to help them, and I have pressed the NHS to complete the long-delayed report and meet them. Despite that, I am afraid that this grieving family has been treated appallingly. I therefore welcome the provisions of chapter 2. They are seriously needed.
I am not the first to raise concerns about the transparency and openness of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde: my friends Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie have repeatedly raised serious concerns about institutional cover-up. I agree with them, and join them in their call for a radical change of culture and their support for Milly’s law, with a public advocate system.
I would like to ask a couple of questions about the Bill’s application in Scotland. It contains three criminal offences that are not replicated in Scotland. That is quite proper because, as we heard earlier, criminal law is a matter for the Scottish Parliament, not this place, but it would be interesting to know what the Scottish Government’s position is on this. Clause 18 and schedule 6 concern public inquiries, and the provisions are designed to ensure that the conduct of public authorities and their legal teams is fair and reasonable, in particular to ensure the equality of arms that we have heard described so eloquently today. The law relating to public inquiries in Scotland and England is broadly the same, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the schedule 6 provisions do not extend to Scotland.
Schedule 6 also makes provision for the expansion of legal aid and again, quite properly, this does not apply to Scotland, but I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the Scottish Government’s position on this. My concern is simple: a family in Glasgow should have the same broad rights as a family in Newcastle upon Tyne when trying to get the truth from public authorities.
I shall close by paying tribute to the Hillsborough families. They are the embodiment of the greatest of human qualities: immense courage in the face of the most terrible grief; determination to get to the truth; determination that every possible lesson is learned from Hillsborough; and determination that the law is changed to protect people they will never meet and never know. I admire them greatly. Each of us owes those families the greatest of debts.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I was nearly five years old when the Hillsborough disaster happened, less than half a mile away from my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency. My mum had just had my baby brother and was on maternity leave, and I vividly remember watching the coverage of the horrendous tragedy, transfixed by the screen. Meynell, the school where my mum worked at the edge of the Parson Cross estate, was near the ground. Seeing the horror of her realisation that some of her families might have been at the match was deeply upsetting. The images of the treatment of the fans by the police are etched on my memory forever. My baby brother is now a grown 36-year-old man: the measure of the lifetime it has taken to get the justice for the 97 fans who lost their lives at the Hillsborough disaster.
Today really is a historic day. I am proud to be stood here in this moment as a Sheffield Labour MP and as part of the Labour Government who are introducing the Hillsborough law to this House. I am proud, too, that we have a Prime Minister who has made making this law his personal mission. This landmark legislation will help to close this chapter of some of our nation’s darkest days.
The Bill before us will be transformative. As someone who followed closely the evisceration of legal aid—and, with it, access to justice—under the Conservative Government in coalition, I am immensely proud that the Bill includes the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade for bereaved families, providing non-means-tested help and support for inquests. The Bill contains criminal sanctions for the most significant breaches, including for misleading the public in a way that is seriously improper, under the new offence it creates.
Liam Conlon
Does my hon. Friend agree that this will be particularly important for people who have been disabled by public gross negligence?
Dr Tidball
I do agree. Alongside the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010 passed by the last Labour Government, we will have created a shield and a sword for those disabled people.
Trust in public life is a delicate and precious thing, and the duty of candour on all public services within this Bill provides the scaffolding for this to be held up. Public servants must always tell the truth about anything to do with their jobs or face the consequences. In requiring that they do so, the Bill will lay strong foundations to build cultural change throughout the public sector, placing public bodies under a new duty to promote the ethical conduct of their staff.
This law is for the 97 who lost their lives, but it is also for all those who fought for justice when they had been betrayed by the authorities that were meant to protect them. The changes that the Bill makes will ensure that truth and justice are never concealed again and that brave families will never again be left fighting endlessly for the truth. Anyone caught trying to hide the truth will face the full force of the law.
To Margaret Aspinall, the brave bereaved families and the hundreds of campaigners who brought us to this moment, thank you for the decades of work you have done. We all owe you a debt of gratitude. With my whole heart, I commend this Bill to the House.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill and commend Ministers for the work that has been done on it. In particular, I pay tribute to Merseyside colleagues, who have done so much to get us to where we are today.
This Bill is about restoring people’s trust in the people who serve them, whether that is in Westminster, Liverpool or Bolton—trust that the truth will be told when things go wrong; trust that when things do go wrong, those responsible will be held to account; and trust that Government at every level will work for them, not against them. When I speak to people in Bolton West, the impression is often the same: they are tired of people in public office covering up their failures instead of being held accountable for them.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the central reasons for public disillusionment and outrage is that there are no successful prosecutions, or very few, in cases of egregious state failure? Does he agree that unless wrongdoers pay a price and are seen to pay a price, this impunity may persist, and that the duty of candour and the two new statutory offences will help overcome this malaise?
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend speaks to the two new offences—clauses 5 and 11. It is vital not only that the Bill is passed, but that the authorities have the powers they need to ensure that the contents of the Bill are enforced.
When I speak to people, they want honesty and fairness, and for those in power to live by the same rules as everyone else. That is why this Bill matters. Behind it lie some of the darkest chapters in our recent history, which we have already heard about in the Chamber today: Grenfell, Hillsborough, the Horizon scandal, infected blood—the list is far too long. Each one of those cases represents lives ruined by not just a single mistake, but a culture of denial by institutions that closed ranks instead of coming clean.
Given the time constraints, let me turn to the contents of the Bill. It will create a landmark duty of candour on public officials, alongside a new and important offence of statutory misconduct in public office. Both will be vital measures in ensuring that the scandals of years past can never be repeated. Fundamental to the Bill is the new requirement for public authorities to have a code of ethics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned before me, which will start to rebuild the moral foundation of public service that too many people believe has been lost.
I put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has generously engaged with me on a number of points related to the Bill. I hope the Government will consider three small, novel but important changes I wish to propose as the Bill goes to Committee. First, the Bill uses two different definitions of what counts as a public authority. There may be a good reason for that, which the Minister can speak to in her wind-up, but for the duty of candour and misconduct in public office offences, elected representatives, such as local councillors, mayors and Ministers, are included as per part 2 of schedule 2, but when it comes to the requirement to have a code of ethics, it excludes them as per part 3 of schedule 2. That feels inconsistent, and I worry that it risks diluting the message that we are trying to send, which is that everyone, no matter their position, is held to the same standards. My constituents expect everyone in public life, from the Cabinet table to the council chamber, to live by the same principles of honesty and decency.
Secondly, may I gently suggest that we look again at putting the ministerial code and the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards on a statutory footing? This simple measure was recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its 2021 report, “Upholding Standards in Public Life”.
That is a simple way of ensuring that the rules that govern Ministers today cannot be swept away by less scrupulous Governments tomorrow.
Thirdly, on the offence of misconduct in public office, will the Minister clarify why the Government have elected to set the bar so high? Part 3 is worded to allude to
“the nature and degree of any benefit obtained by the person (whether for themselves or another person) as a result of the act “.
Seeking to be corrupt is not better than successfully being corrupt, so I hope that the Minister will look afresh at the relevant clause. Indeed, the Law Commission has called for a definition along the lines of the intention to benefit. As I recall from more than a decade tackling corruption, section 6 of the Bribery Act 2010 uses the phrasing
“intend to obtain or retain…business, or…an advantage in the conduct of business.”
Aligning those definitions would make it easier for prosecutors to hold bad actors to account.
None the less, the Bill is a huge step forward in the Government’s mission to return politics to service. I am proud to support it this evening, and I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House to make it as strong, fair and future-proof as it can be.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a privilege to witness proceedings and to speak as this landmark Bill is given its Second Reading. As others have remarked, this day is a testament to the courage, resilience and awe-inspiring fortitude of the bereaved families of the 97 Liverpool fans who were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, who shall never be forgotten. I pay tribute to the many Members of this House who have been involved—those who sit here today and others whose time here ended before they were able to see this crucial legislation. I acknowledge in particular the campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) has seen through with such courage, and the powerful speeches that we have heard, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker).
It has been said that grief is just love persevering. The families’ pursuit for justice and truth, because of that love, has persevered through decades. The Bill will ensure a lasting legacy—on top of that which has already been built—for those who tragically did not return after simply attending a football game. It will also benefit us all, and we owe the families a deep debt of gratitude.
In straightforward terms, I see the Bill as providing in statute that truth can never be discretionary—it is an intrinsic and legal duty of being in public office and public service. It has not been an easy road to get to this point. I commend the Prime Minister for delivering on a promise that he made personally, regardless of any institutional resistance. We cannot let truth be concealed ever again. No future family should have to fight a system for answers or be retraumatised by a process that is fuelled by, as Bishop James Jones eloquently put it,
“the patronising disposition of unaccountable power.”
I welcome in particular the measures that go beyond the fundamental new duty of candour and offer assistance to families facing an inquest. That will ensure a parity of representation between them and the state, in cases in which a public body is to be legally represented. Let us not forget that, at the first Hillsborough inquest, families received no public funding for legal representation, while senior police officers were represented by five separate legal teams. Bringing an end to that imbalance of power will support the inquisitorial nature of any legal proceedings, and, I hope, offer protection against the efforts of a public body to obfuscate, intimidate or even withhold information.
I would like us to consider how we can best ensure that any learnings and recommendations from inquests or inquiries are implemented. The honesty and integrity that the Bill mandates will further help coroners to establish the facts and come to conclusions about what events or actions could or should have been prevented. Families want their painful stories to lead to change, but learning leads to change only if public bodies are made to act.
I will finish on a wider cultural point. I do not think anyone would deny that public trust in our politics and public institutions is at a very low level. Scandals have eroded trust, as bodies and public officials have misled people—and, frankly, hidden the truth—to protect themselves rather than the public. The Bill provides an opportunity to restate that public services are here to be on people’s side. My constituents, and all the communities we serve, deserve to feel safe and supported. To regain legitimacy, the public need to know that words and evidence from our public officials and bodies can be trusted. I hope that the Bill will lead to greater integrity and further person-centred reform to public services, which I know this Government are committed to building.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It gives me great pride as a Labour MP to speak in this debate on an incredibly important Bill that will further right historic wrongs—stains on our nation’s history. Although my constituents hold a range of views on many issues, they are united in expecting public servants and institutions to act with honesty and transparency. The Bill draws a line in the sand, signalling a landmark shift in the responsibilities placed on those who serve our communities. With the Bill we can finally say that when the state fails and public servants do not live up to their duties, the men and women of this country will not be left fighting for the truth.
The duty of candour is about truth telling when the truth is inconvenient—even incriminating—and it is about ensuring that the power of the state can never again be used to conceal wrongdoing, distort justice or silence ordinary people. As an MP representing a former mining community, the memory of the battle of Orgreave still looms large. On 18 June 1984, hundreds of striking miners gathered to picket peacefully. What followed was a ruthlessly planned violent confrontation between police and miners; 95 were arrested and charged with offences including riot and violent disorder. Many of the prosecutions collapsed when it became clear that the officers’ statements were almost identical and not credible, but still those men were vilified and for 40 years have lived with the scars—physical and mental—and felt the crushing weight, as the families of the 97 have felt, of justice denied.
In July the Government announced a statutory inquiry into Orgreave, to be chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield. That announcement was so welcome, but three months on many in our communities are desperate for news. Last week I and fellow coalfield MPs met the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, which reminded us that with many miners having shorter life expectancies due to the gruelling and dangerous work that they did underground, every day that goes by could mean lost testimony that would be crucial to the inquiry. As with Hillsborough, when it comes to Orgreave, a duty of candour could have prevented a generation of injustice, and could even have disincentivised a culture of cover-ups.
The same principle of truth, transparency and accountability applies just as powerfully to the press. This morning in the Liverpool Echo, Margaret Aspinall, who has been such a powerful figurehead for the Hillsborough families’ campaign for justice, said unequivocally that justice for the 97 will not be fully done until we have proper press regulation and accountability for the lies that were told by The Sun. She is right, and we owe it to everyone who has had their life torn apart by press intrusion or misinformation to take action.
I think of Paul Dadge from my constituency who became a symbol of humanity in the 7/7 attacks. Hon. Members may remember the harrowing image of a woman clutching a burn mask to her face, being guided towards an ambulance by a man. That man was Paul and, although he hates the word, Paul was a hero that day. But in the months that followed, Paul found that his phone had been hacked by News of the World journalists. We all remember the denials and warm words that were uttered throughout the public furore over the phone-hacking scandal. It has now been more than a decade since the Leveson inquiry exposed the corrosive culture of impunity in parts of the British press. The second phase of that inquiry would have investigated the relationship between the press and police, but it was shamefully abandoned by the previous Government. Instead, the big papers created their own regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which has never fined a newspaper and has found in favour complainants in only 0.3% of cases.
Now that we are 12 years on from Leveson and in an age of social media, action against press intrusion needs to look different, but the principle of an impartial, independent watchdog is perhaps even more relevant now than it was in 2013. I hope that is something under active consideration by the Government. Whether it is the families of Hillsborough, the miners of Orgreave, or my constituent Paul, we owe them meaningful, permanent change. The Bill offers us a chance to do that, and I hope and believe that it will be the start of much more to come.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I would like to start by paying tribute to the many hon. Members and campaigners who have never stopped fighting for truth and accountability. We have heard many powerful contributions today, outlining a painful litany of cover-ups and scandals, where individuals and families have been betrayed by the very institutions that were meant to protect them. This Bill is also for those who are suffering, but who only now we are beginning to see and to recognise.
My constituent, Jan Hall, is a diethylstilbestrol—DES—daughter. DES was an anti-miscarriage drug invested here in Britain and prescribed between 1939 and the late 1970s. It was marketed as a wonder drug, but even as evidence that the drug caused harm emerged in the 1950s and after it was linked to cancer in the 1970s, it continued to be prescribed to women. This is potentially one of the biggest pharmaceutical scandals in British history, and something upon which this Bill will, no doubt, shine a light.
Jan’s mum, Rita, was prescribed DES. She died of breast cancer at the age of 32, when Jan was still a toddler. Jan has suffered from health problems for her whole life, including cervical cancer, and now her daughters, Beth and Hannah, have had a series of gynaecological problems. We know that women who took DES face around 30% higher risk of breast of cancer. Their daughters who were exposed to the drug have 40 times the risk of rare vaginal and cervical cancers, and also face infertility issues. On top of that, their sons show increased risk of genital abnormalities and infertility. This is an intergenerational issue and we are now seeing grandchildren, like Beth and Hannah, suffering from complications, with research only beginning to uncover the scale of the inherited harm. These women have fought for decades for the recognition and justice that they deserve, but for too long they have been ignored.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has admitted that it misled the public for more than a decade. Imagine if a duty of candour had existed for DES victims. Imagine if the MHRA, the Department of Health and pharmaceutical companies had been compelled to disclose what they knew and when they knew it: generations of women might have been spared devastating illnesses, families would have been spared grief, and trust in our institutions might have been preserved. The Hillsborough law is not only a matter of legal reform, but a matter of trust. If the public cannot trust the state to tell the truth when things go wrong, then the social contract is broken. The Hillsborough law gives us a way to rebuild it.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to the issue and the reaffirmation that he will not water down the principles that give the Bill life. To all the families still waiting for justice—this Bill is for you. Let the Hillsborough law mark the moment when we say, finally and decisively, that justice delayed must never be justice denied.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
First, I would like to record the respect I have for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for all he has done on the Hillsborough law. His relentless campaigning on it is equalled by his dedication in fighting another political injustice—that of food insecurity. It is fair to say that his community, the Labour party and this place are stronger for him being in them.
What a catalogue of injustices, cover-ups and scandals our nation has seen. There are too many for me to mention in the short time that I have available, but the common theme is that working-class communities always seem to be the victims. Forty-one years on, people are still waiting for justice from the premeditated beatings handed out at Orgreave. Thirty-six years on, families and survivors who we have heard from today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, are still waiting for justice and accountability for what happened that day at Hillsborough.
Eight years on from Grenfell, the memory of the 72 victims, and their families and friends, still wait for justice. Incredibly, approximately a quarter of a million people will go to bed tonight in buildings with the same flammable cladding surrounding them. How on earth can we sit in this place and allow that to be the case? Because I’ll tell you: if it was not working-class people who died in those buildings, then a lot more than what has been done so far would have been done by now. Furthermore, the firefighters who attended the scene at Grenfell are now suffering from serious health consequences because of their incredible recovery efforts. They too deserve answers and justice, and—crucially—the protective equipment that will keep them safe from the carcinogenic materials that they are exposed to in the line of duty.
It is only right that my final comments are addressed to the Hillsborough families, both those here in Parliament today and those watching at home. You have waited so long for what is just; I am truly sorry that it has taken this length of time. You have shown that change is possible and that, more often than not, it comes from pressure applied by the general public, not this place.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the families of victims, and to the campaigners who have fought for decades, following the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, for this legislation. They have fought to prevent state cover-ups such as the one that they experienced. In the years since Hillsborough, far too many other families have not only endured the grief of losing people they loved, but had their grief compounded by injustice. Instead of answers, they got obstruction and obfuscation.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point about the obstruction that families and individuals still face. A family in my constituency have for the last 18 months methodically uncovered failings in the care of their father in hospital. He sadly died, yet the failings that they uncovered were ignored by the medical examiner and in the pathology report, and they were not adequately addressed by the hospital trust. As a result, the family have been unable to secure the accountability that they seek for their father’s death. Does my hon. Friend agree that the duty of candour that this Bill compels will begin to rebalance the relationship between individuals such as my constituents and public bodies?
Catherine Atkinson
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There are still so many families fighting for justice, and the persistence of families who have been fighting for justice has brought us to this moment. We all owe them our thanks and our action. I feel privileged to have so many colleagues who fought alongside them for so long.
I welcome the expansion of legal aid in the Bill; after years of cuts to legal aid, it is heartening to see the extension of legal aid to all families at inquests in which public authorities are involved. As a barrister, I have represented parties in inquests, including families, and I know how difficult inquests can be for families, even when they have legal representation and get answers that help them to come to terms with what happened. For too long, families have faced an inequality of arms when they have sought to understand and navigate the coroners court, and to secure the information and documents needed, and have sought the confidence to ask questions without legal representation. Meanwhile, they see the public authorities from which they are trying to get answers being supported by their legal teams.
This is not just about funding; it is about fairness. This Bill helps to correct the balance, so that families at least have representation. It gives them an advocate, a guide and a voice. That is not just compassionate, but essential to justice. I fully accept that injustice can still happen even when there are lawyers, but not having representation in those circumstances is an injustice in itself, and this Bill changes that. I also welcome the fact that the Bill introduces new statutory criminal offences. That sends such a powerful message that cover-ups will no longer be met with dismissal; they will be met with criminal sanctions. That is a vital deterrent and a long-overdue shift in accountability.
Mistakes are made, and humans err in the moment, but later on, there are choices. Are the errors acknowledged, or do people attempt to double down and persist in a false narrative? If somebody acknowledges the error, they may be sacked, but if they cover it up, they will not just be sacked; they will face going to prison. This Bill empowers the frontline of our public service to say no, and to report it if they are pressured to participate in a cover-up.
This Bill reflects the hard-won lessons of decades of campaigning. It will not undo the pain of the past, but it will help prevent future injustice by strengthening legal aid, empowering grieving families, and introducing meaningful criminal sanctions for cover-ups. This legislation begins to rebalance the scales. It sends a clear message that truth must come before reputation, and accountability must come before self-preservation, and it ensures that families will not be left to fight alone.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
This legislation is all about a fundamental rebalancing of power between the state and the citizens it is meant to protect and serve. We have heard powerfully today from many Members about the Hillsborough families and their enduring quest for the truth. Briefly, I would like to add the nuclear test veterans to that list of campaigners for justice, including my constituent, 88-year-old John Morris.
When John was stationed on Christmas Island in 1956, he was told that British troops were building a new runway. In reality, they were testing nuclear weapons, but the weapons that were intended to keep Britain safe from the Soviet threat were far from safe for the men who were out in the south Pacific—they were effectively treated like lab rats, with little or no protection from harm. John is one of 22,000 British troops who were exposed to radiation while on service in the 1950s, and who have campaigned for years about the cancers and other side effects they endured.
John’s son Steven died at just four months old from birth defects. For 50 years, John and his wife faced repeated indignities. They were wrongfully questioned on suspicion of having murdered their son, denied information about how and why their son died, and denied John’s own medical records. Finally, a coroner’s report suggesting that Steven’s lungs might not have formed properly was revealed. John himself has had cancer, and has had a blood disorder since he was 26 years old. He sent me a message today:
“Great news about the Hillsborough law…for us vets, it’s very positive”,
because it will
“make our lives much easier”
in getting the answers they demand. He is pleased that in September, the Prime Minister agreed to meet him to discuss the issue further, and he is looking forward to that meeting.
There is another Rochdale resident whose campaign will, I hope, also benefit from this new legislation: 83-year-old Sylvia Mountain, who used the pregnancy test drug Primodos, which has already been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends. She gave birth to her son Philip in 1963, but Philip died of birth defects just 22 days after he was born. Today is the anniversary of the day her baby died, 62 years ago. Sylvia was told by doctors at the time to stop being “hysterical”, and has been told that no medical records exist to explain her son’s death, but many other women who were prescribed Primodos suffered similar birth defects in their children, as well as stillbirths and miscarriages. Victims of the Primodos test are still waiting for answers. For more than half a century, these families have faced a culture of concealment—of suppressed evidence, misleading official conclusions, and denial of responsibility.
John and Sylvia—two Rochdale pensioners in their 80s, whose lives have been overshadowed by tragedy and loss in ways that are very different, but also very similar—personify the decades of injustice that this legislation is intended to prevent from ever happening again. I pay tribute to both of them for their resilience in the face of unspeakable tragedy and suffering, and am proud to have them as my constituents. John and Sylvia want the state to recognise its responsibilities before it is too late for them and others like them. It is in their name, and that of all the other victims of state power and cover-ups, that I welcome this landmark Hillsborough Bill today, a Bill that it has taken this Labour Government to make a reality.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the wind-ups. I call Mike Wood.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Bill is the result of decades of campaigning and struggle by families fighting for answers. The thoughts and hearts of all of us in this House, regardless of party affiliation, are with the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. The tireless work of those families is ultimately responsible for uncovering the truth about Hillsborough and delivering an element of justice for the victims, whose memory was tarnished by the unwillingness of some individuals in authority to tell the truth. The Bill is also testament to the valuable work done by Bishop James Jones and his independent panel, for which we are truly thankful.
The Bill is in no small part down to the effective campaigning of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); he has fought for those who joined him in going to Hillsborough on that terrible day in April 1989, but who lost their life, due to the terrible decisions made by the stadium operators and South Yorkshire police.
Hillsborough stands as one of the most obvious and harrowing examples of the British state’s failure to remain accountable, truthful and candid. Unfortunately, it is not the only such example in recent years. We have had the Post Office Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, the families of pub bombing victims in Birmingham and Guildford denied justice following police misconduct, and the failure of the British state to properly acknowledge and tackle the rape and grooming gangs that have terrorised communities across the country. Each and every one of these failures undermines the British public’s faith in their Government, and each was a scandal made worse by institutions’ attempts to hide from responsibility, and to put their reputations and interests ahead of transparency and justice in the clearest possible examples of abuse of power. Calls for greater candour and accountability are legitimate and welcome; those of us in this place must always remember that our sole duty is to serve the interests of the British people and to do right by them.
I thank all those hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this Second Reading. I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that the Government will table an amendment to extend the duty of candour to cover local inquiries, which was a clear gap in the Bill as introduced. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) spoke about the often heard cry of “never again”. We must make sure that when this Bill enters the statute books, it turns that cry into a reality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) expressed legitimate concerns about the effectiveness and administration of some public inquiries, and I know those concerns are shared by some Ministers in the Government. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) spoke about the need for a change in culture that goes beyond legislation, so that taking responsibility, rather than covering up failings, becomes the norm, and not just a legal requirement. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) reminded us of the outrageous experimentation on disabled pupils at Treloar school and the lengths that authorities went to hide responsibility. Hopefully some of the Bill’s measures will be of some help to those pupils.
The hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke movingly about how failings in the NHS were made worse by a lack of openness, and about families simply not feeling heard. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) reminded us of the long battle fought by nuclear test veterans.
As noble as this Bill’s intentions may be, we must be ever vigilant for the unintended consequences of well-intended laws. As this Bill proceeds through the House, we will scrutinise it closely to minimise the harms that may arise. In particular, we must make sure that the Bill does not inadvertently create a situation in which Government and public services can no longer function effectively, not because they are falling foul of the Bill, but because they fear that they may fall foul of it if its provisions are applied in ways that the Government did not intend. We must clarify how this Bill will interface with legal and disciplinary frameworks, including the civil service code. We must clarify how new standards of ethical conduct will interface with those and other frameworks, and we must have a clear definition of what it means to mislead the public.
Under the Bill, that charge of misleading the public carries a criminal sanction. We obviously recognise some of the safeguards that have been included, but they are not as tightly defined as they might be. If politicians are to be able to represent the public effectively, we must be absolutely certain that this definition is watertight, because otherwise the Bill may give rise to a situation whereby legitimate decisions made by Ministers are subject to politically motivated lawfare.
We rightly expect our parliamentarians, officials and Ministers to speak honestly, truthfully and with integrity, whether in the Chamber or outside, but clause 11(3)(a), by defining dishonesty in terms of
“falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise”,
risks leaving Prime Ministers, other Ministers and even constituency MPs at constant risk of vexatious complaints. We may differ about the adequacy, and even the accuracy, of some of the responses that the Prime Minister gives us at Prime Minister’s questions, but those disagreements must be a matter for the ballot box rather than the courtroom.
We must also have a clear definition of the public interest, which is the idea on which so much of the Bill rests. In our political system, the public interest is not for bureaucrats or judges to decide. The public express their will through the democratic process, and elect Members of Parliament to implement that will on their behalf. Can the Government be sure that the definition of the public interest in the Bill will not conflict with efforts made by future Governments to implement those democratic wishes? It would be profoundly dangerous for any single Government to attempt to define the public interest in a way that would bind future Governments without giving sufficient weight to the role that the public themselves play in determining and articulating that interest.
At their best, public inquiries offer opportunities to genuinely learn rather than to seek retribution; to establish what happened and how, so that action can be taken to stop such events being repeated, more harm being done to more people, more lives being lost unnecessarily, and more futures being stolen away, so that the oft-repeated words “never again”, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough spoke so well, can actually have some meaning. However, that can only happen with honesty, openness and a degree of trust—in short, with candour from all those involved. If this Bill can help to achieve that, it is well worth supporting. That is why, although we will work to tighten some parts at later stages to ensure that it operates properly, we will support it tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a genuine, true privilege to close this Second Reading debate on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law. The introduction of the Bill is a huge achievement, but I echo the Prime Minister when I say that it was not born here in Westminster; it was born out of heartbreak, out of unimaginable loss, out of the tireless courage of those who refused to be silenced. Some of those extraordinary people have been with us today in the Gallery, and to them I simply say, “Thank you. The whole country owes you a debt of gratitude.”
I want to pay particular tribute to Hillsborough Law Now. I pay tribute to Nathan, Pete, Elkan, Deb, Clare and Debbie, whom have all given their time, expertise and passion to this Government to ensure that we deliver the best possible Bill. I pay tribute to the family members who lost loved ones at Hillsborough and met us over the summer, who shared their pain and who have rightly held us to account every single step of the way: Margaret Aspinall, Charlotte Hennessy, Sue Roberts, Steve Kelly, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond.
I also pay tribute to the Members who have stood shoulder to shoulder with the family members: specifically, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friends the Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern)—my very good friend—who chaired the all-party parliamentary group on the Hillsborough disaster for nine years, and is now the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness. I know that it has been significantly painful for her not to be able to speak in this debate, but she is with us tonight, sitting on the Front Bench.
The genesis of this Bill is the fight of the Hillsborough families, but it goes much further. This Bill is for anyone who has experienced an injustice, anyone who has had to fight against the state to be heard, and anyone who has had to demand the truth when it should have been given freely. At its heart, this Bill is shaped by lived experience.
I also want to thank Inquest for its tireless work, and for holding that vital family listening day back in February with families from a range of campaigns. We heard from so many of them personally about why the changes in this Bill are so essential and the real difference that this will make in people’s lives, and why access to legal aid for inquests where the state is an interested person is so vitally important.
I thank the families of Ruth Perry, Matthew Copestick and Connor Sparrowhawk for sharing their experiences with us and highlighting the importance of this. I cannot thank enough Hillsborough Law Now, Grenfell United, the sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal, those affected by the infected blood scandal, Truth About Zane, and, sadly, so many others, for their time, or Inquest for the report that it produced. That has shaped not only this Bill but wider areas of policy, and that is why it is so important that the voices of victims and those with lived experience are at the heart of what we do in government. But this Bill is not only for the major scandals that have scarred our nation and made the news; it is also for individual families—we have heard many of their stories here tonight—and for the ordinary people who find themselves facing the full force of the state alone.
The Prime Minister has already set out why the expansion of legal aid is so important, but I also want to share a story that shows why this Bill is needed so urgently. In September, I had the pleasure of meeting Will Powell, a father who has been fighting for answers for over 30 years, and I am proud that he is with us today. He has been fighting since the death of his son Robbie in 1990. Robbie was just 10 years old when he died of Addison’s disease. After Robbie’s death, it became apparent that doctors had suspected that he had the disease and, without Will’s knowledge, a test to confirm the diagnosis had been requested but not completed. That meant that Robbie did not receive the treatment that could have saved his life. Will and his family have been fighting for the truth ever since. They have been fighting for the truth about what went wrong and why this happened.
Nothing can bring back Robbie, or those we lost as a result of Hillsborough, Grenfell, Horizon or infected blood, but what we can bring is truth. At the heart of every campaign and every struggle is love—love for those who families have lost, love that has become action and love that is determined to make sure that no one else suffers as they have and that there is lasting change.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I commend the Minister for paying tribute to William Powell, who has campaigned for justice for 35 years for his son, Robbie Powell, who died as a result of medical negligence. William Powell has done so much to secure this legal duty of candour, so it is right that he is acknowledged here in this debate, but he is still waiting for a public inquiry into his son’s death. Can the Minister say whether she believes that this case, which has been described as the worst cover-up in NHS history, meets the conditions for a public inquiry—something that has been called for by the former Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for introducing me to Will Powell earlier this year. I know that the Secretary of State for Wales has also met Will Powell. However, the hon. Member will know that granting an inquiry is a decision for the Welsh Government, and I know that he is having conversations with the Ministers there.
Every single life lost is someone’s whole world. I am so honoured to bring forward this Bill and to represent the families who have so tirelessly campaigned for it, but as we have heard, this is just the beginning.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will not, as I have quite a lot to get through.
As a victims Minister, I want to put on record my commitment to continue to listen to and provide a voice for victims. I will do everything in my power to make sure that when this Bill leaves Parliament, it does so as the strongest Bill possible. The Government will bring forward an amendment to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the duty will extend to local authority investigations that are intended to capture the likes of the local grooming gang inquiries, and the Kerslake review into the Manchester Arena attack. We will utilise powers in the Bill to extend the duty to a range of ombudsman investigations, such as those by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and the Housing Ombudsman.
I will turn now to the points raised in today’s debate. First of all, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their support for this Bill. It is welcome and, as many have said, this Bill is long overdue. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), raised a number of potential issues with the Bill. She mentioned legal aid and said that the Liberal Democrats would like it to be expanded to those who are survivors, as well as the bereaved. I want to put on record that this is the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Bill provides for parity of representation, and will expand non-means-tested legal aid so that bereaved family members can secure advocacy at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, but it does so, as I understand it, only in England and Wales. Of course, justice is a devolved issue, but can the Minister confirm that, despite months of engagement with the Scottish Government on this UK-wide legislation, the SNP Government have failed to confirm that non-means-tested legal aid will be available in Scotland, resulting in Scots families still relying on charity to gain access to justice—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions need to be short.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, which gives me the opportunity to address some of the issues concerning devolution that were brought up in the debate. A number of hon. and right hon. Members talked about whether this Bill will apply UK-wide, and I can confirm that the duty of candour provisions will apply UK-wide. However, as hon. and right hon. Members will know, justice is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so the legal system does not apply there in the same way that it does in England and Wales, which is why some of the criminal offences do not apply. It is for Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland to request whether this legislation applies to those nations. Conversations have been positive, and we have engaged very closely with our counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland on this point. We hope that these measures will apply UK-wide, but we cannot mandate for other nations that are not in our jurisdiction.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) made an important point about legal aid. It is for the Scottish Government to determine whether they will apply the same provisions that we are providing for England and Wales. We are providing non-means-tested legal aid for any bereaved person at an inquest where the state is a represented party. It is for Scottish Ministers to determine whether they want to apply the same.
We have had a lot of talk this evening about how long this Bill has been in the making. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned that she was proud that it is a Labour Government, in just over our first year in office, who have brought this Bill to the House. The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about this issue, and they failed. The SNP Government in Scotland have had 20 years to do something, and they have failed. It is a Labour Government who have chosen to bring forward this Bill and to do something about this, to ensure that families get parity on legal aid and that a duty of candour applies across all our public services.
A number of speeches this evening addressed protection for whistleblowers. I reaffirm my commitment to hon. Members that the Bill does require all authorities to set out a process to raise concerns, and to ensure that procedures are clear and accessible for whistleblowers. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), who is vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, requested a meeting with me. I will happily meet her to discuss this matter further, because it is important that we address it.
A number of Members raised the issue of the media, but they will know that that is out of scope of this Bill. This Bill provides a duty of candour for public authorities and public servants. We will ensure that public service broadcasters operate within what they are permitted. However, it is important to note that since the calls for Leveson and Leveson 2 were introduced, the media landscape has drastically and dramatically moved on.
The public do not consume media in the same way any more. The vast majority of the British public consume their media via social media. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was on the Front Bench when these issues were raised. She has made a commitment, and she has already met some of the families of victims to discuss what more we can do to tackle disinformation and misinformation, particularly about disasters and issues that arise in public and are then put on social media. I will continue my conversations with her as the Bill progresses to ensure that we address that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) gave a fantastic speech about how we need to be reasonable, proportionate and fair. I want to assure him that, when it comes to legal aid and the parity of arms that is so integral to the Bill, coroners do have the powers to enforce what is considered reasonable and proportionate under the Bill to ensure that families are not faced with an army of barristers when they have a publicly funded lawyer advocating for them. That is not the intention, and we have put that in the Bill.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the definition of harm, and I want to reassure Members again that there is a very low bar for meeting this test. We have ensured that it does cover mental distress, and that that is not the only measure for a criminal offence. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) mentioned those who falsify statistics—crime statistics, for example—where harm would not necessarily come into play. If an officer falsified crime or other statistics to make himself or the police force look better, that would come under the offence of misconduct in public office, so they would be captured in another criminal offence in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about something that is very close to my heart. He made an excellent contribution on the need for inquest reform, and inquiry reform more broadly. I wholeheartedly agree with him, as do this Government, which is why the Cabinet Office is taking its time to get this right. It is looking at quite a substantial piece of work, and I will endeavour to keep him updated on it as we are actively developing our proposals.
I hate to have to admit it to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) but I am also a red, so I think it is actually Liverpool 3—Everton 1. I want to reaffirm my commitment to working with him and all Merseyside MPs—in fact, all Members in this House—and the families, as the Bill progresses, to ensure that it is the strongest possible Bill.
There were excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens North (David Baines), for Liverpool West Derby, for Knowsley and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who have been excellent advocates for the families of the Hillsborough disaster during their tireless campaigning. I am determined to work with all of them as the Bill progresses to ensure that there is no carve-out for the security services. Just to reassure the House, there is no carve-out: the duty of candour applies to everyone, including the security services and including individuals. However, what is different for the security services is the way in which they report such a breach—they must report it to a senior individual within the service to ensure that national security is protected—and I think we have struck the right balance in the Bill. However, I hear the concerns raised in this House, as there have been concerns raised outside it, and I am keen to engage in such conversations to see if there is anything further we can do on this point.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) mentioned the Chinook disaster. A commitment has been made to meet Members and families of the victims of the Chinook disaster, and I have made a commitment to be at that meeting to progress those issues.
There were fantastic contributions from Sheffield Members who, as well as the Merseyside MPs, have felt the urgency to bring forward this legislation and the pain of the Hillsborough disaster in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) said she gave birth not long after the Hillsborough disaster, and talked about how it has always stuck with her that her baby was at home while so many parents did not get to bring their children home.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
As a six-year-old, I remember the death of Joe McCarthy, who lived on my road in west London, so it is not just about those who lived in Sheffield or elsewhere. It affected everyone across the country, and this Bill is so important for that reason.
Alex Davies-Jones
Indeed, and for me that is a fantastic point. This law may bear the name Hillsborough, but it is a Bill for the entire country, and this Government have made that a clear commitment.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), the Chair of the Justice Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston, talked about the Independent Public Advocate. As the House will be aware, Cindy Butts has been appointed as the Independent Public Advocate. She is a fantastic individual who has just been appointed to her first role as the IPA, following the horrific attack at Heaton Park synagogue. I am due to meet her later this week to discuss how she has found being stood up for the first time following the introduction of the role in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, and her resource requirements and powers. I will, of course, update the House if we both feel, as the IPA and the Minister, that there is further to go in that respect. I am also due to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston and Lord Wills in the other place to discuss, as the Bill progresses, how we can work together further to look at the role of the IPA.
Andy Slaughter
I also mentioned the national oversight mechanism. Whether the Minister thinks it requires legislation or can be done by Government action, does she support having something that is shared, publicised and known about so that we are not constantly repeating things and we know where inquiries have got to? Will she do that in tandem with the Bill, if it is not part of the Bill?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, pre-empts my next point, which is on the national oversight mechanism. Again, a number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned that. As the Prime Minister stated in his opening remarks, there is a need for accountability here. We are looking at how we can do that. Work is being led by the Cabinet Office on inquest and inquiry reform, and the Ministry of Justice has already done work on ensuring that prevention of future death reports are published. I echo the Prime Minister: we do not feel that the Bill is the necessary vehicle to put in a national oversight mechanism, but we are looking proactively at what we can do to ensure that there is accountability and transparency so that these inquiries are never again left sitting on a shelf, with recommendations ignored or put to one side.
My good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, and my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned an issue very close to my heart: Orgreave. Hon. Members may know, because I have talked about it with pride, that my father was there on that day. I am the very proud daughter of a miner and nothing has given me more pride than this Government announcing a statutory inquiry into Orgreave, which will be coming forward soon.
When the Bill becomes an Act, it will apply to inquiries that are ongoing. If an inquiry has started or is ongoing, the legislation will come into immediate effect and apply to all inquiries that are under way. I am really looking forward to the recommendations of that inquiry and to the truth we will get, because that, again, is long overdue.
There were concerns regarding the security services and whistleblowers. Hopefully, I have put some of those fears to bed this evening, but I look forward to debating all these issues in detail in Committee. I again extend the offer to meet any hon. Member to ensure that the Bill remains as strong as possible when it finally leaves this place and becomes an Act. I look forward to positive engagement with colleagues across the House.
Finally, the Bill will ensure that no other family will ever have to walk alone. I am immensely proud to commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill:
Committal
The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 11 December 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)
Thursday 27th November 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPublic Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 November 2025 - (27 Nov 2025)
The Chair
We are sitting in public and our proceedings are being broadcast, although I have asked specifically that the public not be admitted to the Public Gallery at this stage, simply so that they do not file in and then have to file out again for the private session. Will Members please switch off electronic devices? I remind everyone that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—if you want to have that, you have to go outside the room. Date Time Witness Thursday 27 November Until no later than 12.00 pm Hillsborough Law Now Thursday 27 November Until no later than 12.30 pm The Law Commission; Crown Prosecution Service Thursday 27 November Until no later than 1.00 pm Margaret Aspinall; Charlotte Hennessy; Steve Kelly; Sue Roberts Thursday 27 November Until no later than 2.25 pm Hilda Hammond; Jenni Hicks Thursday 27 November Until no later than 2.45 pm Lord Evans of Weardale Thursday 27 November Until no later than 3.10 pm INQUEST; Professor Julia Waters Thursday 27 November Until no later than 3.30 pm Grenfell United Thursday 27 November Until no later than 3.50 pm National Police Chiefs’ Council Thursday 27 November Until no later than 4.15 pm The Law Society; LAPG, the Legal Aid Practitioners Group Thursday 27 November Until no later than 4.35 pm The Chief Coroner of England and Wales Thursday 27 November Until no later than 4.55 pm The Independent Public Advocate Thursday 27 November Until no later than 5.30 pm Care Quality Commission; NHS Resolution; NHS England Thursday 27 November Until no later than 6.05 pm Flora Page KC; Whistleblowers UK; Second Sight; Hacked Off Thursday 27 November Until no later than 6.30 pm Mayor of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority; Mayor of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority Thursday 27 November Until no later than 6.50 pm Daniel De Simone
We will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then the motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and the motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available to us, which is very limited, I would like to take those motions formally, without debate. I hope that that will be in order for all members of the Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 27
November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 November;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 December;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 4 December;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 9 December;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 11 December;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 to 9; Schedule 2; Clauses 10 and 11; Schedule 3; Clauses 12 to 15; Schedule 4; Clauses 16 and 17; Schedule 5; Clause 18; Schedule 6; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 11 December.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Alex Davies-Jones)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I wish to declare that I am a director and vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, which is a non-profit organisation.
The Chair
That is now a matter of record. If any other Member has interests to declare, will they please do so before they start questioning?
Examination of Witness
Pete Weatherby gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Hillsborough Law Now. I am afraid that we have to stick to very tight timings because of the number of witnesses we are seeking to call in these sessions. For this witness, we have until 12 o’clock only. Thank you for joining us, Mr Weatherby. For the benefit of the record, will you please indicate who you are?
Pete Weatherby: I am Pete Weatherby, a director of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, which takes forward the Hillsborough legacy to change culture and create legal reform.
The Chair
Q
Pete Weatherby: Yes. Hillsborough Law Now has taken forward the legacy project. I led one of the teams at the Hillsborough inquest, representing many of the families, and I have led legal teams in the public inquiries into many other disaster and scandal cases. What happened to the Hillsborough families is well known, so I will not go into it. There was not just the disaster and the tragedy itself but, of course, the scandal of the cover-up afterwards. The Hillsborough families wanted to stop that happening to anybody else, and that is where the project came from.
I led the team that drafted the original Hillsborough law in 2017. It aimed to do three things: to establish a general duty of candour, to establish a duty to assist official investigations, and to rebalance legal representation for victims. The Government asked us to assist them with taking the project forward, given their manifesto commitment. Over the last year, we have met a number of Ministers and many officials to try to get the legislation as good as it can be.
By 16 September, we advised the families and the campaigns that the Government Bill that was introduced for First Reading substantially met the three pillars of the Hillsborough law. We, the Government and the families agreed that we would endorse it, but on the basis that there was further work to be done. We have provided a briefing to the Committee in which we have outlined the further measures that we would like to see, and we ask you to give them due consideration.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Q
Pete Weatherby: Primarily, our concerns are around command responsibility and the extent to which the Bill covers, or does not cover, the intelligence services, and we have concerns about the clause 11 offence going too far in its requirements.
Dr Mullan
Q
Pete Weatherby: On command responsibility, the Bill, and the original Bill, created both individual and corporate duties, and quite rightly so. The problem with the corporate duties is that the offences require a very high threshold. They require either intent or subjective recklessness, which means that the person has to foresee the risk but nevertheless decide to take it. It is not impossible, but it is extraordinarily difficult, to apply that to an inanimate object like a corporate body.
In the original Bill, we imposed some corporate duties but put the responsibility for enforcing them on the heads of the public body involved; this has not quite been followed through in this Bill. We would like to see a simple amendment to clauses 5 and 11, as we set out in the briefing, to put that legal responsibility on the chief officer or the chief executive of the public body. Without that, a lot of the duties in the Bill are reduced to something that looks good but is rather ineffective. We have said all the way through that our watchwords are “practical” and “effective”. If law is not practical and effective, don’t bother. That is the first thing.
On the intelligence services, some of the many campaigns behind a Hillsborough law include the Manchester Arena families. There was a major failure of the intelligence services and the way they dealt with the aftermath of the bombing. This is all in the public domain: they had intelligence that related to the bomber and the bomber’s activities, and they did not act on it. The chair of the public inquiry, having heard closed evidence, came to the conclusion that they should have acted on it. Although he could not say whether it would have made a difference, it might have made a difference. Obviously, that is very important. The problem beyond that was that MI5 then put an incorrect narrative—a false narrative—to the inquiry itself. The judge, the chair of the inquiry, found that the corporate case that it had put was incorrect.
There are other examples. Obviously, we have very limited time. I know you are going to hear from Daniel De Simone, the BBC reporter, this afternoon. His case is another one where the security services have fallen short in terms of candour. These are not the only examples. We are very keen to apply the duty of candour and all of the duties here as much as possible to the security services. The objections to that are that it might interfere with national security. I represented seven of the Manchester Arena families, and I can say very clearly that there is no intention to interfere with national security whatsoever—quite the opposite.
The Bill drafted by us, and this Bill, does not affect national security, positively or negatively. It just does not affect it. What it does affect is that when the intelligence services have to report to an inquiry or the Intelligence and Security Committee or whatever, they have to tell the truth, whether in open or closed session. That is the key element of it. We think that has been missed.
The Government invited me to have a meeting with the intelligence services last night, and I did. I know that this Committee has been briefed as well. I think it was quite clear that the intelligence services have missed that point. We have put forward a very simple amendment that we think takes complete account of those concerns about national security. We ask you to look at that and to adopt that amendment.
The Chair
The Minister has graciously indicated that she wants Members to have the chance to ask questions. Minister, feel free to come back if you choose to. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.
Tessa Munt
Q
Pete Weatherby: No. The reason I have majored on command responsibilities is because that is a weakness in the Bill, but the Bill applies across the piece and to all public servants at all times, with the general duty as well as the duty of candour and assistance, which is the ancillary duty, if you like. So that is really important.
We are very keen to underline that this is an empowering Bill. In many of the cases—Hillsborough is a particularly good example—ordinary, decent police officers tried to tell the truth and were not allowed to tell the truth. This is a Bill that imposes a duty of candour across the piece. Everybody knows about it. Senior officers required junior officers to tell lies—this is the evidence they themselves gave on oath. That has to be stopped, and this Bill does that. We have tried to build in it those empowerment things, including whistleblowing—enhanced whistleblowing provisions and the like.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
Q
Pete Weatherby: I do not think there is a clear yes or no answer to that, but it is not strong enough. The purpose of what we want to do with command responsibility is to stop the chief constable thinking that it is okay to put the false narrative forward. If there is a legal responsibility on the chief constable to discharge the corporate duty, he is not going to do that. I think that if the amendment is made, the answer is yes; if the Bill is left as it is, it is more complicated. If it is left, I think it will make a big difference, but it will not stop as many of the problems.
There are other examples. Going back to Manchester Arena, the chief constable of Manchester put forward false evidence to the Kerslake inquiry. Those are not my words; he subsequently described it as “a very grave error”. He did that because he did not have command responsibility, and he thought he could get away with it. The command responsibility needs to be made clear, and the provision in clause 2(5) does not go far enough—it is ineffective.
Maria Eagle
Q
Pete Weatherby: Yes, absolutely.
Maria Eagle
They want to know what happened, and they want accountability where there have been errors or grave mistakes. In the Hillsborough case, of course, the match commander lied and then tried to cover up—unsuccessfully, in the end—what had really happened by smearing Liverpool fans and those who had died. It took many years—well, until the Hillsborough independent panel convinced the country of the truth—
Pete Weatherby: In 2012.
Maria Eagle
In 2012. It took a long time for that to be fully put to bed.
Pete Weatherby: Without a blink, in all the cases that I have done, you start with the tragedy itself, and of course everybody wants to know exactly what did or did not happen, but the cover-up does so much damage. People are absolutely outraged. Unfortunately, you cannot undo the bomb or the crush—whatever has caused it— but you then have it compounded by a cover-up, which does so much damage.
Maria Eagle
Q
Pete Weatherby: I think there is a huge role, and there is a discretion within the Government Bill to extend the duty of candour to panels. We would like that to be stronger—that would be great. Of course, there is no one size fits all. As somebody who has been involved in many public inquiries, I have a major criticism of the length of them. The duty of candour will scythe down the length of public inquiries, if it is used properly. Yes, there is an extension of legal aid in the Bill, but it will be dwarfed by the amount of money that will be saved if the duty of candour is used appropriately and properly.
On your point, absolutely, there is a huge role. I have been on panels myself, and it definitely is not a one size fits all. Internationally, there is learning about this. The best example is probably New Zealand, where there is a smorgasbord of different processes.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Q
Pete Weatherby: Yes, I think that would be a sensible additional measure. I think the measure that we put forward in the briefing would, in a practical and effective way, do what we are setting out to achieve, but the more oversight that can be provided, the better. The ISC is well placed to do that and therefore it would be an additional safeguard. I cannot speak for everybody on that, because I have not seen an amendment in time, but it sounds like a very sensible suggestion.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Q
Pete Weatherby: I think that if the amendments that we are putting forward were made, it would be almost impossible for a Hillsborough-style cover-up to follow.
Ian Byrne
With the strengthening amendments.
Pete Weatherby: Yes. There is no silver bullet or absolute answer, because if people choose to lie, they choose to lie. What we are doing here is putting in so many deterrents—we are not interested in locking people up; we are interested in deterring them in the first place. The answer to the second question, building on the answer I gave Maria Eagle, is that the Bill goes a long way to solving the problem, but the amendments would make it much better.
On the question of international partners, let me deal with it this way. If the head of the French secret service were sitting in Paris, reading the BBC reports of the Daniel De Simone case, in which it is clear from the High Court that the security services misled two different constitutions of the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, or reading the account of what happened with the misleading of the Manchester Arena inquiry, would they think, “Well, it’s good that the British secret services are doing that,” or would they think, “Next time we have a dealing with them, can we believe what they say?” The more candid that we can make this, the better the relationship with international partners. There is no threat here; that is a completely false road to go down.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Q
Pete Weatherby: I think there should be a mixture. There have to be central tenets to it; otherwise, we will fall into the problem where a local authority or police force will have its lawyers lawyering up a code that does not do what it should do. I think there should be a mixture on that front.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Q
Pete Weatherby: We have set the standard very high indeed, because we are not interested in criminalising people and we are certainly not interested in scaring people. One example thrown at us during the discussions with the Government was that we might be criminalising junior civil servants who turn up late for work—absolutely not. Intent and subjective recklessness are high hurdles, but they are individual hurdles. A corporate body cannot easily act recklessly. It is not a legal impossibility; you do have health and safety or companies law offences, where there are corporate offences and you prove the mens rea—mental state—through the directing minds, but that is an incredibly difficult complication, and it does not really work with the offences that we are looking at here.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Pete Weatherby: The Bill creates some individual duties, so you can prove them against the individual, but on the corporate duty, the simple way of dealing with it is the one that we put forward. It is really simple: it is a couple of lines, as you can see from the amendments we have put forward. You make the head of the organisation responsible for the discharge of the corporate duty. There is no problem with that.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Q
Pete Weatherby: We have had very detailed discussions with the Government about this over the last year, and clause 6 was the culmination of those. The clause baldly states that the provisions apply to the intelligence services, but with a caveat. That caveat in clause 6 is fine. The Government came up with a slight issue, which was that intelligence officers might inadvertently, without realising it, notify things that affect national security. The caveat in clause 6 deals with that, and that is fine. What it does not deal with is the clause 2(4) duty to provide the evidence subject to the notification. I am sorry if this is a bit legalistic, but there is a clear difference there.
What would happen is that the intelligence service would notify the inquiry or investigation of the fact that it had relevant information or evidence to give, but then the individuals within the intelligence service would be required to provide the material. Because the intelligence service is sighted on that, the material from the individual intelligence officers goes through the intelligence services before it goes to the investigation, so the national security aspect is dealt with—no problem.
We thought that was what the Government had agreed to, but when we look at a rather obscure part of schedule 1, clause 2(4) still applies, except that you cannot make it apply, because it stops the issuing of a compliance notice, which is what kick-starts the application of clause 2(4). So that device disapplies it, and that is the problem. If you just changed the schedule 1 thing, clause 6 would be fine. That is what we thought we had agreed to, to deal with the legitimate national security aspect.
It is important that the individual responsibilities apply to intelligence officers as well, subject to the national security checks. We do not think that is a problem at all. We challenged the intelligence services to tell us how it is a problem, and they have not. If they do not apply, you end up in the Manchester Arena situation, where the evidence was corporate and was wrong. It was not until the chair, who was extremely good, called the intelligence officers themselves—on oath, in closed proceedings—that the false narrative that had been put forward corporately was unpicked.
I am sorry if that is a bit complicated, but that is the problem. It is easily solved, and there would be no effect on national security. It would make our intelligence services better, in the same way as the rest of the Bill makes local authorities, police forces and everybody else better.
The Chair
I have to draw this session to a conclusion. Mr Weatherby, thank you very much for you evidence; the Committee is indebted to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Penney Lewis and Tom Guest gave evidence.
The Chair
We shall now take oral evidence from the Law Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. Again, we have to stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed, so we have for this session, I am afraid, only until 12.30 pm. I would be grateful if the witnesses could confine their answers to some brevity, in order to obtain as much information through Members as possible. First, could you identify yourselves for the record?
Tom Guest: I am Tom Guest from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Professor Lewis: I am Professor Penney Lewis, the law commissioner for criminal law at the Law Commission of England and Wales.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. Does either of you wish to make a brief opening statement? I do mean brief.
Tom Guest: No, thank you.
Professor Lewis: No, thank you.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Lewis: Yes, there are some differences, but the Bill substantially implements the Law Commission’s recommendations on misconduct in public office. All of the core structural reforms have been adopted, in clauses 12 and 13. There are a few material differences in detail; I will perhaps run through them as a list, without expanding on them, and then if there are any you wish to pick up, you can.
There are some objective fault elements in both offences where the commission had recommended subjective awareness: in the seriously improper acts offence, the commission recommended that the defendant had to realise that a reasonable person would regard the act as seriously improper, whereas the Bill requires that the defendant knows or ought to know that. There is a similar shift in the breach of duty offence.
There is some divergence in relation to the defence to what we recommended as the corruption offence—the seriously improper acts offence. We recommended a public interest defence; the Bill has a reasonable excuse defence. We recommended that the persuasive or legal burden be on the defendant, whereas in the Bill it is only an evidential burden to raise the defence that is on the defendant.
There is an extra seriousness threshold in the breach of duty offence, which we explicitly rejected; we did not think it was needed. That is the requirement that
“the act…falls far below what could reasonably be expected”.
It is a sort of gross negligence threshold.
I think the other points are fairly minor. One is about the repeal of section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, and the other is some differences in relation to what counts as holding public office. Having said that, our recommendations on that were that the Government consider certain kinds of public office for inclusion in the list, and the Government have considered all of those kinds of public office. We had anticipated that further work would be needed to refine the list, and that work has been done.
The Chair
Thank you, Professor Lewis. Does Mr Guest wish to come in on the back of any of that?
Tom Guest: No, thank you.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Lewis: What it does is expand the scope of the offence. In circumstances where the defendant was not aware—did not realise—that a reasonable person would regard the act as seriously improper in relation to the seriously improper acts offence, or was not aware of the duty in the context of the breach of duty offence, under our recommendations, the defendant would not be liable. Under the provisions in the Bill, however, if the jury were of the view that the defendant ought to have realised the relevant fact, that would suffice. It is an expansion of liability.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Lewis: That is less clear. The one thing I could say quite confidently is that there is a significantly lower burden of proof on the defendant. The defendant just has to introduce some evidence to raise the possibility of a reasonable excuse, and the burden will then be on the prosecution to disprove the reasonable excuse beyond reasonable doubt—so to the criminal standard. That difference in relation to the burden of proof is favourable to the defence.
On whether there is a material difference in relation to a public interest defence versus a reasonable excuse defence, I think reasonable excuse would probably encompass things that would fall within a public interest defence and might be broader, but without anything on the face of the Bill constraining what a reasonable excuse is, it is difficult to say. I suppose, eventually, there will be case law that will deal with the question of what does and does not constitute a reasonable excuse in these circumstances.
Dr Mullan
Q
Tom Guest: No. In general, we were supportive of this project from the outset—not because we were having difficulties with the common law offence, but because it sets it out much more clearly to have it contained in an Act. It clears up certain areas such as, “Who is a public official?” and, “How should a jury assess seriousness?” We have not identified disadvantages with the misconduct provisions.
The Chair
The Minister has once again kindly waived her right to question, so I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats, please.
Tessa Munt
Q
Tom Guest: It is right to identify that the extension of liability is only to direct contractual relationships, so not necessarily further down the line. I would make two qualifications to that. First, we will look at the evidence and the precise contractual relationship—what the evidence of the contract is. Secondly, I think we are talking about clause 4(2) here, which would also cover a private contractor who had a health and safety responsibility in connection with the incident. Although it does not cover the contractual relationship further down the line, that is an alternative route to liability.
Tessa Munt
Q
Tom Guest: Let me explain how the DPP’s consent to prosecute works. In most criminal offences, a private prosecutor or the police can commence proceedings—so they get a summons or they charge someone, the suspect becomes a defendant and they go into the court system automatically.
Where the DPP’s consent is required, that means that the permission of the CPS is required to prosecute. We apply our standard tests to that: “Is there sufficient evidence to prosecute?” and “Is a prosecution in the public interest?” They are the same tests that we apply to a prosecution. If we conclude that those tests are met, we take the prosecution forward ourselves. If we conclude that they are not met, the case does not go into the court system.
The purpose of the DPP’s consent is to make sure that unmeritorious or vexatious prosecutions cannot get taken forward. Certainly, in terms of the misconduct offences, sometimes there are private prosecutors who wish to take forward unmeritorious prosecutions, so it is a check and balance on that. If it is a meritorious prosecution, however, we will go ahead with the prosecution ourselves.
The Chair
It would help if Members could indicate which witnesses they wish to address their remarks to.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Q
Tom Guest: That is one of the tests that we have tried to look at when we have been looking at the draft provisions. First of all, there is not a freestanding defence to the duty of candour—there is no reasonable excuse or anything like that—so the Bill is tightly drawn in that respect. There are also no viable defences elsewhere in criminal law that we can see, so the duty of candour is very tightly drawn to be complied with.
The one point that is important to draw attention to, in the interests of transparency and frankness, is clause 3(7), which makes it clear that
“The duty of candour…does not require a public authority…to breach any prohibition or restriction imposed by”
an Act of Parliament
“or a rule of law”.
When I say it is tightly drawn, it is not open ended. The public authority has to point to an actual Act of Parliament or a rule of law where the duty of candour does not require it to breach a prohibition or restriction. That is the one thing we wanted to draw to your attention, but otherwise there are no freestanding, wider reasons why public authorities cannot comply.
Seamus Logan
Q
Tom Guest: Just to make it clear, you are talking about the clause 11 offence, because the clause 12 misconduct offence also uses the words “seriously improper”. I will take the examples you have given to be referring to the offence of misleading the public.
The advantage of the Bill is that it clearly sets a standard for a jury to apply. Every jury is going to have to look at the specific evidence in the case. What did the suspects know? What were they withholding? What means did they take? What did they know at the time? Was it in the heat of the moment? The jury must consider all the evidence, and it is not possible to cater for all the different factual scenarios that might apply. The advantage, though, is that you have clearly set out in the Bill a standard set of considerations for a juror to apply, and they are clearly directed at setting a threshold between improper and seriously improper. Clause 11(3) is about as clear as you can get when you bear in mind that it has to apply to all kinds of potential factual scenarios; it is clearly set out there how to apply that assessment of seriously improper.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Professor Lewis: Yes. I would phrase it slightly differently: I would say that the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable excuse, rather than thinking about truth or falsity. But, yes, once the defendant introduces evidence that raises the defence of reasonable excuse, they will have met their evidential burden, and the persuasive or legal burden will then rest on the prosecution.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Tom Guest: When I mention that risk, it is to guard against the risk of unmeritorious prosecutions. Before there is a prosecution, there has to be an investigation. Again, you can have private investigations or police investigations. We at the CPS do not see a prospect of unmeritorious police investigations, and we do not see a present risk, although we see some risk, of unmeritorious private investigations. The DPP’s consent comes in at the point of asking, “Is this going to go into the court system or not?” At that point, we as the CPS are assessing whichever investigation has happened against the standard tests of, “Is there sufficient evidence to prosecute the suspect?” and, “Is a prosecution required in the public interest?” Whoever the suspect is, we will assess that against those standards.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Q
Tom Guest: It is fair to say that it is quite widely drawn, and there can be good policy reasons for that. Clearly, it is important to uphold the freedom of speech and protect the interests of journalism—not having a chilling effect on journalism is important. We understand why it is drafted in that way, but it is drafted quite widely. It would appear to cover those examples. Again, I am giving that at a very broad level. In a real-life scenario, the police would have gathered much more evidence for the prosecution to consider, but it potentially would cover those situations.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Q
Tom Guest: From a practical point of view, in prosecuting misconduct in public office we do not generally have a problem with that—although I will come on to situations in which we do—because you have already shown that a police officer is doing something very serious indeed. The chances of them establishing that they had a reasonable excuse for that are very slim indeed. For context, it is quite rare that that is successfully raised because the prosecution should already have shown that something pretty serious has happened.
To give an example, we did have cases where public officials were providing information in return for money. On one view, that was a form of corruption, but their defence was, “I have a reasonable excuse for that.” Let me just run through how that works. It could be raised in several formats—ideally, by them giving evidence, but there are other ways. They can try to introduce it in the course of the prosecution case. There is a judge filter—the judge will not allow any old reasonable excuse to be put to the jury—but if the judge is satisfied that it is right for it to go to the jury, ultimately it will be for the jury to assess. The juries did assess that in those examples where public officials were providing information in exchange for money.
The Chair
Q
Professor Lewis: Not really, but just as background information, it is not uncommon in criminal law for there to be a burden on the defendant to raise a defence, and for the burden to disprove that defence to lie with the prosecution. That is a common method of ensuring that not every defence has to be negatived by the prosecution while reflecting the presumption of innocence.
Maria Eagle
Q
Subsequently, there was a cover-up that involved police officers from South Yorkshire and West Midlands police altering statements to try to get across a narrative about what had happened that was different from the truth. None of the officers who engaged in any of that has ever been found guilty of any offence or held to account in any way. Do you believe that if the offences in the Bill had been on the statute book at the time, there would have been a proper chance to hold those officers to account?
Tom Guest: I begin by echoing what the previous Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill, said of his sorrow and regret about the outcome of those trials. He was also focused on whether there was an opportunity to put better and clearer law plainly and clearly on the statute book. We feel that that has happened in this Bill. I am afraid that, even if I had seen the evidence, I would not be prepared to comment on particular cases and particular situations. Do I think that the new provisions better and effectively reflect the law on misconduct in public office? Yes, I do. Are there any risks to the provisions? No, we have not identified any. That is perhaps as much as I can assist.
Ian Byrne
Q
Tom Guest: I partly covered this previously but, to draw that out, no, we have not identified any freestanding offence, either in the statute or in general, that is likely to apply. It is important to underline that clause 3(7) covers the fact that if there is another Act of Parliament or another rule of law that prohibits providing information, the duty of candour does not override that. That is the only exception to the duty of candour that we have identified to draw to your attention.
Dr Mullan
Q
Tom Guest: The statutory limits introduced by the Bill seem to fit the culpability in the two offences. The breach of duty offence is clearly far more serious because it engages a duty to prevent death or serious injury. We see the statutory penalty as high and suitable, so far as it is for the CPS to say that. Similarly, the seriously improper acts offence perhaps does not have the same level of culpability but it still has a significant penalty. It is within the remit of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, so we have not identified any concerns about the proposed penalties.
Dr Mullan
Q
Tom Guest: I am not aware of them. There is always a question of overlap. If you have another offence, such as an offence of rape, then we would be charging rape, and we have the maximum sentence of life there.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Lewis: All I can say in relation to the misconduct in public office offences, the ones that the Law Commission recommended, is that we recommended the Government consider the inclusion of contractors. They have not been included separately in schedule 4 but, as Mr Guest said, I do not think I am in a position to comment on whether in particular cases, particular offences may have been committed, because one would need to see the evidence and one would need to be a prosecutor in order to take a view on that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Lewis: If someone were in public office, which I think is not necessarily the case based on the clauses before us, it is possible that the seriously improper act offence could be considered. I think that is as far as I can possibly help.
Tom Guest: Turning to the duty of candour extension, which directly addresses this, I think our straight answer is that “direct contractual relationship” is in the Bill for a reason; of course we would look at the evidence and the precise contract, but it does appear limited to that. I agree with what Professor Lewis said: when you come to the misconduct in public office offences, schedule 4 is intended to reflect existing public offices, but every attention should be paid to it to decide whether it has become any wider or more narrow, and whether there is good reason for that. We are not expressing a view but, if we are going to replicate the existing common law, we need to make sure that schedule 4 does so effectively.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Q
Tom Guest: Even if I were possessed of the information about the Grenfell live investigation, I do not think it would be wise for me to comment on that directly. However, having scrutinised the proposals on the duty of candour, we do not say lightly that it is tightly and clearly drawn. There is not an ambiguity in what is expected of public officials or public authorities in principle.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your evidence, Professor Lewis and Mr Guest. The Committee is most grateful to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Margaret Aspinall, Charlotte Hennessy, Steve Kelly and Sue Roberts gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon and thank you for joining us. We are now going to take oral evidence from Margaret Aspinall, Steve Kelly, Sue Roberts and Charlotte Hennessy. May I ask you very briefly to introduce yourselves? We will the do the introductions first and then we will take, if you wish, a very brief opening statement from all or any one of you.
Sue Roberts: My name is Sue Roberts. I lost my older brother—well, he was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. I was only 23 at the time. I feel like I have lived my whole adult life under this dark cloud of Hillsborough. I lost my parents, particularly my dad, prematurely because of the torment that the parents went through because of Hillsborough. I am now trying to continue to right things for future generations.
Steve Kelly: My name is Steve Kelly. I lost my older brother, Michael, who was also unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. I am 72 years old now, and I have spent half my life trying to right that wrong. It is something that has not only tormented us; it has haunted us. We have given so much of ourselves—as Sue rightly said—so that in years to come, people will never go through this again. It has been cruel, and it will continue to be cruel until we get sanctions in place for those that break the law, cut corners and cover up. We will carry our fight on until that happens, and we hope you look favourably on us today.
Margaret Aspinall: My name is Margaret Aspinall. I lost my eldest son, James, who was just three weeks into being 18 and at his first away game at Hillsborough. He was unlawfully killed. I had four other children besides James; James was the eldest. They have lived their lives under the shadow of Hillsborough, watching their mother fighting, campaigning and trying to get justice for the 97. It is an absolute disgrace what has gone on over the years. We are now 36 years down; all that we want, and all that we are here for, is to have a Hillsborough law to change a system that was so corrupt and morally wrong against ordinary people—that is why we are here today. My children and grandchildren are living under the shadow of Hillsborough now. To me, that is an absolute disgrace, 36 years on.
Charlotte Hennessy: I am Charlotte Hennessy. I am the daughter of Jimmy Hennessy, who was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough when I was six. I am now 43 years old and a mum of four sons. I have spent my whole life quite literally trying to climb out of this hole—the cover-up of what happened at Hillsborough. I am here today to represent what happened to my dad.
Could I ask the Committee to speak a bit louder? Margaret, Sue and Steve struggle to hear.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. Before I invite questions, can I say personally how very much I appreciate that you are here and have taken the trouble to be here today. The lines of questioning will be as sympathetic as, under these circumstances, it is possible to make them.
Dr Mullan
Q
I will just ask whether any of you want to talk about how things might have been different, and how the experience might have been different for you, had you known what had happened from the start and had truth from the outset.
Charlotte Hennessy: My experience is very different from Margaret’s, Sue’s and Steve’s, because I was so young. I did not know the magnitude of what had happened until the Hillsborough independent panel released its report. That was the only opportunity I had to access evidence statements and be able to piece a timeline together of what actually happened to my dad. That was when I really realised the magnitude of what had happened. I want to acknowledge the Hillsborough family members who are not here today—if it were not for them, and for the survivors who stood by their truth even when they were shut down by those who were supposed to protect them, and if they had not fought the fight, children like me would never have known the truth of what happened.
For me, it only got worse from there. It was like Hillsborough had just happened at that time, because that was when I realised that my dad’s original cause of death was completely untrue—even down to his pathology report being untrue. It was not how my dad died. I will not speak about the details here, but I will send them privately to the Committee. It has had a profound impact.
Had all that information been available, I do not think I would have had to spend my whole teenage and adult life fighting for the truth of what happened to my dad. It now impacts my own children, like Margaret said earlier. My husband is here in the room today. We have had to educate our children on the seriousness of those lies, on the impact of the cover-up, and on the fact that their granddad would have been buried in a lie if it were not for those good people.
The Chair
Could I just ask, because there are four of you, that you indicate when you wish to add to the first answer given? That will help me to help the Committee, as we have quite a lot of questions to get through.
Dr Mullan
Q
Margaret Aspinall: Yes. The family has had great financial loss. As I said earlier, I had four other young children. The youngest was only six—the same age as Charlotte—at the time, the next was seven, one was nine, and then a son who was fifteen going on sixteen. They had an absolutely terrible time. I had to change their schools because of things young children were saying. Innocent children were saying terrible things about how their brother died and how it was caused. Obviously, it was what they were listening to, so I had to change their schools. It was a very difficult thing. My husband was at the game as well, and he has never been to a game since. He just cannot face going to another football match. My children went through a terrible time, like Charlotte did.
At the same time, I realised something when Sue and I were working in the Hillsborough office a few years ago. A phone call came through, and Sue said to me, “Margaret, there’s somebody on the phone for you.” I picked the phone up, and it was my granddaughter, who was 10 at the time; she said, “I would like an appointment to see my nan, please.” I thought, “I’m doing to my grandchildren exactly what I’ve done to my own children.” I was working so hard, and not just myself, but others—though I can only speak for myself—to get to the truth of Hillsborough. The lies and the cover-up, as Charlotte said, were an absolute disgrace.
When it came to the funding, we had to pay for every court case we went to. I am even talking about even judicial reviews, scrutiny, inquests, all different things. We paid every step of the way, and they had lawyers paid for by the state—from our taxpayers’ money—while we had to go cap in hand, trying to fight for the truth that was there all along, and for justice. What families went through—I cannot forgive that.
My children grew up with Hillsborough and my grandchildren are growing up with Hillsborough now, 36 years on. They are still not seeing their nan because I am busy doing other things to try to get a Hillsborough law, alongside others—good people, unsung heroes, who are supporting this campaign. They have done so much to change a system that must be changed—not for us, because it is too late for us—but for the good of this nation. The law has got to be changed, in all its entirety.
Steve Kelly: On the point of finances, when Hillsborough happened, obviously your finances just did not come into it. I will speak personally—I was a taxi driver at the time, and taxi drivers never earn good money, do they? You are always struggling, but you get by. I remember that I had to go to Sheffield to find my brother, I came home, and the last burden that I wanted to give to my mother and my sister Joan was issues of finance.
When the disaster was coming to the fore and all the information was coming out, we were obviously making plans to bury our brother. There was only one thing you could do at that time: you would go and borrow the money. I went to the bank and borrowed the money. I never, ever went to my mam and told her how much it was. Again, she had just lost her son, and she did not know how. You just bore those problems and lived through them for years, on the financial side alone, with paying loans back and so on.
That is why we want this law in—we beg you to bring this law in—because the trauma alone of losing someone, and then the trauma again of all these years fighting back, is so difficult to bear. The financial burden was not even a second thought—I appreciate the question, but it was nothing to do with us really. We got through it. People should not have to get through things. People should be helped and supported. This law, hopefully, will do that.
The Chair
Once again, the Minister has indicated that she wants Members to have the opportunity to ask questions. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.
Tessa Munt
Q
Charlotte Hennessy: We are very confident. We have literally given 10 years of our lives, fighting to be here in this place. We have to acknowledge that Keir Starmer is the only Prime Minister who has endorsed the Bill. I would like to remind everyone that our Prime Minister made me a promise. He made a pledge to the public. It is now your duty to ensure that you fulfil that promise as well. If we were not confident in the Bill, we would not be sitting here today.
Steve Kelly: Just touching on something that Seamus was talking about before, about changing cultures within authorities and so on, I would like to give you an example that has never left me. During the Hillsborough inquests, a man in his 40s or early 50s was giving evidence. He was an ex-PC—at the time of Hillsborough, he was probably a young PC. He was being questioned about the culture within the South Yorkshire police force at the time in 1989.
I will never forget that man saying, “When you used to go Snig Hill, and you’d be walking along the corridor, you’d hold your head down when you’d see the bosses. You daren’t look at them, because we were frightened of them.” How could we encourage young officers like that to become whistleblowers? You couldn’t. We need a culture change. I thought that was a great point that this is something this law might do for not only policemen, but any public servants—anyone deserves support if they are trying to right a wrong.
That young policeman must have taken that with him to those inquests. I remember looking at his face and thinking, “That’s the first time you’ve got that out.” The burden was on him all those years as well. It should not be like that. Hopefully, the Hillsborough law will support that.
Sue Roberts: You are right; the culture changes have to be led from the very top—from the CEOs of these companies. Either they have to want to make this change happen or they need to move on.
Anneliese Midgley
Q
Charlotte Hennessy: We completely support what Pete said earlier and the amendments that he has suggested. We are in full agreement with all the information that has been included in the Bill. Going forward, we need to acknowledge that Hillsborough is our story, but there are many, many others. We also need to acknowledge that the Hillsborough Law Now campaign group is made up of so many other examples of miscarriages of justice. They will have submitted their own evidence to you, so I will not name them all today, but we need to ensure that there is change going forward. We cannot keep allowing the same situations to repeat.
Not to be disrespectful, but ultimately we also need to acknowledge that the current laws that are in place failed to secure prosecutions against those that were responsible. David Duckenfield told that one lie while he stood over people who were scrambling for their lives. He got away with that because the Crown Prosecution failed to secure a criminal case against him. He was offered sympathy while family members had to sit and watch. He was allowed to place files so that he did not have to look at the family members that were sat in the public gallery.
We could sit and talk about examples all day. Norman Bettison was in this building. He briefed people about what happened at Hillsborough. He was allowed to do that. He was then made chief constable of Merseyside and then he was knighted. He was complicit in the cover-up. We have to change it. It has to stop.
Margaret Aspinall: I have to thank Maria Eagle—if you don’t mind, Maria. I always remember, a good few years ago, Maria having the power—the guts—to stand up in Parliament and say that it was “black propaganda” with Bettison. She was absolutely spot on.
When I look back over the years and think about what Charlotte was saying earlier, Mr Duckenfield—I call him Mr Duckenfield out of respect to all of you; otherwise I would not—walked away scot-free. He went missing for a couple of hours and not one person knew where he was. He could not remember where he had been; he could not remember where he was. He must have been the bloody Invisible Man because, good God, there’s no way. I think the police were scared to say exactly where he was. They were all scared; they were all covering up for each other. To me, that is an absolute, utter, utter disgrace of a system in this country.
I know we can’t bring judges up, but there is a few of them should be brought up. When we were at the private prosecution, where a judge could turn round and tell Mr Duckenfield, “Don’t worry, Mr Duckenfield, you won’t get a custodial sentence,” we knew then we had no chance—no chance. He directed the jury twice, because they came in and asked a question. For him to turn round and say, “What message are you sending out to the emergency services if you come back with guilty?”, what does that tell all of you? It tells you we had no chance whatsoever. We were up against a system that was corrupt from the very top to the bottom.
I feel sometimes we are on trial yet again for what happened at Hillsborough, because we are sitting here like this. I feel I am trying to ask all of you to do the right thing. I have asked the Prime Minister. He made that promise; he made a phone call to me that he would do the right thing. As Charlotte said, we thank him for that. He has made that promise; he will have to fulfil that promise. He has also promised it would not be watered down. For Hillsborough families—and for the likes of Ian as well, who was at that game and who knows what we have all gone through and what the survivors went through—we are here to change a system that should have been changed decades ago. When you look at all the cover-ups that have gone on—I can name them all, but I won’t, because I am sure you all know—it is a disgrace that we are sitting here now, 36 years on, trying to change the system. I am asking all of you, please don’t let anybody else go through what we have gone through. Please, I ask you all: do the right thing.
The Chair
Q
Steve Kelly: You asked us what the Hillsborough campaign wants from this. The Hillsborough campaign finished; Denton, Foster and Metcalf were found not guilty. I remember being there that day. Again, it came back that the case had been quashed. They walked away, after some of the most horrific things you could do as a policeman or a solicitor. I can remember, although I was surrounded by the campaigners and survivors who have supported us all these years, the feeling of loneliness, thinking, “What now?” We had been all these years fighting; looking for truth, which we never got—we got some truth; looking for justice, which we never got—we got justification; and looking for accountability—someone mentioned it before—and we have never had accountability.
I went home that day—I live alone—and I sat at home that night and sobbed. Why? I had done nothing wrong. I was just a lad from Liverpool; I’d done nothing. But those three men walked away with not a stain on their reputation, with their full pensions, and probably with a smile on their face—I had actually seen the smiles on their faces as they left the courts. You shouldn’t let anyone do that, to anyone. It is cruel. As I say, there was that feeling of loneliness and defeat. We had done nothing wrong. Why did I feel defeated? Because I couldn’t go to my mother’s grave and say, “We got them.” It shouldn’t happen.
Charlotte Hennessy: Can I just—
The Chair
One moment; do you mind if I just take Sue Roberts? Then by all means come back.
Sue Roberts: For my parents, and I am sure all other parents, it was just a feeling of despair. I thought this judicial system was the best judicial system in the whole world. Little did I know how wrong I was. We need to make our system the best in the world, and the Hillsborough law is the first step in the right direction.
The Chair
I will ask you to come in again in a moment, Ms Hennessy. As Ian Byrne was at the match, it is probably appropriate that I call him next, and then by all means comment.
Ian Byrne
Q
Charlotte Hennessy: We fully endorse all the amendments that Peter has already submitted.
Ian Byrne
Q
Charlotte Hennessy: I think they are needed; they make the Bill stronger, and anything that makes the Bill stronger is imperative.
Steve Kelly: We touched on it before—sorry, I am not sure who it was—but there should be more sanctions on the press. Without the press reports, the Hillsborough story would not have been as disastrous for us and would have not taken so long to come to a conclusion.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Q
You have expressed your confidence in the Bill, and we want to get it right. Given that you have had to spend four decades of your lives campaigning on this, which is an extraordinary and appalling amount of time to get to this point, if we get this passed and deliver on your confidence, what does that mean for you? Does it mean that you can say, “We have won. We get our lives back. We can do all the family things that this has taken up”? Or does it change your campaigning so that you can support others? You may have not thought about that point. I just want to make sure that we understand, if we get this done for you, and if we get it done right, what it actually means for you. I think it is important that we know.
Steve Kelly: You do think about it every day. We are confident—believe it or not—and we have a lot of hope.
Sue Roberts: We keep having this conversation.
Charlotte Hennessy: We do; it is something that we talk about often.
Sue Roberts: We cannot wait for there to be a Hillsborough law so that we can move on.
Charlotte Hennessy: We know that we are never going to be able to secure criminal prosecutions for what happened to our loved ones—that ship has sailed. The best thing that we can do now is just make sure that nobody ever goes through what we have been through. Yes, that is a conversation that the four of us have very often. Once the Bill is passed in its entirety, I think we will be done.
Margaret Aspinall: I always say that, with Hillsborough, it is not all negativity; there is positivity as well. The positivity is that we have changed things in the way that supporters are treated. They were treated appallingly in the ’70s and the ’80s—I think back to my own husband—but we have changed things in that way. People now have a choice of either standing or sitting, with about a 99% certainty that they will go home.
I think the most important positive thing that we can get out of Hillsborough is having a Hillsborough law for the people. It would be a wonderful legacy for the 97, and this is for them as well. That is most important thing: that they have left a legacy and changed a corrupt system that was so wrong. I think our job will be done then.
I was a relatively young woman when I lost my son. I am a very old lady now—I am not going to tell you all how old I am, by the way, but I have had a bus pass for quite a few years. For most of my life, I have not seen my children grow up, or my grandchildren growing up —one is engaged now. It is so wrong, and nobody should have to face that and to fight and campaign for truth, for justice—or for accountability; I do not think there was any such word as “justice”.
If we get this Hillsborough law passed—and get the King to rubber stamp it, or whatever happens—our job will be done. The good people behind us are unsung heroes who have helped us along this journey. There is a lot to thank them for as well, and hopefully to thank all of you for.
The Chair
There are a lot more questions that Members would like to ask all of you, and no doubt there are a lot more answers that you will wish to give, but we have run out of time—that was inevitable this morning. Thank you so much for coming. I appreciate that it has not been easy for any of you; we all understand that, but we are deeply grateful to you. Thank you so much.
Charlotte Hennessy: Thank you for the opportunity. As members of the Bill Committee, you have a huge opportunity to change that culture and make our legal system stronger and better. Please do not waste it, and please do not let the public down.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the morning session. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm this afternoon here in Committee Room 4A to continue taking oral evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jade Botterill.)
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)
Thursday 27th November 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPublic Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 November 2025 - (27 Nov 2025)
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Deborah Coles, executive director at INQUEST, and Professor Julia Waters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I do not have any questions. We are short of time, so I would rather allow other members of the Committee to ask questions.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Q
Deborah Coles: Thank you for the question. It has been a long-standing campaign of ours to try and sort out what we perceive is a real inequality of arms. The best way to describe it is that it is a traumatic and distressing process to go through an inquest into the death of your loved one in any event, but to try and navigate those processes without your own individual legal representation, and even be expected to ask questions yourself or rely on the coroner to do so on your behalf, is not only extremely unfair but I think perpetuates the sense that the system is not working to get to the truth and to deliver the answers that you want as a bereaved person about how your loved one died.
I can think of so many examples since INQUEST was set up where families still today talk about the retraumatising nature of the inquest process. What legal representation can do as well is enhance the really important preventive function that an inquest can play in safeguarding lives in the future, but that is only where you have a family with the benefit of a lawyer to explore the areas of concern. In our experience, too often the default of state and corporate lawyers is to try and defend their reputations, to try and narrow the scope of the inquest process, and try and prevent consideration of the very serious issues that need exploring, particularly when we are talking here about how our work is predominantly around state-related deaths, where the state had a duty of care towards somebody. In our experience, it is only through legal representation and where families feel that they can play a meaningful and effective part in the process that the truth can come out.
Dr Mullan
Q
Deborah Coles: There is a lot to be said about the inconsistency of the coronial system. Different coroners approach their roles in very different ways. It is quite hard for an individual coroner when they are confronted with teams of state lawyers representing different interests to then try and properly represent the interests of an individual family. Some coroners can try and do that, but that does not take away from the fact that it is the relationship that the bereaved family have with their lawyer that can often ensure that the questions of the utmost importance to a bereaved family are actually asked.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Waters: It was two years ago exactly on this day that the inquest into my sister’s death started. We found out four days before the commencement of the inquest that our application for legal aid had been refused—four days. In preparation for that and the possibility that we might have to go into the inquest not represented or foot the bill ourselves, or the lawyers have to do it pro bono—why should they?—I read over 2,000 pages of disclosure evidence. It was very traumatic, as you can imagine, to read some of the details of what my sister went through and some of the medical reports and so on. That alone was traumatising.
A freedom of information request recently found out that Ofsted, which is one of three public bodies—interested parties—that our family were up against, spent £68,000 on external counsel alone and could not provide us with the figures for how much it had spent in its internal legal department. Ofsted has its own legal department—but it still spent £68,000 of taxpayers’ money on external counsel. Presumably, the other interested parties, Reading borough council and Berkshire NHS trust, will have spent similar amounts of money and also have their own internal legal departments. My family, as taxpayers, were indirectly paying the legal fees of the three bodies that had done harm to my sister. That just speaks volumes on the imbalance of power in this system.
It is really retraumatising that at your absolute lowest—and I really hope that no one in this room has been where I was—it is at that point that you suddenly have to navigate this entirely alien system. You do not have lessons at school on what an inquest is, where you find an inquest lawyer, what a prevention of future deaths report is, what kind of coroner you want or what kind of inquest you are going to get. But suddenly, when you are absolutely traumatised by a terrible and preventable death of a loved one, you have to find this stuff out. I am here speaking to you. I have been speaking publicly about what our family has been through and continues to go through—but for every person like me and the other witness, how many hundreds of people are there who are crushed by that system and are unable, for whatever quite legitimate reason, to stick up for themselves and inform themselves? Parity of arms is absolutely crucial and it cannot come soon enough.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Q
Thank you to the witnesses. I am very sorry to hear what happened.
Professor Waters: It is still going on.
Tessa Munt
I know. I salute your courage. Thank you both for saying what you did. On whistleblowing, what do you feel there might be in the way of protections within this scenario? What protection should there be for whistleblowers?
Professor Waters: Speaking just from my own experience—not as a lawyer or anything—in the last nearly three years since Ruth’s death I have been contacted by various people within Ofsted who shared some really quite disturbing information about its behaviour and its rewarding of certain members of staff who were associated with Caversham primary inspection and other appalling cases. When I have asked if they will speak out, they have said that they do not dare. They have to sign some form of the Official Secrets Act 1989. I have been contacted by numerous headteachers who have been traumatised by Ofsted inspections and have lost their jobs, health and nearly their lives. They have not been able to speak out because they were made to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to get some money to support their families.
It just seems that at every level mechanisms are put in place to do the absolute opposite of what inquests and inquiries should be doing, suppress legitimate concerns and defend people who are causing active and ongoing harm. The stronger the defence—the protections—for whistleblowers, the better, and maybe, finally, all the people from Ofsted who have contacted me will be able to go public with the things they have told me.
Deborah Coles: The only thing I would add to that is that, in the context of the Hillsborough law, we are talking about trying to effect legal, cultural and practical change. If we can help rectify the culture of cover-up, obfuscation, denial and defensiveness that occurs when things go wrong—we are talking across inquests and inquiries not only when people have died, but for other injustices—one would hope that that will help victims in the long term, because it will enable honesty and truth telling. Hopefully that will permeate across the system to those who have important evidence to contribute to inquiries and inquests.
Tessa Munt
Q
Professor Waters: I have written various messages recently to Martyn Oliver, the chief inspector of Ofsted, quoting those Nolan principles. I have received replies that apologise for his insensitivity and promise empathy. I have not asked for empathy, sensitivity or a performance of those; I have asked for honesty, but that clearly does not work. Ofsted has a code of conduct, which they kept quoting in the inquest, but the coroner clearly found that that code of conduct did not apply. There are the Nolan principles, codes of conduct, accountability hearings, and even an offence of perjury, but none of them seem to work—they are too easy to slip away from. A statutory duty of candour with the possibility of criminal sanctions is sadly what is needed—it beggars belief, but that is what is needed to make public bodies be honest.
Deborah Coles: I think the thing that people find quite shocking when we are talking about the Hillsborough law is that you have to effectively legislate to get people to tell the truth. I support what Professor Waters says about penalties, but is also about monitoring and evaluation, because the Hillsborough law will only be as good as its implementation. As I said, up and down the country, there are families going through legal processes that are so defensive and traumatising that the injustices that you heard expressed today by the Hillsborough families—and you will hear more later—about the lying, victim blaming, delays and denials are still being faced by families going through these processes today. That is why the Bill is so important.
The Chair
I call Lizzi Collinge for, I am afraid, what is likely to be the last question on this—we might possibly get a couple more in.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Q
Deborah Coles: The first thing to say is that the legal aid provisions will quite clearly have a transformative effect, because families will no longer have to go through intrusive funding processes, crowdfund or represent themselves.
In terms of a change in culture and the duty of candour, at the moment, as I explained, we see exactly what families have spoken to you about: a process that is adversarial in nature and victim blaming. Time and again, families describe their experiences as a battle. These are grieving families who have experienced death, very often where the state has a duty of care; something has gone catastrophically wrong, yet they have to try to drag information out of the people responsible. It is utterly unacceptable. If the Bill actually lands on the ground, meaning that organisations have this duty of candour from top to bottom, and people are called to account if they continue to behave in the way you have had described, I feel that it will change the experience.
The other thing to say is that there might be some suggestion that this is going to cause problems within the coronial system, which is our area of expertise. The Bill is trying to stop the battle to drag information out of people. There will be proper disclosure and open honesty from the outset about where things have gone wrong. It should mean that processes are shorter and less traumatising, and that they can deliver the answers that not only families need but we as a society need to learn, so that deaths are not repeated.
Professor Waters: The characteristics you mention were absolutely mine and my family’s experience of the inquest, with Ofsted withholding information or providing redacted information. In fact, it was so heavily redacted that it required us to have a second pre-inquest review, so it extends the process and adds to the expense.
I know there has been some discussion about the legal funding potentially being delayed because it might lead to a bigger budget, but parity does not mean more money. In the case of the Ofsted legal team, the coroner had to instruct them not to bring more than seven members of their legal team into the court, and we had Reading borough council and the NHS trust’s legal team up against us. Actually, balancing might mean reducing the amount of money that public bodies spend.
May I say one more thing, if this really is the last question, because I know we both want to say it? Something else that absolutely needs to happen, whether as part of the Hillsborough law or something separate, is that there must be some kind of national oversight mechanism to make sure that the recommendations that come out of inquests and inquiries are acted upon. As I said, it is two years today since my sister’s inquest, and it speaks volumes that I am still battling, frankly, just to try to prevent future deaths and to get Ofsted to do what it is necessary to make its school inspection system safe. I should not have to do that, There ought to be some independent objective body that makes sure that those recommendations happen, so that it does not happen again.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
Q
Deborah Coles: If I am answering the right question, it should reduce the number of state lawyers that turn up to inquests and ensure a more equal playing field. I have two quick things that I want to say. First, it is quite shameful that successive Governments cannot tell us the cost to the public purse of state lawyers rocking up to inquests across the country. That information is not there and it should be. This Government have made a commitment to try to make sure that such information is made available.
If we are talking about parity and proportionality, there needs to be proper monitoring of why a public body has sent a lawyer to an inquest process. They should be there to assist the uncovering of the truth and the process, but in my experience, too often teams of lawyers from different state bodies turn up at the inquest and work together, or if they do not work together, they try to pass the buck to each other. The time at which you see them at their most active and animated is at the point at which the coroner is going to decide questions that may be left to an inquest jury.
Inquest juries play a very vital role at inquest, I should point out, because they can report on narrative conclusions around systemic failings that they have heard about through the evidence that has come out through the inquest. You see these lawyers standing up arguing with the coroner about what questions should be left to the jury and trying to minimise any criticism of their particular public body. Importantly, they try and persuade the coroner not to make a prevention of future deaths report, which of course can be so important in trying to stop similar deaths happening in the future. Hopefully, we will see a change in that culture of just sending lawyers, period, to inquests.
Professor Waters: I can see you are going to try and stop this, but—
The Chair
I do apologise. It is a pretty strict timetable, but I do appreciate your coming in today. It is a matter of sensitivity and I am trying to give as many people as possible the opportunity to express their views and ask questions. Thank you very much for your attendance, Professor Waters and Ms Coles.
Tessa Munt
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. Is it possible that we can ask witnesses who might have something to add if they can write to you as Chair?
The Chair
I think that is automatic. Just let me chair the meeting.
Examination of Witness
Lord Evans of Weardale gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Lord Evans of Weardale. We have till 2.45 for this panel. Will the witness briefly introduce himself for the record, please?
Lord Evans of Weardale: My name is Jonathan Evans, Lord Evans of Weardale. I might be able to help the Committee because of two previous roles that I held: first, as a former head of the Security Service MI5, and secondly, as chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is the independent cross-party Committee that looks at the ethics and standards systems operating across the public service.
Dr Mullan
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: First, I should make it clear that I am a strong supporter of this Bill. I think it is very timely. It is clear that victims, members of the public, have been badly let down by public authorities over a number of years. I gave evidence to the infected blood inquiry. It is very clear that something needs to be done and I support the Bill. I support the inclusion of the intelligence services in the Bill and strongly support chapter 2, which I hope we will be able to get on to.
There is as much need for the intelligence services to be accountable as there is for any other public authority. It seems to me right that they should be included in the scope of this Bill. I also recognise that there are particular circumstances that mean that the mechanism for achieving accountability and candour might need to be different. Certainly from my previous role heading the service, there are two areas that I think are of potential concern. The first and most important area is that members of the service are under existing legal constraints on what they can say. It needs to be clear how they would be able to cope with this duty of candour, which will be set against their other existing legal duty of protecting information and handling sensitive information appropriately. That needs to be resolved, and I believe that the mechanism laid out in the Bill resolves it acceptably.
This is not about institutional defence of the agency or its reputation. The sort of information we are talking about is such that, for instance, its disclosure could identify a human source, which could lead to their exposure and potentially their death in the worst circumstances. It could also be information we have about an enemy or threat to the UK, whether that be a terrorist or foreign state, and if that state or terrorist group knew that we had the information, they could probably work out where we got it from. They would then be able to take steps to stop us from obtaining it in future, which would mean that we were less able to protect the country against foreign intelligence activity or terrorist planning, and therefore the ability of the agency to safeguard the country would be reduced. That is what you are trying to protect.
You have already cited my second point, which I acknowledge but do not see as the key point, and it is that any individual desk officer in MI5—I think this would probably be the same in MI6 or GCHQ—may see a very small part of a picture, but, particularly for very sensitive information, the need-to-know procedures are in place. They will not necessarily understand why a particular piece of information is very sensitive, or actually what the bigger picture is.
Bilaterally providing that information between an individual and an external scrutiny body brings two problems. First, the external scrutinising body may not be equipped to handle highly sensitive information, and therefore it might go astray, even with good will. Secondly, it is important that the overall understanding of the agency is disclosed to the investigating body, not just one picture or one part of it. That is why I think it makes sense for the responsibility to rest on the head of the agency.
I also looked with great interest to see what pressure there was on the head of the agency to respond to this. The fact that in certain circumstances there is a criminal liability on the head of the agency struck me as being quite a strong measure, and a measure that is appropriate in the circumstances.
Dr Mullan
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: Your use of the word culture strikes me as being very important. We all know that you can have loads and loads of rules, but if you have a culture that says, “Actually, we don’t really mind about that,” they will not necessarily work. Therefore, ensuring that an organisation is actually educated in its ethical responsibilities seems to me to be critical.
I know from the time that I was in the Security Service that quite a lot of work was done on this, and I believe that the same now applies in the other intelligence agencies. Any intelligence service has the potential to abuse the powers entrusted to it by Parliament or Government, and it is very important that there are constraints on that; part of that is people understanding their ethical responsibilities and the fact that there are really effective speak-up channels, so that, if somebody has a concern, it can be voiced safely and people feel they have permission to raise concerns.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: I understand why you have that concern. As is often the case in these difficult cases, we have two competing public goods. As a country, we benefit from having an intelligence community that can keep us safe; we need to protect that and ensure, therefore, that the agency is not hampered in doing its job. In my previous answer, I tried to explain why I would have, and continue to have, concerns about that being done on a bilateral, immediate basis, without the agency itself being aware of the disclosure. That could be one model, but I do not think it is the right way to do it.
Of the three agencies, I am most familiar with MI5. How accountability works there is that individual agents, as you put it—officers, we would say—do give evidence. If you look at the courts, even though not all the material can be presented in open court, closed material procedures are in place in the courts.
The Chair
Order. Ian, come back with another question if you wish to, but let the witness finish.
Lord Evans of Weardale: Individual officers do give evidence. If you look, for example, at what is being done at the moment in respect of the case that you will be hearing about later—the Agent X case, as I think it is known—it is being investigated by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which has been completely clear that the service has a duty of candour in that context. I do not believe that the agency is trying to avoid frank and open accountability; I believe that it is trying to square that with the other constraints under which it operates, because of the sensitive nature of almost all the operation information that the service is using.
That is the dilemma, but I recognise that it is a dilemma. You can take different views, but I think you have to give due weight to ensuring safeguarding—not safeguarding the service because of reputation; we should not have a law that does that. What we need is a law that enables the full story to be disclosed, but in a way that allows the agencies to continue to undertake their public functions, and that is compatible with the other legal constraints with which members of the services operate.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: I would want to see the exact mechanism, but I do not think it is inconceivable that there could be a way of doing something of that sort, which in broad terms is similar to what is done with closed material proceedings in the civil courts. In order for a court to make a just decision, it needs to have access to the relevant information, even if that is sometimes highly sensitive. The closed material procedures ensure that such information can be brought forward and considered by the judge without its being visible to terrorist sympathisers, for instance, or Russian intelligence officers.
Closed proceedings can work. In some ways, they are sub-optimal because you have to work quite hard to give people confidence that they are really getting at the truth for the public. The ultimate safeguard for that is the fact that the judge is in control of their own court; if they do not believe that justice is being done, they can make that very clear. Over the years, those closed material procedures have been refined and slimmed down in such a way that they are quite widely accepted to be part of a proper justice system while protecting the sensitive information at hand.
Maria Eagle
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: My understanding is that the responsibility rests on the agency, rather than any one individual, to proactively provide the information, although the liability on the head of the agency includes criminal liability, should they fail to do that.
Maria Eagle
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: Command responsibility?
Maria Eagle
Yes—so that whoever is in charge actually bears the legal liability for any failings that are discovered.
Lord Evans of Weardale: I am always rather cautious of answering quasi-legal questions on the hoof, because I am not a lawyer.
Maria Eagle
It would be perfectly reasonable for you to write to the Committee with a more considered response.
Lord Evans of Weardale: I will look at the possibility of doing that. Again, I would have to talk to lawyers; I am not sure that I am the best source of legal advice to you. I have talked about exactly the same question a little bit with some of my previous colleagues, and the view from that, which I think has some weight, is that the director of the agency has personal criminal liability if they fail in their duty on this. I do not think you should see this as a carve-out for the agencies.
The Chair
Fine. I just want to hear what the witness has to say without any interruptions halfway through, but I am more than happy to be flexible.
Ian Byrne
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: I do not think the Bill, as presented, poses a threat to national security. May I say one thing about chapter 2?
The Chair
Regrettably, we have one minute tops.
Lord Evans of Weardale: Chapter 2 requires public authorities to promote and maintain ethical standards as a statutory requirement, which I think is a really significant development. When I was chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, we did a report that looked at best practice within public agencies on ethical issues. There are many bits of the public service where there is virtually no induction into the ethical requirements of the job, and no serious leadership on these issues by the leaders of those organisations. In my view, and the view of the CSPL, that is a very big gap. I strongly welcome putting a duty on those who lead public organisations to promote and maintain the ethical health of those organisations, not just the delivery of whatever their role is. That is an important element of this and I welcome it.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your evidence. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions, so I thank the witness on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Hilda Hammond and Jenni Hicks from the Hillsborough families. We have until 3.10 pm for this panel. Thanks for coming to give evidence to the Committee. Will you tell us who you are, please, for the record?
Jenni Hicks: Good afternoon, everybody, and apologies for the delay. There was a blockage on the line and our train was delayed for over an hour and a half, so apologies to everybody in the room. It is a privilege to be invited here for you to hear what I have to say. My name is Jenni Hicks. I lost my daughters Sarah, who was 19 years old, and Victoria, who was 15 years old, in the Hillsborough disaster. They were both unlawfully killed.
Hilda Hammond: Jenni has thanked you all for being patient with us. I am Hilda Hammond, widow of the late Philip Hammond, who was chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group. We lost our son at 14 years of age at Hillsborough. He went with the Boys’ Brigade.
Dr Mullan
Q
Jenni Hicks: What we did go through was that we did not get our truth for 24 years, which is cruel and unacceptable. That has to change. We had many, many challenges in that journey. The main challenge of all—on a personal level—was becoming childless, and all the grief and things that go with that. On top of that we then had a fight just to get the truth about how our daughters, Trevor’s and my daughters, died.
Obviously there was a huge state cover-up. There were lies and corruption going on, with horrendous and untrue things in the media. The Liverpool fans were wrongly blamed—and we are Liverpool fans, so not only were we bereaved, but we felt we were somehow at fault for our daughters’ deaths, too. The whole thing was horrendous. It actually prevents you from moving forward with your grief because it becomes about the event, and not so much about your loss. You have to deal with your loss at a later stage. The whole thing was absolutely cruel—I really have no words to describe how awful it was, and it must not happen to other people in the future.
We had, as I say, various challenges on our journey for the truth. The Peter Taylor inquiry was the first one. Peter Taylor did get to the truth, but the Crown Prosecution Service did not act upon that. If the CPS had acted on the Taylor inquiry, we could have got to our truth more quickly. Various things happened—is this the kind of thing you want to know? We had a judicial review. You probably know the whole of the things that we went through. To be quite truthful, we tried everything, including a private prosecution, but we seemed to be snookered every inch of the way.
The one thing that did get us our truth was the Hillsborough independent panel, the independent panel and the attorneys following up on its results—they were absolutely marvellous, actually. That was down to Lord Michael Wills and Gordon Brown, and to Theresa May, who carried on with that when the Conservative Government came in. If it had not been for those people, we would still have been looking for our truth. The Hillsborough independent panel findings led to Dominic Grieve quashing the original inquest verdict of accidental death and announcing a new inquest, which of course, finally—after 26 years, would you believe it—meant we got the correct inquest verdict of unlawful killing.
I am trying to précis this down, because I know we do not have a lot of time, but that is basically a very quick version of what went on, but to me, it was the Hillsborough independent panel. I have read through the Bill and things, but I would like to see the public advocate team that we have now used in a similar way, to be able to retrieve the documentation that you need. If we had been able to do that at a far earlier stage, we would not have had to wait 26 years for the correct inquest verdict. I really do think that the public advocate team should have powers similar to those of the HIP—or the same as the panel had. In the first instance, they should not just be about tea and sympathy and pointing you in the right direction; they should be about more than that. It should be about being able to retrieve the documentation needed, particularly if there are lies being told and it is a state cover-up. We need that documentation far sooner.
For me, with my personal experiences, without that we will still have long delays. Yes, it will be good to have a better duty of candour, a duty of candour with consequences, and obviously I think we should have more a duty of conduct, rather than just a code of conduct. That would make a huge difference as well. They should be statutory duties, not just codes of conduct, which is just people making up their own rules as they go along, I think. Those are my feelings on it and that is what I would really like to see. I also think it is important to implement Pete Weatherby’s important amendments to the Bill. They should be implemented straight away, to be quite honest with you.
The other question I would like to ask—I have written it down, so that I do not forget—is this: are we going to have funding for inquests and for whatever families there are? I would like a little more detail on how that is going to work for families, please, if someone could help me with that. It has not been made clear. It was just said that we will now be able to have legal aid, but I am not quite sure how that is going to work, because what about in split families? By the time my ex-husband and I got to our first inquest, we were already on the road to divorce—we had split up. Would we both be able to have equal representation?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will write to you too, Jenni.
Jenni Hicks: Sorry, I am so aware that I only have 10 minutes.
The Chair
No, not at all—do not be sorry at all about it. We want to listen to what you have to say, and the Minister will be questioned in due course about some of the very issues that you and lots of other people have raised. Thank you for that outline; that is really helpful to the Committee.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Q
Jenni Hicks: What would be successful to me is getting to the truth more quickly and having a system that does not think it has the right to cover up the people in power, that tells the truth in the first instance, and has a good public advocacy team—I nearly called them the HIP—who help people not only by pointing them in the right direction, but help them get the information that they need and the documentation of that information, just as HIP did. That is imperative.
There are other good things, but you are totally depending on a culture change for the duty of candour, because this culture has been going on for a long time. That is why it has to be duty of candour with really stiff penalties if you are found out to be lying, not just excuses made or clever lawyers being able to interpret it in a different way. There are many versions of the truth out there, and the documentation is the truth, if you like. For me, that is what would be successful.
It would be successful if nobody else in this country had to wait 26 years to get a correct inquest verdict or 24 years to get the truth about how their loved one died, and nobody else had to go through being lied to for all those years about how their loved one died. The mud that the media put out there about what had happened still sticks in some places in this country. That will not help me, Hilda or any of the Hillsborough families, but it certainly will prevent anybody else going through what we have had to go through. That process is cruel; it is not right, and this country should be ashamed of putting bereaved people through it when the truth is as plain as the nose on your face.
Seamus Logan
Q
Hilda Hammond: I would have liked to see the NHS included. I know people have a duty of candour, but I am a retired nurse, so I know the NHS, and at the present time doctors and NHS workers—I will not say they hide behind it—are protected by the law of patient confidentiality. I may be missing it, but I cannot see anything in the Bill that addresses that and makes it clear that in something like this patient confidentiality should not stand in the way. It is a big hurdle, because doctors have been bound by it for years and years, and I do not know how you get around that. The NHS is a huge organisation, and it will be subject to huge amounts of litigation. That is one thing that really needs to be addressed.
We did not find out that Philip had gone to hospital—we did not know—until the following November, when his trainers came back with a hospital tag on. When we questioned them, they were all evasive and gave silly excuses. I said, “Well, did you attempt to resuscitate him?”, and they said, “Oh yes, he had electrode marks on him.” When I spoke to the pathologist, I said, “If a person is being resuscitated, someone puts the electrodes on, someone is getting IV access and someone is protecting their airway. You said there were no puncture marks on Philip.” Do you know what he told me? He said, “I don’t know whether you know this, but there is a cannula now that they put in and it doesn’t leave a mark.” Pure rubbish! Even on neonates you see where they have had the cannulas.
I do not know. Trying to get any information from the medical team is like a brick wall, isn’t it? I really think that is an important part of this law. It is such a good law, and you would not want it to fall at the hurdle of doctor’s being protected from telling the truth.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: A double apology.
Maria Eagle
A double apology, indeed. To what extent do you think the Bill would benefit from having some provisions, if they could be fitted into order, about empowering independent panels to do that kind of job?
Jenni Hicks: I strongly feel that it is necessary. I have thought very long and hard about, “What was it that made a difference? What made a difference in your journey?” We tried everything, as you know, Maria, and as Ian knows. We wanted not only the truth about our loved ones but to stop the lies that were being told about the fans. It was a double whammy, if you like: we could not get the truth about our loved ones who had died, and the supporters were wrongly being blamed. We were hitting brick walls everywhere we turned.
There was scrutiny and numerous inquiries, but everywhere they came back with the same lies and the same cover-up story. The only thing that stopped that was the Hillsborough independent panel, which showed the power of being able to retrieve the documentation. I was looking through all the documentation, including Bishop James Jones’s 25 points of learning, and point 3 says that you need to have
“full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts”.
You have to have those quickly, because without them it is going to take longer.
When you think about it, it would save money too. The public—the taxpayers of this country—are paying for all of these inquiries and all this scrutiny. I would love to know just how much the Hillsborough journey up to HIP cost; I bet you it was an awful lot of money. And the taxpayer was paying for that. Something like the public advocate, with similar or the same powers to get the documentation as the Hillsborough panel, would save money too. It would be a cost-saving exercise.
Yes, with all of Pete Weatherby’s amendments—all the good things he has suggested—it would be a good Bill, but we need the back-up of something like the independent panel to help to strengthen it. I really do believe in that. Sorry if I am going on about it—
Maria Eagle
No, don’t worry.
Jenni Hicks: I know from experience and my journey that it was the thing that worked. It just worked. What worked was being able to read the documents. When Bishop James Jones made his report, he pointed it out in his 25 points of learning. It is right at the top: being able to retrieve the documents.
When it comes to this culture change, sometimes they think they are not actually lying; they are just not telling the truth. I have not quite worked out what the difference between those two things is. I have tried to analyse it—lawyers are very good at that. That has to be part of it to strengthen the Bill and make it the best it can be.
With all Pete Weatherby’s hard work—I thank everybody who has worked so hard to get this as good as it is—the Bill is good, but adding the public advocate to it, with the power of being able to retrieve the documentation, would really strengthen it. That would help to fill the gap until the culture changes. The culture is not going to change straight away; it is possibly going to take years, because it has gone on for so long. There are people like the veterans of nuclear testing—their concerns go back to the 1950s. This has gone on for a very long time. It is not a new thing.
We desperately need that change to strengthen the Bill. It is already good, particularly if you implement Pete Weatherby’s most recent amendments, but this would make it watertight. It would certainly make people in power think twice about covering things up if they knew that they would have to show the documentation.
The Chair
We have only a couple of minutes left, I am afraid.
Jenni Hicks: Sorry—that is why I have been trying to speak quickly.
The Chair
Q
Hilda Hammond: I want to support Jenni’s view. The reason we got the private prosecution was that, as Maria will tell you, Jack Straw released some of the statements. They were not the full statements, but the reason we got enough evidence to have three High Court judges in London say we had a case for them to answer was down to Ann Adlington, a solicitor for the city council, and Alun Jones, but primarily my husband Philip. He used to stay up all night scrolling through those statements and finding one word that had been changed. It cost us our family life. Philip was eat, sleep, and then, honestly, Hillsborough came before anything else, and rightly so. People should not have to do that. This is exactly what we mean. If we have a panel that will do that, it will stop all that. We lost years and years of our family life.
Jenni Hicks: We should have a facility, as I say, like the public advocate. You should not have to do that as a bereaved parent, trailing through statements and things to find your own truth—that should be there. That is a right of a bereaved person.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your contribution. We have listened to everything you said and it really has been invaluable.
Jenni Hicks: Can I just say that you have still not answered my question on legal aid?
The Chair
Thank you for the time you have taken to speak to us. I hope your journey home is better than it was on the way down.
Hilda Hammond: So do I!
Jenni Hicks: And so do I! Thank you for listening; thank you everybody.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of time allotted for that panel.
Examination of Witness
Edward Daffarn gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Grenfell United. We have until 3.30 pm for this panel. Will the witness please introduce himself?
Edward Daffarn: My name is Edward Daffarn. I was a resident of Grenfell Tower for 16 years prior to the fire. I was involved with writing a blog called the Grenfell Action Group that tried to highlight some of the failings of our landlord—the tenant management organisation—and the lack of scrutiny by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Subsequent to the fire, I have been a committee member of Grenfell United.
Dr Mullan
Q
Edward Daffarn: Ordinarily, I find it much easier to respond to questions, but in this instance I made some notes that I would like to try to communicate to you. It could go wrong and I might have to ask you to ask me questions.
The thing with Grenfell is that it is so complicated. There are so many tributaries and so many issues. I have spent a little bit of time trying to relate what happened to us at Grenfell to the Bill. I have broken it down into three parts. The first part is an introduction explaining why the Bill is so important and why it is relevant to Grenfell. A lot of the relevance to Grenfell is also relevant to all the other public inquiries and investigations that have taken place over the last 30 years—on Hillsborough, infected blood, the Manchester Arena. There are so many similarities, but I would like to spend three or four moments on each.
The second part is about the need for culture change within organisations, and how the Bill can assist that. The third part that I wanted to address is how the Bill can assist in getting to the truth in public inquiries. Please bear with me; if things go wrong I will let you know and ask you to ask me questions.
At the heart of what I believe is that we need this Act to be implemented without delay and not to be watered down. There is a statement by Bishop James Jones: “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. That was the title of his Hillsborough report. Those words are so powerful. They sum up exactly what our position was as bereaved people and as survivors after the Grenfell Tower fire—not only after the fire but in the way we had been treated beforehand. It was this total powerlessness against forces that we had no control over. I truly believe that this Bill can act almost as a silver bullet that could change all that. I will go into some of the reasons in a minute.
I want to talk a little bit about our public inquiry. At the beginning of the inquiry, Richard Millett, who at the time was a QC, asked all of the corporate core participants to take responsibility, tell the truth and help us to get to what we needed to know. At the end of the public inquiry, he said that the “merry-go-round of buck-passing” still played and that the melody was still being heard. That was after nearly five years of a public inquiry—the truth was not being heard.
In their closing statements to the public inquiry, the core participants gave evidence for two-and-a-half days. Again, Richard Millet stated that if everything the core participants said was true, not a single person was to blame for the Grenfell Tower fire. Imagine sitting in and listening to that evidence over all those years and then, at the end of it, not a single person had taken responsibility for what had happened to us. The inquiry concluded that the core participants were guilty of “systematic dishonesty”, which led to the totally avoidable deaths of 72 people. We need to use this Bill to make sure that nothing like that can ever happen again.
Grenfell United attended an inquest family day and left understanding that the families wanted three things. They want to stop public officers from lying and covering up when things go wrong. They want a duty to proactively assist and disclose information to public inquiries. They also want parity of arms—true proportionality in representation in terms of legal aid in front of public inquiries.
How would the Bill address those changes? Obviously, there is the duty of candour, transparency and frankness, a duty to go further than not telling lies, but to proactively assist in getting to the truth in public inquiries, and to change the culture of public authorities and the public officers within those authorities to instil a code of conduct, ethics and values. That is my first part—that is how I would like us to understand why the Bill is so important.
I want to talk a little about changing the culture inside these organisations. Again, I go back to what Bishop James Jones said: we need to dismantle the patronising disposition of unaccountable power that these organisations feel entitled to exhibit. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s tenant management organisation, which was our landlord, behaved like a mini mafia. It was a non-functioning organisation that bullied and intimidated residents. Anyone who put their head above the parapet was targeted.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, whose duty it was to monitor and ensure that the TMO behaved in a proper way, failed completely in its duty to do that. As a result, as residents, as leaseholders, we were not treated with respect, and we were not treated with dignity. It is interesting to think about those words—respect and dignity—alongside the duty of candour. People need to be treated in that way.
Along with the duty of public authorities, and public officers, to tell the truth, and on candour, transparency and frankness, we also need to look very carefully at their duty to instil a code of conduct and ethics, which must be signed up to by the organisations. I am a social worker. Every year, I have to renew my commitment to our code of conduct and ethics. When I was engaging with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and its officers and councillors, I was amazed at their complete lack of understanding of their role as public servants. As a social worker, if someone does not want to work with me, I have to find it inside myself to provide exactly the same service to them as to someone who does want to work with me. There can be no discrimination. At the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, if we challenged them in any way, they would come after us, as individuals.
I used to feel that as a lowly social worker I understood my role as a public servant; the leader of the council at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea had no idea about those responsibilities. It is really important that, as part of this Bill, we instil a code of conduct and ethics that is meaningful, published and promoted, that is part of training, yearly appraisals and interview processes, and that is, possibly, monitored by the public advocate as well, to make sure that we try, somehow, to change the culture inside these organisations. It is not a silver bullet, because social workers have values and ethics, and things go wrong in social work. Ofsted has values and ethics and, as we heard previously, things go very wrong in Ofsted. It is not a silver bullet, but it is really important.
In terms of criminal sanctions, there must be some bite behind these duties. The other thing with criminal sanctions is that cover-ups normally happen from the top down and not from the bottom up. If junior members of staff are being bullied by senior staff members to tell lies and take part in a cover-up, a criminal sanction would allow them to refer to their legal obligations not to commit a criminal offence. It would give them a way out of that.
In the Grenfell Tower disaster, there were eight public bodies and 27 commercial organisations. We need to make sure that those commercial organisations, which were carrying out a public function, are also responsible for duty, candour and transparency, and that they also have to sign up to the code of ethics and values. We must ensure that they behave in the same way that the public authorities have to behave.
Finally, I want to turn to how the Bill can assist in public inquiries. I briefly mentioned the
“merry-go-round of buck-passing”—
which was still turning: after all the evidence was given by the core participants, there was no one to blame for the fire. As bereaved and survivors, many of us attended the public inquiry and sat through months and months of this evidence. Very naively, I think we always believed that the public inquiry was the one thing that would give us the truth and allow us to leave with an understanding of why 72 people died. I always thought, “Well, these people will come and the truth will give us what we want, and it will set them free.” There were probably 200 witnesses who appeared at the public inquiry, and I can count on the fingers of one hand how many turned up and gave evidence from their heart.
I sent some evidence to you—a seven-minute tape from the public inquiry, put together by Forensic Architecture, of public officials basically just saying, “I can’t remember. I can’t recall.” We had Robert Black, who was the chief executive of the TMO, responding to a question from Richard Millett, the QC of the public inquiry, by saying, “Pass”—like he was on “Mastermind”, like this was some sort of quiz that he could take part in or not take part in. I am sure you have seen Eric Pickles. Towards the end of the public inquiry, he advised Richard Millett that he should use his time very wisely, because Lord Pickles had other, more important, things to do with his time that day.
That is the kind of contempt and disrespect that we were treated with during the public inquiry, and I truly believe that the Bill forces public authorities to go beyond just telling the truth in public inquiries and that it forces them to provide more in-depth information. I think it would be really helpful if public inquiries and public officials were invited at an early stage to provide position statements about their organisation. That would do one of three things. It would help to speed up the public inquiry process, it would reduce the pain and suffering of families, because the process would not take as long, and it would reduce the cost on the public purse. I thought quite hard about those things, and I hope that I have managed to communicate them in a way that was not too quick and that was understandable.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Q
Edward Daffarn: There were two things that I wanted to say, and you have asked me questions about them both. At Grenfell we were amazingly lucky. From day one we were provided with legal assistance, which meant we could go out and get solicitors and QCs to help to represent us. Within about 48 hours, I was giving evidence to the Metropolitan police as part of its murder inquiry, and I was able to have a solicitor with me. But it was important that the solicitors that we had were able to totally embed themselves into the case and really commit themselves to what happened. The solicitors we had were human rights lawyers, so they had an expertise and an understanding of some of the issues that were most important to us.
Part of the reason that this is so important is that I spoke with some of the Hillsborough families quite early on after Grenfell, and I heard from them that at the beginning of their journey towards justice and in the first public inquiry they had to go out—it makes me upset to talk about it—and raise their own money to pay for their own legal advice. I remember how we were after Grenfell. It was so upsetting just trying to deal with the trauma of the bereavement and leaving our homes and our communities. The idea that we would then have to go out and fund legal aid is just so cruel and heartless. This really needs to be part of the Bill, so that that happens in a fair, transparent and equal way for people.
On the second part of the question that I would like to answer, there is a gaping hole in justice for people and victims that experience these kinds of disasters. There is a lack of a national oversight mechanism. I know it will probably not fit into this Bill, but we talked with Angela Rayner when she was shadow Secretary of State and when she was Secretary of State, and she informed us that we were pushing at an open door in terms of having a national oversight mechanism—an independent body that follows up on the recommendations made in public inquiries.
The Grenfell Tower public inquiry cost £171 million. It is the families, eight and a half years afterwards, who are having to try and hold the Government to account to implement those recommendations; and it is not just us. In every inquiry, the recommendations seem to be buried. It seems to be left to the families to chase them up, and there is no way that that can be right. At some point we need to address that. For me, if the Hillsborough law is what we have got in front of us today, a Grenfell law could be a national oversight mechanism that would ensure that no family ever has to go through what we have had to go through in the last eight and a half years to try and hold the Government to account.
The Chair
I am afraid this will be the last question, because we have only a couple of minutes left, regrettably.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Q
Edward Daffarn: From very early on, our thoughts were that if Hillsborough is to mean anything, it is that we as Grenfell survivors are not having to make a generational battle out of what we are trying to fight for. And yet we are sitting here, eight and a half years after Grenfell, still fighting for justice. At its core, what this Bill says about candour, honesty, changing culture and criminal sanctions addresses Bishop James Jones’s razor-sharp comments about the imbalance of power. That is really important. If that imbalance of power can be addressed, then hopefully people in future will not have to suffer in the way that the Hillsborough families suffered and we suffered.
The Chair
Thank you for your evidence, Mr Daffarn. I am afraid that is the end of this panel. Thank you for taking the time to speak for us, and for your comments, observations and responses to questions.
Edward Daffarn: Thank you for letting me speak to you.
Examination of Witness
Chief Constable Craig Guildford gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Craig Guildford; I am the chief of West Midlands police, and I am talking to you from my office this afternoon. I am also the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for complaints and misconduct, so hopefully I will be able to assist the Committee with its questioning further.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: In terms of the broad structure around misconduct, we have the standards of professional behaviour, but when it comes to addressing the gaps, I think the criminal allegation side of things—particularly the misconduct in public office aspect—has had a number of reviews by the Law Commission over a long period, I think starting around 2015 or something like that, and various reports.
In the three main offences before the Committee this afternoon, I think we have some clear directions from lawmakers that send a very clear message to all public servants, but particularly police officers, about the consequences of their decision making. I think this complements a lot of the cultural change that has obviously occurred since the formulation of this Bill, which has been on the back of the Hillsborough disaster. If you think about how long ago that was and how far the police service has come since then, some of these elements before us really do help to embed and underline the fact that lawmakers have been very definite in their expectations of police officers. We have an internal code of conduct, which we hold officers to account for, but in terms of the more strategic gaps and the will of Parliament, this is very declaratory, in my opinion.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: I understand. Its applicability is ubiquitous to every individual who works for the police service, and I think there are some clauses in the Bill that capture contractors as well, because, like many other public offices, we use contractors around healthcare, safer custody contracts, sessional workers and so on, so it captures those too.
I think the nub of your question really relates to what we already have internally in the police service. We have a codified code of ethics, which is applicable to everybody who works in the police service, from volunteers all the way through to chief constables—the code of conduct, which I referred to earlier, is applicable to all police officers, including special constables.
Our code of practice for ethical policing, which is a more recent development, that also includes reference to what I would describe as a duty to co-operate as a witness. So, we have already made some of those strides, but this legislation absolutely endorses that trajectory.
To answer the question about things from the top to the bottom, the decisions of the top are certainly scrutinised, and scrutinised very closely. In my professional opinion, the legislation as drafted, together with the existing measures in the code of ethics and the code of conduct, endorses a top-to-bottom approach, as well as a bottom-to-top approach, as you have alluded to.
Tessa Munt
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: You would have a number of opportunities to whistleblow as a police officer or a member of police staff. First and foremost, there are opportunities for you to make a disclosure to your line management. You could make a disclosure to another supervisor. You could also make a confidential disclosure, because each force has a confidential reporting mechanism. It is a reported line, and it is done anonymously.
On top of that, we brought in some measures recently that enable people to make a report via Crimestoppers. We also very actively encourage the reporting of any whistleblowing via all our staff associations—the trade unions on the side of police staff, and the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association on the side of police officers.
Tessa Munt
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: That often depends on who makes the allegation and whether it is criminal or conduct related. If it is a criminal matter, it is reported to a police force or the IOPC. If any criminal or conduct matter is reported and it involves a chief constable, it goes to the IOPC under the law. If it is anybody below that level, it goes to the professional standards department in each of the police forces. It is then independently assessed, and given to an investigator, who is trained and accredited, and independent of the people who are complained about and the complainant.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: Having been consulted on the way through this, having thought about it quite considerably and having spoken to the director general of the IOPC, I think that the drafting at the moment is pitched at the right level, because it says that that harm needs to be of a serious nature. When it comes to setting out harm, it mentions phrases such as “departed significantly from”.
What will the impact of that be from my perspective? I think it will encourage leaders and individual officers to do the right thing. Initially, it may increase the likelihood that a narrative would be corrected earlier. Think back to some of the foundational pillars upon which this legislation rests, and a lot of the narrative that was, let us say, placed in the public domain around Hillsborough—and sometimes around other events where there is knowledge that is known to the police service and is able to be communicated, but which for whatever reason on occasions is not. Sometimes, in my opinion, that does not help with public confidence.
Going back to the question, I think this will encourage the clarification of issues at an earlier stage. But I suppose, on reflection, from a professional perspective, we have to balance some of that with an individual’s potential reluctance to say too much too early. Of course, the public quite rightly have an expectation that facts will be clarified and that information will be shared and placed in the public domain, and that is absolutely the right thing to do. That is the balancing act. It is important that it is pitched at the right level, which in my professional opinion it is. The “harm” is economic, physical or emotional, and I think it says it should be not inconsequential, which is important. On occasion—you will know this from your family perspective—we absolutely do get things wrong, but the legislation is designed to allow us to correct those things fairly expeditiously.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: They obviously occur over a period of time. Certainly in my service—I have done over 30 years—they have come in the second half of my service, rather than the first. However, the way that we train them is very explicit: it is done on a values basis through initial training. We recruit and assess new candidates on the basis of values. We do recruit training, which in most forces happens over a period of 20 to 22 weeks, and recruits have a specific input on values-based decision making. We have something called the national decision model, which allows them to think about the consequences and the options they have in making their decisions.
The code of ethics absolutely underpins what we do. It sits in the middle of our decision-making circle. It is trained, really, from day one. I am trying to bring it to life a bit: this sits in the middle of all the specialist public order training, post Hillsborough, for commanders at public events, particularly football, and their accreditation and training. For all our bronze, silver and gold commanders, the code of ethics sits inside the wheel in which we make our decisions. To reinforce the point, the other aspect is that whenever there is a misconduct meeting or hearing for police officers, there is always reference to the code of ethics—the ethical behaviours that are expected of officers and staff.
The third bit of your question was about how we measure this. I would say that we measure it in three ways. The first is the training at the beginning. The second measure is around outcomes from our misconduct proceedings, as well as the proportionality of our misconduct proceedings and how they are used and referred to. The third measure —this is particularly important—is the measure of public opinion. As organisations, we respond to that, and we openly and candidly answer those questions.
In the consultation, we have gone through certain elements in relation to which we have said that, operationally, we may not express candour at certain times: for example, in a live situation in which we lawfully employed the services of, say, an undercover police officer or an undercover officer online; or in a live firearms operation, a live kidnap operation or a product contamination operation. In those cases we may seek to use a little bit of subterfuge to make sure we gain the lawful aim and the right public outcome for the victim at the end of it. Does that explain it?
Seamus Logan
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: I honestly think that what is proposed here complements what we have been doing over a period of years. This is not unexpected for the police service and it is not new for senior officers, but I think your point is a fair one in so far as these are new offences, and a particular number of people will be charged with investigating them. Those people will sit within the IOPC, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and they will also sit mainly within each of the professional standards departments of each of the 43 police forces. Some additional training will be required, but I think it will be very marginal in initial recruit training, because it very much complements what we already teach with that package.
Seamus Logan
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: To be fair, that is a good question. My reflection, very much, is that we have the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is completely and utterly independent of the police service, all the chief constables and all the staff associations. That would be the body that an individual—let us say an individual in my position, potentially—could approach, if I had one of those specific concerns. From a police service perspective, I would say that that possibly already exists, but for other members of the public sector, that might be a very legitimate point of reflection and a good point. I think there would be some opportunity and benefit for other members of the public sector, yes.
The Chair
Thank you. If Members have no other questions, I thank Chief Constable Guildford for his contribution.
Chief Constable Guildford: You are very welcome.
Examination of Witnesses
Chris Minnoch and Richard Miller gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Law Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group. We have until 4.15 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if witnesses briefly introduced themselves for the record, please.
Richard Miller: I am Richard Miller. I am the head of the justice team in the policy directorate at the Law Society of England and Wales.
Chris Minnoch: I am Chris Minnoch. I am the chief executive officer of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group. We are a membership group that represents practitioners across England and Wales who deliver legal aid services.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Minnoch: That one is squarely for Richard, I am afraid.
Richard Miller: In the past, families at inquests have been either unrepresented or represented by someone on legal aid or by pro bono services, perhaps against public bodies that have very little in the way of limits on the legal representation that they can provide. One of the aims of the Bill that we very much support is that there should be much more parity of arms. Now, parity does not necessarily mean absolutely equal representation on the two sides. It does not necessarily mean that, just because the public body has a King’s counsel representing them, the family must also have a King’s counsel. I do, however, think there is a question about whether, if there is a significant discrepancy, that indicates that the public body may not in fact be complying with its duty of candour.
In terms of the rights of individuals within the public bodies, if an individual has their own separate interest, they may need to be separately represented from the public body itself, but it is very important that we separate out where the public body has liability from where any individuals have liability. Generally speaking, in terms of what may follow by way of civil proceedings, it would be the body and not the individuals facing those consequences. It is the role of the public body that is most significant here, and we need to ensure that there is balance with the bereaved families.
Dr Mullan
Q
Richard Miller: The starting point would be the coroner, who will be a qualified lawyer and therefore very used to making assessments about what is necessarily and reasonably incurred by way of legal expense and legal work. They will be in as good a position as anybody to judge whether what the public body is doing is reasonable. It is a standard part of civil litigation that you have to justify your costs as necessary and reasonable, so it would not be a new requirement; it would just be a new forum within which that requirement was applying. The lawyers advising public bodies would already be well used to identifying what is necessary and reasonable in any given circumstance. Obviously, they will need to calibrate that advice in the light of this legislation, but it is not a new skill—it is a not new judgment that they will have to make. It is something that they already do.
Tessa Munt
Q
Chris Minnoch: That is not something I have necessarily prepared for, but I appreciate that it is an important point, so thank you for asking about it. For many years now, there has been a deficiency when it comes to employment cases, particularly since the removal of employment law from the scope of the legal aid scheme. As an organisation, it is important to legal aid lawyers and their clients—similarly, from the Law Society’s perspective, I am sure I would not be wrong in saying this—that people taking actions in the employment tribunal or facing proceedings as a result of whistleblowing have access to legal advice and representation. There is a certain element where people who benefit from union membership are partially protected by that or can have resources made available to them, but there is a gaping hole in the legal aid scheme at the moment around employment law and employment cases for employees. We would hope that the Government would consider filling that, because it is a very important point.
Tessa Munt
Thank you. I invite you to pass your comments to the Chair in writing at some point, if that is possible, because I do not have time to ask you about that in detail now, but I am very interested in your views.
Richard Miller: I fully agree with what Mr Minnoch has said on that point. The Law Society would also be very happy to provide more detailed views on this issue in due course.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Richard Miller: There are three areas that most need to be covered. First, what is the structure within which legal aid is delivered? We believe that the Bill does not go quite far enough here, in that it provides for legal help—the very lowest level of assistance—to families and it provides for advocacy. In most court proceedings, there is a middle level of legal representation that is provided. We think that level has benefits both for the Government and for the families concerned. For the Government, it provides greater control and greater quality control over the work. For the families—or, more to the point, for the firms representing the families—it means they are able to apply for payments on account in long-running cases, which is crucial to make this an economically viable expansion for firms.
You have to get the structure right in the first place. You then have to build up the capacity and you also have to make it attractive enough overall for lawyers who are not currently doing this work to want to come into it. Those are the three aspects that need to be addressed. Chris, do you want to expand on that a bit?
Chris Minnoch: Thank you, Richard. Minister, it is a very important question. I will start by saying how refreshing it is to come to a session such as this to talk about something positive in relation to the legal aid scheme—a positive expansion—after so many years of giving and submitting evidence to various Committees asking for these sorts of measures to be introduced. I give credit to the campaigning groups that have made this happen and to the Government for taking such a progressive step.
Richard is absolutely right that we have to see the expansion of legal aid in the context of the current civil legal aid system in particular, but you cannot dissociate that from the criminal legal aid system because there is an overlap between the two in terms of who is delivering the service. There are fundamental weaknesses in the sustainability and in the workforce, especially regarding recruitment and retention, that have been recognised by various recent Government-led reviews. There is lots of evidence there and I am sure that, as a Minister, you are fully aware of some of the challenges you face in trying to plug those.
Richard highlighted a really important point about the technical construction of the scheme. We are already in discussions, as is the Law Society, with the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency about how we can improve that structure to make the work as sustainable as possible, and as attractive as possible, both to existing providers and new providers.
There is a really critical element, however, which was raised earlier today in some of the evidence that I heard, about which types of lawyers are best placed to deliver these services. Despite the challenges that the legal aid scheme has faced, particularly in the last 15 years or so, we are really lucky to have a core of incredibly experienced and expert lawyers who carry out this sort of work. Our advice to the Government would be to start there and then look to expand the capacity of those lawyers.
There is an issue around capacity, because inquest work takes such an emotional toll on the lawyers involved. There are elements of vicarious trauma that are involved in these sorts of cases, so it is very difficult for your entire caseload to be inquest work for 100% of your time. There are some natural capacity issues built in, even for lawyers doing that work currently, but those are the organisations—I think one of the earlier witnesses described them as human rights lawyers—where we need to start building up their capacity by making the system as attractive as possible, so that they themselves can recruit and develop the lawyers who can expand this work.
We are also already in talks with the Legal Aid Agency about separating out inquest work from the current categories of legal aid, so it is a separate category of legal aid with its own separate supervisor standards and its own separate accreditation process—those sorts of things. Richard, you might want to address the kind of training, development and accreditation issues arising from that.
Richard Miller: Indeed, yes. We are already having initial discussions with the Legal Aid Agency about what training might be required and whether accreditation would also be worthwhile in this area. The Law Society is well positioned to deliver training at scale, as would be needed here. One thing that we would like to explore is whether there is scope for Government assistance with the cost of that training to ensure that we can get the initial boost to capacity that will be urgently required.
On the question of accreditation, at the moment our preference is not to go that far, because we must be careful not to establish too many barriers to getting that expansion in place first. Down the line, it might be that accreditation would be worthwhile, but initially I think we need to make sure that the training is there and that lawyers are aware of their obligation not to deliver work beyond their competence. That should get the expansion of capacity that we need in the short term that we can then build on.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Richard Miller: That is why we need to be starting those discussions right now, and we are. It is very difficult—it is a bit chicken and egg—because until the work is there, lawyers might not see that now is the time to incur the cost of developing plans to expand into the area. We need to get the legislation in place and be very clear as to when it is coming in, in order for the lawyers to be able to prepare for it.
We can never be absolutely certain, but with a combination of what we are starting to do already and building on the experience of the lawyers who are already working in this field, some of whom have said to us that they believe they can expand fairly quickly to mop up at least some of the additional demand, we can probably get to a tolerable position. It is going to involve work over a prolonged period of time to continue to build capacity, but delaying implementation simply does not help us to address the problem.
Chris Minnoch: To add to that, one of the difficulties with delaying implementation is that—this may come out in a later question from the Committee—the lawyers have a very important role to play in supporting bereaved families at inquests, but they also have a very important role in supporting the inquest itself and the coroner. They will probably play an important role in enabling or assisting the coroner to make determinations around the reasonableness and proportionality of public authority representation. You have heard already today about the extraordinary difficulties that unrepresented bereaved families face in accessing the information they need before the inquest proceedings or an inquiry begins, and that is another role the lawyers can play.
Delaying implementation on the basis of concerns about capacity might actually undermine some of the other elements of the Bill that are central to making it work and to the creation of the culture change that we have heard victims and bereaved families speak about so eloquently.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Q
Secondly, if a public authority has a team of, for instance, one senior and two juniors, why should a bereaved family be represented by perhaps only one junior counsel? That really would not be parity of arms. The Bill talks about members of bereaved families, but how many members of that family are we talking about? Is it one specific next of kin? We heard evidence earlier from a witness who talked about a divorcing couple. Would they both be granted legal aid?
Chris Minnoch: On your first question, there is an issue around non-means-tested legal aid becoming available and so the case coming into scope at that stage, at the point at which the public authority is appointed as an interested party. Some of our members have expressed concerns that the appointment—the actual point at which an authority becomes an interested party—might be quite late in the process. It could be not when the inquest is opened, but perhaps closer to when the proceedings commence. An awful lot of work needs to be done in the intervening period, and that can last a long time. We are already talking to the Ministry of Justice about whether, although that is currently written into the Bill, it is the best way to determine the point at which non-means-tested legal aid is made available.
Of course, there are other situations in which means-tested legal aid will be made available, particularly when more than one family is involved who want representation, or at least preparation for the inquest rather than the advocacy itself.
At the moment, there is not a cap in respect of the preparation and advocacy aspects of work on inquest cases. That is probably right, because the system is already over-bureaucratic and underpaid. The creation of a cap, or people having to extend the level of legal aid they can access at different points in time in an inquest process, is just going to act as another barrier to ensuring adequate representation.
Parity is a really difficult question. I have been speaking about this to our members who are inquest specialists. One of the points they made, which was slightly surprising to me—I think Richard alluded to this earlier—was that they do not necessarily see parity as being about the number or seniority of the lawyers that represent either side in the inquisitorial process. Because of the completely different role that a bereaved family have in an inquest—as opposed to a public authority—it is probably understandable in many circumstances why a public authority might have a bigger legal team. If the duty of candour works in practice, and if public authorities genuinely want to assist the coroner to carry out their investigations, they may need a larger legal team to assist them properly. I would not say it is as simple as just numbers and seniority.
To build on one of the points mentioned earlier, the reasonableness and proportionality of legal representation will be linked to conduct, to a degree. The assessment by the coroner of whether the public authority’s level of representation is proportionate will very much flow from whether the coroner believes the public authority is acting and following their duty of candour and their duty to assist the investigation, and is being open, frank and transparent. If they are, there will be few concerns about their level of legal representation, but if they are not, there will be big concerns about their level of legal representation, because that will be seen as a mechanism to block rather than comply with their duties. Does that make sense?
Douglas McAllister
Yes, it does. Thank you.
Richard Miller: I will add one point on the costs aspect. Firms will not be given a blank cheque here; they know that when they submit their bill of costs to the Legal Aid Agency, it will be very closely scrutinised. Any costs that the Legal Aid Agency considers were not necessarily and reasonably incurred will be disallowed, and firms know they will be subject to that level of scrutiny when they undertake work, so they are, by definition, very cautious about what work they do. They do not want to do a whole load of work that they are not going to get paid for, so there is a very significant control of the costs from that assessment by the Legal Aid Agency.
Over time, one of the things we will be able to learn is what sort of costs should be expected for this work, and once we know what the norms are, it may be possible to move to a system where there are stages or caps where people know, “This is the expected level of costs for that. If you’re going to exceed that, maybe you would need to get specific authority”, but we do not have that information at the outset. That will be something to develop in a number of years, once the evidence comes through.
Ian Byrne
Q
In a world where the Bill is passed into legislation in May, what would the timescale be for scaling up so we have parity of arms at inquests? What would be the timescale, and what would you need? I would like that on record.
Richard Miller: First, we need to get the structure for the legal aid administration resolved, and we need to have discussions with the Ministry and the Legal Aid Agency about what training is required, what can be provided and how quickly it can be developed. It might potentially be helpful if a plan could be published that sets out, “This is the plan for meeting the capacity requirements here”, and on which we and the Government and perhaps the Legal Aid Agency could all say, “Yep, we agree that is the route forward. That is the road map. Those are the milestones and timelines that we think we will need for it.” I do not think we are in a position today to be able to say, “Yep, this is the time that is required”, but I do not think it would take too much work to develop a plan that would help us understand what would be required and how quickly we could get there.
Chris Minnoch: I have some minor points to add. We will need an amendment to the Bill to fix those structural issues. The Bill, as currently drafted, is based on the existing funding model, which does not support sustainability and creates unnecessary complexity in the system. The way in which the funding mechanism works does not enable it to be completed in the same way as other areas of civil legal aid. The earlier those amendments are made and the Bill receives Royal Assent, the earlier current practitioners can make a conscious business decision to say, “Yes, this is an area in which we can take on more staff and start training them up, or divert resources from other areas into inquest work.”
One of our concerns is that this might mean that lawyers take on a higher proportion of inquest cases than they currently do, and one of the things I would like to see the Ministry of Justice actively thinking about is how you put mechanisms in place that support lawyers to do such complex and potentially harrowing cases. I think that is partly an issue for the Ministry of Justice, and partly an issue for the legal sector. The legal aid sector is not particularly good at looking after itself, given the nature of the cases it does. That is as much about having an adequate fee scheme and having the right levels of training and supervision in place to do that.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chris Minnoch: I have some initial thoughts. I have to say that I am speaking only on behalf of the lawyers who represent bereaved families; I cannot speak for lawyers who represent public authorities—I have no experience of that. We have already heard evidence today that the critical aspects of the Bill are those that will change the culture within public authorities. That is not going to happen overnight, because it is a cultural shift that is required, which will take some time, and because there are consequences for the individuals involved in those public authorities, based on what could come out of it.
What we want the legal aid provisions to do, including on parity of arms, is assist those broader duties to take place. I do not think that it is going to happen from day one, and nor does any lawyer I have spoken to who does inquest work. I do not think an inquest that takes place the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent will be an open and transparent process, as the Bill anticipates. For me, one of the key aspects of the legal aid elements is the ability of the lawyers, not just when the proceedings commence, but in the conduct of the parties leading up to the inquest, including the disclosure elements and the openness and willingness to reveal information to the bereaved family’s lawyers—that is the critical part for me to begin with.
The family’s lawyers can then assist the coroner in making an assessment of the conduct, and I think it is the conduct of the public authority that is key, when you are thinking about parity of arms. I made the point earlier that I do not think the bereaved family is going to be overly concerned about the number of lawyers on the other side, if those lawyers are actively assisting the inquest. If they are not, it is a much bigger issue.
Richard Miller: I think there are a couple of measures in the Bill that helpfully come together to try to encourage greater parity, including the duty of candour and the fact that the Ministry responsible for the public body is going to be asked to meet the legal costs of the bereaved family. They come together to put an onus on the public body and the Ministry responsible for it to be proportionate. If they create a situation where they are requiring the bereaved family’s lawyer to undertake a lot more work, they will ultimately have to meet the costs.
As Mr Minnoch says, it is not going to happen overnight; it is going to be a change that has effect over a number of years. But these are, I think, useful nudge factors in the right direction to get to the level of parity that we are trying to achieve here—
The Chair
Thank you. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. I regret that I had to interrupt at the end. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witness
Judge Alexia Durran gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the chief coroner of England and Wales. We have until 4.35 pm for this panel. Could the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record?
Judge Durran: I am Her Honour Alexia Durran, chief coroner of England and Wales. Before I am asked any questions, I wonder whether I might say a little about the prism through which my answers should be viewed.
I thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence today. I begin by saying that any concerns that I may raise, in answer to questions about the operational impacts of the proposed measures before you, are in no way intended to question the principles underlying the Bill. Those principles are important and, like my predecessors in the role of chief coroner, I am committed to ensuring that the experiences endured by the Hillsborough families in the aftermath of that tragedy and, indeed, the other families you have heard from and will hear from are never repeated.
The Bill seeks to strengthen the transparency, accountability and fairness in the justice system, and those aims are ones I fully support. A coroner hearing an inquest has to answer four statutory questions: who died, when, where and how? And families often tell coroners that the outcome they want from an inquest is that no other family suffer a loss in the circumstances in which they did. Plainly, the duty of candour proposed in the Bill can only help answer the important question of how. If the Bill becomes law, I will do all I can within my role to ensure that its implementation is as effective as possible.
With that comes my responsibility to draw to the Committee’s attention the practical concerns regarding how these proposals may affect the administration of justice in the coroner service. Those concerns relate not to the aims of the Bill, but to the potential operational consequences, which, if not addressed, could inadvertently create additional challenges for the delivery of timely and effective coronial investigations and inquests.
Any points of concern I may articulate on behalf of the coroner service and my office are, plainly, so that you can carefully consider them and explore any possible mitigations. My aim, I hope, this afternoon will be to assist you in ensuring that the Bill achieves its intended purpose, without unintended impacts on the functioning of the coroner service, which plays a critical role in serving bereaved families and maintaining public confidence in the justice system. I think it is important that we do not seek, as I do not seek in any answers I may give, to undermine in any way the intentions of the Bill.
Dr Mullan
Q
Judge Durran: There are a number of aspects. First is the provision of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families. That representation has to be available as soon as possible to enable families to participate throughout the inquest process. If the families are not represented at early stages, the coroner has to do one of two things—either delay any inquest procedures until the family are represented, or continue without family representation, which deprives them of their voice. Coroners are concerned about whether there are sufficient lawyers available to undertake this sort of work.
It is important to recognise the other side of that equation in relation to legal representation for public authorities. The criteria currently in clause 18 suggest what gives parity of arms. It is important to recognise that public authority lawyers are very often a great help to coroners. In cases where there are voluminous amounts of material, they help the coroner to put that material into paginated bundles and deal with redactions. If that practical help is taken away, the coroner and the coroner officers will have to take up that work, which would usually be done by others. That means that coroner officers are less able to engage with bereaved families and coroners themselves will have more work to do, which will inevitably impact the number of inquests that they can hear.
I am concerned about the suggestion that there should be an overriding objective to ensure that “affected persons”, which effectively means the family, are given greater ability than others to participate in inquests—if there is to be parity of arms, that means everybody. Although a coroner will always do their best, I hope, to facilitate the effective participation of a family, everyone should have equal rights in the objective of answering the four questions.
Dr Mullan
Q
Judge Durran: If you are making the coroner the judge of that, you are creating an additional burden on the coroner. It may be quite difficult for them to go about getting that information. I note that in clause 18 of the Bill as drafted there are three suggestions on how that might be considered. I would invite the Committee, in particular in relation to the importance of the issues under investigation, to look at the sort of things that might encourage the engagement of public authorities using lawyers. I might suggest complex legal principles, potential for a coroner to be invited to consider multiple conclusions, the arguable engagement of article 2, the potential for a prevention of future death report to have a national impact, and whether there are issues that might be important to the wider public interest. Those are the sorts of factors I would venture to suggest ought to be considered in assessing whether lawyers ought to be involved.
Dr Mullan
Q
Judge Durran: My anxiety is that you are creating an additional level of work that takes coroners away from being in court and dealing with inquests. The covid-19 pandemic increased the backlog in coroner’s courts, as it did in other courts. There are considerable backlogs; the weeks to inquest have increased from pre-pandemic levels, and cases over 12 months—a number of areas are struggling with very high numbers. If you then inject a further level of work for coroners, you will take them away from what they need to be doing: being in court, hearing inquests and giving families closure.
Dr Mullan
Q
Judge Durran: Every coroner is an independent judicial office holder. I can give guidance, but every case and every inquest will be fact-specific. One of my responsibilities as chief coroner of England and Wales is to provide leadership with the intention of promoting consistency among coroners. A considerable piece of work in achieving that objective was the “Chief Coroner’s Guidance for Coroners on the Bench”, which is a bench book—a “how to do it”. That has received a very favourable response for helping, I hope, to frame decision-making processes. It is a publication; although its intention is to assist coroners, it is a public-facing document and available for anyone who is an interested person.
Particularly—as I have emphasised at training, which is another of my responsibilities for coroners—bereaved families who are not represented in inquests should have access to that publication, because they can use that document to hold coroners to account in saying, “You are not following the Chief Coroner’s guidance, designed to promote consistency.” I am sad and disappointed that people may not have had a positive experience from an inquest, but we are, I believe, making considerable progress in promoting greater consistency.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Judge Durran: There is certainly an impression that inquests are becoming more adversarial because lawyers seek to use them as some early form of litigation, with an eye to any consequential litigation down the line. My predecessor and I have done a lot to convey the message that an inquest is inquisitorial—it should not be adversarial. It is a summary hearing, not a surrogate public inquiry. Increasingly, I tell coroners about the existence of the advocate’s toolkits, which have been designed specifically with inquests in process. I have encouraged coroners that if lawyers are seeking to turn an inquest into a public inquiry, they should pause, look at the advocate’s toolkits, remind the lawyers to look at those and remind them of the nature of the proceedings, because it is not the correct forum to make those sort of arguments.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Judge Durran: It is disappointing that the duty of candour has to be written into law. I hope that the Bill is a considerable step in the right direction, as a vehicle to enable a coroner, through conduct reports and compliance directions, to better get people to engage with the true intentions, which is to find out answers to the four questions and primarily how someone died. However, I cannot over-emphasise that the compliance directions and conduct reports add a burden to a strain that is already under strain and under-resourced.
Maria Eagle
Q
Judge Durran: I have a concern because, as I have said, a coroner has to answer four statutory questions. If an inquest engages article 2, the “how” becomes “in what circumstances”, but they are very narrow questions that should be answered. A coroner has to be very clear in answering those four questions in setting their scope—in setting the parameters of their investigation in answering those questions. There is very often a tension between what a coroner feels they need to hear to answer the statutory questions, and some wider questions that family may want answered. That remains a tension that I am not sure that this Bill is necessarily going to answer.
Maria Eagle
Q
Judge Durran: It is too binary to say that lawyers are good or lawyers are bad. Lawyers for the family will give them a better voice, will enable them to be better engaged, and will help families better understand some of the complexity of the evidence or decision making. On the other side of the question, I would be sad to see public authorities lose lawyers where there is a complexity to the evidence that needs to be explored; I think that better enables questions to be answered. It is too binary to say lawyers are good or lawyers are bad; everyone has to be working with the same objective, which regrettably does not always happen.
Tessa Munt
Q
Judge Durran: The Bill includes provisions that a coroner can write a conduct report. It is not clear to me at the moment what the mechanism will be for such a report and how they should be handled. At present, as I understand it, conduct reports raising concerns will be sent to the chief coroner, responses will be sent to the chief coroner, and the chief coroner will account for those within my annual report to the Lord Chancellor. What is not clear to me is the mechanism of how that will happen and whether the intention is, through regulation, to create mechanisms similar to prevention of future deaths reports.
It is important to say that I am not, nor should I be, a regulator. I am sure that many will say that publication of a report and publication of a response without any other mechanism will not achieve much. I am concerned about what those mechanisms are and whether they will fundamentally serve a purpose, or whether I will simply publish them and they will be there for people to see, but no meaningful action will be taken upon them.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of you, so on behalf of the Committee, I thank our witness for her evidence.
Examination of Witness
Cindy Butts gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the independent public advocate. We have until 4.55 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if the witness could briefly introduce herself for the record.
Cindy Butts: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Cindy Butts, and I am the independent public advocate.
Dr Mullan
Q
I have a sense that the role of the IPA might be a way of addressing the gap between the need to have a public inquiry—with or without a duty of candour—and the need to get people answers more quickly. In your role as the independent public advocate, do you feel that you should have more powers, for example to compel the publication of records and information that might help families to get answers in a shorter timescale, as was suggested today?
Cindy Butts: At the moment, I have gateway powers. Basically, that means that I only have access to information that families themselves should have access to. Although I have been in post for only two months, that provision has not quite yet been tested as to whether I need additional powers. But I absolutely recognise and appreciate the concerns of families in particular that where truth is withheld—in the case of Hillsborough, that was for many decades—that prevents them from accessing the truth. It has not been tested yet, and there might be a case for additional powers to allow me to have access to that information.
Dr Mullan
Q
Cindy Butts: Fundamentally, it is the fact that public officials will be required to act with candour not only in their daily work, but in respect of inquests, public inquiries and any other review processes that might ensue. That is really important, and it can certainly go a long way to recognising the gap, which has existed for far too long, whereby organisations are able to protect their own interests and hide the truth. The Bill can go a long way to filling that gap.
Having said that, although I fundamentally welcome the Bill, it has a number of gaps. I have written to the Committee with my evidence. Some of it relates directly to the Bill, and admittedly other elements sit slightly outside it, but I cheekily wanted to put those issues forward, because I think they are fundamental in terms of truth finding.
In terms of the gaps, the first thing is that the independent public advocate is not mentioned at all in the Bill. That is not a technical omission, but a structural flaw. When public bodies face major incidents—that is obviously the prism through which I am looking at this—they look to the statute that governs candour, and if the IPA is not referenced in that, they will assume that the IPA has no standing in the candour framework. They will not know what co-operation is expected or required of them, and they will treat the duty of candour as something separate from my statutory role. My office, which was created because candour failed, cannot be absent from legislation that is designed to make candour succeed. That is why a carefully drafted provision ought to be in the Bill.
The other area I wish to highlight is the lack of coherence in moral language. What we know—this is a very insidious problem—is that in major incidents, different parts of the state speak in different moral registers. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which brought my role into being, the Hillsborough charter and now this Bill all speak in very different moral language. The Bill is very much in legal terms, the Hillsborough charter is very much in moral terms and the Victims and Prisoners Act is very operational.
I do not think that this is a matter of semantics. It is absolutely fundamental that we have coherence among all the different elements because we know that, otherwise, when organisations are put under pressure, they revert to what is easiest to do. Not having that coherence allows them the ability to navigate to their own advantage.
Another element that requires careful consideration relates to the monitoring of the duty of candour. The Prime Minister announced only a few weeks ago that the Ethics and Integrity Commission would be tasked with setting the framework and monitoring organisations’ adherence to the duty of candour. I think that is right. Having said that, in respect of major incidents, I do not think the Ethics and Integrity Commission is the right organisation to monitor compliance; that should sit with the Independent Public Advocate—with my role—ensuring that organisations are adhering to the duty of candour. The Ethics and Integrity Commission would not be on the ground. It would not have access to, or a relationship with, victims. That gap ought to be filled.
Dr Mullan
Q
Cindy Butts: They are my key points, but I think there is one more that I want to bring to your attention. As the Bill is currently drafted, victims and bereaved families have no formal role in shaping guidance, oversight or the implementation of the duty of candour. Given that the Bill is derived from the experiences of the Hillsborough families and so many others who have faced tragedy, those ought to be hardwired into the Act itself so that reform is something that is never done to them, but always with them. There should be a way in which families have a formal role, working alongside the Ethics and Integrity Commission, to ensure that the Bill is not procedural and that it works in practice. That is fundamentally missing, and it should be corrected.
Dr Mullan
Q
Cindy Butts: No, I just saw it when it was published, and that is because I have been in role for only two months.
Dr Mullan
Q
Cindy Butts: Yes, I would want to see some of the language that is reflected in both the Hillsborough charter and the Victims and Prisoners Act—the section that deals with the Independent Public Advocate, where it speaks to the moral importance of accountability and truth telling—rather than what is there now, which is much more legalistic and technical. I do not think that that necessarily requires an amendment; it requires careful redrafting, which can be done quite easily. I am happy to spell that out and flesh it out in written evidence, if that would be helpful.
Tessa Munt
Q
You referred to the families and an awful lot of individuals who considered that they were really looking forward to you being part of their solutions. Might I ask you to consider something? You were talking about language. I think that what will happen is that every different organisation will create its own code of ethics and own interpretation of the duty of candour. Is there perhaps a place for the Government, or for you and the Government, to work together to make a single version?
I suspect that the public, out there in the real world, will interpret the code of ethics and the duty of candour in a particular way, and will use ordinary language. They will know when it is right and what it is saying, but we might be in terrible danger of local authorities—some of them doing one thing; some of them doing another—and different people interpreting the rules in a particular way.
I recognise the difficulties with Nolan. They have been with us for 30 years, but clearly the Nolan principles have not worked. Is there a possibility of a single framework within which everyone understands what everyone is up to? I say that particularly because in earlier evidence from the chief constable, when he was questioned about various aspects, he thought that it was a brilliant question for other authorities, but not for his.
Cindy Butts: Thank you for that interesting question. The duty will cover hundreds—thousands, probably—of bodies, all with very different roles and remits, so having one coherent framework might be difficult, because each and every one of them needs something that is right for them and that fits the context of the way in which they work and their objectives. That said, there is value in thinking about some overarching principles that certainly ought to apply to how each organisation develops its bespoke framework. First and foremost, however, it must fit in with an overarching set of principles.
That question also points to the issue I raised before, which is about ensuring that victims and survivors are involved in the implementation. I think that they can play a crucial role in ensuring that organisations have a framework that is fit for purpose and that is informed by their lived experience. That would be how I look at it.
Joe Powell
Q
Cindy Butts: I hope that the inclusion of the IPA in law means that organisations understand the IPA’s role of supporting victims, survivors and bereaved families in accessing information and advocating for them for truth—for truth telling. I hope that it is clear that the responsibility of the IPA is to help them to achieve exactly that.
Seamus Logan
Q
Cindy Butts: Yes, please do.
Seamus Logan
Q
Thank you for your very extensive evidence, which is very impressive from someone who has been in post for just two months. However, I wanted to ask you about your previous experience—we got little CVs for the witnesses—as a commissioner at the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and in the transformation of the Metropolitan police following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. You have extensive experience in very relevant areas. Can you comment on the scale and size of the task in front of us with this Bill? It is very extensive and lists a large number of public authorities. Can you comment on that?
Cindy Butts: I am not sure that I quite understand your question.
Seamus Logan
Q
Cindy Butts: I think it will present a challenge for them, because it is very different from what we have now and indeed from what has ever existed. That is a testament to those who have worked on the Bill and to what it is trying to achieve. It will be an enormous change for them, but it is a change that is long overdue and desperately needed. Yes, it is challenging, but I would like to think that they see the importance and value of the changes that are coming into being, and that they will rise to that challenge, because the status quo is no longer acceptable.
Seamus Logan
Q
Cindy Butts: I do, and it is part of the reason why, in my submission, I spoke to the issue of exceptional circumstances, because, of course, my role comes into play following a major tragedy, such as Hillsborough, or the Manchester Arena bombing, or indeed the Manchester synagogue attack, which I am currently deployed to assist with. On the other hand, I also know that there are cases when only one single death might have occurred, but despite the impact of that single death on a family, and indeed the public interest involved with that, such families are left without the kind of support that I provide after major incidents. Trauma should not be measured by numbers, so I think that is a fundamental gap, which is not necessarily in this Bill, although I would not mind if it were addressed through the Bill. You only have to look at what Stephen Lawrence’s family went through or, indeed, more recently with Harry Dunn and the complexity that that poor family had to deal with, largely on their own.
The Chair
We have about a minute and a half left if Maria Eagle wants to ask a question.
Maria Eagle
Q
Cindy Butts: Very quickly? Exceptional circumstances —I absolutely think that that should be something that I can recommend. Where there is a case that requires my involvement, I should be able to make representations to the Secretary of State in that respect.
As I said before, the issue of being able to access information might be an area where further powers are required, although that should be dealt with very carefully, because we are not an investigatory body and neither should we be. However, it is certainly worth considering whether we should be a sort of safe house to guard information. Also, in terms of the duty to—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry, but I have to stop you there. That is the end of the allocated time for the Committee to ask you questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your evidence and for taking the time to speak to us. Thank you.
Cindy Butts: Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Arun Chopra, Professor Aidan Fowler and Helen Vernon gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Care Quality Commission, NHS Resolution and NHS England. We have until 5.30 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if the witnesses could introduce themselves for the record.
Dr Chopra: Good afternoon. I am Arun Chopra, interim chief executive at the Care Quality Commission.
Helen Vernon: Good afternoon. I am Helen Vernon, chief executive of NHS Resolution.
Professor Fowler: Hello. I am Aidan Fowler, the national director of patient safety and deputy medical director at NHS England, and deputy chief medical officer at the Department of Health and Social Care.
Dr Mullan
Q
The Chair
Before we do, there are three witnesses and a number of Members want to ask questions, so Members should bear in mind that we will not necessarily have time for all those questions if they ask the same questions of all three witnesses.
Dr Chopra: I will try to be brief. I want to say at the outset that I recognise the injustices experienced by the victims and survivors of the events that have taken place and led us to this point in considering this Bill. That is on my mind as I am talking.
I have had experience of operating under a duty of candour both as a clinician in the NHS and as part of an assurance body. I recognise what you are saying—that it has not been as successful as we would want it to be—but I do think it has helped. Clear expectations have been created as to what we expect within health and social care services around the duty of candour, and how we expect professionals and organisations to discharge that duty.
It is important to point out that the duty alone is not enough. The sense of the culture within an organisation upstream has a profound impact on how the duties are applied when a notifiable safety incident actually occurs. It is also important to recognise, downstream, after incidents have occurred, how we can take learning from those incidents and ensure that it is disseminated. There are upstream aspects as well as the incidents that take place.
It is also important to point out that, as an assurance organisation, we in the CQC see when the regulation 20 duty of candour is not working. We have taken action over the last 10 years, I think in 361 instances, when we have found that the duties have not been discharged properly. We have a suite of powers, ranging from civil actions to criminal prosecutions, and there have been times when we have taken forward criminal prosecutions when we have found that the duty of candour has not been met.
Some of the practical issues we find include the timeliness of when the duties are discharged. We sometimes find organisations considering whether the duty actually applies and whether the incident qualifies as a notifiable safety incident. Those are some of the issues we find when we look at how the duty is working in the NHS.
Helen Vernon: I agree. I think the aims of the Bill, as when the NHS duty of candour was introduced, are a really important step in increasing transparency and accountability, and thereby improving trust. Our main role is handling compensation claims against the NHS in England. We know from our research that where you do not get transparency, and where you do not get a meaningful apology and engagement when things go wrong, that can drive people to other processes—in our case, bringing a compensation claim to get information.
In reality, we recognise that the implementation has been inconsistent. There are some organisations that do it well and have an open culture, and clearly there are some that could do better. I reiterate what Dr Chopra said about culture: it is key to have a sustained focus on culture and leadership. Consistency in understanding is important, including things like triggers and how you apply the duty in practice, so that it becomes more than a tick-box exercise and becomes meaningful. Lastly, there is training, which we have partly taken a role in delivering to ensure that clinicians in particular have the skills required to deliver the duty effectively.
Professor Fowler: I think we are all very supportive of the notion of being transparent. We have had a duty of candour on organisations, and applied through individuals, for 10 years, but I think we all accept that it has been inconsistently applied. There are very good examples of where it has been applied, and there are very poor examples.
From the individual duty of candour point of view, it is worth pointing out that we have seen a significant rise in the number of people coming forward and reporting incidents—in other circumstances, they are being very transparent, and we are seeing 3 million of those a year. From the point of view of organisational transparency, we already see very good examples of people stepping forward and working with a number of different inquiries. Since 2021, NHS England alone has looked at 600,000 different documents, disclosed 7,000 of them to inquiries and put forward 5,500 pages of witness statements. There is a very significant amount of work there.
The Department of Health and Social Care has rightly chosen to review the individual duty of candour and look at what has worked well and what has not. We are starting to see some of the information from that review, but there will be a publication on that next year. I think it will confirm that, at the moment, it is inconsistent to some extent, and it will confirm the importance of training and support for organisations.
Dr Mullan
Q
Dr Chopra: When we approach looking at the duty of candour in regulation 20, we approach it both at the registration phase, when we are registering providers, and at the inspection and assessment stages, which then determines whether we take any enforcement action.
We have an assessment framework that sets out particular questions that we look at when we assess how an organisation is approaching its duty of candour. Within that, there will be policies and procedures that people need to follow. How do they deal with whistleblowers? How do they deal with people who raise concerns? To go back to Helen’s point, how are they ensuring that training is taking place for frontline clinicians, so that they have a mechanism to raise concerns or incidents that might trigger the statutory duty of candour? That is how we look at the overarching policies, processes and procedures that will satisfy us that an organisation is ready to be registered, and that we can look at them when we are going out on inspections. That is how we look at those issues.
Tessa Munt
Q
I have a couple of questions. First, what do you feel you can do to stop the suppression of witnesses? Will the Bill cover that? We know there are legal duties attached to this, but something has to change to stop whistleblowers suffering detriment. I do not know whether you feel the Bill is going to do it, because whatever has been in place for the last 10 years has not done it.
Secondly, the NHS has shown a willingness to accept people who have been recycled from roles in other services, departments and organisations when they might not have been deemed to have succeeded in those roles; they suddenly become chairs of trusts or take other roles in the organisation. There is something not quite right going on, in my opinion—it is my opinion.
Helen Vernon: I will talk to something that we are doing to help with that, at least in relation to the NHS duty of candour. One of the things that we have heard is a barrier to openness is the fear of a subsequent claim. As a public body, we can do something about that, because we can issue guidance to the NHS that debunks it, in essence, by saying, “It’s incredibly important that you put the duty of candour first, that you are open and honest, that you share information when it is available, and that you do the right thing for the patient, regardless of the possibility of subsequent litigation.”
That is one thing that we have been doing. It is a message that we have found it quite difficult to permeate in its totality, bearing in mind that we have clinicians coming up all the time through training, for example. We need to get to people when they are taking on a new role and we need to cover the whole of the NHS, which is evidently huge, but it is certainly something we make a huge effort on, to make sure that we remove barriers where we hear of them.
Professor Fowler: From the NHSE point of view, I would argue that progress has been made but it is imperfect. I accept that point, but I think we have seen evidence of greater levels of transparency, as I said.
Obviously, the Bill will need to interact with existing provisions, such as professional regulatory standards. We have a fit and proper person test that we apply— Arun might want to come on to that, because some of it is done through the CQC. We now have a 10-year plan that commits to radical transparency as part of its aims. Underlying that, in order to drive up quality, there is a commitment to a quality strategy, which we are working on and will look again at assurance mechanisms and how we tidy them up and simplify them to some extent, but also how we improve them.
In making these changes we have to be very cautious to understand, first, why people do not step forward if they do not step forward, and secondly, that we have obligations, for example, to protect patient confidentiality in any information we release, protect our staff, and look at proportionality. I mentioned the volume of papers we have looked at; it is important to understand that there are resource implications for clinicians’ time in responding to some of this. There is a lot of complexity to some of the things we need to look at in making sure there is not a chilling effect and that people are willing to step forward and do not see a potential impediment.
Dr Chopra: Aidan has already mentioned the fit and proper person test, but I want to make a couple of additional points. It is so difficult that we have to legislate for candour, but some of this is about culture in organisations, and there is a way of tapping into looking at an organisation’s culture. We have questions in NHS staff surveys about how confident staff feel about raising concerns, and whether those concerns will be responded to. I find that data is quite helpful to understand a sense of the culture in the organisation.
The other point I was going to mention was about inequalities, demographics and protected characteristics. A great proportion—up to 40%—of the medical workforce in the NHS come from minoritised ethnic backgrounds, and they are often the people who struggle the most to have their concerns raised. They are the ones who are scared of retribution for raising concerns. Tackling that will be a significant factor in making sure that the duty of candour, as it is currently is meant to work, is as successful as we would like it to be.
In terms of how we can measure some of that, my team was able to run about 100 of our recent reports using a large language model in AI to look at duty of candour. When it comes to comparing those providers that were rated “Outstanding” or “Good” with those that were rated “Requires improvement”, an open, transparent culture consistently came up as a likely factor. That is evidence that such a culture is more likely to lead to an organisation that we describe as discharging its duty of candour well. These factors are really important.
On the interplay point that Aidan mentioned, we will have the statutory duty of candour, the professional duty of candour, the provisions of the Bill and the NHS manager’s duty of candour. We have got to make sure that these four pieces of legislation work together.
Tessa Munt
Q
Dr Chopra: I will briefly come back on that. One of the considerations in the 10-year plan is the role of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which will work more closely with the CQC in time. The HSSIB has what is called a protected safe space, which allows people, without fear of accountability and retribution, to raise concerns. One of the things we are concerned about in the Bill is whether the scope of clause 5(1), on other investigations, will include investigations undertaken by HSSIB when it works closely with CQC. It will be important to protect that space for the reasons you mention.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Helen Vernon: Those are incredibly sad circumstances and sensitive issues. I think it will be a big help and support that aim because, as I mentioned earlier, an open and transparent response right at the start has the best chance of not only avoiding somebody consulting lawyers or initiating a claim just to get answers, but avoiding that claim subsequently escalating into unnecessary and adversarial legal proceedings. We have driven down the number of cases that go into formal litigation by using alternative dispute resolution, which generally involves bringing clinicians and the organisation together with the family. But you can do that only if there is an atmosphere of trust and clear transparency as to the information that is being shared.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Helen Vernon: Just briefly, we hope that it will bolster transparency and the existing duty of candour, but perhaps Professor Fowler wants to come in.
Professor Fowler: I certainly agree with that. We have had the opportunity to talk about the sad case of Ida Lock. Thinking about where organisations have not been sufficiently transparent, we see occasions on which it is a failure to understand. I was involved with some training for staff who had worked in an organisation—it is not appropriate to name the organisation—where they had seen considerable failings. They were in tears during this training about reporting incidents because they realised they had been getting it completely wrong. It is incumbent upon us to work with organisations to change culture, but also to educate, train and support people, and to professionalise the approach to reporting and openness that we want to see, but that has to be done in a way in which people feel psychologically safe to do so.
I recognise anxieties about people suffering harm as a result of exercising the freedom to speak up, but it has been very successful when we look at the number of people we have seen coming forward with issues, most of whom I would argue do not suffer detriment as a result. This is about psychological safety, training, encouragement, support, standardising and professionalising around safety. A lot of the work we have done around safety has been about the governance and organisational principles of how it is done, and underlying all of it is a clear statement about systems and culture.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Helen Vernon: They should not, but as we mentioned, there is inconsistency. Part of our collective role is to make sure that people understand its importance, how to do it well and how to deliver candour in practice.
Professor Fowler: You mentioned closed cultures. I spent six months recently working as an interim in the CQC in the gap between chief inspectors. One of the things we recognised is that where we saw organisations with challenges, there was often also a closed culture. To be clear, that is a minority of organisations, but I think the two go together.
Dr Chopra: I recognise your questions, and I agree with what Aidan said. I have seen instances where what you have described is the case—as Helen said, it is inconsistent—and I have seen brave clinicians who have said, “Right, if it is not going to trigger the organisational statutory duty of candour, I do have a professional duty of candour, and I am going to raise it that way.” I hope the Bill will bolster that, as we have said.
Seamus Logan
Q
Professor Fowler: This is a very complicated issue. A few cases of people who have suffered detriment around freedom to speak up become very magnified. I genuinely do not see that as the experience of most people who speak up, but we do hear about it. In some cases, there is a great deal of complexity. In some cases, a massive breakdown of relationships within a unit that had started to impact the unit is what required the person to act in the way they did. Getting the balance right is a complex business.
In the past, I had cases where I thought, “This is a serious issue and we need to do something about it,” and was encouraged to think otherwise. That is historical—I am talking 20 years ago—and I have certainly not experienced it recently. I am not someone who has felt that there is an impediment to me speaking up, and I see plenty of examples where people are able to do that, but you do occasionally hear of people who feel they cannot, in difficult circumstances. We are working to change that culture and make it clear that there is detriment to not speaking up rather than the other way round, but it is a complex challenge. There is progress, but there is more to do. I hope that this Bill can be part of that, but there are some cautions to getting this right and getting the balance right.
Dr Chopra: I agree. I think it is about the culture. There is that saying that culture eats strategy for breakfast; in the same way, culture will eat many of these provisions. We have to get the culture right, and we need to do anything that we can to tilt the balance to create a culture of openness and candour. The reason people fear suffering detriment is that they have seen examples; we have to recognise that the high-profile cases that Aidan mentioned do have an impact on people coming forward. In fact, we probably ought to be celebrating those instances where people are able to raise concerns and blow the whistle, and things improve. That might help to start shifting the culture.
Seamus Logan
Q
Dr Chopra: Going back to what I was saying about our role as a regulator, I have focused on where we have taken enforcement powers where we have seen things that have not worked, but I think we could also do the opposite. As a regulator, we could be talking about those areas that we see as outstanding, and platforming what they have done with their policies, processes and procedures that have made them outstanding. Being a regulator that champions innovation and outstanding organisations is something that the CQC could contribute. That might be one way.
I have worked in other jurisdictions. When I think about how duty of candour works in Scotland, one of the differences is that every organisation in Scotland has to do an annual duty of candour statement. Each organisation is required to set out at the end of the year how many instances of duty of candour have been picked up, the very top headlines of what the issues were, and what they are doing about it. I thought that was a good provision that I saw operating up north. It is not perfect, but it shows how the duty is working in practice. I was working in an assurance body up there, and it allowed me to look across the country to see what was happening and whether there were areas where under-reporting may be taking place. It allowed better monitoring at national level.
Helen Vernon: In addition to what we do in relation to compensation, we have a role in the effective management of concerns about practitioner performance. Recognising some of the things that you mentioned, we did some work on some guidance called “Being fair”, which was about setting out some principles on a just and learning culture and what that looks like. Translating that into practice has meant creating templates and some simple principles that can be shared across different organisations to make it easy for people to speak up safely. That was co-produced with the input of regulators and clinicians who have been through some difficult processes, but it is one of the ways in which we can bring practical guidance to sometimes difficult concepts.
Dr Mullan
Q
Dr Chopra: We get notified of incidents. To be very frank, we are a responsive organisation when incidents occur; when we are made aware of PFD reports, we look at them. Because of the way that we look at things, as I said, we are responsive rather than taking a proactive view, but yes, that is right. One thing that might be helpful is to bring those recommendations to a national body. We are pinning a lot on the National Quality Board at the moment, but it would be helpful to bring recommendations to a central place that would allow their dissemination so that they land not just in the organisation where the incident occurred but across the piece.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Fowler: We certainly look at all the reports that are sent to us in a themed way, and look at the themes from that. In fact, I met the chief coroner this week, and we have regular discussions. You will know we have the medical examiner system now, and there is more we can do tie in the different processes and make sure that we learn from them. We look at what organisations report in quality accounts. We have prevention of future deaths reports and the “Learn from patient safety events” database, in which about 0.5% of the 3 million incidents are related to death. We bring the learning from those things together in a themed way with other data to ask, “What can we learn from all this together?” For example, medical examiners may require people to do a structured judgment review. We make sure that if that is requested, it is carried out, the learning is taken from it, actions are followed up and the cycle is completed, if you like.
Ian Byrne
Q
Dr Chopra: Can you say a little more?
Ian Byrne
The duty of candour applies to the organisation, not to the individual—in other words, the chief executive. Do you feel that is where it loses its power and does not permeate through the organisation?
Dr Chopra: I described an incident where an individual said, “Well, if the organisational duty of candour is not triggered, I have my professional duty of candour as a mechanism to raise concerns.” Building on that, I agree that it is probably important to locate the duty with an individual as well as an organisation. We have it for professionals and, although many chief executives come from health backgrounds, I think it would be helpful for managers to have that duty on them, which is one of the things the Bill supports.
Ian Byrne
Q
Professor Fowler: I think what is written into this Bill is to try to encourage exactly that with non-statutory inquiries: to bring them up to the same level as a statutory inquiry, to some degree. There is a great deal of detail around the Lampard inquiry—it has grown to a very large extent, and the amount of information required is quite large for that particular organisation—but I could not comment in particular on why individuals did not want to step forward in that circumstance.
The Chair
Order. Regrettably—I am terribly regretful today—that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Nathan Sparkes, Jacqui Hames, Flora Page, James Killen and Ron Warmington gave evidence.
James Asser
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. Before we hear from this panel, I need to declare an interest. From 2014 to 2015 I worked for Hacked Off, alongside one of the witnesses.
The Chair
We note the point of order from James Asser—thank you.
We will now hear oral evidence from Flora Page KC, WhistleblowersUK, Second Sight and Hacked Off. We have until 6.5 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record? I am beginning to sound like a stuck record.
Nathan Sparkes: I am Nathan Sparkes, chief executive of the Hacked Off Campaign.
Jacqui Hames: I am Jacqui Hames, one of the directors of Hacked Off.
Ron Warmington: I am Ron Warmington, chairman of Second Sight Investigations.
James Killen: I am James Killen, head of policy and research at WhistleblowersUK.
Dr Mullan
Q
Ron Warmington: Thank you for the question. I think it would have made a difference. I have been involved in companies that are steeped in ethical behaviour and have codes of conduct and sign-offs each year to confirm that people understand the letter as well as the spirit of the rules. What we encountered was what I have described in the past as weasel wording: straight questions altered to suit the questions that the recipient would have preferred to have asked of them, and answers that were seemingly compelling but actually not even, in some cases, telling the truth, let alone the whole truth. It should not have been, but it became a battle—a sort of warfare. It was completely unexpected by me that that behaviour would occur. I have dealt with out-and-out crooks before, but when it comes to that behaviour from the top brass and then the behaviour, as a contagion, going right through the company, I had not really encountered that before. That needs wholesale ethical change, and I am not sure an Act of Parliament can enforce that, but it will be a good thing to try.
Dr Mullan
Q
Ron Warmington: I do not deal with most organisations, but the Post Office was exceptionally bad in its behaviour. I think it originally intended to work with my company to seek the truth; there were individuals who clearly wanted to do that, but preservation of the brand and short-termism—there was the misconception that pretending that the organisation never makes any mistakes at all was going to be good for the corporation in the long term. It is complete nonsense, but that was the philosophy that had spread throughout the organisation.
I am 76 years old; I was raised in an era when my word was my bond and you did not need to have everything in writing. Corporate behaviour—unless I am misguided —was much better then. I hate the way the corporate world has gone, so I guess I was not that surprised at what we found in the Post Office.
Dr Mullan
Q
Ron Warmington: I would hope so. Every board—I have been on a lot of them—is, every now and then, trying to deal with something that has been screwed up badly, and a decision has to be made: “What are we going to do about it? Are we going to front it out, or are we going to try to cover it up?” It does not take much to shift that decision in the right direction. This measure might be enough to do that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Flora Page: Let me answer that partly with reference to your earlier question; I have also been involved in the Post Office case, and it seems to me that there are some difficulties about whether the Bill would have applied, because it is not clear that the people to whom one would wish the duty of candour to attach would necessarily be public officials. I think there are also difficulties about whether Ron’s investigation would have qualified as an inquiry or investigation—so there are a number of difficulties.
That takes me back to whistleblowers and your second question. The whistleblower provisions that we have in law at the moment are wholly inadequate, and the reason is that they put the onus on the whistleblower to enforce their rights as if they were employment rights, through the Employment Tribunal. That is entirely wrong-headed: when you speak up, it is not an employment issue; it is a public interest issue. When you are a whistleblower and it falls to you to protest any detriment that you might be suffering, it is treated as if it were a personal grievance matter—as it often is in the Employment Tribunal—rather than being taken out of the whistleblower’s hands and put into the hands of somebody who is there to look out for the public interest.
I can speak from very direct personal experience representing whistleblowers in the Employment Tribunal. It is an incredibly hostile environment for them. If they go all the way to a hearing, they are having to speak up again, often the people they have spoken up about are right behind them, and they have no protection. It is an unreasonable demand for people to have to put their families and their future employment in jeopardy and to be that brave. Some of the people whom I have acted for have been that brave, but that story is not a good story to tell; people do not want to be in that position. You cannot go out and say, “This is super. Let’s celebrate being a whistleblower,” because nobody wants to have to put themselves in that position—at their own expense, if they have sought legal representation.
What we need is a much nimbler inquiry or person who is responsible for stepping in if the employer is not dealing with the whistleblower properly, so that it is taken out of the whistleblower’s hands and becomes a public interest matter. At WhistleblowersUK, there is a lot of talk about an office for the whistleblower, because that would be something that took it out of the whistleblower’s hands and took it out of the employment context.
Dr Mullan
Q
Flora Page: An office that was used to these problems would quite easily and quickly winnow out the people who were using it as a front. Often it is as simple as the chronology: if a whistleblower has been trundling along just fine in their job, and then they speak up and suffer detriment, that often means they are a genuine whistleblower. If it turns out that there has been all sorts of back and forth about personal grievance issues first, and then they start blowing the whistle, that is a different matter. Often it is as simple as that. People who are used to these matters—at WhistleblowersUK, there is a great deal of triaging of the inquiries that come in—can quite quickly tell who is a genuine whistleblower.
Dr Mullan
Q
Flora Page: You could easily. I suppose one would seek to front-load the issues. I am not against the provisions of the Bill at all, but what the Bill deals with is after the event: some terrible thing has happened, a large inquiry has been set up and we are having to unpick the fact that people have not told the truth in real time. With something that protected and supported whistleblowers up front, one would hope to be able to bring the problem forward, and have much nimbler and cheaper investigations arising out of whistleblower complaints.
If there were disgruntled people moaning and saying their concerns had not been looked into, let them trundle along and see whether, 10 years down the line, it turns into a big public inquiry; nine times out of 10—or probably 99 times out of 100—it is not going to. My view is that we spend too much money on these public inquiries. We need to find a way to front-load the problem and support people when they first start speaking up, so they feel able to put those problems, first, into the employer domain and then, if necessary, into the public domain.
Tessa Munt
Q
Ron Warmington: Likewise.
Tessa Munt
You have already referred to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, the fact that that puts whistleblowing into the framework of an employment law issue, and the fact that it does not protect against retaliation. The focus then is on a whistleblower proving that they are deliberately being acted against, as opposed to on the wrongdoing done by the organisation in the first place; when they come out of the employment tribunal, they are then very often blacklisted and cannot work again.
Do you feel that the Bill provides enough anti-corruption effort to ensure that, in particular, we could have prevented the Post Office scandal? As I understand it, 47,000 cases are waiting in the employment tribunal at the moment—that is the current backlog. Once this legislation comes into play, my sense is that that 47,000 will escalate beyond belief, but I will leave that with you. Does the Bill go some way to sorting this out?
James Killen: The short answer is no. What strikes me most in the Bill is that it makes the duty of candour an individual thing, and focuses very much on the corruption that goes on at the level of the chief execs. In my mind, and certainly having listened to the health people earlier, the majority of duty holders will be people who are on the minimum wage and potentially part time—what I would class as vulnerable duty holders. Those people are going to be placed in the situation of having to choose between a potential criminal sanction for not exercising their duty of candour and speaking out against a corrupt boss who will potentially pull all the levers they have in the business to destroy their career. They are going to choose between their careers and families or a potential criminal sanction.
For me, the largest omission in this Bill is that there is no form of criminal sanction for interfering in another person’s duty of candour. Culture and so on was talked about a lot earlier, and there is something there—I agree with everything that has been said about the idea of an office for the whistleblower, because I think that would take all of this away, but, if we are speaking about maybe a 60% or 80% solution, some sort of clause in the Bill that gives a criminal sanction to other people within an organisation for interfering with somebody else’s duty would be key.
Ian Byrne
Q
Nathan Sparkes: As you point out, there was a phenomenon of police officers briefing The Sun newspaper after the Hillsborough disaster, which was a huge part of the cover-up. Police officers were not the only public officials involved in that; the local MP was, and there is a disputed allegation that a representative of the Thatcher Government was as well. There was a huge amount of public official impropriety in that media cover-up operation. Unfortunately, that is not the only case; after Orgreave, similarly, there was a cover-up perpetrated between public officials and the media.
The history of the phone hacking scandal is a 15 to 20-year series of occasions where overwhelming evidence of criminal activity being carried out on behalf of News UK was presented to the Metropolitan police force, and every time it failed to properly investigate until it absolutely had to. That was during a period where a succession of Metropolitan Commissioners enjoyed excessively close relationships with News UK; it included a time where even an editor for News UK was hired by the Met, and there were records of eight dinners between heads of the Met and News UK editors over that period.
In more recent years, there are allegations that police fed information about the victims of the Manchester bombing to the media. Christine Flack, the mother of the late television presenter Caroline Flack, believes that police were briefing the media in relation to her case. Mazher Mahmood was a News UK reporter, and there is an allegation in a recently published book that the Met protected him from prosecution and exposure during the noughties on account of the closeness of that relationship.
I could give many more examples—I will not sit down and list them all—but the point is that there is a specific and persistent issue with corrupt relationships between public officials and the media. Our concern about this Bill is that it does not have anything substantive to address that. The long title of the Bill is very clear; it will
“require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority”.
Our submission your Committee is that the Bill cannot achieve that unless it also addresses the specific phenomenon of corrupt relationships. Our proposal is that the best way of dealing of that is with a public inquiry.
Mr Morrison
Q
“for the purposes of journalism.”
That is the wording in the Bill. As has been so rightly pointed out, we know there has been a history of public officials who have been using the media in lead-ups to inquiries and so on. Critics, to a point of view that I might have, would say that any kind of stamping down or work on that would be an attack on freedom of speech. What would you say to that?
Nathan Sparkes: In a lot of legislation there are special exemptions for journalism, and often that is justified, but I think it is for the Government to justify that exemption when they bring forward legislation. I do not think it can be justified in this case.
Looking at that offence, there is a six-part test for it to apply. The person must have departed significantly from the expectations of their role, they must have caused harm to someone, they must have been responsible for significant or reputed dishonesty, it must be about a matter of significant concern to the public, it must be seriously improper, and they ought to know that it was seriously improper. That is an incredibly high threshold, and rightly so, but it is inconceivable that there is any legitimate journalistic activity that would satisfy the remarkably high threshold of all six tests that we would want to protect. On that basis, we do not think it is appropriate. The challenge for the Government is whether they could identify a circumstance in which any journalistic activity that would be in breach of those would be legitimate. I do not think they can; I think that is inconceivable.
Seamus Logan
Q
Ron Warmington: I do think that everything is hyped, but luckily, I was in Burbank looking at a business that did that, and it was the worst business—at that point— that I had ever looked at, so it was easy to predict what would happen.
Seamus Logan
Q
Ron Warmington: I have been in this situation in boardrooms where something horrible has happened—a valve has blown up on the ocean floor, a building has burnt down or whatever. There needs to be a contrarian—it does not always have to be the same person—who is prepared to say, “Look, chaps, ladies, what I’m hearing is that you all want to cover this up. Let me tell you why this isn’t a good idea.” A lot of cover-ups stay covered up, but occasionally, one gets uncovered, and then the consequences are much worse than if we had come clean. We need to get the board members to see that balance. I would like to see training in business schools on the consequences of embarking on a cover-up—there probably is none. How do we get the decision makers to do the right thing? It is not religion that is going to persuade them to do that any more—it used to be.
I am used to working in huge organisations that were big enough to have their own independent investigation teams—I used to run them—which would be completely trusted by whistleblowers. We knew that one never burnt a whistleblower. They could safely come to us. That generates in an organisation a unit, a department, that can be trusted to deal with the worst possible things that you can imagine happening. Most companies are not big enough to have such an organisation, and some are big enough but do not want one. Maybe there is a case to be made for some sort of national body to be that independent investigative authority—something that is not quite a public or statutory inquiry.
In my investigation, we should never have been contracted to the Post Office. That was the subject of the investigation thinking that it was paying the piper, and that therefore it could call the tune. There needs to be some body—the National Audit Office does fantastic work—to which people could go and feel in safe hands. I do not know how we change the ethics of the corporate world. I wish we could; I just do not think the ethics are the same as they were when I was a wee lad. I do not know what will bring it back. It is not just this country that is suffering in that way. I am sorry—I am dodging your question.
Seamus Logan
Not at all—I thought it was a good answer.
Flora Page: It is about incentives, isn’t it? The incentives have to be aligned for folk to do the right thing.
Ron Warmington: Yes, we have to get people to make the right decision. They will not do it just because it is the right thing to do. Some people will—even though it is costly to themselves, their careers or their companies, they will do the right thing; I have been brought up with people like that. Other people need to be persuaded to do the right thing by threats or by incentives, or ideally both.
I do not think we can just hope for the best that the ethics of corporate Great Britain and civil service Great Britain are going to change. I mean, I have seen Ministers talk utter nonsense because their civil servants parroted nonsense that was parroted to them by people in the organisations that ought to have been subject to review. I feel sorry for MPs and Ministers in those cases.
Jacqui Hames: It is important to point out that the media companies responsible for the industrial-scale phone hacking saga are corporations. They make a profit or loss, and they hide behind the free speech mantra, but ultimately they are creating a culture where this behaviour is acceptable—where criminality is acceptable. There is no doubt that a whistleblower coming from their side of the fence would be treated extremely badly.
As a victim of phone hacking, as an ex-police officer who had their personal items sold to a news corporation, I know that you have nowhere to go in those circumstances if those corporations are just going to hide behind a freedom of speech defence. It is not freedom of speech to spread misinformation and disinformation that affect the wellbeing of hundreds of people who have already gone through intolerable experiences.
Tessa Munt
Q
Ron Warmington: I have it written down, yes.
Tessa Munt
Very good; I did not know that. There are also subcontractors of subcontractors, because it is commonly the case that we are looking not just at the first-tier contractual relationship, but at the second, third and sometimes fourth-tier relationships. There is a question about that.
There is then another issue. Some of you might want to comment on the fact that in March this year—I think I am right in saying this—His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs introduced a whistleblower reward scheme for reporting fraud, and on where that scheme might go and how useful it is. I have no idea how successful it has been—I do not have any figures for it—but one senses that it might be successful.
Ron Warmington: In a sense, that is where this all started, isn’t it? I mean, there were defence contracts in the United States and someone thought, “I’m going to blow the whistle on such and such a corporation, which has been ripping off the Defence Department by $100 million. Therefore, I’m going to get something out of it.” Actually, that is quite healthy, until it goes horribly wrong; it is a double-edged sword.
On the point about subcontractors, yes, we felt quite exposed when the Post Office tried to—in fact, did—implement draconian contractual terms. That was extraordinarily risky for myself, and for my fellow shareholders and directors. The only time that we could speak safely was when we had parliamentary privilege in situations such as this one. All the rest of the time, we did not; if we spoke up, we were at enormous risk. That did not stop us, as it happened.
It is not necessarily a good thing to say that an investigation firm such as my own, which is contracted to look into something that is going wrong or that has gone wrong, should be hugely protected in some way, because then it would not be trusted to do the work in the first place. You somehow have to strike a balance between the client relationship—not that the client ever should be the subject of the investigation—and some sort of protection. At the moment, the process does not work. It only worked in this case because we didn’t give a damn. As far as we were concerned, we did not really need the work, and did not need the money and did not mind being fired. But not many firms are in that lucky situation.
Tessa Munt
Q
Ron Warmington: Pretty well the only material whistleblower was Richard Roll, whom I spoke to well before he was prepared to come out. We obviously protected him. We tried to give hints to people at the Post Office that there might be a whistleblower at some point—when I knew jolly well that there was—in order to give them an opportunity to follow the righteous path. They did not really pick up on that.
We have always been a bit like journalists—one never burns one’s source. If any investigator ever did that, his or her career would be over. Once you get a reputation for advancing your own case over the body of a whistleblower, your career is dead. It is self-interest to protect whistleblowers. I have on many occasions been asked by companies—in fact, bank chairmen—“Can you help us find out who this whistleblower is?” I have told them, “You’d better find another firm. I could find them in a heartbeat, but I’m not going to.” That is corruption coming out again: “This person’s causing our company problems. Can you help us find the troublemaker?” “No. Go away.” But not all firms do that.
Flora Page: On the Fujitsu question, it is extraordinary that, over all those years that Fujitsu was remotely accessing sub-postmasters’ accounts and using their user IDs to enter transactions, there were no whistleblowers. That tells you all you need to know about certain organisations not providing the structure and the framework for whistleblowers to come forward. There must have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of people who knew what was going on.
James Asser
Q
Nathan Sparkes: In terms of public officials’ candour in investigations and so on, we endorse the position of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, of which we are a part. Further to its amendments, the Bill does a good job.
In terms of the specific phenomenon that we have identified of corrupt relationships between public officials and the media, the Bill does not go nearly far enough. Those relationships are, by their nature, covert. They are at best improper and at worst corrupt and unlawful. The only part of the Bill that attempts to grapple with them at the moment is the code. Public officials who are engaged in that kind of corrupt behaviour are very unlikely to be persuaded to clean up their act by a code.
A whole succession of investigations, inquiries and scandals have all come to the same conclusion: we need a public inquiry into the specific phenomenon of relations between public officials and the media. Given the long title of the Bill and what it promises to achieve, that appears to us to be a significant omission. That is why we are very keen for the Committee to consider an amendment to that effect. Jacqui, do you have anything to add?
Jacqui Hames: Yes. What is the risk for the individual concerned in that transaction? If you think there is a bigger risk of being exposed and taken to court, you will change the way you behave. Having been a police officer in the ’70s and ’80s, as well as having seen things from this perspective, the difference is the culture of secrecy and reputational protection. If you can change that from the inside and say, “This is not going to be tolerated. This is what’s going to happen,” people will stand behind that. It will give them protection if they are being sucked into something that they cannot get themselves out of and are coerced. In many respects, that is the difficult area: people being coerced into behaviour that in another circumstance they would perhaps not consider getting involved in. It is a real problem that people get coerced—as Nathan said—because so much of this happens in secret.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry for interrupting, but that brings us to the end of our allotted time for the Committee to ask questions; I am sorry that we do not have any more. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses and regret that we will not be able to take this further with you today. Please let the Committee have any other comments in writing.
Examination of Witnesses
Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Mayor of Liverpool City Region combined authority and the Mayor of Greater Manchester combined authority. We have until 6.30 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if the witnesses could briefly introduce themselves.
Andy Burnham: Good evening, I am Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester. Between 2001 and 2017, I was the MP for Leigh. During that time I was Culture Secretary on the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough. I introduce the initial Hillsborough law to Parliament as a ten-minute rule Bill.
Steve Rotheram: My name is Steve Rotherham. I was a Member of Parliament in the dark days between 2010 and 2017.
Dr Mullan
Q
Andy Burnham: It substantially meets the provisions of the 2017 Bill. It is 80% to 90% there. Previous to its introduction to Parliament, Mayor Rotherham and I worked closely with the Government and got it to a point where we felt it was worthy of the name “Hillsborough law”—although there were still further issues to be picked up by amendments, which the Government agreed to as part of the negotiation process.
One of those issues was the extent to which the duty of candour applies. I can tell the Committee more about my experience in convening inquiries at a Greater Manchester level, which may be relevant to the discussions. I also wish to see the parity of legal funding for bereaved families stated more clearly as a principle in this Bill, with a firm guarantee of what that means for families rather than a fairly loose entitlement as it is at the moment. We can go into the details, should you wish, but the Bill is substantially there.
With legislation of this kind, it does not help anybody if loopholes, grey areas or high hurdles are created in terms of the tests for duties to apply. It is going to be helpful for everybody if the Committee and Parliament can make it absolutely plain what this Bill is intended to cover and what it is not. That will empower the public, which is, at the end of the day, what this Bill is about. There is still some work to do in certain areas to remove some of those loopholes and grey areas. I think that I speak for Steve as well in saying that we have been advised throughout by the lawyers of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign. We strongly support the evidence that they have put to you as a Committee today.
Dr Mullan
Q
Andy Burnham: We certainly support all those amendments. I do not need to go through them—you know what they are—but I would like to speak about two of them. The first is a Government amendment, I think, which may have come forward to the Committee already, on inquiries and the inquiries that are to be covered by the Bill. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, I have convened two major inquiries. The first was the Kerslake inquiry into what happened at the Manchester Arena attack. The second was a major review into child sexual exploitation, or grooming, in Greater Manchester.
I pushed for the Government to introduce that further amendment, because my experience with those reviews was, first, that Greater Manchester police was not entirely accurate in the account that it gave to the Kerslake report, which remains of deep concern to me, because clearly a report of that nature is not done under oath. We initiated it because we felt it to be right that, immediately after the attack—we could not wait for the public inquiry—we should gather learnings for our police force and fire service. It is barely believable that an inaccurate version of events was provided to Kerslake by Greater Manchester police.
Secondly on grooming, it was my experience that, through various reports into the issue in Manchester, Rochdale and Oldham, the inquiry team found repeatedly that public servants refused to give evidence to them. There was no duty to assist in place, therefore public servants could do that without any consequence. On those issues, I hope you can understand why I pressed very hard for an amendment to ensure that the Bill covers inquiries ordered by combined authorities and local authorities.
I believe the Government have created a serious harm test for those inquiries. We are not necessarily against that, but we hope the Committee will assist us in getting a clear definition of what that actually means. In the case of grooming, I did not necessarily have all the evidence at the time that serious harm had taken place; it was the risk that serious harm had taken place that led me to want to convene that inquiry. There is an important distinction there; I do not think a serious harm test should rule out the grooming example.
Equally, it has been put to us that inquiries commissioned by local authorities on matters relating to fraud—I think the Edinburgh tram one is an example here—might cause serious harm to the reputation of a local authority. Should they be out of scope? We would say not. We could accept a serious harm test as long as it is reasonably widely drafted to cover all the examples that I have given.
I think I have a position that may go a little further than the Hillsborough Law Now campaign on parity. I personally believe very strongly that this needs to be a firm principle in the Bill. Margaret Aspinall gave evidence to Parliament shortly after the second inquest and she recounted the experience from the first Hillsborough inquest of having to scratch around to fund her own legal costs and having to cash the cheque from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in respect of her son James to pay for her legal fees. I brought forward the original Bill with that experience absolutely seared into my mind—how any bereaved parent should have to do that and go into a courtroom raw with grief, up against the highest KCs in the land who are often employed by public bodies lawyered up to the max. To me, it is a really important principle that there is parity in those courtrooms.
Having a level playing field is a big guarantee of getting the truth, and I personally would like to see an amendment to the Bill that says that there must be a comparable level between the hourly rate of the KCs acting for the state and the KCs acting for bereaved families. To me, that is what that principle of parity actually means. I appreciate the strides that have been made here in terms of access to legal aid and access to legal representation—they are huge strides—but let us go further: the Bill should do 100% of a job, not 80% or 90%.
Dr Mullan
Q
Andy Burnham: There was a concern that, at a local level, inquiries could be launched for fairly frivolous or political reasons. None of us wants a sort of industry in local inquiries using the provisions of the Bill. I understand that concern, and I could accept a serious harm test—as I said to the Minister last week—but it should not rule out major wrongdoing, particularly in relation to fraud. I accept that there could be a hurdle, but there is work to be done by the Committee to establish the precise nature of that hurdle. Obviously, you do not want to see the wasteful use of public funds and the over-commissioning of inquiries—I accept that—but I still think that there needs to be a definition of serious harm.
There was initially a concern about public funds and the affordability of the commitment to parity. Again, I understand that, but Hillsborough Law Now and we would argue that the Bill could lead to lower public spending. Its provisions will help us to get to the truth more quickly and therefore reduce the length of public inquiries. The Bill also creates an incentive for the state to spend less on its own legal representation if there is a duty of parity that bites hard. If there is a rough equivalence in terms of the hourly rate, the state suddenly does not have an incentive to hire the best paid KCs in the land. At the moment, as I understand it, the state is completely free to do that. The Bill needs to create a mechanism that limits state expenditure. The savings from that will then help to pay for representation at a balanced level on the other side. I really wish to see the strongest possible principle of parity of arms in the final Bill.
The Chair
We have three other Members who want to ask questions and less than 15 minutes left.
Dr Mullan
Q
Andy Burnham: There is no question about it, those inquiries need to have trust at a local level. I will be open in saying that the failure of some people to co-operate with the inquiries that I initiated to some degree undermines the inquiry reports. I do not think it invalidates them, by any means, because they were hard-hitting reports, but it is right to deal with these things as soon as possible. The Hillsborough story is about not letting things be unresolved for years and not leaving people fighting for years. Deal with them as up front as you can, and as strongly as you can, at the first time of asking. Obviously, if that principle applies to local inquiries and inquiries commissioned by combined authorities, we are more likely to get to the truth more quickly.
Tessa Munt
Q
Andy Burnham: If I can quickly pick up your point, Tessa, I absolutely agree that there should be full transparency on legal expenditure by public bodies, including police bodies and NHS trusts. I think that the lack of a requirement has led to very unfair situations when the state has lawyered up, as I said before. To me, the Bill should create an entirely new regime that does not allow bereaved families to face the full might of the state, when they have barely any legal representation.
Tessa Munt
Q
Steve Rotheram: I obviously support any whistleblowing protections. Certainly, if there is any enhancement, it should be a requirement for consultation with trade unions when we develop better codes of ethical conduct. There is definitely stuff we can do on that.
We need to empower public servants to foster a culture of candour, and that is why the Bill is so important. Thanks very much, Tessa; I remember you and others, too—it was quite a moment in Parliament. Do not forget that those people have been fighting since we left to get something like this on the statute book. The weight of responsibility on all of you on this Committee is enormous, and I know that you will do well by the families and those campaigners.
Andy Burnham: No pressure.
Joe Powell
Q
Andy Burnham: We want to see a change, as advocated by Hillsborough Law Now, with respect to command responsibility, so that the responsibility is not just corporate but individual. Obviously, the Hillsborough story is the failure to go that last bit of the journey towards individual accountability, which I think bedevils the British state still. In all the examples—Grenfell being a primary one, as well as Hillsborough and the Post Office scandal—where is the individual accountability? We would very much endorse what was said to you by Hillsborough Law Now. It is not about a chief executive or chief constable not knowing what is going on underneath; when there is a corporate cover-up, there has to be some individual accountability for that.
It pains Steve and me that we were never able to achieve that in the Hillsborough example. With the Taylor report, the reason the trial of the criminal cover-up collapsed was because those officers gave their false police statements to Taylor, and Taylor was not an inquiry covered by the oath. That is why the courts said that their evidence could not be admitted, and therefore they were allowed to lie and faced no accountability. We would both say that the command responsibility is really important here. We need to start holding people individually to account for the appalling things they subject people to on occasions.
Steve Rotheram: It needs to be strengthened, that’s for sure. That is to ensure that chief officers, chief executives or chief constables—whoever they might be—are personally accountable for crimes. If the Bill ensures that the responsibility sits with those at the top, and those best-placed to effect change, I am fairly certain that they will not want to be that person who is held responsible, and therefore they will change the culture within those organisations.
Ian Byrne
Q
Steve Rotheram: First, I talked before about the responsibility sitting with you. There cannot be any diminution of the substance of what is already going through the system, but you can use this Committee phase to ensure that we tighten up some of the things that we were unable to get during the negotiations, which ensured that we at least had a Bill to put before Parliament. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that we need to ensure that the main planks—the ones that Andy was talking about before—remain at the forefront of everything that we do. It is about those protections. As you said, this is of course the legacy for the 97. All the families I have spoken with are absolutely delighted at the way in which the parliamentary process has gone so far. Pete Weatherby has done a brilliant job for us. If you listen to anybody, you need to listen to people like Pete Weatherby, and others, who have been on this from day one. They know all the caveats that need to be included so that we do not have wriggle room for occasions in the future when tragedies might occur and people try to get away with it.
Ian, you talked about this earlier. I would love the Bill to be able to ban things like The Sun, following its unconscionable and scurrilous lie, which within days of the tragedy set the false narrative. I know that Leveson 2 is not part of the scope of this Committee, but we need to clamp down on those things and stop them happening in the first place. The untold damage that things like that have done to reputations and to people—the falsehoods are still believed by some people 36 years later—is unfathomable to me.
Andy Burnham: I endorse what Steve just said and the evidence given to you earlier by Nathan Sparkes. Leveson 2 is part of the Hillsborough story, and we believe that it is needed to have the full story.
There is one area that I have not touched on today, but which we need to talk about: the exemption for the security services that we are told is, in effect, in place. That was not the case with my 2017 Bill. That is relevant to us here in Manchester: a false narrative was given by the security services, by MI5, to the Manchester Arena inquiry, and it was subsequently exposed only by the evidence of individual officers. This is not about material going into the public domain that should not. Obviously, there is a proper exemption for some things going into the public domain, but where things do go into the public domain, they should be accurate and truthful.
We have seen the BBC being given false information by the same organisation, so I do not see that the security services can be exempt. In some of the issues in this country that still need further work—the Shrewsbury 24 would be one example—there was definitely the involvement of the security services, domestically, against people. Are we saying that that should be exempt and should not be part of this? What about Orgreave? I do not know the full extent of their involvement there, but certainly the forthcoming Orgreave inquiry should not have that cut off in any way, shape or form. That is something that needs to be addressed in a proper way. No one is calling for things to be put into the public domain that should not, or that would compromise the country or our safety in any way. However, where things are being said, they have to be truthful. I do not think the Security Service gets an opt-out on that, as they seem to think they should have. That would be my final statement.
As I think Steve was indicating, can I thank the Committee? You seem to us to be doing exactly the job we would hope you would do. We congratulate the Government on introducing this legislation in the current state it is in; it is obviously substantially meeting the tests of my Bill, as I have said. But let us not leave loopholes, grey areas or overly high hurdles that can be exploited—that has damaged public trust in the authorities of this country. This Bill should leave no doubt whatsoever about what should be expected in the future and should back people, from the off, to get truth, justice and accountability.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Andy and Steve, for your evidence. That ends this oral evidence session.
Steve Rotheram: Up the reds!
Examination of Witness
Daniel De Simone gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence—our final panel today—from Daniel De Simone. We have until 6.50 pm for this panel. Please could the witness briefly introduce himself, for the record?
Daniel De Simone: My name is Daniel De Simone and I am the investigations correspondent for BBC News. I am here in a personal capacity as a journalist, rather than speaking on behalf of the BBC corporately. I am the journalist involved in the MI5 case, as you have heard about today, in which they gave false evidence to three courts about conversations with me.
Dr Mullan
Q
It is important for us to have a context and understanding of your views more generally on how we scrutinise our security services. I read with interest your account of what had happened with the legal challenge that the Government put forward to your report in relation to Officer X. It seemed to me that you were describing the fact that there were separate advocates to consider legal evidence, as opposed to your own advocates—that there was evidence you were never going to be allowed to hear—and that you were saying that that in itself was not right. Do you accept that there are times that there should be secret and distinct processes to maintain secrecy, even in the cases of public interest journalism?
Daniel De Simone: I certainly do. I do not think it is wrong that there are special advocates in closed material procedures; it is now an established part of a court process. What it does do, though, is place a special responsibility on MI5 to be candid, because their evidence is often very important in very significant cases, where there has been significant loss of life, where people’s citizenship is being removed or where people are being deprived of their liberties.
That evidence is often heard in secret—so, away from the people most affected. That places a special responsibility on MI5—which they accept; their current director general has spoken about this—because there is a special responsibility on secret organisations to be candid and honest. That is why the duty of candour is particularly important for MI5.
Dr Mullan
Q
Daniel De Simone: There has been evidence earlier today from other witnesses. MI5, as things stand—as I understand it—would not be subject to the same level of responsibilities as other organisations. They would be like a corporate responsibility organisation, not with full command responsibility for the director general. The cases we have heard about—my case, which is still ongoing, and the Manchester Arena—show that there have been very recent examples where there has been a significant failure of a duty of candour. That raises a question about whether MI5 can be relied on to give honest and accurate evidence.
With the Manchester Arena example, they gave a false picture, an inaccurate picture, about the key intelligence that was received before the bombing. In my case, they gave false evidence to three different courts. When that was accepted by them—with some reluctance, I must add—they then said they were going to investigate it and also appointed an external investigator.
Those reports were inadequate. That is not my view but that of the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales and other senior judges, and the Prime Minister has ordered a new investigation. Even after they accepted it, they still then came to the High Court and gave an inaccurate picture. They gave evidence to the court that was open, and then when they were forced to hand over the closed material, it did not reflect the reality, and the judges said that to them. That is why I think the duty of candour really does apply very importantly to MI5. If it has an exemption and is not treated the same as other organisations, that is a bit of an issue. We have very recent, current examples of where they are not being candid with courts.
Dr Mullan
Q
Daniel De Simone: I am not a legal expert, but from what I understand there is not a full command responsibility on, for example, the director general of MI5, as things stand. There is not the same level of responsibility on the individual officers as there is on, for example, the police or Government Departments. There is a question about why that is, given how important MI5 often is in very significant cases. MI5 often gives evidence corporately to courts and inquiries, and that has been shown, in our case, to be very unsatisfactory. The High Court has issued new guidance on the way MI5 should give corporate evidence, so that it has to be much clearer about where the information comes from and who is responsible for it.
We have spoken a lot about inquests today. In inquests, MI5 always tends to give evidence corporately, via an anonymous corporate witness. The individual officers who make the decisions are not called. With the Manchester Arena case, we saw how important that was, because the corporate witness came along and gave one account in public, and when the arena inquiry chairman made the individual officers come along in a closed session—that, of course, would not be available in an inquest, but this was a public inquiry—he got a totally different account. That is why there is a real importance on individual officers having accountability and corporate witnesses having accountability, because they are corporate witnesses representing the organisation. To be blunt, the director general of MI5 is not really the corporate witness; it is normally someone else who is quite senior, but not the director general.
Dr Mullan
Q
Daniel De Simone: When we have got into a process like the Manchester Arena case, there is a way that that can be dealt with. There is a coroner and a chairman of the public inquiry, and they can deal with that. The point they are talking about there appears to be more about whistleblowing, and if someone feels something is wrong and they need to raise it—
Dr Mullan
Q
Daniel De Simone: There are ways of dealing with that. You could say the same with a police investigation. The police officer might not have the full picture. The point is about whether there is going to be duty of candour responsibility on people generally within the organisation. Is there going to be a command responsibility generally on the director general? I think that is a separate point, because there is a way of dealing with that.
Tessa Munt
Q
Daniel De Simone: I am more equipped to talk about MI5 and the case that I have been involved with, but whistleblowers are clearly incredibly important in my job. I would want to see every protection for whistleblowers, whereby organisations foster a culture in which whistleblowers feel able to come forward and do not feel that it is harmful for them or damaging to their career. I would obviously encourage anything that can be done to encourage that.
Tessa Munt
Q
Daniel De Simone: Absolutely, and I frequently rely on confidential sources, like police officers, who provide me with information that, under the law, they probably should not provide. For example, I have spent a very long time investigating the Stephen Lawrence murder, and that has led to a review to look at whether the case should be reopened. That is a good thing, and the family are very happy with the fact that that has happened, but it simply would not have happened without officers helping me who probably should not be helping me. The fact that they did has led to good things.
Tessa Munt
I suspect my colleague is going to ask you about journalism more generally—surprise, surprise.
Seamus Logan
Q
Daniel De Simone: I have read their submissions.
Seamus Logan
So you are aware of the proposals regarding command responsibility?
Daniel De Simone: Yes.
Seamus Logan
Do you agree with them?
Daniel De Simone: I am not really here to speak on behalf of the BBC about command response or anything else but, as you heard from what I said about MI5, where responsibility can be taken by individuals, that is better than it falling on organisations, because organisations are more slippery and it is harder to hold them to account. Where an individual has to take responsibility, that is better.
Seamus Logan
Q
Daniel De Simone: Absolutely, and that is why we have closed material procedures within the courts. Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee frequently sits in secret—that is not in public. There absolutely needs to be places where intelligence and sensitive matters can be discussed. Clearly, no one wants harm to national security or for there to be genuine damage to anyone. I think there are ways of dealing with it. When he gave evidence earlier, Lord Evans said that himself, and he is the former head of MI5.
Seamus Logan
Q
Daniel De Simone: In what way?
Seamus Logan
It is hard to describe a particular example, but in a way that might prevent a whistleblower from taking necessary action.
Daniel De Simone: I think so, yes. Journalists have been arrested under the Official Secrets Act. I am a journalist who has worked in the area of security and matters to do with terrorism, so I am familiar with there being a risk to journalists with official secrets. Someone might tell you something that puts themselves at risk, or they might put you at risk. In practice we see very few prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act—we do not see many of them now—so this is not something that is happening all the time, but there is a risk.
There is obviously a balance, because security and intelligence agencies do not want to feel that anyone who works there can just go off and reveal things that they think are very sensitive, but equally it is also true that there can be things that are wrong within those organisations, and there is not always an obvious place for someone to go if they feel like that. There is often a big risk to that person for doing that. So yes, it can be too much.
Ian Byrne
Q
Daniel De Simone: For MI5? No, I do not think so. Look at what the head of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, has said. He said in a speech last month that there are particular responsibilities on MI5 as a secret agency to comply with oversight and be as transparent as it can with these sorts of things. He was talking with reference particularly to the fact that MI5 was found to have given false evidence in our case. So strong words are clearly being said.
The trouble we have in our case is that when we showed that there was false evidence, and they accepted that, the third in command of MI5—the director general, strategy—then came along and gave an account to the court that the court, the Lady Chief Justice, the president of the King’s bench division and the head of the administrative court now say was not an accurate reflection of the closed material. That happened after they said they were going to be very transparent with the court. They really had to be dragged to the point they are now in, where there is an investigation that the court—the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—required. That is being carried out under the auspices of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. His organisation was also misled.
In our case, every kind of judicial body charged with holding MI5 to account, or its regulator, has been given false evidence. That is an issue, and it calls into question issues around a duty of candour. Lord Evans said in his evidence earlier that there is already a duty of candour responsibility on MI5 and the Government in the courts, and that is true. In our case, they have admitted that they did not meet that test. It is there; the issue is that it is not always being complied with. As I understand it, the point of the Bill is to strengthen that duty and enforce it. That seems to be why it is there.
Ian Byrne
Q
Daniel De Simone: Yes. We had corporate witnesses, senior officers and the third in command of MI5, and we had Ken McCallum himself saying they were going to get to the bottom of what happened, but they did not get to the bottom of what happened, and the evidence they presented to the court did not reflect the closed material. When the judge made them hand over the closed material, the judge was very unhappy and made it obvious that they had not given a full and honest account. We now have the investigation that is going to look at whether they lied, as we have said, and whether there should therefore be contempt of court processes. That investigation is happening at the moment.
Mr Morrison
Q
Daniel De Simone: As I understand it, the Bill is aimed at public authorities—Government Departments, the police and others—so, as things stand, media organisations are not part of it. I do not know whether there is a proposal to make them part of it, but as things stand they are not. You ask what can be done if I do a story about you that is wrong and you want to hold me to account. I work for the BBC, and there is a complaints process for the BBC that can go even to Ofcom, if necessary, so there are ways of correcting a story or getting an apology if something is wrong.
As a journalist, I work on difficult and challenging stories, and I obviously abhor some of the things you have spoken about today: false information being presented as fact and leading to really harmful consequences for people. I try to take personal responsibility and do the right thing, and I think that is the point—that is why it is important. The more you can foster a culture of people taking personal responsibility, the better. That is why, when there is an exemption for an organisation, and it is not about individuals in an organisation, I think that does weaken it.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your evidence. That brings us to the end of today’s sitting. The Committee will meet again at 9.25 am on Tuesday 2 December to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jade Botterill.)
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 2nd December 2025
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPublic Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 December 2025 - (2 Dec 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start, I ask Members to ensure that their electronic devices are switched to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed in the room during sittings. If any Member wishes, and feels robust enough, to remove their jackets, they may do so.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses and amendments are selected and grouped together for debate. Many of you will have done this before, but some may not have. This is a fairly arcane process, so let me try to take you through it.
The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. In debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first, and other Members may indicate if they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing as usual. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I will call the Member who moved the original lead amendment of the group to wind up that debate. Before that Member sits down, they need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or put it to a vote. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment, including other clauses in the group, that is for the Chair to decide. Mr Dowd and I will decide, at our discretion, whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments.
Again, let me explain that. We will start, as it happens, with a stand part debate. Ordinarily, when we have a group of amendments, it is up to the Chair to decide whether the matters grouped in that clause have been sufficiently debated not to warrant a stand part debate. I have always taken a fairly relaxed view of that, because sometimes it is helpful to have in effect a stand part debate at the beginning, to cover a whole group of amendments, to set the background to a debate. That is, as far as I am concerned, largely up to you, but you cannot have two bites at the cherry. Do not expect to have a stand part debate in effect at the beginning of the debate and another one at the end. You will not get it—at least, not from this channel.
Before we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill, we have to consider an addition to the order of consideration that was agreed last week, so that clauses 19 and 20 to 26 are included. That is just to correct a tabling error, for which we apologise.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 27th November be amended as follows—
(1) in paragraph 3, after “new Schedules;” insert “Clauses 19 to 26;”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
Clause 1
Purpose of Act: implementing duty of candour etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Public interest—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must define in regulations what constitutes the ‘public interest’ for the purposes of—
(a) Section 1(1)(a),
(b) Schedule 1(8)(b).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made until a draft has been approved by both Houses.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to define public interest for the purposes of this Act by regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger, on this historic and momentous Bill Committee. With your permission, I will say a few words about just how momentous this is.
Last week, this Committee heard evidence directly from the Hillsborough families about the Bill and what it means to them. I know that the Committee will agree that that was a huge privilege for us. The Bill is of great and national importance to so many people up and down the country, and we will not play politics with this legislation. I hope my colleagues in the Opposition will do the same. What we will do is listen: we will listen to the families, Hillsborough Law Now and the members of this Committee. It is right that they and the Committee push us and challenge us. They have my commitment that if we can find ways to improve the Bill, we will.
Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. They have each tirelessly campaigned for justice for the Hillsborough families, and played no small part in seeing this legislation brought forward. I am honoured to have them by my side in Committee.
Of course, we have all said this time and again, but we would absolutely not be here without the families. This is for them, and for those who have campaigned tirelessly for so long to seek justice and to ensure that no one ever has to go through what they went through. This is not just for the Hillsborough families, but for anyone who has experienced cover-up or had to fight for the truth, and for the memories of all those who are no longer with us.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As we consider the clause and new clause 2, I want to be clear that the Opposition recognise the importance of the Bill’s overarching aims. Candour, transparency, frankness and, above all, the requirement that public officials act in the public interest are principles that I am sure Members from all parties support.
As we commented on during evidence sessions about the chief coroner, it would be quite wrong to portray good-faith efforts to ensure that we give due consideration to each and every possible implication of the Bill as in any way not giving due regard to its noble aims, in particular the considerable effort and good intentions of the many campaigners supporting it, including the ones we heard from during the evidence sessions. As the Minister commented, I do not think that anyone could have been anything but deeply moved and reflective on hearing the experiences that the witnesses went through in such appalling circumstances. They were a limited group, but one made up not just of those affected by Hillsborough but those affected by many other scandals in which the state and its bodies covered up and mistreated people.
Ultimately, even if we believe that the Bill could be improved, and we will hold the Government to account for any unintended consequences, we support the Bill and do not expect to oppose it on Third Reading. I hope that that is an important message for the campaigners supporting it. However, we want to probe the Government’s thinking and suggest possible improvements.
Before we come to the specifics of our new clause, I will comment on clause 1 as a whole, as it lays out the core purpose of the Bill and highlights just how far the political class as a whole has to come in delivering candour, and how contentious these matters can be. In the very weeks we have been considering this Bill, with the Government professing to want to drive further improvements in the candour and frankness of accountability, we have been having a heated and highly contested public debate about what constitutes candour and frankness. I raise that debate not to further discuss it in Committee—it would not be appropriate to engage in it for its merits—but just to highlight exactly how contentious such things are. We have a Chancellor who, in my view, has clearly failed to operate with candour and frankness, but I am sure that view is fiercely opposed by other members of the Committee.
The Chair
Order. I ask the Opposition Front Bencher to stick to the matter under debate.
Dr Mullan
Thank you, Sir Roger. Committee members have been fiercely disagreeing on something that relates directly to the matters that we are considering today on frankness and candour. I think that demonstrates just how challenging these things will be. We are the politicians who are putting forward this legislation.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member accept that matters of party political difference in a political system are not the same as telling the truth about what happened in a disaster or an event? There is a distinction.
Dr Mullan
Absolutely. The Bill is focused on those examples that are clear and egregious, where it is easy to say that there has been a failure of candour or a deliberate attempt to cover up. The legislation will cover many other situations, however, including Members of Parliament. As Members of Parliament, we are expected to operate with a degree of frankness and candour, and yet just this week we have been fiercely debating whether one of our own has or has not done that. It is important for Members to reflect on the wideness of the ramifications outside the purely obvious examples of what might constitute candour, or a lack of it.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have, in yesterday’s resignation of the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, quite a sensible example of what he is trying to express? That gentleman was due to be in front of a Select Committee of this House this morning, but by resigning, he has skipped being held to account for what he must know about the situation. Candour should surely also apply to those who have resigned.
If I may, Sir Roger, I refer back to the fact that one of the deepest problems has been the resignation of senior police officers. Because they have resigned, they skip away over the horizon and are not able to be held to account. There is only one way that someone should not be held to account, which is through not being on this earth any longer.
The Chair
Order. Sorry I have to keep intervening; let us get this right from the beginning, and then it will stay right all the way through. Interventions must be interventions, not speeches. There is a degree of leeway in Committee that does not exist on the Floor of the House, but nevertheless, please try to confine interventions to brevity if possible, because otherwise Members will be here all night. I concede to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that, while the Bill clearly relates —and has related very heavily in terms of evidence—to Hillsborough and Grenfell, it covers a much wider range of issues. We need to remember that.
Dr Mullan
Thank you for that further clarification, Sir Roger.
These issues are absolutely live and happening all the time—this week alone, we have seen examples of it—and we need to understand the implications of the Bill. I am far from alone in recognising the difficulty in defining terms such as “candour” and “public interest”. John Coggon, professor of law at the University of Bristol law school, writes:
“The public interest has no single, fixed definition. Even as a technical term of art its sense varies both for being context dependent and for being a question that may be settled by different sorts of institutional actor. It may, for instance, demand consideration of national security, national economic interest, protection of health, maintenance of a justice system, protection of fundamental rights. And determinations may be made by courts, politicians, legislators, executive agencies, and so on. Each can and will bring different forms and ranges of consideration to the process of determining what the public interest demands, and whether those demands are compelling.”
Anyone who has spent any time inside a public body—a police force, a regulator or a Government Department—knows that the public interest can mean very different things to different people. It is shaped by context, role, circumstance and sometimes professional norms. What one official believes to be in the public interest, a Minister, senior civil servant or statutory body might see very differently. That is not mere theory; it is the daily reality of modern governance.
Questions were raised during the evidence sessions about how the public interest might be used inappropriately in defence of an allegation of misconduct in public office. As new clause 2 points to, paragraph 1(8)(b) of schedule 1 specifically allows for the withholding of information in the public interest. Failing in that area could lead to both those we would wish not to be prosecuted being prosecuted and those we want to see prosecuted escaping justice. It is an important area of how the Bill will operate.
I am not so ambitious as to suggest that through the Bill the Committee will be able to create a perfect definition of public interest, but I speak in support of the new clause in an attempt to ensure that the Government recognise that they need to properly engage with that issue if the Bill is to be successful. A definition of the public interest need not be exhaustive, as I have said, but the wide-ranging ramifications of the Bill place an onus on the Government to ensure that the frontline civil servant of any kind has somewhere to look and turn to when wrestling with these matters—a starting point that might help them to structure their thinking and make decisions.
By failing to define the term at all, even in the most basic way, the Bill risks giving us a duty that is challenging to operate for a junior civil servant. It risks more uncertainty about compliance, inconsistency between institutions and even potential litigation where prosecutors or courts are left to decide after the fact what Parliament must have meant. The obvious challenging scenario is when officials need to consider situations where there are competing public interests—national security versus transparency, value for money versus speed of delivery, or personal privacy versus public accountability. Without more assistance for thinking those matters through, how does an official protect themselves from the—possibly criminal—allegation that their judgment call was not in the public interest among competing interests?
The new clause does not attempt to dictate exactly what public interest must mean; it simply requires the Secretary of State to set out a structure or framework in regulations, subject to approval by both Houses. Ultimately, if this legislation is to achieve the cultural change that the Government claim it will, the foundations must be clear and easy to understand. Public officials should not be left purely guessing what Parliament might have meant, or how we expected them to weigh these issues—Parliament should tell them. New clause 2 offers the Government the opportunity to do exactly that, and I hope they will take it.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the Bill as a whole to ensure that public authorities and public officials perform their functions at all times with candour, transparency and frankness, and in the public interest. As the clause describes, the Bill sets out those duties in the substantive provisions that follow. The clause does not have any separate legal effect itself; it is designed to set out clearly and simply the intention behind the Bill to assist those who will be subject to it and the general public in their understanding.
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for tabling new clause 2, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to define exactly what is meant by the term “public interest” in clause 1. Clause 1 is a purpose clause and does not have any legal effect in and of itself, separate from the other provisions in the Bill. It sets out the intention behind the Bill, and how the Bill achieves that intention by describing the relevant provisions.
In this context, acting in the public interest means fulfilling the obligations and duties in the remainder of the Bill that arise from it; it means being candid at inquiries and investigations; and it means that those working for public authorities must adhere to the codes and ethics required by the Bill. In general, “acting in the public interest” is usually not defined in legislation, as the hon. Gentleman said. This is because what is in the public interest will depend on the circumstance and context of that particular situation. Seeking to define what it means might have the effect of narrowing what could be considered to be in the public interest.
In schedule 1, the public interest is referred to in the context of public interest immunity. Public interest immunity is an established concept in law: it is a rule of evidence where documents are withheld if their disclosure would be injurious to the public interest. What is the “public interest” will be dependent on the particular circumstances, and we should not seek to constrain this or undermine a very long-established legal doctrine that is applied by the courts. The Inquiries Act 2005 and other legislation already contain provisions of this kind to ensure that appropriate protections are attached to sensitive information, which the Bill is replicating. I hope that clarifies the purpose of clause 1 and why defining “public interest” would not be appropriate and could actually hinder proceedings.
Dr Mullan
The Minister rightly describes how tightly the courts consider these matters in detail. As the Bill puts a whole range of very junior civil servants in the firing line, does she at least accept that guidance or materials might be helpful to assist a broader audience in how they approach these issues in their day-to-day work?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that intervention and the whole purpose of this legislation is to ensure exactly that. Obviously, there will be guidance in the codes of ethics that are produced, and public authorities will probably provide training for their individual public servants who will now be captured by the Bill, if, as I hope, it receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act. I am due to attend a session at the University of Liverpool to look at exactly how we can implement the Bill, should it become legislation and reach the statute book. All of that is being taken into consideration to advise everyone about what is expected of them under the duty of candour. Therefore, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 2 to a vote, and I pledge to work with him on exactly that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
This is one of those moments when, should the hon. Gentleman wish to press new clause 2 to a vote, which he may not, it would not be called now; it would be called later in the proceedings, because all new clauses are voted on at the end of the consideration of the Bill.
We come now to amendment 31. This is one of those occasions when we are debating two separate groups of amendments to clause 2. We have the choice: the clause stand part debate can take place now or at the end, but not both. Let us bear that in mind.
Clause 2
Duty of candour and assistance
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(ba) their failure to act, omission, or approval or tacit approval of an action are or may be relevant to the inquiry or investigation, or”.
This amendment clarifies that an indirect wrongdoing would be considered as an occurrence of misconduct or failure when examined as part of an inquiry, investigation or inquest.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(ca) where the authority or official has relevant records, including digital messages and communication, retain and disclose those records;”.
Amendment 32, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.”
This amendment requires public authorities or officials who assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation.
Tessa Munt
Amendment 31 would clarify that an indirect wrongdoing would be considered an occurrence of misconduct or failure when examined as part of an inquiry, investigation, inquest or independent panel. The purpose of and rationale for the amendment is that it would ensure that the Bill clearly covers situations where a public office holder has contributed to wrongdoing. I emphasise that this is about senior figures; I am not talking about junior civil servants and others who have little power. The amendment would apply where that senior public office holder has contributed to wrongdoing through not only direct action but a failure to act, such as an omission or tacit approval.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister. Amendment 32 would require public authorities or officials assisting an inquiry, investigation, inquest or independent panel to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure that relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to that investigation. The amendment would require public authorities to take proactive steps to ensure that all relevant officials can safely disclose information. It would strengthen protections for those providing evidence, helping to prevent retaliation or intimidation, and ensure that inquiries and investigations have access to all relevant information for thorough scrutiny of public officials’ decision making.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills for tabling these amendments. Amendment 31 seeks to ensure that, under the duty of candour and assistance, an inquiry or investigation, or, as she stated, a review panel, is notified by public authorities and officials of all relevant acts or information, including omissions or failures to act. We agree wholeheartedly, and I reassure the hon. Lady and all members of the Committee that the Bill already achieves the intent of the amendment.
Clause 23 provides definitions for terms used throughout the Bill. It specifies that an
“‘act’ includes an omission or a course of conduct”.
Therefore, in clause 2, “act” is to be read as including any omission or course of conduct that may be relevant, which could include approving the actions of others. To “have information” could include information that a person approved the actions of another person, or had knowledge of them and did not prevent them.
Amendment 42 would place a requirement on public authorities under the duty of candour and assistance to retain all relevant records, including digital records. Again, the Government agree with the intention behind the amendment, and believe that the provisions in the Bill are designed to achieve it in practice. Clause 2(4)(a) requires authorities and officials to provide information likely to be relevant to an inquiry or investigation if requested. They will not meet that obligation if they allow the information to be lost or destroyed when they ought to be providing it. In addition, the individual in charge of an authority has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to secure the authority’s compliance with that duty. That would necessarily involve ensuring that information is accessible within the authority, so that it can meet its obligations under the Bill.
Amendment 32 seeks to ensure that the Bill has adequate safeguards to protect those complying with the duty of candour and assistance. We agree that ensuring that public officials feel safe to disclose information is essential, and several aspects of the Bill speak to that point. The duty of candour and assistance provides appropriate safeguards for the protection of sensitive information and onward disclosure and ensures that officials can feel confident that the information they provide will be handled appropriately.
Tessa Munt
Can I ask the Minister for clarity? A lot of the proposed legislation seems to deal with when an investigation has been called for or set up. There may be a significant gap between that and when an authority knows that something has gone wrong and that an investigation, inquiry, inquest or independent panel is likely to follow. Is there is a way in which the duties can kick in the moment that somebody recognises that something will come of that rather than when an investigation is called for formally?
Alex Davies-Jones
There are two versions of the duty of candour: the always-on duty of candour by which every public servant should have to act in their everyday life, and the duty of candour with criminal sanctions attached to it that kicks in when there is an investigation or inquiry. The whole point is that they will work hand-in-hand. The former will prevent the latter—that is the intention. The code of ethics and the guidance that we talked about in an earlier debate will assist, but that will require a significant culture change across the whole public sector; it will not be easy or happen overnight. I am not naive enough to believe that it will be fixed just because we have the legislation. It will take a momentous effort by all of us to ensure that the culture seeps down from the top. That is also the intention behind the implementation, which we will come to later in the debate.
I reassure the hon. Lady that part 2 of the Bill requires public authorities to set out the process for exactly how public officials can raise internal complaints, to promote a culture of internal challenge. It also requires public authorities to set out their whistleblowing procedures, drawing officials’ attention to any legal protections they may benefit from. Although we are sympathetic to the intent behind amendment 32, we do not think that it will provide sufficient clarity on what public authorities would be expected to do to ensure that officials feel safe to disclose information, nor how that would operate as part of their duty of candour and assistance, for which non-compliance entails criminal sanctions.
Given those assurances, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Tessa Munt
The Minister has made her points. I am hopeful that we will end up with those reassurances. We will pick up these points later in the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a public authority or public official is under an obligation to respond to or assist an inquiry or investigation under subsection (4) they should do so within 30 working days.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, after “expeditiously” insert
“and within 30 working days”.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 19, leave out
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
and insert “within 30 working days”.
Seamus Logan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I have a number of confessions to make. First of all, this is my first Bill Committee in my 18 months as a Member, so I am a complete novice in terms of how these procedures work—I will be guided by the Chair at all times, of course. Secondly, I am afraid that my office has been decimated by illness, so I am flying blind this morning on some of the details of these amendments. I would be grateful if one of the Clerks could provide me with a hard copy of the amendments under consideration, if possible—actually, I am sure I can get one from the table.
I welcome the Minister’s statement about working together in a collegiate way to try to ensure that the Bill is as strong as it possibly can be. I am very conscious of the evidence that we heard last week and the strength of feeling about the Bill among those affected by not only the Hillsborough tragedy, but the many different tragedies and inquiries that have occurred over the years. That is why we tabled our amendments in a collegiate way to try to strengthen the Bill. That includes these amendments, which, as I understand them—though I am flying blind—seek to replace rather loose wording with a more specific timescale. I have no prior experience of other Bills to go on, but as a mental health officer in a previous life, I know how vital it is to understand the timescales that apply to the duties that fall upon public bodies. The Bill at present—[Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston for bailing me out by providing me with a copy of the amendments.
The current language of the Bill is imprecise. Whenever a duty is placed upon a public authority to perform a certain duty, the legislation should specify a timescale. Notwithstanding the Minister’s advice as to how things might progress with these amendments, we have suggested a timescale of 30 days. That may not be operationally possible—I am happy to consider extending it if that is what the Minister decides—but we believe that this amendment would significantly strengthen the duty on public authorities to operationalise this Bill.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I will speak specifically to clause 2 and the duty of candour and assistance to inquiries, but my remarks are relevant to the Bill as a whole. I want to let the Committee and anyone watching know that I will be talking about the death of a child.
I should have a six-year-old constituent called Ida Lock. She should be at school, playing with her siblings and running rings around her parents. But I do not have that six-year-old constituent, because she died in 2019 at just one week old, despite having been healthy in her mum Sarah’s womb. Ida’s death was preventable: the coroner described her death as caused by gross failures in her care. There were eight opportunities to save Ida, and after Ida’s death there were many more opportunities to make sure that what happened to her never happened again. However, the hospital trust, rather than opening its arms to the family and trying to learn from its mistakes, instead carried out a completely inadequate internal investigation and then, according to the timeline laid out by the coroner, attempted to head off further investigations. In fact, Ida’s case went to the coroner only this year, in 2025. Ida died in 2019. It went there because of the family’s persistence and for no other reason. It was not referred to the coroner, as it should have been, by the hospital trust; in fact, the trust originally graded Ida’s death as “moderate harm”.
Maria Eagle
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger. I just want to say a few words on this clause about why the duty of candour and assistance is so important, and why it means so much to Hillsborough families, some of whom are my constituents. We heard from a small number of them in the evidence sessions, but there are many more who could have told equally difficult stories about their own experience.
What happened at Hillsborough was a disaster. Nobody who worked for South Yorkshire police left their homes that morning intending to cause it, but the reality is that their gross negligence and inadequate organisation did cause it. Within four and a half months, the public inquiry had identified a loss of police control as the main cause of the disaster. Had our state been operating fully and correctly, we would have recognised that as a country and that would have been the end of the matter. There would have been accountability for those failings, lessons would have been learned, and the families could have grieved for their lost loved ones and moved on with their lives.
Instead, what happened was that the South Yorkshire police, aided and abetted by the West Midlands police, set about telling a story, intent only on deflecting blame for their own failings—even though those failings were then identified within four and a half months. One can understand, perhaps, why a police force faced with that disaster would have wanted to give their side of the story and understanding of what had happened. However, once the public inquiry—within four and a half months—had made findings that excoriated the police response to the disaster, accused a senior officer of telling a disgraceful lie and said in terms that the police would have been better advised to have accepted responsibility rather than sought to put forward a different story that was not credible, one would have expected that there would have been accountability, that the truth would have been accepted by the South Yorkshire police and that there would have been no more attempts to put forward a different narrative.
That did not happen. Instead, the then inquest proceedings—the longest in British legal history at that time, taking over a year—were used in terms by the South Yorkshire police to tell a different story: to put it in the public mind that they had not been at fault, as the public inquiry had clearly found, but that it had been the fans who had attended the match who had been at fault. It had been those who died who had contributed in some way to their own deaths. It had been the survivors of that terrible disaster who had somehow caused the problem. It had been hooliganism and drunkenness—it had been ticketless fans who had forced their way into the grounds.
That is the story that the police told, aided and abetted by the media of the day, some of which behaved disgracefully and suffer for it still on Merseyside, I might say. That story was told repeatedly. It was in every newspaper and all the mini-inquests for over a year of those inquest proceedings. At the end of it, the public perception about what had happened at Hillsborough was completely different from what the public inquiry had found. It was as if the public inquiry had never happened; yet it was right in almost every aspect, and within four and a half months of the disaster.
It is now 36 years since the disaster. In our evidence sessions, we heard from some of the families about the ongoing impact of the lies that were told and the story that has been repeatedly told by South Yorkshire police and those responsible for the disaster, who have been completely unable to accept their culpability. Even as late as the second inquest, they tried again to tell that same discredited story, so the importance of this clause cannot be overemphasised. It gets to the heart of why one might wish to call this a Hillsborough law, even though that is not the Bill’s short title. It might be known colloquially as that, because the fact is that, had those public authorities had the duties provided for in clause 2, there is no way they could have undertaken that campaign of lies, disinformation and propaganda against the wholly innocent families and wholly innocent survivors of that disaster.
It is for that reason that I think it is important that the duty of candour and assistance is an essential part of the Bill. If we enact it and implement it properly without any concerns or problems, that duty is one of the things that will enable us to say that this is a Hillsborough law because, had it been in place at the time, the South Yorkshire or West Midlands police could not have engaged in the disgraceful way that they did, simply to deflect the blame on to anybody else but them—even if that hurt those who had died, the families of those who had died, or the thousands and thousands of survivors. We forget that it was not only my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby who was at the match; thousands of people saw what happened. It was filmed and shown live on TV, so the idea that it could be distorted in the way that it has been—at great public expense and over decades—is a terrible disgrace to the way that our systems work.
If the Bill can put that right, it will have done our whole nation a service, and it will be right to call it a Hillsborough law. It will mean that those families can stop their campaigning and start to grieve and live what is left of their lives. Some 36 years on from what happened, surely they have a right to expect that.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for tabling amendments 18 to 20, which would require public officials and authorities to notify and provide information to any inquiry or investigation within 30 days. The Government agree entirely that public authorities and officials should provide assistance to inquiries and investigations as quickly as possible, and the Bill requires that. Clause 2(6) requires authorities and officials to act “expeditiously” when complying with the obligations placed on them. In some cases, it will be possible for officials and authorities to provide the assistance required within 30 days, but there may be times when it is not.
There will be situations where an inquiry or investigation requires an authority to provide a very large amount of information or data, requiring it to set staff and resources aside to search through potentially thousands of documents and assess their relevance, with all the necessary checks and verification that follow. We think it is important that authorities are given sufficient time to conduct thorough searches and provide accurate information, and that the inquiry or investigation will be best placed to set a reasonable timescale for that.
The duty would also apply to former officials who may have a different job or be retired—or have resigned, as we heard earlier—and there may be situations where it is impossible for them to provide the assistance required within a 30-day time limit. Although I totally agree with the sentiment, a degree of flexibility is therefore important so that we get all the information that inquiries and investigations need. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press his amendments, but I agree to work with him on a way forward.
I now turn to clause 2. We heard powerfully from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston exactly why the duty of candour in clause 2 is integral to the Bill. As has been rightly said, this is a Bill for the Hillsborough families, and it will be known colloquially as the Hillsborough law, but it is also a Bill for Ida, for the Grenfell families, for the Manchester Arena families and for anyone who has been wronged by the state.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Today, as well as this Committee, the Independent Office for Police Conduct report on Hillsborough is being published. Within that report, I think there is a recommendation that fully supports the Hillsborough law and says why, because there are officers there who would not have been. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston outlined, history would have been different if those officers had been held to account by clause 2 of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with my hon. Friend and that is exactly why the Bill is so important and integral. We have all heard the stories—the reality—of what the families, the bereaved and the survivors have been through. No one should ever have to go through that again. The intent behind clause 2 is to do just that: to ensure that no family has to go through the unimaginable again.
Clause 2 sets out the requirements of the duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations; in short, what those under the duty need to do. As subsection (1) states:
“Public authorities and public officials must at all times act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations.”
The duty has two stages to it. The first, in clause 2(3), is the requirement for public officials to come forward and make themselves known to an inquiry or investigation if they have reason to believe that their actions or information they hold might be relevant to it. The second, in clause 2(4), is to then provide any assistance that the inquiry or investigation requires.
Clause 2(4) lists the types of assistance that might involve—for example, drawing attention to information that is particularly significant and, for public authorities, to provide a position statement to an inquiry. The head of a public authority may be asked for information and assistance as an individual public official in their own right, where relevant, but subsection (5) places them under an additional obligation. When the authority that they manage is under the duty, they are personally required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that it complies. We believe that that is crucial to the success of the Bill and for the leaders of public authorities to feel personally accountable under the duty.
Seamus Logan
I welcome the Minister’s response. Having heard what she said about working with me about how we might operationalise the issue, I am prepared to withdraw the amendments. However, it is important to remember, in that conversation, that justice delayed is justice denied.
We have seen so many examples of inquiries and investigations that take years, when months would be much more appropriate. In the circumstances we are speaking about—in this case and the many others that this law will apply to—we must give chairs and leaders of inquiries and investigations some sense of what is reasonable when it comes to public authority responses.
We heard from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale about the health service; I worked in it for 33 years. There is no good reason why it should not be able to respond in if not 30 then 90 days. Some backstop needs to be applied in relation to these responsibilities. I am happy to continue the conversation with the Minister and beg to ask leave withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Application of duty of candour and assistance
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 35, in schedule 1, page 25, line 23, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert
“should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.”
See Amendment 38.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 36, in schedule 1, page 28, line 38, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert
“should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.”
See Amendment 38.
Amendment 37, in schedule 1, page 31, line 34, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert
“should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.”
See Amendment 38.
Amendment 38, in schedule 1, page 34, line 15, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert
“should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.”
Amendments 35 to 38 would extend the application of the duty of candour and assistance to the intelligence services but would disapply it to individual officers.
Mr Morrison
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. These amendments do nothing more than fix something in the current draft of the Bill, which seems inadvertently to have carved out the security services—an area that could be strengthened, as we heard during the evidence session last week. The amendments seek to extend the duty of candour and assistance to the intelligence services as organisations, ensuring that they as bodies are required to be open and co-operative with the inquiries and any investigations. The amendment balances accountability with national security, by stating that direction will not be given to public officials
“if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence”.
Several of our witnesses last week gave evidence that laid out various examples of how the security services had failed to be fully candid, disregarded accountability, and, at times, misled inquiries. We also know that the Government assured campaigners, Members and other interested parties that there would be no carve-out for the security services in the Bill. The security services do an incredible job in keeping us safe and ensuring that our country’s interests are protected. It is right that their work is covered by the secrecy Act; no one wishes to change that. However, because of that power they should be held to highest standards of accountability. We know that in recent history that has not been the case.
Last week we heard from Pete Weatherby, who, as well as working with the Hillsborough families, supported several families impacted by the Manchester Arena bombing. He said:
“There was a major failure of the intelligence services and the way they dealt with the aftermath of the bombing…MI5 then put an incorrect narrative—a false narrative—to the inquiry itself. The judge, the chair of the inquiry, found that the corporate case that it had put was incorrect.”––[Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 6, Q3.]
The amendment would ensure, as much as any law can, that that could not happen again, by explicitly ensuring that the security services are accountable to this Bill and therefore to a public who willingly consent to how these organisations work to protect us and our country. This amendment would not endanger national security. It would not impact the way in which some evidence is required to be provided in closed sessions. It would provide the security services with the necessary safeguards to ensure that secret and classified information is protected.
This is what happens now. We heard from the journalist Daniel De Simone, who worked on the agent X story, where the security services tried to mislead and were found out. His testimony stated:
“I do not think it is wrong that there are special advocates in closed material procedures; it is now an established part of a court process. What it does do, though, is place a special responsibility on MI5 to be candid, because their evidence is often very important in very significant cases, where there has been significant loss of life, where people’s citizenship is being removed or where people are being deprived of their liberties.”––[Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 95, Q138.]
Because of that, it is vital that we do not allow any carving out, intentional or otherwise, of the security services, to ensure that they, too, are held to account and must tell the truth. That will strengthen not only their work, but the trust that we place in them.
Dr Mullan
I emphasise that we need clarity on this. Those of us who were able to attend the meeting with the intelligence services will know that they seemed to provide quite a clear account of their individual personal responsibility and all the ways in which they thought the Bill would affect them. That was quite clearly contradicted in our evidence from other witnesses. I am grateful to the Minister for sending round a further note to Committee members this morning, and for our brief chat ahead of this sitting. Even that note raises further contradictions, however, because it says, and I quote, that “the individual public officials working for the UK intelligence services are capable of being caught by the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour”. It lists some other ones, but it includes the duty of candour. Further down, it says, “the Bill specifies that the duty of candour and assistance can only be addressed to public authorities and not individual public officials”.
The Minister was able to give me a brief, informal explanation of that, but I do think this is extremely important. It may be that people are happy for the security services to be excluded to a certain extent, but we have to vote on a shared understanding of what exactly the Bill does in relation to them as entire organisations, as well as to the people who work for them and those who are in charge. I would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarity on that.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank hon. Members for raising those important points. In this Bill, we have aimed to ensure candour while protecting national security. As it stands, inquiries and investigations will be able to demand any information and assistance they require from the intelligence services. Where national security information is concerned, the agency as a whole will provide that assistance to the inquiry or investigation by complying with a compliance direction, rather than individuals directly in their own right.
To balance that, and to ensure that there are no gaps, carve-outs or exclusions, those in charge of the agencies are subject to specific requirements to put arrangements in place for individuals to maintain records of information relating to any acts that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation, and to provide information to the authority to ensure that the duty is complied with as set out in clause 6. Rightly, a failure to have these arrangements in place will result in criminal sanctions.
Intelligence services obtain and retain sensitive security and intelligence information in order to protect the public from national security threats. Vital public interests, including national security, would be at real risk of harm from the unrestricted disclosure of this sensitive information. We all share the same aims here—ensuring that candour is in place while protecting national security and the public.
Taking on board the points raised by Hillsborough Law Now and others, we constructed clause 6 in such a way as to ensure that there is a secure process that the intelligence services can work through so that any information required by an inquiry or investigation reaches that place safely, so that there can be full candour. However, we have heard the concerns from Hillsborough Law Now and from members of this Committee about our provisions. I assure hon. Members that the Government have taken their points on board, and we will commit to working with them and others actively to consider steps to address this in time for Report.
I turn to the other amendments, which set out that the intelligence authorities are to be listed as a public authority for the purposes of the duty of candour and assistance, and the code of ethical conduct in schedule 2. Clause 6 already makes it clear that the duty applies to the intelligence services as it applies to all other public authorities; therefore, it is beyond doubt that they are included, as a public authority, in the Bill.
We have not set out an exhaustive list of public authorities in schedule 2 to avoid unintentionally excluding some bodies by failing to list them. No individual Department or arm’s length body of central Government is included in the list for that purpose. If we begin to list public bodies, there is a risk that we imply that those not listed are not covered, which could weaken the Bill. I urge the hon. Member for Cheadle to withdraw his amendment, but I reiterate my commitment to working with Members on a way forward to capture all the concerns raised both in the Committee and outside of it.
Mr Morrison
I thank the shadow Minister for the points that he made; he is spot on that the lack of clarity in the Bill, particularly surrounding what came out of the evidence sessions, raises more questions than answers. However, I am pleased that the Minister has said that the Government are happy to work with us on tightening those gaps before Report. This is not about unrestricted evidence; it is about getting to the truth, which must be our focus throughout. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Mullan
I beg to move amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 26, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) Inquiries under subsection (1) include those designated by the Secretary of State as local inquiries into grooming gangs.”
This amendment would apply the Duty of Candour to the five local grooming gangs’ inquiries announced by the Government and any further ones established.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert
“, independent panel or review established by a Minister”.
This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak to amendment 3, and I also welcome the intention behind amendment 1. Amendment 3 relates to the scope of the duty of candour as it applies to non-statutory inquiries. Members will know that the Bill does not just impose a duty of candour on public bodies in major statutory inquiries that are set up under the Inquiries Act 2005; it allows Ministers to apply that same duty to non-statutory inquiries—or inquiries that, for various sensible reasons, may not require the full statutory machinery but none the less investigate matters of profound public concern.
Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 sets out the conditions under which a non-statutory inquiry may fall within the Bill: it must be initiated by a Minister; it must be intended to produce a published report; and the Minister must certify that the events in question have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern. That is a broadly drawn but important framework. However, there is a real risk that some of the most sensitive, complex and deeply distressing inquiries currently being established will fall entirely outside this regime.
I refer specifically to the local grooming gangs inquiries announced by the Government. These inquiries were promised to victims, survivors and affected communities as part of the commitment to shine a light on failures by public agencies over many decades to protect vulnerable children. They will be examining events that could not be more clearly connected to public concern and public confidence. Unless they are expressly captured by the Bill, however, the public bodies involved will not necessarily be subject to the statutory duty of candour that the Bill intends to deliver; it will be left to the whims of the Government of the day. Given the chequered history of this Administration, that is not a position that we would want to be left in, and it is not a position that many victims would want to be left in.
The amendment is therefore designed to remove any doubt by making it clear that the non-statutory inquiries designated by the Secretary of State as local grooming gang inquiries fall squarely within paragraph 2. It is a simply, clarifying amendment that protects victims, the integrity of the process and the public from the possibility of these inquiries falling into a grey area.
It is worth reminding the Committee why this matters. Across multiple towns and cities, victims were failed because agencies did not share information, confront uncomfortable truths and, in some cases, tell the public the full story. A duty of candour is not a mere formality in this context; it is an essential means by which we ensure that the same patterns of silence, defensiveness and institutional self-protection do not re-emerge.
If the Bill’s purpose is to raise standards in public life, to restore trust and to ensure openness in the face of institutional wrongdoing, surely these inquires—the very ones where a failure of candour has had the most devastating impacts—must be included explicitly. The Government may well argue that the wording already allows these inquiries to be covered. If that is the case, there is no harm in making it clear. If it is not the case, there is every reason for us to fix that today.
This amendment is not partisan. We heard from Mayor Burnham about his direct experience of a local grooming gang inquiry that lacked a duty of candour, and how he felt the inquiry would have benefited enormously from one. He supported our amendment to ensure that all other local inquiries would be subject to such a duty once the Bill became law.
The timing may not be perfect, but given the speed with which the Government seek to proceed with the Bill, and the positive impact it could have even now if public officials knew that this was incoming, I cannot see any reason why the Government would oppose the measure. It is straightforward and would ensure that when victims and survivors are told that lessons will be learned, we will do everything possible to guarantee that that is done honestly, fully and transparently by ensuring that inquiries have all the information they need.
Amendment 1—I believe this was touched on earlier, in relation to panels and what will fully constitute inclusion in the Bill—is helpful to ensure that when a Minister commissions one of these important panels, it is not simply left to them to decide whether it suits them to include the duty of candour. I therefore welcome that amendment.
Maria Eagle
I rise to support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), and supported by several other hon. Members, both on the Committee and outside it.
The amendment would ensure that the Bill’s duty of candour and duty to assist apply automatically to independent panels and reviews established by a Minister of the Crown. It makes a simple and technical addition to schedule 1 and, as it has been accepted, is within the scope of the Bill and does not therefore extend it. Hon. Members know that I have a particular interest in independent panels, but the amendment simply seeks to apply the duty of candour and assistance to independent panels that Ministers can set up at any time if they so wish. It would be an anomaly for it not to be included, particularly given that independent panels are becoming a more common way of trying to get to the truth about somewhat complex events.
Hon. Members may be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden is chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Primodos. I, too, have constituents who have been affected by Primodos. I think there was a particular penchant in the north-west for prescribing it as an oral pregnancy test. It was not a drug or a treatment as such; it was a diagnostic test to see whether someone was pregnant. There seems to have been a lot of it prescribed in the north-west of England.
Since the 1960s and 1970s, there have been campaigns to try to find out whether—and, latterly, to try to get it accepted that—Primodos, an oral hormone pregnancy test, caused life-changing and devastating congenital abnormalities, stillbirths and miscarriages. I have constituents who have been affected, both those whose children are still alive and those whose children are not. The all-party group has been campaigning for many years, under my hon. Friend’s chairmanship, to get some resolution for those families.
The all-party group has conducted investigations. There have been failed legal actions against the manufacturers of Primodos. In 2017, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency expert working group gave rise to great hope that there might be a way forward for those affected, but that was a disappointment. In fact, I think that if my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden were moving this amendment, she would say that it was quite clear that key evidence was minimised or discarded, that families were excluded from those considerations and that the conclusions appeared to go further than the remit that the working group was given.
Ian Byrne
I want to put on record our thanks to Marie Lyon for all the work that she has done. She outlined exactly what my right hon. Friend has said about that report, and the families’ disappointment about the lack of a duty of candour. I therefore fully support the proposal.
Maria Eagle
I know Marie Lyon; I have met her on a number of occasions because I have constituents who are affected. She runs the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, and she has been the mainstay of the campaign, which has been going on since 1978, to try and get some resolution for these matters. I am happy to support my hon. Friend’s thanks to her.
One thing that could assist those families in respect of Primodos is an independent panel, which would go much further than the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency expert working group, and which would collect documents and approach the issue from a transparency point of view. Given that the families’ attempted legal actions have not succeeded, that seems to me a likely next way forward. But the reality is that if the Bill comes into force and independent panels are not specifically included, those families may feel as though they are in a disadvantageous position. It is on that basis that I seek to move amendment 1.
The Chair
The right hon. Lady will understand that amendment 1 will not be moved now; it will be taken when the schedule is reached at the end of the Bill. At that point she will need to indicate if she wishes to press it to a Division.
Tessa Munt
I rise to support amendment 3, proposed by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. I am also a co-signatory of amendment 1, and I thank the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston for her reference to it. I echo the comments that have been made about Primodos and many other things. We have investigations, inquiries, inquests, and independent panels—and no doubt something else will come up at some point. Will the Minister clarify that point and agree that we should have some common language to cover all those things? As has been mentioned, independent panels do come up quite often.
I seek clarity on investigations and inquiries that might be taking place already. My understanding is that the Bill will not affect them, so if someone has something that they want to raise, they will probably need to wait until the Bill has become law. That seems slightly perverse, in that there may be people who want something done within the next six months who are going to have to sit and wait. I would like some clarity on that.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank hon. Members for a useful debate getting into the detail the provisions—that is why we have Bill Committees. It would be beneficial for me to clarify exactly how the Bill applies to non-statutory inquiries, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. The duty of candour and assistance will apply to all statutory and non-statutory inquiries and inquests described in schedule 1. Non-statutory inquiries are defined as those caused by a Minister; those that include the delivery of a report with a view to publication; and those that the Minister has confirmed in writing relate to matters of public concern.
This is the first time non-statutory inquiries have been set out in law, but we envisage that this category could include investigations held under other names, such as independent panels, provided the criteria set out are met. Amendment 1 would automatically extend the duty of candour and assistance to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers. The Bill includes a power to extend the duty to other categories of investigations, or to specific investigations via secondary legislation. It is therefore not the case that if an investigation is not covered in the Bill, the duty of candour can never apply.
Tessa Munt
To give an example, if the local authority children’s services department sets up an investigation into something or does one of its serious case reviews—or whatever they are called now—are that organisation, the people within it and the actors in the event that prompted it covered by the duty of candour? Can the Minister be really clear about that?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to confirm that they will be. They are not currently, but the Government are tabling an amendment to cover that point, and we will come to it later in Committee. Should that amendment be made, the Bill will cover those local authority investigations.
The Cabinet Office is undertaking further work to look at how we reform inquiries. As part of that, we will consider how the different types of inquiries, reviews and investigations could be more clearly defined, and when and how they could best be used. That will inform how the duty is used.
The duty of candour and assistance is a powerful tool to ensure co-operation with investigations, but it would not be useful in all circumstances. Most reviews focus on matters of policy or technical issues— for example, the curriculum and assessment review, the net zero review and the review of the future of women’s football. In those cases, applying the duty would be unnecessary and might risk making reviews more difficult to establish and slower to report. Where the duty is applied, it must be properly monitored and enforced, and therefore frameworks for compliance and the protection of information need to be in place. We must avoid unintentionally impeding or delaying certain types of investigations by introducing unnecessary and unhelpful processes and bureaucracy. We therefore think the Bill strikes the right balance in which investigations it applies to, with the power in the Bill providing us with the tools and flexibility we need to extend the duty where it could be useful.
I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden about how we move forward with her campaign. She has been an incredible and ferocious campaigner for the Primodos families for many years. I have met her and the Primodos families, and I am committed to working with her on a way forward to ensure that the duty of candour can assist.
Amendment 3 is designed to apply the duty of candour and assistance to inquiries that the Secretary of State has designated as local inquiries into grooming gangs. I thank the shadow Minister for raising this important issue. As he will be aware, we are moving at pace to establish a national inquiry into grooming gangs under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will be overseen by an independent commission with statutory powers to compel evidence and testimony so that institutions can be held to account for current and historic failures. The inquiry will be independent of Government and designed to command the confidence of victims and survivors and the wider public.
The Bill already applies the duty to statutory and non-statutory inquiries called by Ministers, including this new inquiry. To strengthen the Bill, we have also tabled an amendment extending the duty to inquiries called by local authorities, and we will debate that shortly. That amendment, combined with the existing provisions in the Bill, will enable the duty to apply to either local or national inquiries into grooming gangs. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Mullan
On amendment 1, I accept the Government’s intention to clarify further how these things will operate. On panels and non-statutory inquiries, although there is sometimes in Government a resistance to public inquiries for the wrong reasons, sometimes it is because they are expensive and time-consuming. The real opportunity for applying the duty of candour more widely is that if we can ensure that non-public inquiries get all the information they need, they are much more likely to be successful, thereby avoiding a future public inquiry with all the associated costs that lawyers make a huge amount of money from.
On amendment 3, although the Minister outlined the future public inquiry, the local inquiries have not been cancelled. There is clearly a view that they must also proceed. I cannot see any reason why we would not want them to proceed on the basis that they are subject to the duty of candour.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to reassure the shadow Minister that, should the Bill receive Royal Assent, its provisions will apply immediately to ongoing investigations and inquiries. That includes local inquiries, if we pass the amendment that the Government have tabled. We cannot allow that currently, because the Bill has not become law, but once it has done, it will cover existing ongoing inquiries and investigations and those that are yet to commence.
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 27, line 29, after “applies” insert
“by virtue of this paragraph”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
Alex Davies-Jones
As I stated previously, the Government have committed to only strengthening this Bill as it moves through Parliament. That is exactly what this group of amendments does. Provision of 2005 Act Extent of application Section 17(1) and (2) (evidence and procedure) Apply only in relation to procedure and conduct of inquiry so far as relating to requirements imposed under the duty of candour and assistance Sections 19 and 20 (restrictions on public access etc) Apply only in relation to restrictions imposed in respect of evidence etc given in compliance with the duty of candour and assistance Section 21(3) to (5) (contents of, and challenges to, notices) Apply to a compliance direction as they apply to a notice under section 21 of the 2005 Act Section 22(1) (privileged information etc) Applies in respect of evidence etc given under the duty of candour and assistance as it applies to evidence etc given under section 21 of the 2005 Act Section 22(2) (public interest immunity) Applies only in relation to evidence or documents that would otherwise be required to be produced under the duty of candour and assistance Section 36 (enforcement by High Court or Court of Session) Applies to a failure to comply etc with a compliance direction as it applies to a failure etc to comply with a notice under section 21 of the 2005 Act.
Before I move on, I want to say how severely disappointed I am that the Opposition pressed the previous amendment to a vote, given my assurances that those types of investigations and inquiries will of course be covered by the Bill. That seemed to fly in the face of the statements at the beginning of the Committee sitting, where we said that we would not play party politics with the Bill. It seems, sadly, that the Opposition do not have the same ambition in mind.
Amendment 7 extends the duty of candour and assistance to apply to local authorities and local authority inquiries into serious incidents called by combined, unitary, borough, county and district councils. We have prepared the amendment with previous local inquiries firmly in mind, such as the Kerslake review into the preparedness for and emergency response to the Manchester Arena attack and local grooming gangs inquiries. It would also cover the Edinburgh tram corruption inquiry mentioned by the Mayor of Greater Manchester in oral evidence.
For the duty to apply, inquiries must relate to matters in the local authority’s area and that are within a local authority’s competence or control. There must also have been a significant risk of causing death or serious physical or psychological harm to one or more persons or substantial economic loss to one or more persons as a result of conduct involving dishonesty, impropriety or a serious breach of ethical or professional standards. That ensures incidents that have caused a significant risk to life or corruption are rightfully brought into scope, with the appropriate threshold in place to avoid unintended pressures and inappropriate use.
The rest of the amendment replicates the provisions set out for statutory and non-statutory inquiries in part 1 and part 2 of schedule 1. Amendments 6 and 4 are consequential on amendment 7.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment made: 7, in schedule 1, page 30, line 18, at end insert—
“Part 2A
Local authority inquiries
3A (1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) a local authority in England has caused an inquiry (however described) to be established,
(b) the terms of reference of the inquiry do not require it to determine any fact, or make any recommendation, that is not wholly or primarily concerned with a local authority matter,
(c) the inquiry’s functions include the delivery of a report to the authority with a view to its publication, and
(d) the authority has given written confirmation to the person leading the inquiry (“the chair”) that it appears to the authority that the inquiry is established in connection with an event or series of events in respect of which the condition in sub-paragraph (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that the event (or series of events) caused, or created a significant risk of causing
(a) death or serious physical or psychological harm, or
(b) substantial economic loss to one or more persons as a result of conduct involving dishonesty, impropriety or a serious breach of ethical or professional standards.
(3) As soon as reasonably practicable after the start of the inquiry, the chair must (subject to sub-paragraph (11)) give a compliance direction—
(a) to a public authority or public official, or
(b) to a person who had a relevant public responsibility in connection with an incident to which the inquiry relates,
if it appears to the chair that the person’s acts are or may be relevant to the inquiry or that they otherwise have information likely to be relevant.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not limit the power of the chair to give a compliance direction at any other time during the course of the inquiry.
(5) Where a compliance direction is given to a public authority or body within sub-paragraph (3)(b), a compliance direction must also be given to the individual appearing to the chair to be in charge of that authority or body.
(6) A “compliance direction” is a direction to comply with the obligations under the duty of candour and assistance imposed by—
(a) section 2(4), and
(b) in the case of a direction given to an individual under sub-paragraph (5), section 2(5).
(7) A compliance direction—
(a) must be given in writing;
(b) must set out the terms of reference of the inquiry;
(c) may specify particular requirements to be complied with (and for that purpose may specify the form and manner in which, and the period within which, those requirements are to be complied with);
(d) may be varied, supplemented or revoked by the giving of a further direction.
(8) In determining the objectives of the inquiry for the purposes of complying with the duty of candour and assistance under section 2(4), regard is to be had (in particular) to the terms of reference as set out in the compliance direction.
(9) The reference to a report in sub-paragraph (1)(c) is to a report that sets out—
(a) the facts determined by the chair, and
(b) the recommendations of the chair (where the purposes of the inquiry include the making of recommendations).
(10) The provisions of the Inquiries Act 2005 (“the 2005 Act”) listed in the first column of the Table apply, to the extent specified in the corresponding entry in the second column, to an inquiry in relation to which the duty of candour and assistance applies by virtue of this paragraph as they apply to an inquiry under the 2005 Act—
(11) A compliance direction—
(a) may be given only—
(i) in respect of evidence, documents or other things that are wholly or primarily concerned with a local authority matter, or
(ii) for the purpose of inquiring into something that is wholly or primarily a local authority matter;
(b) may not be given so as to require any evidence, document or other thing to be given, produced or provided by or on behalf of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland Minister (including the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly);
(c) may not be given to a public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and a public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this prohibition (but this paragraph otherwise applies to an intelligence service as it applies to other public authorities).
(12) A person ceases to be subject to the duty of candour and assistance when the inquiry to which it relates comes to an end.
(13) In determining when an inquiry established by a local authority comes to an end for the purposes of sub-paragraph (12), section 14 of the Inquiries Act 2005 applies as it applies to an inquiry under that Act as if—
(a) references in that section to the Minister were to the authority, and
(b) subsection (4)(b) of that section were omitted.
(14) In this paragraph—
(a) references to a local authority in England do not include a parish council;
(b) references to a “local authority matter”, in relation to a local authority, are to any matter—
(i) which relates to the area of the authority, and
(ii) in respect of which the authority exercises functions;
(c) “terms of reference”, in relation to an inquiry established by a local authority, means—
(i) the matters to which the inquiry relates;
(ii) any particular matters as to which the chair is to determine the facts;
(iii) whether the chair is to make recommendations;
(iv) any other matters relating to the scope of the inquiry that the local authority may specify;
(d) the reference to a person who had a relevant public responsibility in connection with an incident is to be read in accordance with section 4.
(15) Paragraph 3 applies to a compliance direction given under this paragraph as it applies to a compliance direction given under paragraph 2.”
This amendment extends the duty of candour and assistance, and the related power to give compliance directions, so as to include certain local authority inquiries in England.
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 30, line 33, after “of the” insert “senior”.
This is a drafting refinement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 9 and 10.
Schedule 1.
Alex Davies-Jones
These three amendments are minor and technical. Government amendments 8 and 9 update schedule 1 to refer to a “senior coroner”, thereby identifying the statutory office for consistency with the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and other legislation. Government amendment 10 replaces a reference to this “Schedule” in schedule 1, paragraph 4 with a reference to this “paragraph”. This is a drafting refinement to clarify that the definitions in new paragraph 2A of schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 apply only to that paragraph rather than to the entirety of schedule 5. I commend these amendments to the committee.
Tessa Munt
Might I seek some clarity on what happens with area coroners as opposed to senior coroners?
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm that an area coroner, for the sake of the Bill and under the Coroners Act, is classed as a senior coroner.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendments made: 9, in schedule 1, page 30, line 38, after “to the” insert “senior”.
This is a drafting refinement.
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 32, line 1, leave out “Schedule” and insert “paragraph”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This is a drafting refinement.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3
Section 2: further provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 3 works alongside clause 2 in making some more detailed provisions about the operation of the duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations to ensure that they are practical, effective and proportionate. Clause 3(2) provides important flexibility for inquiries and investigations to alter or disapply the requirement for public officials and authorities to notify the inquiry or investigation if they have reason to believe they are relevant.
There may be situations where the requirement would be impractical or unhelpful for the inquiry itself. Clearly, it would have been impractical for every single NHS worker involved in the response to the pandemic to notify the covid-19 inquiry of their possible relevance, or an inquiry may wish to hear from those relevant to different subjects at different times and in different stages. Clause 3(3) reinforces clause 2 by requiring public officials and authorities to notify inquiries and investigations of their potential relevance as soon as is reasonably practicable. Subsections (4), (5), and (6) attach some procedure to the duty to make it practical, which schedule 1 builds on.
Inquiries and investigations will specify the assistance they require and what are called compliance directions in schedule 1. These give control to the inquiry or investigation to set out the assistance they actually require, and provide important clarity for those under the duty, so they know exactly what is expected of them. Clause 2 sets an expectation that public authorities will provide a position statement at inquiries. Such statements, made early on in proceedings can help inquiries to identify the key issues to investigate and to home in on the points of contention. In most cases, we expect these to be useful, but subsections (5) and (6) give inquiries the discretion to disapply that requirement if it would be contrary to the efficiency and effectiveness of the inquiry.
Seamus Logan
Could the Minister give an example to the Committee of such a circumstance?
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, of course. I have mentioned the covid-19 inquiry—it would have been impractical for every single worker to come forward to an inquiry—but I add that the chair of an inquiry must give reasons, publishing them and outlining why it would not be practical, or not helpful to the inquiry, not to bring forward a position statement.
Subsection (7) is vital to ensure that the duty of candour does not cut across existing laws, such as those on data protection or safeguarding.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Extension of duty to other persons with public responsibilities
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, after “authority” insert—
“or any sub-contractor in any chain of provision to a service provider”.
This amendment ensures that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider which was subcontracted will fall under the duty to comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry or investigation.
Tessa Munt
I am delighted to have got to this bit. I speak to this clause in particular, because I am extremely concerned that the duty of candour should capture subcontractors and the contractors to subcontractors. It is unbelievably common for those committed to carrying out contracts with local authorities, Government or public bodies generally to subcontract and subcontract and subcontract. There is absolutely no reason why those organisations and the people involved should not fall under the duty—those people are often the whistleblowers who tell the primary organisation, or their own, what it is that they have seen. I feel strongly that we should ensure that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider, where there is subcontracting in place, should comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry, investigation or all the other panels and various things that we have referred to this morning.
The duty should apply not only to the primary service provider, but to the subcontractors, whether individuals or organisations. That would close a potential accountability gap by making it clear that all parties involved in providing a service must co-operate fully with inquiries, investigations and panels. It would help to ensure that relevant information is not withheld purely due to contractual arrangement. That would support comprehensive scrutiny of decisions, actions, omissions and service delivery.
Dr Mullan
I rise briefly to support the amendment and the points made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. It is about not just existing contractual arrangements, but how there might be perverse incentives for people to create different structures if they think that, through contracting or subcontracting, they will escape the accountability under the Bill. I am keen to hear from the Minister.
Probably the example that everyone has in mind is the Post Office scandal. That was a direct contractor, but it could have had subcontractors and so on. When the Post Office was conducting its private investigations, it might have used subcontractors to do some of those investigations. That would not be an unusual step for an organisation to take, so it is important that we get clarity on this issue.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The amendment would apply the duty of candour to subcontractors as well as contractors of a public authority, as has been outlined. In the Bill, we have sought to extend the duty into the private sector in a manner that is proportionate and effective. The focus is, and must be, public authorities and public officials—those whose role is to serve the public. That has to be the starting point. The Bill then extends the obligations of the duty of candour and assistance to private bodies and individuals that either had a statutory health and safety obligation in connection with the incident under investigation or were a contractor to a public authority and, in that capacity, had a significant impact on members of the public in connection with the incident. As we have heard, these provisions are designed to capture the equivalents of Fujitsu in the Post Office inquiry.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that intervention. As I have stated, if there was a statutory health and safety obligation in connection with an incident under investigation, then, yes, those individuals would be captured by the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
If there had been an investigation or inquiry into that then, yes, it would.
Subcontractors are one or more stages removed. They are responsible to the main or another contractor. Where relevant, we would expect a main contractor to account for the performance and actions of a subcontractor and be candid in doing so. Statutory inquiries and inquests already have the ability to compel evidence from such persons if necessary. Therefore, on balance, we do not think it necessary or proportionate to extend the duty to all subcontractors. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Tessa Munt
If subcontractors get contracted and know that they are working for a local authority or Government body, they just need to pass on that responsibility within the contractual terms. The difficulty comes the moment there is separation between the organisation that is subject to duty of candour and a subcontractor of a subcontractor. It is not difficult—we do these things with payment terms—so I plead with the Minister to make sure that we cover subcontractors. It will not be satisfactory for a subcontractor at tier 1 to speak for a subcontractor at tier 3. It will not happen. It will not be robust enough. I foresee all sorts of slippage, especially when there are whistleblowers two or three tiers down the contract. I plead with the Minister again to reconsider what she is saying.
Secondly, what happens when the senior body—the overarching organisation—is abroad? If I may use an example, Wessex Water—I am not picking on them for any particular reason—is owned by Pennon Group, which I understand is Malaysian. What happens when the head office is abroad?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to pick up both those points. On the first point, I will work with the hon. Lady to ensure that we find a way forward in terms of ensuring that there is no unintended gap and that we are not missing anything. A balance has to be struck between how far we go in the private sector before we are covering everybody with a duty of candour. However, we can find a way forward here.
Ian Byrne
That is a hugely important intervention. In Grenfell, many subcontractors did not fall under the scope. It is a real concern that we need to look at before Report to make sure that subcontractors are in scope. This is all about a change of culture. We need a change of culture within the building industry.
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree. I am committed to working with hon. Members on a way forward.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills about what happens if the head office is abroad, the Bill will provide the inquiry or investigation with the powers to obtain information from an individual wherever they are, even if they have retired, if they have resigned or if they now live abroad.
Tessa Munt
On the basis that we can all work together to make sure that we cover subcontractors, including the different tiers of subcontracting, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I was going to press it to a vote, but the Minister has assured me that she will try to do something before Report and I recognise that we have support on both sides of the Committee. I thank the Minister very much indeed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Offence of failing to comply with duty
Ian Byrne
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 5, page 5, line 18, after “objectives” insert:
“or are reckless as to whether it will do so,”.
This is simply a strengthening amendment that has come from the lawyers, and which I hope the Government will take on board. It is worth pointing out that we only have one shot at this. We need to ensure that there is no unfortunate language that perhaps does not allow the Bill to be as strong as we need it to be, so I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
The current wording in clause 5(1) sets the mental element of failing to discharge the duty as intent, and the mental elements of failing to provide the information in the duty as intent or recklessness—being cognisant of the risk and choosing to take it nevertheless. We feel, and I certainly feel, that this is a baseless distinction and an anomaly. The mental element should be the same, and the amendment would rectify that. It is simply a strengthening amendment to make sure that we shut any gaps.
Alex Davies-Jones
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for his amendment, which seeks to lower the mental standard threshold from intent to include recklessness for the purposes of the offence of failing to comply with the duty. Recklessness already applies to breaches of the obligations in clause 2(4) and (5), so the amendment would extend the application of recklessness to obligations in clause 2(3). As the Committee has heard, under clause 2(3), those whose acts or information may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation are obliged to make themselves known to the chair. We think there is uncertainty about what recklessness in this context would actually mean and therefore do not think it right for there to be uncertainty about the test for a criminal offence.
Conversely, it is straightforward and clear for the test to be that an individual or authority intends to impede the work of the inquiry or investigation by failing to make it known that they might be relevant. Once an individual or authority has received a compliance direction from the inquiry or investigation specifying the assistance that is required—the second stage of the duty—they will then know clearly what is required of them, so the test for the offence becomes either intention or recklessness. Recklessness in that context makes sense. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment, although I am happy to meet him to discuss these concerns.
Mr Morrison
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am not sure whether this is the right time to ask, but on the amendment paper, amendment 34 is down as a Liberal Democrat amendment, but on the groupings that were sent across to us, it was down as an SNP amendment. I just wanted to clarify where we are with that.
The Chair
I understand that that has been corrected online, and the matter is now on the record as well.
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) If an offence under this section is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—
(a) a senior officer of a public authority, or
(b) a senior officer of a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act, or
(c) a person purporting to act in such a capacity,
the senior officer or person (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would hold senior officers liable for the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance if it is proved that they consented or connived in that failure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 33, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by—
(a) a public authority, or
(b) a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act,
the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority or a corporate body with public responsibility under Clause 4 for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance.
Amendment 44, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the duty falls on a public authority or other body, responsibility for the discharge of that duty falls on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section.”
Amendment 34, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by a public authority, the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority for an offence of misleading the public.
Amendment 45, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the act or statement is made by or in the name of the public authority, responsibility for it lies on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section”
Tessa Munt
The amendment would ensure that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider—we are back to our subcontracting discussion —will fall under a duty to comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry or investigation or any other body, which we have discussed this morning. The intention is to ensure that senior officers cannot evade accountability simply by turning a blind eye to failures to comply with the duty of candour and assistance. The amendment would make them liable where it is proven that they consented or connived in a breach and would close the loophole around responsibility for indirect wrongdoing.
Sir Roger, do you wish me to speak to amendment 33, too?
The Chair
Yes. Amendments 33, 44 and 34 are grouped, but you are only moving amendment 27.
Tessa Munt
Thank you, Sir Roger.
Amendment 33 would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer, or the chief executive of a public authority or corporate body with public responsibility under clause 4, for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour or assistance. What is needed is clear personal accountability on the chief officer or chief executive for any failure to comply. That ensures that senior leaders cannot avoid responsibility for breaches within their organisation, and reinforces the expectation that those at the top maintain a culture of openness and co-operation.
Ian Byrne
Amendments 44 and 45 go to the heart of what we are trying to do regarding the Hillsborough law, which is about command responsibility. It is about cultural change. I got the briefing note from the Minister, which I am very thankful for, which outlines where we feel the Government are now, but I think there is a debate among many of us about whether we feel that is strong enough. I just want to outline why I feel that, and why I feel that these amendments are worthy of consideration by the Minister.
The duty of candour and assistance applies to both public authorities and individuals. Where the duty falls on an authority, responsibility for compliance and enforcement measures must land on individuals; otherwise, those measures are basically rendered ineffective. The clause 5 and clause 11 offences require intent or recklessness, a concept that is difficult to apply to a legal—rather than natural—person. Where the criminal law has corporate offences, including proof of intent or recklessness, liability is established by attributing the mental state of directing minds to the corporation. That may be appropriate in some contexts, but here, proof of wrongdoing or failure leads only to liability on the authority and a fine paid by the taxpayer. I just do not feel that goes far enough.
The original 2017 Public Authority (Accountability) Bill dealt with that by making the chief officer or chief executive responsible for the discharge of the corporate duty. We feel that that is both fair and practical, as it places the responsibility on the person with the ability to ensure that authorities are properly led, and a high hurdle of intent or subjective recklessness ensures that he or she does not get prosecuted for inadvertence, or if he or she is misled by others. That also provides an effective deterrent.
I go back to the fact that we are looking at cultural change here; I feel that understanding that they would be responsible would sharpen their minds. Prosecution of a corporation just means that the taxpayer pays a fine, and we have seen that before, with a slap on the wrist and no cultural change.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I remind the Committee that, on Second Reading, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box:
“This Bill will tackle that injustice so that when tragedy strikes and the state is called to account, in inquiries, inquests and other investigations, public officials—from police officers to the highest offices in the land—will be subject to that duty. That means that an injustice like this can never again hide in some dark corner of the state. Failure to comply—failure, therefore, to act with candour, transparency and frankness—will now carry criminal penalties, including being sent to prison.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 655.]
I just wanted to add that to this debate.
Ian Byrne
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and she is absolutely right; a commitment was made not to weaken that. Clause 2(5) of the Bill imposes a duty on the chief officer or chief executive to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure corporate compliance, but that is not command responsibility—I think that is a really important point. It is far weaker, and I feel it will be ineffective. Command responsibility is straightforward and places the responsibility for the discharge of the corporate duty on the head of the body.
Mr Morrison
Does the hon. Member agree that, when someone is in that position of power over a public body, they have a huge responsibility, not just for the culture but for the training, the personnel, the HR practices and the policies? With that responsibility, someone needs to ensure that that goes throughout the whole of the organisation, and command responsibility focuses the mind to ensure that everything below them is working to clock.
Ian Byrne
I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot envisage a circumstance where clause 2(5) would be enforced. All reasonable steps could include deferring to the authority lawyers or senior leadership teams.
We have seen exactly this example in the Kerslake inquiry following the Manchester Arena attack, where the former chief constable of Greater Manchester provided a false narrative regarding the police response. At the subsequent public inquiry, he accepted he had made a grave error but still blamed the senior leadership team and lawyers. It is unlikely that he would have risked misleading said inquiry if he had command responsibility, which goes to the absolute heart of this legislation.
Section 3 extends clauses 5 and 11 offences to officers within authorities, such as managers who deal with particular investigations or statements, but only when they can be identified as the wrongdoers. It is a welcome provision, but it is only complementary to command responsibility. It would catch all those contemplating a cover-up lower down the authority, but it does not impose command responsibility on those at the top. We saw that with the evidence last week with regard to the NHS. Healthcare regulations have been pretty ineffective in this regard, partly because enforcement applies only to the organisations, and not the command. That lies right at the heart of the Bill.
Seamus Logan
The hon. Member is making an important point, but am I right in thinking that his motivation—and the motivation of many people in this area—is about getting to the truth, rather than punishing people?
Ian Byrne
Absolutely. Many of us here have experience trying to get to the truth. What we tried to do will be highlighted in the Independent Office for Police Conduct report. Unfortunately, the people who should have been punished will not be punished, but that is a story for another day, I suppose.
Ian Byrne
A fine on a public body, paid by the taxpayer, does not concentrate minds in the way that personal responsibility does. In a recent joint inquest into three self-inflicted deaths at HMP Lowdham Grange, the hearing was adjourned twice due to the Ministry of Justice’s failure to comply with directions for disclosure.
The coroner’s court ultimately took the unusual step of fining the Ministry of Justice because of that. That example shows that existing powers to fine organisations that fail to comply with directions of disclosure do not effectively address the persistent lack of candour, duty and transparency from public bodies. That is why I feel the amendment is so important, and I really hope the Minister takes it onboard.
Maria Eagle
I rise briefly to emphasise some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby and urge the Minister to consider whether more can be done in that respect. The lesson of Hillsborough is that the organisations at fault set about using every pound they had available to defend themselves—and we will hear more in the IOPC report, to be published later today.
Those senior offices who made decisions to use the public money that they had in that way simply elongated and lengthened the amount of agony and pain. A corporate fine against an organisation may not be enough to deter that kind of behaviour, so I urge the Minister to consider what more might be done in terms of command responsibility.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank all hon. Members for tabling these amendments and for today’s debate. As we heard on Thursday, command responsibility is a priority for change and accountability, and I therefore hope I will be able to provide further clarity as to how our Bill ensures clear accountability right at the top. Hillsborough families were clear that there must be individual accountability, with those who have engaged in state cover-ups held responsible. Our Bill clearly delivers that.
Any individual who commits a duty of candour offence can be prosecuted. That includes chief executives or the equivalent. If a public authority breaches its duty of candour or misleads the public, anyone in a management position who consented or connived with that breach can also be prosecuted. As such, amendment 27 would duplicate the provisions in schedule 3(3). Given that clarification, I ask the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw the amendment.
Our Bill is consistent with the approach taken in other legislation, including the Bribery Act 2010 and the Fraud Act 2006, where personal liability for offences committed by a corporate body relies on consent or connivance. Anyone in charge of a public authority has a legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their authority complies with the duty of candour and assistance. If they fail to do so, they will face prosecution.
Amendments 33, 34, 44 and 45 would hold the chief executive personally responsible for offences committed by the public authority even if they did not have knowledge of the offence being committed, and even if—in the case of amendments 33 and 44—they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the organisation’s compliance with the duty of candour. We do not believe that that is the intention of the amendments, and we do not think it fair to attach criminal responsibility in that way. We intend the duties to apply widely. For example, we plan to extend the duty of candour and assistance to NHS investigations. It would not be reasonable or realistic to expect the chief executive of an NHS trust to be across every single detail of every response in any investigation into an incident at that trust. Instead, we would expect them to have systems in place to ensure that the authority is complying, which is precisely what the Bill requires them to do.
Seamus Logan
To build on my point to the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, the issue here is that the criminal responsibility focuses the mind of the person with command responsibility. It requires that person—the chief executive or otherwise—to ensure full compliance. That is the point.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree. I am absolutely reassured that the Bill, as drafted, does just that. It ensures that there is criminal liability on the head of a public authority to ensure that everything is covered. However, as I have already stated, when something goes wrong in an NHS setting and we know that something has gone wrong but are unable to find out exactly what, despite the head of that NHS trust having all the procedures in place for applying the duty of candour, it would not be fair or reasonable to put criminal sanctions on the head of that NHS executive.
Tessa Munt
Is not the point that, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East said, it focuses the mind of chief executives and very senior officers in an organisation if there is the possibility of punishment—of criminal sanction and imprisonment? I take the point made earlier about a fine probably being of absolutely no consequence to an organisation. So often we have heard that what people who have been offended against, in whatever way, really seek is a swift apology and acceptance that something has gone wrong. That is going to come from the duty of candour, but we need to have a sanction available against chief executives and senior officers so that they focus on making sure that their organisations comply and act in an appropriate way.
Alex Davies-Jones
I genuinely do not think that we have crossed wires here. The intention of the Bill is the same as that of the amendments; it is just about how we are doing this. Our approach holds the heads of authorities and the heads of all public organisations accountable for the things that they can reasonably be expected to do or not do. There is no exemption here: it is about whether they have done it or not, and about what is reasonably to be expected of them. We are confident that such accountability, as drafted in the Bill, will drive positive cultural change. The amendments in this group would unintentionally have the potential to criminalise a chief executive even if they did not have knowledge of the offence being committed and they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the compliance of the organisation. We can find no precedence for such an approach and are deeply concerned that it could have a chilling effect on recruiting public sector leaders.
I reassure the Committee that the Bill ensures accountability right at the top. I am happy to share further information with the Committee, setting that out exactly as it is, and I urge the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw amendment 27.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 2nd December 2025
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPublic Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 December 2025 - (2 Dec 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 33, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by—
(a) a public authority, or
(b) a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act,
the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority or a corporate body with public responsibility under Clause 4 for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance.
Amendment 44, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the duty falls on a public authority or other body, responsibility for the discharge of that duty falls on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section.”
Amendment 34, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by a public authority, the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority for an offence of misleading the public.
Amendment 45, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the act or statement is made by or in the name of the public authority, responsibility for it lies on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section”
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I welcome you to your place, Mr Dowd. As I rise to speak, the four people who gave evidence to us on Thursday are holding a press conference regarding the Independent Office for Police Conduct report, and their opinions of what it consists of. I am sure that they feel as though they have been robbed of any justice. With that in mind, Minister, let us go through the amendments we spoke about just before the Committee adjourned.
It is so important that we emphasise how fundamental command responsibility is to the Bill. We must never have a repeat of what those families will be saying in the next 30 minutes. Without clear responsibility resting with the chief officer or chief executive, the corporate offences in the Bill will be basically impossible to enforce, leaving bereaved families, like those we will listen to today, and survivors with an aspirational duty, I feel, rather than a practical one. We cannot allow that to happen, and this opportunity to be missed.
Minister, you have done so much to get us to this position. So much of this legislation is down to your efforts, and our collective efforts over the last six months, but I urge you to listen to the fears that are being voiced today by Members on both sides of the Committee, because I firmly believe that, in its present form, this provision fatally undermines the effectiveness of the Bill, and the intention behind it, which we all support, to change the culture of cover-ups.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
Having had the chance to have a very quick look at the report being published at 1 o’clock, does my hon. Friend agree that the IOPC has found that the chief constable of South Yorkshire police at the time, the match commander, the deputy match commander, the deputy chief constable and a total of 10 senior officers at South Yorkshire police likely should have been charged with gross misconduct, which, had it been found, could have led to dismissal, even by the rules that pertained at the time? The fact that there has been no accountability for any of those people in 36 years shows that we have to make sure that there is a way in which the individuals responsible can be properly held to account, and justice can be reached.
Ian Byrne
I thank my right hon. Friend for outlining that beautifully. It goes to the heart of where we are now. As I said, we are watching a live example of why this matter is so fundamental to the Bill, and how effective it will be. I urge the Minister to listen to those concerns and work with us.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Earlier, I asked the Minister for an example and she pointed to the national health service. I think that was a fair point, but not every issue here relates to a complicated organisation like an NHS trust, where the chief executive has senior clinicians who have clinical responsibilities that perhaps outweigh the managerial responsibilities of the chief executive. The Minister rightly pointed to paragraph 3 of schedule 3, backing up the point that she was making, and I accept that, but the difficulty with that paragraph, and the way the Bill is currently written, is that it puts the responsibility initially on the body. The point that has been made to me by folk like those at the Hillsborough Law Now group is that that will allow someone—a chief executive, chief inspector or whoever—simply to say, “I didn’t have the knowledge because X or Y didn’t tell me about it.” The proposed amendment would very clearly put the command responsibility on the chief executive or the leading officer.
Ian Byrne
I think the Minister can hear the concern from Members on both sides of the Committee that this will not be as effective if there is no individual responsibility, and if those who have done wrong can hide behind the corporate wall and ride off into the sunset with their full pensions, with no accountability or justice. Once the Minister listens to the evidence, and certainly the response of the families today, hopefully we can reflect on whether we feel this is a loophole that could be utilised by those who are responsible. It is our responsibility in this place to shut that down. I hope the Minister will listen to and reflect on what we have said today, and meet me after this sitting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We talk about focusing minds. The Bill will clearly focus minds, because a chief executive can face criminal prosecution and potentially prison if they are not candid, if they consent or connive with someone not being candid, or if they fail to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the authority is candid. Those are three different and distinct routes to criminal prosecution that will sharply focus minds. We need to hold senior individuals to account for things that they can actually do. Clearly, they cannot personally verify the accuracy of potentially hundreds of thousands of documents.
The whole Bill is about creating a new culture and accountability. Whenever an individual fails in their duty, they should be held accountable—whoever they are—and that can carry up to two years’ imprisonment. It is a privilege to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, but in this morning’s session, before you were in the Chair, I said that this entire Bill Committee is about listening. It is about listening to the families, campaigners and those who have come before, and considering all the work they have done to get us to this place. It is about listening to them with regard to what it means for the Bill to be a Hillsborough law.
I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby and other Committee members today, and I am committed to meeting him and finding a way forward. If there are genuine concerns regarding command responsibility, and Members feel that we are not going far enough, I am committed to listening and working with my hon. Friend on a way forward.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I am delighted that the Minister is listening; that is helpful. I would be grateful if she could consider my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and me to be part of the discussions with the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby. That would save me a great deal of trouble in quoting the questions from the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston in our evidence session last week. I was intending to read out a good deal of the further comments from Hillsborough Law Now and Pete Weatherby in my summing up. I do not know whether the Minister is up for this, but it might be helpful to invite that particular gentleman.
Tessa Munt
I am delighted to hear that he will be part of that discussion, because I think he has a good grip on everything, and it saves me reading the Minister a page and a half of his comments today.
Tessa Munt
I am sure the Minister has seen them, but I was going to quote them none the less. I have mentioned the Office for Budget Responsibility, which I know is an organisation with fewer than 100 people. There we have somebody—regardless of the fact that, I am sure, he is not all over the emails and all the rest of it; the work that his office does with his employees, those who work with him and so on—who took what might be considered an incredibly honourable stance and resigned his position over something that happened in the last week. That is absolutely laudable. He is an illustration of how command is absolutely at the centre of this issue.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree that there should be responsibility and accountability at the top of any organisation. We are not doubting that; that is the intention of the Bill. Does the hon. Lady believe that the head of the OBR should have potentially been subject to criminal sanctions in that instance? Resigning is one thing; going to prison for up to two years is very different.
Tessa Munt
No, but it might be difficult to quantify. There certainly was no danger of anyone losing their life or being very seriously injured, and I presume we would not be looking for whistleblowers in his organisation, because he has taken responsibility. I take the point, but he has done the right thing in that situation. Will the Minister clarify something that I raised earlier: what will happen with people who resign—by resigning, the head of the OBR has avoided any chance of going in front of the Treasury Committee today—and those who have retired? It is clear that people can remove themselves from the framework, currently. Does the Minister have something to say about that?
Alex Davies-Jones
I believe that I stated this earlier, but should an official inquiry or investigation be called, the head of the OBR, who has now resigned, or the head of any organisation—we are speaking in hypotheticals here—who was involved in an inquiry or investigation and had resigned, retired or moved abroad would be compelled to come to give evidence under the duty of candour. They would not be excused.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister for that clarity. On the basis that we are going to meet to discuss this, and that Pete Weatherby and hon. Members from the Minister’s party will be involved in those conversations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tessa Munt
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am not entirely clear about the process for this, but I realise that in the morning session I should have declared that I have an interest as the vice-chair and a director of WhistleblowersUK, which is a non-profit-making organisation. I want to retroactively declare that in relation to this morning’s proceedings and start this afternoon’s proceedings by making that absolutely clear.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 5 sets out the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance, as set out in clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill, so that the duty has bite. The offence is intended to provide a powerful deterrent effect to drive culture change. As I set out when covering clause 2, the duty has two stages: first, the requirement for public authorities and officials to make themselves known to an inquiry or investigation if their acts or information may be relevant; secondly, the requirement to provide any assistance as specified in a compliance direction from that inquiry or investigation. There is also a requirement for the public official in charge of the authority to take all reasonable steps to secure that the authority complies with the duty.
Clause 5 provides that an individual or authority
“commits an offence if…they fail to comply with the duty”
In relation to the first stage of the duty, the duty to notify, they must have intended to impede the inquiry or investigation by that failure. As for the second stage, the duty to comply with a compliance direction, they must have either intended to impede the inquiry or investigation or been reckless as to whether they would do so.
The intention and recklessness threshold also applies in relation to any breach of the duty on leaders of authorities that fail to put in measures to secure compliance with the duty by the authority and its officers. We have made this distinction in tests between the two stages because, in relation to the duty to notify, we do not want to criminalise someone for genuinely being unaware of an inquiry or investigation. Clause 5(2) sets out the penalties for those convicted of the offence, either on summary conviction at a magistrates court or on indictment at a Crown court. In the latter, the maximum prison sentence for this offence is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Security and intelligence information
Seamus Logan
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end insert—
“(2A) Where an obligation to give notification would have arisen under section 2(3), save for the exemptions in subsection (2), the head of the relevant intelligence service must provide a written notification to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament summarising the acts that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation.”
This amendment aims to provide accountability for intelligence services and their operations in relation to the duty of candour and its exemptions from them.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 39, in schedule 2, page 41, line 14, at end insert—
“(ja) the intelligence services, or”.
Amendment 40, in schedule 2, page 43, line 31, at end insert—
“(ia) the intelligence services, or”.
Amendments 39 and 40 would add the intelligence services to the lists of public authorities in Schedule 2 for the purpose of defining “public authority” in relation to this Bill.
Seamus Logan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. We have had an excellent debate on command responsibility, and I am heartened to see a very positive outcome from that discussion.
Clause 6 is separate and distinct because it applies to the intelligence services. We heard evidence about the provisions in clause 6 in the evidence session, as well as at a useful special meeting that some Committee members attended with two heads and a deputy head of the three intelligence services. As the shadow Minister pointed out, the evidence from that special meeting and the evidence session has highlighted that there are potentially some contradictory views. Nevertheless, my problem with clause 6(2)(a) is that it is basically a get-out clause; it allows the head of an intelligence service to opt out of the overall duty of candour where that would, according to the Bill, contravene the Official Secrets Act 1989.
I understand that there are special circumstances regarding the intelligence services, as was ably described to us by Sir Ken McCallum, when he said, “I don’t know who all my agents are, and I am not sure that I know all of their activities.” That is fair enough; one can readily understand why that might be the case. Nevertheless, there should be no overall escape clause for the intelligence services. Having said that, I understand that there will be circumstances in which it is necessary to maintain secrecy about certain aspects of what the intelligence services do.
My amendment would give a role to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is a Committee of the House, by requiring the head of an intelligence service, in these specific circumstances, to make a report to the ISC on what the exception is. In even more exceptional circumstances, I understand that the ISC can also communicate with the Prime Minister alone—it has no obligation to do anything else.
I believe that that sensible mechanism would give us confidence, in drafting the Bill, that there is no get-out clause. Critically, it would also restore trust even within our intelligence community on how it operates. We do not need to go back over all the evidence that we heard from an employee of the BBC, for example. I hope the Minister can take on board the thrust of what I am saying in the amendment, and perhaps she can even see fit to endorse it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. I will respond to amendment 21 and the other amendments in turn, before moving to the question that clause 6 stand part of the Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman stated, amendment 21 would ensure that when clause 2(3) of the duty applies to the intelligence services, the head of the intelligence service must give the Intelligence and Security Committee a summary of any relevant acts or information. The Government have taken his points on board, and we are actively considering options to be introduced on Report. I commit to continuing to engage with him, other Committee members and external stakeholders to make sure that we find a way forward that is fit for the Bill and fit for protecting national security.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for that. Given she has said that we will see an amendment on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Yes, sorry. In the last evidence session, we discussed a very similar situation when we heard from both Pete Weatherby and Daniel De Simone, one of whom is a KC trying to get to the truth through his work in the courts, and another of whom is a journalist trying to expose the truth, particularly around the Agent X story. We are not looking for a change to the Official Secrets Act or its operation. We simply want the Bill to encompass the security services explicitly.
There is a list of public authorities on the Bill. The security services are not on there, which begs the question, why? I thank the Minister for saying that further work will be done on that and that she will be engaging with all Members across the House before Report. On that basis, we are happy to withdraw the amendments.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the withdrawal of the amendments. We had a discussion earlier about why we have not listed organisations in the Bill. We did not want it to be an exhaustive list and to miss an organisation out unintentionally, which could lead them to think that the Bill does not apply to it. We have been extremely clear that intelligence services are covered by this Bill, including clause 6. I reaffirm that to reassure the hon. Gentleman.
Clause 6 sets out that the duties in the Bill apply to the intelligence services, but it requires that proper arrangements and protections are in place to safeguard national security. As subsection (2) states, the obligation in clause 2(3) for a person to notify the inquiry or investigation does not apply to
“a person who works for an intelligence service”,
or where doing so would result in the release of security or intelligence information.
To be clear, inquiries and investigations are able to demand assistance and information from the intelligence services under the obligation in clause 2(4), but appropriate arrangements need to be in place for an inquiry or investigation to receive that sensitive information, as is the norm now. Individuals revealing acts or information outside of those arrangements could be detrimental to national security, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree.
Subsection (3) places a requirement on the heads of the intelligence services to put in place internal arrangements to ensure that those who work for the service comply with the requirements to record any acts or any information that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation. They must inform the service if they hold such information that is not already available to it. That ensures that the services have all the information they need to discharge their obligations under the duty as an authority. However, as I have already stated, I am committed to working with hon. Members, external stakeholders and the UK intelligence services to make sure that we have as a robust Bill as possible that fulfils the aims, objectives and intentions of us all.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Transitional provision in relation to this Chapter
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The clause provides that the duty of candour and assistance will apply to inquiries and investigations that are already ongoing at the time of commencement, as well as those that start afterwards. It may be necessary to set out further transitional provisions in the commencement regulations to ensure that ongoing inquiries and investigations can make effective use of the duty and are not delayed or forced to repeat stages by its procedural requirements if they are already far advanced.
Clause 8 sets out the meaning of key terms used in this chapter of the Bill, which deals with the duty of candour and assistance. Specifically, it defines “inquiry” as meaning
“an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005”
and a non-statutory inquiry meaning where
“paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 applies”.
Subsection (1) defines the terms “investigations”, “position statement”, “public official” and “public authority”, and references the appropriate Act or schedule from where the definitions are drawn. Clause 8(2) defines what the individual “in charge” of a public authority means. Clause 8(3) then defines “chief executive” as meaning an
“individual working for the authority who…is responsible under the immediate authority of the board of directors for the general functions of the authority.”
The clause is essential for allowing us and any future readers to interpret the key terms used throughout the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment made: 4, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
“, or
(c) an inquiry to which paragraph 3A of that Schedule applies (local authority inquiries);”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Expected standards of ethical conduct
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 9, page 7, line 38, at end insert—
“(d) consult with representatives of recognised trade unions to promote co-operation in the making and maintenance of the code and in checking its effectiveness.”
Amendment 47, in clause 9, page 8, line 1, leave out “set expectations” and insert “require”.
Amendment 48, in clause 9, page 8, line 1, leave out “should” and insert “must”.
Ian Byrne
What we are talking about is culture change. Interestingly, in last Thursday’s evidence session, culture change was mentioned 69 times. When talking about standards of ethical conduct, I think it is extremely important. That is why I have tabled these amendments, and I hope the Minister considers them.
Turning to amendment 46, the Bill currently states that public authorities
“must promote and take steps to maintain high standards”.
That wording permits minimal or symbolic compliance, which is exactly what the Bill sets out not to do. Clause 2(5) sets out that a public official must take “all reasonable steps” to secure public authority compliance with the duty of candour and assistance. The same “all reasonable steps” should bind public authorities to the duty of candour in chapter 2—not “promote and take steps”.
All reasonable steps is a standard with which employers and employment tribunals are familiar. Section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out an employer’s duty to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent discrimination. Those reasonable steps include training for new workers, annual performance reviews, opportunity for discussion on equality and discrimination, clear messaging on posters and regular mandatory equality training for all workers. The Minister touched before on how we change culture and standards through training.
A comparison with the Equality Act 2010 is not only legally relevant; it is a source of evidence about how the law can achieve cultural change through the “all reasonable steps” standard. The Equality Act secured cultural change in matters of equality and anti-discrimination; the Hillsborough law we are debating today seeks cultural change in matters of ethics and candour. The “all reasonable steps” standard is appropriate and improves legal clarity, and I believe it is needed, so I hope that the Minister considers the amendment.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. As we all heard last Thursday, true cultural change is a key part of implementing the Hillsborough law, and the professional duty of candour required by clause 9 is at the heart of that. Amendments 46 to 48 admirably seek to strengthen the duties imposed on public authorities to promote ethical conduct and adopt a code of ethical conduct.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, clause 9 places a duty on public authorities to promote and maintain high standards of ethical behaviour and conduct. Professional duties of candour will be tailored to the specific sector to which they apply, making them meaningful to staff and responsive to the needs of those who use that organisation’s services. While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting these amendments, we believe that our drafting achieves the same purpose as the proposed amendments and is sufficiently clear and robust.
Amendment 49 seeks to require public authorities to consult with recognised trade unions on the creation and maintenance of a code of ethics. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue of trade union engagement. I am a proud trade unionist myself—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to the unions that I am a member of. I agree that if a code of ethics is to be truly successful, it is important that those working for the authority and their representatives, including trade unions, should have a proper opportunity to contribute to its development.
However, given the complexity and diversity of arrangements across the public sector, the Government’s view is that it would not be advisable to prescribe standard procedural arrangements for all public authorities in this Bill. Many organisations already have an existing code of conduct or a code of ethics. These exist in different forms and may have different underpinnings and links to other organisational governance arrangements. For example, the civil service code forms part of civil service contracts, and the code of ethics in policing is produced by the College of Policing, which does not directly employ individual officers.
Adapting and adopting a code of ethics will require different processes of development, engagement and consultation for each organisation and sector. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach, nor should it be. Public sector employees and employers will have existing arrangements and consultation with trade unions. Creating a specific requirement in the Bill could create confusion and usurp the existing processes and relationship arrangements between public authorities and their trade unions. I am keen to work with my hon. Friend to consider how we can encourage employees and their representatives to be engaged in the processes of developing the codes. In fact, we are already in discussions with trade unions on how we can best include them in the process through consultation and guidance to ensure that we have the most robust practices. With those assurances, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Morrison
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 9, page 8, line 2, after “work” insert—
“including the retention and disclosure of digital records including messages relevant to their public functions”.
This amendment ensures that digital messages and records are added to the duty of candour in relation to inquiries and inquests.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Offence of wilfully destroying information or records relevant to an inquiry or investigation—
“(1) A public authority or public official commits an offence if—
(a) they deliberately destroy relevant information or records relevant to an inquiry, investigation, or inquest;
(b) they know that, or are reckless as to whether, the information is relevant to or required by an inquiry, investigation, or inquest.
(2) A public official who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).”
This new clause introduces an offence for wilfully destroying relevant records after a major incident that may lead to an inquiry or inquest.
Mr Morrison
We spoke this morning about the issues dealt with by amendment 43, but to clarify, WhatsApp messages formed a big part of the evidence in the recent covid inquiry—it seemed to be government by WhatsApp at the time—and yet many of them seem to have disappeared. The amendment would provide an extra way of ensuring that public authorities and those responsible are keeping proper records and preventing that from happening again.
New clause 3 would prevent the deliberate concealment of evidence that could obstruct investigations, hinder fact-finding and undermine public trust. I would like the Committee to consider the element of public trust here. How people perceive what happens in this place, and in the organisations and public authorities that surround us and the power structures that are there, is vital to the legitimacy that we have and that those public authorities also have. By criminalising such conduct, the clause would reinforce the obligation on public authorities and officials to maintain and safeguard records, ensuring that inquiries and inquests can access all the information necessary to understand what happened and hold the responsible parties to account. This is a way to make sure that the truth can be found in those areas and hopefully ensure that WhatsApp messages are not deleted in future.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue. Amendment 43 would, as he states, make authorities set expectations for staff on how to retain and disclose their digital records in accordance with the obligations under the duty of candour. Proper record keeping is important to ensure accountability and propriety in decisions made by public authorities. That applies where records are on paper or held digitally— for example, in a WhatsApp group—and it is important that organisations have policies and processes in place to manage these effectively.
However, the Government’s view is that the code of ethical conduct is not the correct vehicle for establishing those processes. The Public Records Act 1958 already places certain requirements on public authorities. Under that Act, the Keeper of Public Records issues guidance to supervise and guide the selection of historic records —including digital records—worthy of permanent preservation.
Disclosure to inquiries and inquests will require the detailed consideration of various factors, including the fact that the authority’s legal obligations include the duty of candour and assistance, the protection of personal or sensitive information, and the relevance to the inquiry’s terms of reference or the inquest. Authorities may also require specific legal advice. Separate and bespoke policies will therefore be required. The professional duty of candour established under clause 9 is intended to focus on what candour means for each public official going about their business in their day-to-day role. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Cheadle withdraws the amendment.
On the point about whether WhatsApp messages are covered, and specifically disappearing messages or those deleted in the course of work, as they sometimes are, the duty of candour and assistance requires all public officials and authorities to provide all relevant information. If a public official was part of a WhatsApp chat in which relevant information was exchanged, they would be obliged to inform the chair of that fact, and if disappearing messages had gone or the chats had been deleted, they would have to provide an account of what was discussed, to the best of their recollection, even if the messages had since been deleted or vanished.
Tessa Munt
I know that we dealt with this matter earlier, but I again put on the record my concerns about subcontractors in tiers 1, 2 and 3, who often hold key information. We need to find some way to make sure that they are within the scope of this provision.
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise that concern, which I share, and we are looking at that in terms of the passage of the Bill. As I have stated, the duty would be on the public authority, official or subcontractor to disclose all the information to the chair of the inquiry or investigation.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Perhaps the point the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills was making was that the Minister referred to a separate piece of legislation, the Public Records Act 1958, and I am not sure that that legislation includes things like contractors and subcontractors.
Alex Davies-Jones
The information provided to the inquiry would be covered and, as per the provisions of this Bill, subcontractors would be caught under the duty of candour and would have to disclose any relevant information, as per the information disclosed in that Act. I hope that clarifies it.
Tessa Munt
How helpful has the existing law been in relation to the covid inquiry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle mentioned? I am not sure that has quite got to the base of everything. Does the Minister have any suggestions about improving the Bill to be explicit about what we expect?
Alex Davies-Jones
Again, I totally agree with the policy intention. If the Bill had become an Act when the covid inquiry was under way, might that inquiry have carried things out differently, or provided information in a new way or in a new light? We cannot answer that. All I can say is that the purpose and intention of the Bill is to ensure that any inquiries or investigations seek the whole truth and that all information is disclosed so that we are never put in that position again. That is the intention of the Bill, and we have made sure it is as robust as possible to provide for that.
Maria Eagle
I can understand why Members might feel a certain amount of scepticism about the idea that an obligation to try to remember disappearing messages might be adequate. I do not know how many messages other Committee members send, but I think we have all got into the habit of sending rather a lot. Could there not be an arrangement, either in the code of ethics or in the policies and procedures of organisations, to make sure that people do not use WhatsApp for official business? We could also make sure that whatever chat people do use—it might be an internal arrangement—messages are properly kept and we therefore do not have to rely on dodgy memories of disappearing messages to make sure that messages are preserved for any future inquiry.
Alex Davies-Jones
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point: it is for each individual organisation to determine the policies and procedures for their record keeping. It might be wholly appropriate for one organisation, if it has a small number of employees, to use a WhatsApp group, but we would expect records to be kept appropriately and for employees not to turn on disappearing messages. That would be part of the terms and conditions in the guidance and practices for the employees.
It would be for each different organisation to determine what is right and appropriate. It is not for Government to tell any organisation how to run its business or manage its employees. However, we have set out the bare minimum that is expected: the Bill makes it explicitly clear that records of any information relevant to an inquiry or investigation should be kept, and that such information should be disclosed to the inquiry or investigation if requested.
Mr Morrison
I thank the Minister for her comments. In the spirit of cross-party working, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seamus Logan
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 9, page 8, line 12, leave out “may” insert “must”.
I am aware that we have debated amendment 48, although perhaps not as fully as I would have liked. In the interests of getting our business done within the time available, I decided not to intervene in that debate. However, I believe that the particular change in amendment 24 is necessary. Where amendment 48 spoke to the duty of candour, amendment 24 speaks to the code of ethics.
There are legal minds in the room that are much better informed and trained on legal definitions than my own, but amendment 24 addresses the need to replace “may” with “must” in the code of ethics, as opposed to the duty of candour. I believe this is important given my experience in the health service, where there is a responsibility on individuals to report child abuse, or where a colleague might clearly be able to see that a surgeon carrying out procedures is repeatedly doing something injurious or harmful. By replacing the word “may” with “must”, we place a responsibility on anyone to blow the whistle on those particular issues.
In my working life I have experience, as might others present, of consultants who suppressed information relating to child abuse. We certainly heard similar evidence about surgeons during our evidence session. Colleagues will be able to think of many such examples, which is why it is important that the amendment replaces “may” with “must”.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. The Government believe it is imperative to have policies and processes in place to enable officials and public servants to speak up when they see that something is wrong. If we are to address the culture change that we have heard about a hundred times, it is important to have that in place. That is why the Bill requires all public authorities to set out how a person can raise concerns if they think their colleagues are not acting in accordance with the code, and the process for making a protected disclosure, also known as whistleblowing.
The amendment would require individuals to take a particular course of action. This risks cutting across established disciplinary and whistleblowing regimes, with potentially significant implications for employees. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working across Government with the Department for Business and Trade on how we reform whistleblowing more generally, and as the Bill progresses we will be looking quite carefully at whistleblowing and protections for individuals. However, we do not think the amendment would have the intended consequences, and it might cause us more issues, so I request that the hon. Gentleman withdraw it.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for that response, but I am at a loss to know how the responsibility suggested by the amendment would cut across any existing code of ethical conduct. If the legislation simply stated that the person who works for the authority must take steps if they believe that another person who works for the authority has failed to act in accordance with the code, I fail to see how that would cut across any existing procedures. It would simply make the provision more robust by saying “You must take that step” rather than “You may take that step”. That is what the amendment calls for; perhaps the Minister might like to expand on why she wishes me to withdraw it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily come back to the hon. Gentleman. Say, for example, that someone in the police force believes that a colleague is not acting in accordance with the code of ethics, but that individual may not be privy to the details of an undercover operation that their colleague is aware of and they are cutting across existing provisions in the police force. If that individual had to do as the hon. Gentleman intends with his amendment, they could hinder the investigation or cause unintended consequences.
With the Bill, we are saying that there must be a way of reporting. Every public organisation must have that built in but, as we have discussed, a one-size-fits-all approach does not work across all public sector authorities. What will work in the NHS will not work in the police or for probation. This all has to fit the specific authority. Therefore, there has to be a mechanism for reporting, but we are not designating a specific one.
Dr Mullan
I hope I can be of assistance. I think the clause is about the public authority’s obligation to explain to its employees all the things they can do to raise a concern. I do not think that it is directed at the individuals who might be required to do things. It might be better for it to say that the authority must ensure that that information is available. If we read it in the context of the public authority’s obligations, it is about what the authority should tell people, rather than placing any obligation in relation to individuals’ actions. I hope that might explain it more clearly.
Seamus Logan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which is helpful. Perhaps when the Minister and I, and others, meet to discuss other matters, we might explore this in more detail. If the Minister is willing to accept that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Seamus Logan
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ian Byrne
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 9, page 8, line 15, leave out subsection and insert—
“(b) the making by any person of disclosures which are protected disclosures in terms of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or which would be such disclosures had they been made by a worker or employee, including information about any policies the authority has adopted in relation to the making of such disclosures;
(ba) the affording of enhanced protection to any persons making disclosures under paragraphs (a) or (b), including policies ensuring that those persons are not subjected to bullying, harassment or any other form of detriment in relation to the making of such disclosure;”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 9, page 8, line 17, after “disclosures” insert “and to whom such disclosures should be made;
(ba) how a person making a protected disclosure under paragraph (b) is protected;
(bb) a list of prescribed people and bodies to whom a potential whistleblower may speak to in confidence about a relevant concern.”
This amendment would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information on whom a person can make a protected disclosure to and how that person would be protected.
Amendment 22, in clause 9, page 8, line 17, at end insert—
“(ba) the affording of enhanced protection to any persons making disclosures under paragraphs (a) or (b), including policies ensuring that persons are not subjected to bullying, harassment or any other form of detriment in relation to the making of such disclosure”.
Ian Byrne
I go back to the change of culture we have been talking about. Thankfully, the Minister has touched on the idea of a listening exercise regarding strengthening the laws around whistleblowing, but it was clear from the evidence we heard last week that there is real concern that the existing measures to protect whistleblowers are insufficient to remove the fear of reprisal, and that they do not adequately protect persons who make protected disclosures. This is fundamental to what we are attempting to do. The protection of whistleblowers is a hugely important issue that many Members from all parties are fearful about. Amendment 50 is intended to strengthen the protections, and I hope the Minister accepts it and considers it in the round with what she said about listening and hoping to strengthen the protections once we have had the relevant discussions.
Tessa Munt
I rise to speak to amendment 26, which has some similarities with what the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby just outlined. I am extremely keen to ensure that people are really clear about what they have to do when they wish to report. This relates to clause 9(5)(c) as well.
As has been mentioned, the Employment Rights Act 1996 tends to guide people towards the employment tribunal if something has happened. Currently, if something has gone wrong, that is where people can end up. As I mentioned last week, my understanding is that the employment tribunal has a backlog of 47,000 cases. My sense is that when the Bill comes into effect, which will not be very long, there will be masses more people who find themselves guided by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to head for the employment tribunal, which does not seem to be an adequate place for people to deal with their complaints.
The employment tribunal is for those who are considered to be a worker, be that an employee or somebody acting in a voluntary capacity. Amendment 26 would require a public authority’s code of ethical conduct to include information on the person to whom someone can make a protected disclosure—what we know as whistleblowing —and how the person would be protected against detriment. It is incredibly important that the code of ethical conduct sets out clearly how individuals can make a protected disclosure and the protections available to them.
The amendment would strengthen the whistleblowing safeguards by providing staff with clear guidance on the safe reporting of wrongdoing. It should address some of the gaps in protection without creating a specific outside body. I have already spoken to the Minister about the idea of an office of the whistleblower; I understand that is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is really important that whistleblowers can come forward with confidence while remaining within the statutory framework, and that they have somewhere safe to go.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank Members for raising those important points. We discussed whistleblowers and the protections needed for them a lot in the oral evidence sessions. It is essential that if there is wrongdoing in an organisation, those working for the organisation can come forward and raise the alarm, and be confident that they will be protected when doing so.
Through the Bill, public authorities will be required to promote and maintain standards of ethical conduct, and their leaders will be held accountable for that. In doing so, leaders must ensure that their authority’s code of ethics contains information about any whistleblowing policies or procedures.
Tessa Munt
Does the Minister accept that a huge number of authorities, bodies and organisations may not, whether wittingly or not, recognise somebody as a whistleblower? There is a real danger in people believing that they are whistleblowing and that they will have protection, yet the companies not recording them as whistleblowing incidents. How does the Minister see that working?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady has pre-empted my next comments. The Bill will ensure that workers who are protected against retaliation by an employer for blowing the whistle about wrongdoing—known formally as making a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996—are more aware of their rights.
We believe that certain elements of the amendments are unnecessary. For example, while we are absolutely sympathetic to its aims, amendment 26 would require employers to provide information on prescribed persons that is already online, on gov.uk. The amendments could also introduce confusion—
Alex Davies-Jones
And that is the very confusion the hon. Lady mentioned. If she lets me finish my point, I will give way.
Amendment 50, for example, may lead some people who work for a public authority, but are not workers, to believe that their disclosure may qualify for whistleblowing protection under the Employment Rights Act 1996. We do not wish to cause that confusion. I point the hon. Lady to our work on whistleblowers across Government, which will of course inform work on the passage of this Bill.
Tessa Munt
I want to mention the huge number of occasions when I dealt with constituents and others, when people have been—I would say—entrapped into signing non-disclosure agreements or NDAs, which mean they feel that they cannot talk to anyone. They even fear talking to their MP. It is not clear to whom they can speak, and part of my desire is to ensure that each authority—I am not saying that the Minister should say what should be disclosed and to whom; this is for every organisation—should have someone identified. They should make public that safe place or safe person to whom anyone can report, be they in or outside the authority—that comes under the next subsection, I accept—as workers or employees. This business of NDAs needs to be sorted out once and for all, because it is pervasive and incredibly destructive.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady will be aware of the work we are doing on NDAs in the Victims and Courts Bill and the Employment Rights Bill. A lot of work is happening across Government on how we can protect individuals who are being forced to sign NDAs or those who feel unable to come forward and whistleblow. That work is being done holistically and is led by the Department for Business and Trade. I am happy to discuss her concerns more broadly in Committee, during the passage of the Bill, and outside the Committee.
Seamus Logan
Thank you, Mr Dowd. Pursuant to the issues already outlined by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, amendment 22 is about affording enhanced protections. The main point I make to the Minister is this. If the existing protections actually worked, then why—as we heard in the evidence sessions—are so many people falling foul of whistleblowing provisions? Their careers can be blighted, and in some cases they lose their jobs. If the existing protections are sufficient, why is it necessary to consider making these amendments?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to discuss our broader work on this and how we move forward on whistleblowers with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills outside the Committee Room.
Ian Byrne
I am filled with confidence by the Minister’s response on whistleblowers. I know that she will be taking this seriously, because it goes to the heart of changing the culture of organisations that have failed us time and time again. This whistleblowers element is extremely important. I am happy to hear that Minister is up for engaging with us across the Benches to strengthen these provisions, which is desperately needed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 9, page 8, line 22, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must introduce a standard template for ethical conduct of conduct for completion by public authorities which satisfies the requirements in this section and which may be added to by public authorities to include information specific to their organisation or function.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce standard template to ensure a consistent and high standard approach to completion of code of ethical conduct documentation across public authorities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 25, in clause 9, page 8, line 25, leave out “may” insert “must”.
Amendment 23, in clause 9, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
“(13) The Secretary of State must ensure appropriate and adequate funding is provided to enable public authorities to train public officials so that they are aware of the standards contained within the code of conduct relating to them.”
New clause 4—Monitoring compliance with duties under the Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission and publish annually an independent report which monitors public authorities’ compliance with their duties under the Act.
(2) The report must assess—
(a) public authorities’ record-keeping, disclosures and responses to inquiries and investigations;
(b) the effectiveness of enforcement and sanctions provisions in the Act in helping to ensure that public authorities and public officials perform their functions in line with the duty of candour in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; and
(c) the effectiveness of the provisions in the Act for supporting persons, including public officials, making protected disclosures and for reporting wrongdoings to an inquiry or investigation following a major incident.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) The first report must be laid within the period of 12 months of the passing of this Act.
(5) Each subsequent report must be laid annually beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to commission and publish annually an independent report with the purpose of providing an oversight mechanism to monitor compliance with duties under the Act.
Tessa Munt
The amendment seeks to ensure that all public authorities and organisations adopt a consistent and high-quality approach to their codes of ethical conduct by requiring the Secretary of State to introduce a standard template. This should not be prescriptive, but it should at least form a basis for every organisation and a minimum standard, in order to promote clarity, uniformity and accessibility, making absolutely sure that staff can understand it.
Maria Eagle
I was looking at the amendment paper this morning. It was probably mistyped, but my copy says that the Secretary of State must introduce a standard template for “ethical conduct of conduct”. Should that be “codes of conduct” or “ethical conduct”?
Tessa Munt
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. She is absolutely right: the amendment should not say “conduct of conduct”, it should indeed say “codes of conduct”. I hope the Chair can note that, and forgive me for any confusion.
I am hoping—by misspelling everything—to promote clarity, uniformity and accessibility, making it easy for staff to understand their obligations and the processes for reporting wrongdoing. By standardising the minimum content in ethical codes, the amendment would strengthen accountability, support a culture of integrity and help to ensure that protections, such as those for whistleblowers, are applied effectively across all public authorities and organisations. I recognise that the Minister has spoken pretty strongly against doing this; none the less, I am seeking clarity. Having a minimum standard set by the Secretary of State might be helpful, but I recognise that the Minister has already had a good old go at saying no.
Seamus Logan
I rise to speak to amendment 23. The Minister will be aware that if the Bill is enacted, as we are all confident that it will be in due course, a large number of public authorities will face significant new training requirements. When we met with the intelligence services chair, Sir Ken McCallum, he readily acknowledged that there will be significant training implications for his organisation, and MI5 is quite small in the broader context, particularly if one thinks of the national health service, the civil service, the police, and so on.
The Minister has told me that the money resolution has already been passed, and there are no new additional resources attached to this Bill, other than in relation to legal aid—I think that is in the schedules. Amendment 23 seeks to ask the Minister to reconsider that in the light of what I have said about training needs. One only has to think of things such sexual harassment, equality training, and so on, and the massive training requirement that fell upon the public bodies many years ago. I was one of those who underwent that training. It was a significant training requirement, and I expect that the duty of candour and the code of ethics, and so on, will also have a major training requirement. With amendment 23, I am asking the Government to reconsider whether adequate funding is available to organisations to undertake the training that will follow from passing this Bill.
Seamus Logan
Amendment 25 has already been covered in our discussions about “may” or “must”, and I am happy to take that discussion into further meetings with the Minister.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank both hon. Members for tabling the amendments in this group; I will respond to each in turn.
First, amendment 28 would require there to be a standard template for a code of ethics. The Government recognise the importance of supporting public authorities to develop their codes of ethical conduct, and we commit to doing so. Clause 10 confers a power on the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments to issue guidance that authorities will be required to have regard to when drawing up codes for their organisations.
The newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission will in time also have a role in supporting public bodies by making toolkits, best practice and guidance available for public sector bodies. Although we envisage that standard templates will be useful, as I have already said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. We wish to retain the flexibility to allow each individual organisation and sector to consider what would work best for them, but support will of course be available for them in doing so.
Amendment 25 would require a public authority to modify its code for specified circumstances or for specified people who work for the authority. I want to reassure Members that clause 9(7) provides for public authorities to specify that their code may apply with modifications in specified circumstances or to people of a specified description who work for the authority.
The intention of clause 9(7) is to enable authorities to reflect different expectations or obligations that apply to different groups of employees—for example, a school’s code of conduct may apply differently to teachers and janitorial staff. It could also reflect different processes that apply in different situations, for example, in an emergency situation compared with everyday business as usual. The Government’s view is that it should be for the authority to determine whether and how it uses that flexibility, noting that it must set out the reasons for doing so—that is important. We do not think that authorities should be required to do so, which is what the effect of amendment 25 would be.
Amendment 23 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that adequate funding is available to public authorities to provide training to their officials on compliance with the code of ethical conduct. I again want to assure hon. and right hon. Members that the Government have an ambitious plan for the implementation of the Bill. The Bill is just one part of the puzzle; it needs to be implemented fully, workably and effectively. It is just part and start of the culture change that we want to see in public sector organisations. The plans will of course include training for public servants, as well as oversight of the codes themselves.
A number of public sector organisations are already working on cultural or leadership programmes, and implementation of the Bill may be undertaken alongside or as part of existing initiatives to ensure that the code is seen as central to driving change in the organisation’s culture on a sustainable basis. The Bill requires public authorities to promote and maintain standards of ethical conduct among those who work for the authority. The duty ensures public authorities will be accountable, while allowing flexibility for the practical arrangements that each authority might put in place. I hope that assures the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, and I am happy to work with him and others on the implementation of the Bill as it goes forward.
Finally, new clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent report setting out whether and how public authorities have complied with the duty of assistance and candour. The Government agree that it is essential that the duties in the Bill are properly upheld and enforced. That is why the Government are ensuring independent oversight of implementation of the Bill’s provisions. The Government have committed to commissioning an annual independent assessment report to ensure that public bodies are complaint with the codes of ethics requirement in the Bill. That report will make clear which parts of the public sector are rising to the challenge and which are failing to do so. We will not be afraid to name and shame who is abiding and who is not.
Compliance with the duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations can, sadly, be judged only by the inquiry or investigation itself. They are responsible for monitoring compliance with the legal duty and for taking enforcement action, such as referring the case for criminal proceedings if necessary. I would like to assure all Committee members that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring effective implementation of all the measures in the Bill and to achieving the cultural change that is so desperately needed. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Tessa Munt
I am glad to hear what the Minister has to say. Sunlight is the best disinfectant; if anyone in the public can track through their complaint to something that is published on annual basis—I assume the Minister means annual—that will give people a lot more confidence that this being taken incredibly seriously.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister for her contribution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seamus Logan
In light of the Minister’s clarification, I am happy to withdraw amendment 25. However, with regard to amendment 23, I am still unclear as to what exactly the Minister is saying. Is she indicating that beyond the passage of the Bill there will be further clarifications to public bodies as to what training requirements there might be, and that resources will flow from that?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman—but yes, essentially. We will need to look at how we implement the Bill once it becomes an Act—hopefully it will become an Act—and at the requirements that will come from that. I will happily have those discussions with him and every other public authority on how best we do that. Should other resources be needed, that is something that the Government will consider.
Seamus Logan
Given the proceedings today are a matter of record, I am happy to withdraw amendment 23.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
To ensure that public sector culture changes for the better, clause 9 introduces a new duty on public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain high standards of ethical conduct at all times by people who work for the authority. This means acting in accordance with the seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles: honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness and leadership.
Under the Bill, all public authorities will be required to adopt a code of ethical conduct. This will ensure comprehensive coverage across the public sector. It will not be enough to simply have a code; authorities will be legally required to publish their codes and take active steps to make their staff aware of the code, and the consequences of failing to comply with it.
Clause 9(4) and (5) set out minimum standards that all codes must meet. Each code must establish a professional duty of candour, and an expectation that those working for the authority will act with candour at all times. Professional duties of candour will be tailored to the sectors to which they apply; they will be meaningful to staff and responsive to the needs of those who use an organisation’s services. The code must set out the practical ways in which ethical standards should be upheld and the disciplinary consequences of failing to act in accordance with the code. This will ensure that the code acts as an aspirational document, setting out best practice, but also as an effective deterrent against unethical behaviour.
Ensuring there are routes where individuals can raise concerns about public institutions is essential for ensuring that issues are identified and addressed as early as possible. Clause 9(5) requires an authority’s code to set out: how staff can raise concerns if they think their colleagues are not acting in accordance with the code; how staff can make protected disclosures, including any whistleblowing policies; and a clear process for external complaints about the conduct of the authority or those working for it.
Recognising the diversity of the public sector, the Bill includes some flexibilities. A code can provide for its standards to apply differently in specific circumstances or to specific groups of people, but it must set out reasons for doing so. For example, it may not be appropriate to apply all of the same standards to doctors as to the cleaning staff in an NHS trust. The Bill allows a public authority to adopt a code produced by another body. For example, schools can adopt a code published by the Department for Education, or local authorities can adopt codes from the Local Government Association. This is to ensure consistency across sectors and will minimise the burdens on smaller organisations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Non-statutory inquiries
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 59, in schedule 2, page 42, line 32, leave out lines 32 and 33.
Amendment 60, in schedule 2, page 42, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (7).
Amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 46, leave out lines 33 to 37.
Schedule stand part.
Clause 10 stand part.
Ian Byrne
I rise to speak to amendments 55 and 58 to 60, which would strengthen command responsibility. On amendment 55, schedule 2(5) appears to mean that responsibility for the actions of a Government Department is corporate only, and there is an exclusion for civil servants exercising their functions wholly outside the UK. Surely responsibility should lie with the chief executive of the Department, usually the Secretary of State, which I feel that amendment 55 would achieve.
Amendments 59 and 60 would once again strengthen the command responsibility. The purpose of deeming what was done by an office holder as being done by a Department itself is unclear. If those words are simply intended to avoid putting command responsibility on a Minister for the actions of their Department, with respect to the compliance with the duty of candour and assistance, it potentially goes too far.
Schedule 2(3)(6) excludes civil servants from inclusion as public officials if they exercise all their functions outside the UK. I do not see the reason for this exception, and I am seeking some clarification through amendments 59 and 60. I have also tabled amendment 58 for similar reasons to those I have stated for amending schedule 2(5), which would delete sub-paragraphs (3)(d) and (2).
Alex Davies-Jones
I again thank my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I hope that I will provide him with some clarification and assurances on exactly why we have adopted this approach in our drafting. The provisions that amendment 55 would amend are typical in legislation. They provide that actions legally done by the Crown or the holder of a particular office, such as a Secretary of State, can be attributed to a Government Department.
The definition of a “public official” in schedule 2(3) includes an individual who
“holds office under a public authority”.
By removing the explicit reference to the holder of a particular office, the amended paragraph would actually, and no doubt unintentionally, narrow the scope of what can be attributed to a Government Department. Only actions that are strictly acts of the Crown could then be attributed to a Government Department for the purposes of the duty of candour provisions and associated offence, as well as the misleading the public offence, not those done legally in the name of the Secretary of State. In our view, this would actually weaken the Bill, and I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw amendment 55.
Amendments 58 to 60 seek to apply the duty of candour and assistance, along with the misconduct in public office offences in part 3, to staff employed on local contracts overseas, including consular staff at embassies. My hon. Friend is correct to note that there are two examples of this exclusion in the Bill, one from the definition of “public official” in relation to the duty of candour, and one from the definition of “civil servant” in relation to part 3. They exclude what are known as country-based staff. These are, for example, locally engaged staff who are employed by an embassy or consulate generally to do administrative or support work, such as site maintenance.
While employed by the embassy or equivalent, these individuals are subject to the laws of the country in which they live, and they are supervised by United Kingdom civil servants who are subject to all parts of the Bill. In excluding locally employed staff from the provisions in the Bill, the Bill follows all precedented approaches relating to these staff, such as the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. To take a different approach would be a significant and unprecedented change. I hope my hon. Friend understands that clarification and is content not to press amendments 58 to 60 to a vote.
I turn to schedule 2 and clause 10. Many of the Bill’s substantive provisions apply to a public authority or public official. Schedule 2 defines those terms for the purposes of part 2 of the Bill. There are different definitions of “public authority” for different parts of the Bill, and I appreciate that this can be confusing, so I hope to clarify why. Part 2 of the schedule sets out the definitions of “public authority” and “public official” for the purposes of the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. These are broad definitions that are intended to capture anyone, including private companies, who exercises a public function.
Paragraph (2)(4) sets out that there are express reservations for the courts, Parliament and the devolved legislatures, reflecting long-standing constitutional conventions of self-regulation and independence. The north-south bodies established under the Good Friday agreement are also excluded to avoid capturing officials in the Irish Government.
Tessa Munt
In the interests of clarity, will the Minister explain whether the intelligence and security services are now captured by the list in part 2? Will she also explain what happens to regular or reserve forces when they are abroad, when they might be subject to devices such as the court martial? Those are two very specific things.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to clarify both those points, and I assure the hon. Lady that they are captured in this part of the Bill.
“Public official” is defined in schedule 2 as all of those who work for a public authority or hold office under a public authority—including those that the hon. Lady mentioned—and individuals who hold a relevant public office. That is defined to include offices that are established in legislation or by Ministers, where the UK or devolved Government are wholly or mainly constituted by appointment made by the Crown or Ministers, and they exercise functions of a public nature. Former public officials are also included in that—for example, retired civil servants and those who have resigned from the service. There are various exclusions, such as for individuals acting in a judicial capacity, non-executive elected members of a local authority who operate executive arrangements, and those in the private service of the Crown.
Part 3 of the schedule sets out the definition of “public authority” for the provisions on standards of ethical conduct, including the requirement to adopt a code of ethics. That definition of “public authority” is limited to the core public authorities, those commonly understood to be part of the state. The definition includes a list of named public authorities. That includes Government Departments, the devolved Governments, the armed forces, the police, local authorities, NHS bodies, schools, and any bodies that are both established by Ministers of the Crown and are wholly or mainly constituted by public appointments. That is intended to capture the wide range of arm’s length and other public bodies. The definition does, however, include the same exclusions for Parliament, the courts and those north-south bodies that were previously mentioned.
Tessa Munt
I again seek clarity. Are non-executive directors of an NHS trust, for example—who might be party to all sorts of information—within the scope of the Bill? I would also like to check whether school governors—and schools that are academies sometimes use different names, such as “partners”—are also picked up in the list.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, I can confirm that. Those provisions of the Bill contain a power to allow the definition to also be extended by secondary legislation to private companies that exercise specified public functions. That would allow the code of ethics provisions to be extended to specified high-risk public functions by secondary legislation—for example, in privately run prisons.
Finally, I turn to clause 10, which provides that guidance can be issued by the national authority if it wishes to do so, for the purposes of chapter 2, which relates to the standards of ethical conduct. That means that the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments can issue guidance on how public authorities can fulfil their duty to maintain high standards of ethical conduct, including in drafting and adopting their codes of ethical conduct.
Clause 9 sets out minimum standards in law that all codes must legally meet. We have the option to use guidance under clause 10 to set out best practice in each of those areas, encouraging authorities to consider what arrangements they can put in place to ensure that the highest standards of ethical conduct are in place. However, as we have already discussed, given the diversity of the public sector, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and any guidance that is issued will allow each authority to consider how those requirements in the Bill can best be implemented to serve them in a way that best suits them and the needs of their organisations and sectors. All public authorities will be legally required to have regard to the guidance.
UK Ministers will be responsible for guidance for UK and England-only bodies, and the devolved Governments will have powers to issue guidance that relates exclusively to devolved matters. That is to reflect the devolution settlement, and it ensures that the devolved Governments can provide guidance to the public authorities to which they are responsible and—speaking as a Member of Parliament for a devolved area—also that they could potentially also be bilingual, as they would have to be to comply in Wales.
We intend to work closely with our devolved colleagues on the development of any such guidance, and I again put on record my thanks to all the devolved Governments for their collaborative and collegiate approach to working with us on the Bill to ensure that we have a unified approach.