Lords Chamber

Monday 19th October 2026

(began 17 hours, 29 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:36
None Portrait Oral questions: Russian and Chinese influence in the Western Balkans regarding defence, security and robotics
-

My Lords, Russia and China have different objectives in the Western
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
Baroness Curran Portrait Baroness Curran, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
There is a great deal in that >> There is a great deal in that question, and I have to say I would challenge quite a part of it, but let me do my very best to address let me do my very best to address the details that the Honourable Lords has indicated. In fact, the Lords has indicated. In fact, the purpose of these negotiations is to reduce the cost of trading electricity with our European partners. Energy UK has stated that during the price spike of 2022, between 120 to £370 million per year could have been saved from efficient trading.























I would have thought that all in this House would look for opportunities to reduce energy bills in this time. Trading with our nearest partners is, of course common sense and makes makes makes sense. This agreement requires co-operation. It does not require membership of the of the single market or the single market. The basis of this agreement is mutual prosperity, and it reduces inefficiencies and encourages cooperation. While it benefits consumers and businesses. And we will negotiate all the rules and will engage with Parliament as we see fit, as we should. Of course, as outlined, the UK EU common Understanding sets out that any agreement on state aid should provide for the UK's dynamic alignment with relevant EU rules and respects UK constitutional and parliamentary processes, and that applies across the board.



The ECJ will not be involved in acquis.
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:03
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Labour)
-
-
The noble Lord is absolutely >> The noble Lord is absolutely right. And I mean, just to amplify the point that my noble friend raised, I mean, the MAC found that there is significant variation in migrants lifetime fiscal contribution depending on their salary and why characteristics, no doubt about that. For example, those arriving on the skilled worker route were estimated to make a larger positive lifetime contribution positive of 689,000 to make a and actually than those in a lower category of occupation in health, which actually in a care provision is a -36,000. But even within the health service, of course, what we have is a huge positive impact of doctors and nurses as well.





































And that is a very, very positive impact in terms of the economic benefit to the country as a whole.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with. Employers in sectors such as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Employers in sectors such as hospitality. Retail and social care will tell you that they would cease to function without the ability to to function without the ability to hire productive migrant workers. And that's an inconvenient truth for the far right nationalists, who claim that migrants are stealing jobs from UK born workers. But does jobs from UK born workers. But does the Minister agree that with an ageing population and a plummeting birth rates are heavy, dependency on migrant workers looks set to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grow further rather than to decline? I'm really tempted to get into a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really tempted to get into a debate about Brexit, but I won't. debate about Brexit, but I won't. But the simple fact is that migration. There was an migration. There was an unprecedented level of migration to unprecedented level of migration to the United Kingdom between 2021 and 2025, and that undoubtedly will lead to significant numbers wanting settlement, which is why this government is looking at the situation and looking at fairness in terms of settlement. But, you know, there is no doubt that that period when we were seeking to fill vacancies, particularly in the care sector, the system was pretty chaotic, and we're now having to my.
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood Portrait Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) (Labour)
-
-
My thanks to my noble Lord for >> My thanks to my noble Lord for taking me back to the not entirely happy memories of being on the board of the dome. Although I should just say for the record that the dome did achieve over 6 million visitors and created a lasting legacy which is now thriving. Thriving as a commercial, as a commercial enterprise. But that is not the topic for today. May I thank you also for your principles and say that whilst of course I am not in any way trying to pre-empt any of the findings that will be revealed in the White Paper at the end of the year, my apologies to my Lords.

































I'm going to be repeating that point several times. I fear. I would like to comment on, of course, starting with your last very with the last very important point that my noble Lord made you. It is the case that the licence fee has been significantly declining over the last decade, and that that has been one major source of challenge for the BBC. I don't think I can yet say whether the changes that will be published in the White Paper at the end of the year are going to explicitly meet your point about avoiding a regressive source of public funding.

















I can, of course, say that the Secretary of State is on record as saying that the role of public funding continues to be a vital part of the vision of the future of the BBC. I think that I would also just question whether competition, competitive finance, avoiding competitive finances is a is a rule that applies in all possible occasions. I can imagine some scenarios where it is of benefit for the BBC to be in a competitive environment, and that they can gain from that process, but that is not in any way to pre-empt any decision.
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
None Portrait Legislation: Public Office Accountability Bill – committee (day 2) - part one
-

amendments to ensure that records, physical and digital were explicitly added to the application
15:49
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
of the duty of candour. That was because we know that there have been a number of egregious cases where information was hidden, and I spoke, for example, of the medical records of the nuclear veterans that had been hidden in a Ministry that had been hidden in a Ministry of Defence storage centre, hidden, because nobody knew they were there because nobody knew they were there and they were not on any index. One of the absolutely necessary reasons for this bill as a whole is that we for this bill as a whole is that we now know there are too many cases where public officials, regardless of department or organisation, have tried to hide or even destroy key information that would demonstrate clear intention to mislead.

















































































































































































My Lords, in July 2025, Andy Burnham still at that point, still the Mayor of Manchester and a passionate supporter of justice for the Hillsborough law, said parts of Whitehall were fighting hard to preserve the status quo because even then he felt that Ministers and civil servants were misleading the public with false and unfounded claims about the then proposed legislation that has now changed positively into this bill. Much clearer now and stronger. Both the former Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, and our new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, agreed that introducing criminal sanctions for dishonesty was key to making this bill work.

































































































































































But I also agree with our new PM that there is still an issue of culture of the status quo for decades. At its worst, including recent years, this has included some public officials, those who would be accountable under the terms of this bill, who have destroyed information that would have been important for evidence for inquiries, inquests and investigations, especially police investigations. So, my Lords, my amendment 31, signed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, creates the offence of destruction of information or records that are relevant to an inquiry, investigation or inquest. It is a standalone clause that says that a public authority or public official commits the offence, not just if they deliberately destroy relevant information or records that would be relevant, but also states that they know or are reckless as to whether that information is relevant to or required by an inquiry, investigation or inquest.











































































































































And subclause two of the amendment then sets out the offence under this section is, on conviction, liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates court in England and Wales, a term of not exceeding 12 months in Scotland and not exceeding six months in Northern Ireland. And if on conviction, on indictment to a prison for a term not exceeding two years. Now, each one of these subcategories are also liable to a fine or both. That is, imprisonment and a fine. Now, my Lords, the reason that I believe that it's vital to specify the details of this crime, including recklessness.





























































































































A phrase used earlier in the Bill is because of the history of the behaviour of certain public officials, who have destroyed information that has not only revictimized the victims because the evidence could not be produced at inquiries or investigations, but also has two frequently meant a delay to justice, and this has cost the victims and the nation. Scandal after scandal. Successive inquiries on the same issue and has cost the state considerably more money, both in cost of inquiries, but also in appropriate compensation to the victims, which was delayed. Sir Brian Langstaff Infected Blood inquiry report.















































































































Volume seven has an entire chapter on the disappearance and or destruction of documents over the many decades. It starts a box on page two, which summarises how documents were destroyed and then denied over the years. 1988 Lord Jones files record a note that his paper had been destroyed by the Department of Health as, quote, normal procedure after ten years, end quote. We'll return to that in a minute. 1990 to 91 relevant documents identified as missing during the HIV litigation. February to March 1993 registered GEB stroke one files relating to a c v SB sent to the DRO September 1994 registered file GB1 volume four is destroyed in advance of its review date.



























































































June 1995. Doctor Raymond notifies the Solicitors Division that one of the a c v SB files has apparently been destroyed. May 1996 documents relating to the settled HIV litigation are identified as missing. October 1997 to November 98th remaining GEB stroke one volumes are destroyed. April 2000. The report of the internal audit missing a c v SB documents and. In March 2004, the Department of Health informs Lord Owen that its review into Self-sufficiently self-sufficiency does not address why papers from your private office at the time may have been destroyed, end quote. And April 2005 meeting between Nigel Crisp and Lord Jenkin to discuss missing papers, end quote.









































































My Lords, I've quoted those headings at length to demonstrate this is not just a one off error of destroying papers too early. This is a culture of destroying important information. And by the way, this list doesn't even cover many of the doctor's own files and patient files that were quietly destroyed. As it became clear at the turn of the 1980s that illegal blood products research had been carried out on children without either their or their parents consent. My Lords, the first infections happened in the 1970s. Known destruction of documents started in 1988. That destruction of papers has cost governments.

























































In this decade billions of pounds. And then my Lord Solaris Hillsborough. The Lord Taylor report was about the arrangements on the day of Hillsborough and did not focus on the behaviour of the police, although he did have some concerns about that. However, the report of the Hillsborough Independent panel, published a quarter of a century later, was able to remedy this, and chapter 11 starts at para 2.11.1 statements made by South Yorkshire Police officers in the form of handwritten recollections of their experiences on the day of the disaster, underwent an unprecedented process of review and alteration before their submission to the official Lord Taylor and his inquiry.









































And at para 2116, it says in contrast to their professional training, the officers were instructed not to record their experience in pocket books, and anyone who was involved in yesterday take time to sit down and make some notes. The briefing officer asked if officers had, quote, made a pocket book brief, end quote. None had. The briefing officer continued, quote, do not start making pocket book entries. Yesterday was the most traumatic experience in my life and large chunks of it I cannot remember. I am sure it must be the same for many of you. End quote.



























Now, both of these two egregious examples demonstrate actions by individual public officials, as well as their corporate organisational behaviour. Last year, My Lords inquests report on the Hillsborough Law Family Listening Day, known as All or Nothing, powerfully set out how the key destruction of evidence was for their victims and their families. One Hillsborough family member said their loved one was not afforded the truth. He should have been. It was traumatic. It. The inquest should have been the end. My Lords, it was not. As well as in the Hillsborough tragedy, the destruction. Hiding or changing of evidence is key to the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Covid inquiry, the nuclear test veterans, the infected blood scandal and many more.







This is not a one off. This is cultural. We cannot have further destruction or hiding of evidence. And that is why this amendment makes it clear to public officials, public organisations and above all, to the public that this must change. I beg to move.
15:58
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause seven. Insert the new clause seven. Insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List. >> I rise. >> To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord. Lord Keen of Elie. Amendments 31 and 82. The noble Baroness has made a very compelling case, and I would like to delve deeper into two of the examples which she has given to the Committee this afternoon. One. Concerns, of course, the Hillsborough disaster itself. But the other concerns British service personnel who were exposed to radiation during atomic tests. One reason why, in 1989 I tabled a parliamentary question in another place to establish what warnings had been given before the football match at Hillsborough on April the 15th, when Liverpool and Nottingham Forest were drawn to play in the FA Cup semi-final, was that I was worried that the letter which I had sent to the Sports Minister before the match on March the 22nd, would disappear into the aether.



































































































































































































I was glad that an archive like Hansard would ensure that that would not take place, and it records that the hon. Member wrote to me on the 22nd of March about the arrangements that the FA Cup semi-final at Hillsborough on April 15th. No other representation was received. The arrangements for the match will be among the matters to be considered by Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry. But I was right to have worried that important information would disappear, or that records would be destroyed or altered. Was more than borne out in the decades which followed the destruction, the falsification, and the alteration or withholding of records.





















































































































































































My Lords, there were decades of dissimulation and decades of deceit, outrageously, that became a hallmark of the response to Hillsborough, until finally it was exposed. How crucial evidence was either destroyed, altered or hidden from official oversight. Recall that Ken Sutton, one of the officials involved with the Hillsborough Independent Panel, testified that when they requested original police notebooks from the South Yorkshire Police, they were explicitly told that, I quote, they no longer existed. Years later, during the statutory inquest, these same notebooks magically reappeared, with no explanation provided as to why they were previously withheld. Last week, during our proceedings in committee, I referred to the systematic altering of police statements.

































































































































































164 police officers statements were altered. Content that criticised senior police command, highlighted faulty police radio communications or mentioned historical stadium safety issues, was intentionally crossed out and deleted before being forwarded to the original Taylor inquiry. Note two that unverified allegations and outright calumny regarding the behaviour of Liverpool fans were left intact and framed as facts, and my Lord's concealment went to the highest levels of government to the Cabinet Office, restricting access to vital records. In 2009, a freedom of Information request by the BBC seeking minutes of meetings and briefings provided to the Prime Minister in April 1989, was refused by the Cabinet Office, citing policy formulation exemptions to keep the files hidden from public view.













































































































































In 1989, I asked a Home Office Minister quotes at what level the publication of statements on April the 18th by South Yorkshire Police concerning the conduct of Liverpool fans at Hillsborough semi-final was authorised and if he'll publish a copy of that statement and the name of the officer who made it, and if he'll make a statement. I received this reply. Statements made by officers of South Yorkshire Police are matters for the Chief Constable. It would not be helpful for me to publish statements or counter statements which have been made about the circumstances leading to the tragedy, or to name those who made them.































































































































It is for Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry to establish the facts. My Lords, the names of the officers who gave the authorisation were not made known. The falsehoods were allowed to stand. Taylor did not establish the facts, nor did he discover the truth. It was left to the grieving families to continue to demand answers and to insist that justice should be done. And as the years went by, I made repeated requests for the legal cases to be reopened. In June 1992, the then Solicitor General, Sir Derek Spencer, responded that the Attorney General would take a decision on an outstanding formal application for consent under section 13 of the Coroners Act, 1988, as soon as possible.















































































































Three years had already elapsed since the tragedy, and if Ministers had acted in 1992 telling the coroner to re-open the case, it would not have become possible to hide behind the excuse that the passage of time impeded accurate recall of the details of what had occurred in 1998. In your Lordships House, I asked what account the Home Secretary and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith had taken in deciding against a fresh inquiry into the Hillsborough tragedy of missing videotapes, changed statements by police officers, conflicting medical evidence and complaints of lack of impartiality in the original coroner's process, and in the granting of immunity from prosecution to police officers upon taking early retirement.































































































Close quotes the Minister replied Lord Justice Stuart-Smith considered all of the material evidence submitted to his scrutiny about the Hillsborough disaster. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, Jack straw, accepted his conclusion that there were no grounds for a fresh inquiry. The Minister told us that there was no new video evidence that the only missing videotapes were two tapes stolen on the day of the disaster, which remain missing. There were not police tapes, and the judge was satisfied that they would not have shown anything significant. The Minister said that quotes allegations of irregularity and malpractice are not substantiated, and quotes they found no grounds to suggest that the original inquests were flawed, or that complaints of bias against the coroner were justified.













































































No substantial irregularities, no malpractice will, of course, now we all know otherwise. As Prime Minister David Cameron then told Parliament, the Liverpool fans had suffered a double injustice, both in quotes the failure to. Of the state to protect their loved ones and the indefensible. Wait to get to the truth in offering a full apology. He also admonished those who denigrated the deceased and suggested that they were somehow at fault for their own deaths. In 20 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel report, led by Bishop James Jones, made nine recommendations on systemic archive reform, which would prevent future destruction of critical records.





























































And these amendments underpin that. My Lords, I would simply turn to one other example, and I won't do so at great length. Back in the 1980s, I raised the. Position of former British servicemen who had been caught up in the atomic test that had taken place on Christmas Island and in places like Maralinga in Western Australia. I've taken the trouble to print off the the speeches. It's notable for me, and perhaps I can say this as someone who once served as the chief whip, that the organising of government business is something that is always in the hands of the government of the day.

















































It wasn't really surprising, then that those debates, which I think just a handful of us attended, one took place at 3:49 a.m. in the morning, and the other took place at, I think it was four four, 31 in the morning. Sometimes you can bury truths in different ways. Nevertheless, again, our archives substantiate many of the complaints which have been made over the years about the destruction of records, about the refusal to provide information for those who have sought to achieve justice in their own cases. During those debates in the 1980s. I said that the then minister's failure to release all the data will run the risk of being accused of cooking the books.

































I complained about attempts to push the issue into the long grass, and the commissioning of a survey by an organisation which veterans themselves believed would serve the department's interests, rather than the pursuit of truth. My Lords, anyone who saw Victoria Derbyshire interviewing the former veterans Minister on September the 2nd of this year will have been shocked to hear him say that he had misled Parliament in 2018, when he had been given false information by the Ministry of Defence, and he said that no such radiological monitoring records existed in which he is described as a complete cover up designed to delay the truth until the ageing veterans had died.

















 So, my Lords, these amendments matter. They are about these situations the atomic test victims and Hillsborough. But they are also about the infected blood scandal. They're also about primodos. They're about horizon, the Post Office and so many other instances. Records matter. Members of Parliament matter too. And the denigration of Members of Parliament for simply trying to shine a light on the truth is something that we should all have great cause to be concerned about. I hope that when the noble Lord, the Minister comes to reply, he'll say where we are up to in the current new inquiries taking place into what happened to those atomic test victims.

I strongly support these amendments.
16:09
16:09
16:11
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm not sure. In supporting >> I'm not sure. In supporting these amendments that I accept that they go far enough. There is one word that is missing from the amendment 31, and that is conceal or concealment. And the same is missing from clause 12 of the bill. And I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that clause 12 subclause three needs to be amended to. If it is to remain. Clause 12 is to remain part of the Bill to include concealment. Surely, my Lords, what we are trying to achieve here is that it is a given for all public officials that they do not conceal, destroy or remove any document which is an official document.













































They do not know whether it will be needed for an inquiry, but it has that imprimatur of officialdom that should be the preservative that it is never removed. And, my Lords, there are so many categories of document. We've had examples very eloquently given of the of, of inquiries in which such behaviour has caused difficulties. But let's just think about the wide range of categories in which which such difficulties can be caused. Deleting emails, destroying paper files, erasing WhatsApp messages, destroying meeting notes, diaries or notebooks something that featured very strongly in the Hillsborough case. Removing metadata or audit logs, which has happened in relation to many subjects of inquiries.

























Deleting calendar entries or call records, overwriting backup tapes or archives, shredding draft documents which revealed the real truth until they were amended by others who did not want the real truth to be disclosed. Destroying CCTV footage, audio recordings or photographs. Most egregious, and it has happened in police cases. I referred earlier in these debates to the Cardiff three case senior police officers instructing others to delete records. It took years to unravel the truth. As a result of those deletions and deleting other records to avoid disclosure. These are just examples of some of the categories which are attempted to be remedied by the two amendments we're debating now.





I suggest it doesn't go quite far enough, but we really do need them if we're going to achieve our purpose of ensuring that public records are sacrosanct against dishonest or reckless removal. removal.
16:14
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
This amendment, in terms of making a criminal offence to deliberately destroy documents that could be relevant to an inquiry. But I think there's another side to this, which we need to look at, and that is the policy within organisations of what documents are actually kept. Now, we would have thought that decision notes on decisions are kept, minutes etc. kept. But having spent many, many hours as chair of the ISC reviewing the Mandelson papers as part of the Humble Address, can I say depressingly to my Lordships, the Lordships House, that systems that perhaps many years ago we got used to in terms of civil servants keeping records, using meeting notes and action notes, no longer seem to be the the way in which our civil service, for example, works.





























































So I think if we are going to have this which this moment, which I fully support, we also need, I think, some recognition of how organisations not only keep decision making, but also are noted because quite clearly in the papers which my committee reviewed on Mandelson, there were some large gaps and I've got to say some departments were better than others, the Foreign Office being the worst at keeping notes or action notes if they did exist on decisions that are taking place. The other area, and we're talking, obviously in terms of Hillsborough in a pre-digital age, is now has just been referred to as the digital space, which is far more complicated in terms of and far easier, I would argue, to delete information.











































One of the things that concerned my committee was the use of WhatsApp and disappearing WhatsApp, which you would think would be something if you want to keep a record of what happened, would be very important. But what I think surprised me was, and other members of the committee, was the type of decisions that were being taken over WhatsApp, and there was no record of those at all. Now, was that a deliberate attempt to frustrate the system? Well, I'll leave it to Lordships to make that conclusion. But if you have that type of process and you don't have any strict rules around what should be kept or what in the first place should actually be transacted on WhatsApp, because clearly my committee also raised some issues around the level of security around WhatsApp, which certainly decisions and conversations were taking place, which should never have been done apart from over high side systems.



















So there seems to be an A lax culture developing. And I think if we are going to make sure that future inquiries are full access to how decisions are made and the material behind him, there needs to be a radical overhaul. I think, in the current culture within Whitehall, in terms of ensuring that proper records are kept and as I say on the electronic side, some robust procedures are put in place because without it, not only could it be led to the issue where people could deliberately delete things, things could be deleted because, for example, on WhatsApp, they disappear after so many days.





So I do welcome this. But I think alongside this, organisations are going to have to have a clear set of guidance about how records should be kept.
16:18
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for opening our debate on this group, as she will see from my noble friend Lord Ely's amendment. In this group there is happily some common ground between us, although both amendments in this group relate to the destruction of documents, they differ in the time at which the offence would apply. Amendment 82 in the name of my noble friend Lord Keen of Elie seeks to create a specific offence as part of the broader new statutory offence of misconduct in public office for the destruction of documents by a public official at a relevant to an inquiry.

















































Although the Minister has suggested during previous meetings that this would already be recovered by the new statutory misconduct offence as set out in clause 13, we are seeking clarity on that point and ideally it would be included in the face on the face of the bill. We thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his engagement on this issue since Second Reading. However, we continue to believe that the most effective way to solve this is to include the proposed offence on the face of the Bill. Indeed, the severity of the impact of the destruction of documents relating to a major incident on victims who deserve to know the truth is sufficiently severe to warrant clarity.



































Victims always deserve to know the truth. The government should not rely on previous case law for their belief that this proposed offence would be covered. They are creating a new statutory offence that will replace existing legislation and as such, previous case law may not apply in the same way to the new clause 13. This is not something that should be left in doubt. And so. So the amendment is a sensible way to avoid any such situation. Turning now to amendment 31. In the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, which relates to the destruction of documents ahead of an inquiry in a similar vein to our own amendment as drafted the amendment in the name of the.





















Of the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Keen of Elie applies only. And after inquiry has been opened, which is perhaps too narrow, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee suggested. On the other hand, amendment 31 appears to perhaps be rather broad, with insufficient limits as to what may be relevant. And I think there is a middle ground that would. The would probably be the most suitable solution. But given the consensus in this House on the need for a clear offence of destruction of documents and. And I take note of what the noble Lord Lord Carlile said about concealment as well.







I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be willing to work with us on an amendment that gets the balance right ahead of Report stage, and I look forward to the noble Lord. The Minister's reply.
16:21
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken during this debate, and I. And I note, as Lady Finn says, the noble Lady, lady Finn said, been a deal of consensus in this debate, and dispiriting litany that that Lady Brinton and others have set forward. So I don't at all underestimate the importance of these amendments and the behaviour, the mischief they seek to address. And it is obviously central. It is clearly central to one of the main aims of this Bill, and it is paramount that public officials who deliberately delete or destroy information in advance of an inquiry or inquest being called upon are properly held to account.





















































































If this type of offending is not stopped, then relevant and important information may no longer exist to be considered. And I, and I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Beamish, about about, if I may describe it as such as the lax procedures in keeping the information to. We are confident that the bill as drafted already protects against the destruction of documents in two separate ways, which I want to set out. Firstly, clause two for A requires authorities and officials to provide information likely to be relevant to an inquiry or investigation. If requested, they will not meet this obligation if they allow the information to be lost or destroyed when they ought to be providing it intentionally or recklessly destroying documents in order to impede or an inquiry or an investigation is an offence.



































































The individual in charge of the altar. In addition, the individual in charge of an authority must also take all reasonable steps to secure the authorities compliance with the duty, including ensuring documents are accessible. Secondly, in appropriate and I think this goes to the question that the noble Lady, Lady Finn, asked me in appropriate circumstances and where the other elements of the offence are met, the destruction of documents could also be caught by the new seriously improper act limb of the misconduct in public office offence. So I hope that that's clear. For example, public officer could commit this offence if they use their position with the intent of obtaining a benefit or causing another to suffer a detriment when doing so, or when doing so, know or ought to know that their conduct is seriously improper and the benefit could include seeking to protect themselves or their organisation from reputational harm or damage actions such as shredding, document shredding documents or ordering that information be destroyed could therefore potentially be caught.









































The criminal law can already capture this type of conduct through offences such as perverting the course of justice. In March this year, for example, a serving police officer was convicted of perverting the course of justice for deliberately disposing of digital evidence. A number of noble Lords raised the question of digital evidence, which was contained on a mobile phone. Contempt of court could also apply where records are destroyed in convention in contravention of a court order. This type of conduct can also be, and has been caught by the existing common law misconduct in public office fence and I have already commented on on how the replacement might apply.

























The two new misconduct offences are intended to cover the same breadth of offending as the existing common law offence. It is important to remember, nevertheless, that the key point of the new offences is the purpose for which a person carries out the act. This ensures that the criminal law captures those who act with improper intent, bespoke or unnecessary duplicate offences can risk creating confusion for those enforcing, prosecuting and seeking to abide by the law, so we should try and avoid them. Though I do note the strength of feeling in the House, and I shall be very happy to continue the discussion on this and other matters between now and Committee on the question of the noble.











The noble Lord Lord Alton question about the atomic test. I promise to write to you with the latest position on that. The government, therefore, considers that both the existing law and the provisions in this Bill already provide suitable mechanisms for addressing the deliberate destruction of relevant records, creating additional or overlapping offences when the conduct is already capable of being prosecuted, perhaps risks unnecessary complexity and confusion for investigation
16:26
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Investigators, prosecutors and >> Investigators, prosecutors and public officials alike. So with those reassurance, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw her amendment. Though, as I say, I promise to carry on the conversation. My Lords, I'm very grateful to everyone who has spoken in this medium sized debate. Not terribly short by our standard of the first day, but I think actually it's really helped the debate on the issue of what happens when people destroy documents. And I'm very grateful, particularly to Lord Alton, who has been working particularly on Hillsborough and the nuclear veterans for many, many years and saw first hand some of the things that I reported as historic data deletion. That's been enormously helpful.







































And Lady Butler-sloss point was equally important as well. I'm very mindful of of Lady Hami's question to Lord Keen, who can't be in his place to Lady Finn, and I thank her for her responding. And I do think the one point that's come up with the varied debate we've had so far this afternoon, is that there is much debate to be had on how we get it right between Committee stage and Report stage, and I hope that the Minister will agree to meet with everyone who has spoken in this debate together to see if we can start to pull it out for Lord decisions.



























However, in. What we're discussing is the soft areas either side of that as well. And I think this isn't just a matter for civil servants or for your Lordships House. This is actually a wider issue. Example contract law between businesses about where decisions are made and that information held. And I do think that the government is going to have to get a grip of that. I'm very interested to hear Lord Lemos response. He quoted clause two four A and the other clause that he quoted were actually not explicit about the destruction of documents, and I think he accepts that.















He quoted a number of other areas in which prosecution might potentially occur with potentially always slightly worries me. Can I ask to date, how many prosecutions of officials under the various routes that he's described happened? My gut feeling is it's not very many. And I think the whole problem and why we need this bill, is to start to ensure that the bill is so clear that officials and their teams will be trained in what they can and they cannot do long before an issue comes up. That way, the cultural changes will happen, but on the basis that there will be meetings between Committee stage and report.



And I'm very grateful. I withdraw my amendment.
16:29
16:29
None Portrait Amendment:32 Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-

>> My Lords, my amendment 32, which kicks off this second group, would kicks off this second group, would require the government any government to lay before Parliament. The details of action which will be taken in response to a public inquiry recommendation, or to explain why no action is to be taken. And I'm very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for adding her name in support of it. The UK has spent £1.5 billion of taxpayers money on completed inquiries since 1990, with active, ongoing inquiries cost continuing to cost taxpayers upwards of £200 million a year.









































































These eye watering sums. It's become something of an industry to set up a public inquiry that goes on for years and costs huge sums of money, and yet the government is under no legal duty to explain why it's not implementing an inquiry recommendation after it's reported. How can a government be free to spend millions or hundreds of millions of taxpayers money on an inquiry initiated because of public concern? That's in the act. And then be under no obligation even to give reasons to the public for rejecting its recommendations. The bill is supposed to be this bill is supposed to be about public authorities acting with, quote, candour, transparency and frankness.



























































 It's designed to increase public authorities accountability and openness. Government Ministers and departments are defined in the bill as a public authority. So it's entirely in line with this bill that the government should be required to be open with the public and give reasons. If they decide not to implement inquiry recommendations. Note not a duty to implement inquiry recommendations, but simply a duty to give reasons for not doing so. That is plain common sense, and there is no reason on earth not to do so. And it's not a purely theoretical point. The NAL estimated has estimated that 55% of inquiry recommendations are not accepted by the government or some somewhat equivocally quote, accepted in principle, but with no recorded follow through.









































This is extraordinary. When an inquiry's recommendations are are made on the basis of months or years of painstaking evidence gathering to establish the facts and to hear from real experts. For the government then to be able to hold back the reasons for declining to accept the inquiry's recommendations demonstrates a lack of accountability, which is entirely at odds with the bill now before us. It's also at odds with the recommendations in prevention of future deaths reports issued by coroners, where the government is under a statutory duty to respond within 56 days and to give reasons if they choose not to implement them.

























Since inquiries are often initiated because of events which have resulted in fatalities. There's no good reason on earth why there should be this disparity. With Coroner's Prevention of Future Deaths report. Our new Solicitor General seems to be of a similar mind, since at Report stage in the other place, just a week or so before he was appointed, he tabled amendments to the Bill to examine the merits of a new independent oversight body to follow up on the conclusions and recommendations of inquiries to improve implementation of them. As he said, quote, without candour and transparency in how public authorities respond to and act on findings and recommendations, these costly, lengthy legal processes are futile.









In 2024, the House of Lords Select Committee on Inquiries, chaired by the noble Lord Lord Norton, made a similar recommendation and recommended the government be under a duty to give reasons for not implementing inquiry recommendations in a Bill about openness, candour and accountability in relation to inquiries. A duty on the government of the day to give such reasons is obvious, and I beg to move.
16:33
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause >> Amendment proposed after clause eight. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A few remarks. On amendment 32, which the noble Lord Carter has so ably introduced. I have conducted some independent inquiries of a sort that would fall within this clause, though none of them cost millions or hundreds of millions. In some cases, the noble Lord Carter was legal advisor to those who commissioned them, whether in the Home Office or in number ten. So it is refreshing to see that the noble Lord, who was on the other side of the fence, champions the undoubted public interest in the recommendations of such inquiries, receiving a prompt response. His solution is an attractive one, but, as I have discussed with my noble friend, there are a couple of reasons why I think it would not always be feasible, at least in its current form.





































































First, a fixed requirement to respond and lay those responses before Parliament within 56 calendar days could not easily be met. If, for example, a report is submitted shortly before the calling of a general election and the arrival of a new government. Perhaps that difficulty could be accommodated by the substitution of parliamentary sitting days for days in the amendment. But in other cases, what used to be called pre-election purdah may have an impact on the timing of any response, making a 56 day limit too rigid in an unpredictable range of cases. Secondly, there are times when more than one report is commissioned in relation to the same issue.























































A recent example is my report on the failure of the government's prevent programme to divert the Southport attacker from the path that led him to murder three young girls in the most appalling circumstances. I sent my report to the Secretary of State last July. An informal reaction was given and work began immediately on some of my recommendations. But the Home Secretary chose to delay her formal response until she had the report of phase one of Sir Adrian Fulford's Southport inquiry, which was published in April of this year. Our two reports made some overlapping recommendations with implications across central and local government.









































A consolidated response was, I think, a rational solution in the circumstances. Even though I had to wait almost a year for it. The final point I would make relates to the importance of timely publication of independent reports. It is publication that enables select committees, parliamentarians, media and NGOs to bring the findings of an inquiry to the attention of the public and to put pressure on governments to implement them. As an independent reviewer, I was always more concerned by delays in publication than by delays in the government's response. It must be demoralising to submit a report to a Secretary of State, which simply disappears, only to be published so long after the event that its impact is diminished.























Unless the matter is a high profile one. There can be no guarantee that parliamentary committees or the media will be much exercised by the delay or interested in it. If the government's reaction to recommendations have to be published within 56 days of receipt, as this amendment would provide, that must imply that the report itself has been published within 56 days. A Secretary of State could hardly lay before Parliament a response to recommendations of which Parliament and the public are ignorant. So while the amendment does not, on its face, require timely publication of reports, it would appear to have that benign, I would say, side effect.









Perhaps the noble Lord could comment when he closes this debate on whether this is a feature of his amendment rather than a bug. I rather hope that it is, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, the Minister has to say about the importance of timely publication as Knight.
16:37
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
Sorry, sir. Can I welcome Lord Carter's amendment for. I think a very important issue. And that's what happens to the outcome of very lengthy and expensive inquiries. Sir, the noble Lord raised what's been spent on public inquiry since 1990, and I suspect that will grow even further, because the problem I think we've got into, and I'm as guilty possibly as a parliamentarian than any others, is as soon as something goes wrong, we call for an inquiry, a public inquiry, as though somehow the public inquiry is going to get to the truth and change things. And, you know, having spent a long time with the victims, for example, of the Post Office Horizon scandal, what do people actually want?







































































































Well, they want I think two things is, yes, they want the facts out there, but they also want which, you know, in some cases compensation, quite rightly. But more than anything, most of them actually say we don't want this to happen again. So it's actually about changing things in the future. Now let's deal with compensation. I think the Public Accounts Committee report a couple of weeks ago was very good, that we need to set up a permanent body to deal with compensation, because having sitting as I do, I should have declared an interest on the horizon Post Office Advisory Board.



























































































 You know, we've got five different schemes just in one in that one one scandal alone. We're inventing these things every single time it leads to it is two things. One, it leads to a waste of effort, but also, I think, delay to getting victims to compensation. So I think that call for a permanent government body to deal with compensation, I think is important. Now, I have sympathies with this amendment because it comes to, I think, something that myself and Professor Chris Hodges, who chairs the advisory board for compensation, have been doing some work on. And that's how do you actually ensure that public inquiries recommendations are actually implemented and accepted by government?









































































Now, the problem, I think, with how it's framed here is, is I think I'd welcome the debate. I think it's it's a good good that we're having it. But I think this could governments could hide behind this very easily by just saying, well, we note the report and that, you know, things are going to be, you know, looked at possibly in the future or, or never or as a change of government. It just gets lost off. So my personal preference to it is, is that yes, I think we do need timely, you know, timely reports of inquiries, but also we need actions on behalf of the.



























































Departments as well to implement the recommendations. But this is where it falls down. I remember, for example, with the it. Sir John Saunders inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing, who made some very good recommendations. But one of his concerns was how did they actually get followed through afterwards? He actually wrote to the ISC, for example, asking whether we could monitor or we didn't have the capacity or, or our set up to do that. But that showed me that there was a gap there ensuring that going forward, I personally think the only way to do it is two things.















































One, I think we need to reform inquiries. I think we need a permanent new body, whether it's a super ombudsman type organisation which sits permanently to actually look at where scandals generate, can actually look at these and make timely recommendations. The other thing I think is parliamentary oversight. I think alongside that, you could perhaps have a select committee of either joint of the two houses or or whatever, which would not only be able to look at the work of the two. The inquiry organisation, which I'm envisaging, but also, more importantly, look at the actual implementation of the of the recommendations of inquiries, because I think without public.































So some type of parliamentary oversight and pressure on the executive, there's always going to be a. I think a default position is that once it's out of the headlines, as Lord Hanson just said, then do we really need to worry about this? And that's the problem. Public inquiries get a lot of heat and light when the recommendations come out. But what what's the actual follow through in terms of. Because some will take a long time and a lot of detail work to implement and cost, but that needs to be monitored. And I think that should be a role, I think, for Parliament.



















Otherwise, I think what we're going to get into is a lot of publicity around when we get recommendations of inquiries, and then a lot of disappointed people afterwards because they don't get, which I think is more important than anything for them, is that understanding that things will change for the future. You know, you talk to a lot, a lot of the victims, the Post Office, Horizon inquiry, what scandal, what do they want? And more times than anything, we don't want this to happen again to to anybody in the future. And I think that is a common tenant amongst a lot of the victims of a lot of these scandals.





So it's meaningful change. And actually, somehow that their suffering has actually had some effect in terms of actually changing things for the future.
16:43
Lord Bichard Portrait Lord Bichard (Crossbench)
-
-
This recommendation, I do hope that the Minister, noble Minister, when replying, will commit to having some further discussions, because I also have some sympathy with the comments that have been made, not all of them, but many of them. When I chaired the Soham inquiry, I included in the recommendations a recommendation that Parliament should require the government to report back in six months, and the Home Secretary, on behalf of the government, accepted that. The reason that I said six months and it would be an amendment I would make, I think, to the amendment, is that as you.





























As has been said, it's very easy. 56 days after a report has been published to agree it or to agree much of it. But what we're really interested in, what we're all really interested in, is the action that has been taken. And I felt that six months was a sufficient period for the government to actually show that it was acting upon my recommendations for a new National police intelligence service and the vetting service, and it actually worked very well. And in one of the reasons it worked really well is that civil servants, of which I was one, of course, at some point in my past, civil servants do take very seriously the prospect of a Home Secretary reporting back to Parliament in six months time on the action that they effectively have taken.











And therefore, I found that they were very keen to keep me in the loop and to talk to me. I think we wouldn't have achieved anything like the success that I think we did have as a result of the Soham inquiry have had I not done that, I think 56 days is a staging post, but it's too early to be sure that the recommendations have been acted upon, and that's for.
16:45
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yeah, I was on the committee of your Lordships' House, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who looked into the future of public inquiries. I have to say, the public inquiries didn't get an overwhelming endorsement. Many of us thought they went on too long. They were too expensive. They were often insufficiently focussed, and they were very much over lawyered. And one of our conclusions was that we should try, unless it was absolutely necessary to get rid of judges. Excellent though they are, and focus inquiries on those perhaps who had more specific expertise. Some of those conclusions weren't welcome, but I think the time to look at public inquiries is very much there.





















There are too many of them. I see. The noble Lord Lord Hendy was also on the committee will remember those debates and others. But one thing we were clear upon was very much in line with the recommendation contained in this amendment, which is, if we are going to have these very expensive inquiries, then if there are recommendations which they should be, and those recommendations should be responded to swiftly. And he's quite right. That is entirely reflective of the theme of this legislation, which is one of candour and subject to the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, makes to tidy it up.





This I would respectfully say to this committee that this sort of amendment is important. It's consistent with the theme of the bill, and it reflects recommendations made by a number of different bodies.
16:47
16:48
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
An inquiry, sat on an inquiry, been on a committee, but over the weekend I was chairing a debate or discussion with involving Maggie Oliver, the ex detective whistleblower who came out and spoke about the grooming gangs and as well as her. I was on the on the panel with Emma Webber, whose son Barnaby was killed by Valdo Calocane and who was personally done so much via social media in the media to reveal the details, as it were, for laypeople, about what's happening in the Nottingham inquiry to date. Something I mentioned in in Second Reading and this was a discussion and a debate about accountability of public officials of the state bodies when things go wrong, when there's preventable deaths and so on.





































































Very much at the heart of this bill. And it was an event at the Battle of Ideas Festival. And I was really taken aback by the reaction of the audience when I raised this particular bill that we're discussing here today, and the nature of trying to ensure that the law would be brought to bear, to ensure that there's truth and candour, inquiries and so on, because there was an overwhelming feeling, feeling in the audience of hundreds who were in that particular discussion that public inquiries were a waste of time and money. That was a sort of a sense of, oh, you know, that's just about, you know, diffusing public anger of setting up a whole infrastructure and, and so on.



















































That kicks the issue down the road. You know, whatever comes out of public inquiries. Now, there will be people here who will say, no, they're very important. And I've often been in a position of demanding a public inquiry. I certainly did in relation to the grooming gangs, but I think the merit of this very important amendment to me, even if the details need to be ironed out in terms of if it's too rigid or whatever. And I thought that what the noble Lord Carter of Haslemere was getting at was that the government and no government is obliged to act on all the recommendations of an inquiry.







































That would be ridiculous. That's fine. But if they don't, they should say, why not? It's simple. I mean, if you go through all of that and we've the figures have been the eye watering amounts of money, let alone time and and energy of an aspect of, of state bodies putting on this inquiry come to a series of recommendations, then surely there is a duty of candour. If ever there was a need for a duty of candour, to be truthful to the public about what the government of the day thinks about that inquiry, what did he think of the recommendations?























Are you going to do this? Are you going to not do that? Why not? And so on and so forth. That is surely a very minimal demand. And therefore, I would suggest that this amendment for the government is a no brainer because it will actually strengthen the real commitment of this act to being more than a just a box ticking exercise, because if there is cynicism about this particular piece of legislation, and by the way, there's great enthusiasm for its aims, the danger is that people think that this will be a law that will say that you are going to have more accountability and an ethos of truth telling, and will hold people to account.







But actually the law is being used to compensate for building a different kind of culture in all public authorities, and that in some ways, it could end up being a bureaucratic box ticking exercise unless we actually get the details right. So I fully support this amendment.
16:52
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I've signed Lord >> My Lords, I've signed Lord Carter's Amendment 32, which he set out very clearly. And we've had a fascinating debate, as with the fascinating debate, as with the previous group on, I think it's probably a Goldilocks issue of, you know, there are some things that we clearly need to do, but there are other things that are clearly problematic and we don't want to do. Have we found the sweet spot? I'm mixing all my metaphors and I apologise for that. Throughout the progress of this bill, we've debated a great deal about how we tackle the culture that Lady Fox just mentioned just now of public organisations to prevent the future scandals.





























































We've already heard about Hillsborough infected blood Post Office Horizon Windrush, and we haven't. I don't think anyone's mentioned Grenfell yet today, but but I will do so. And the amendment is one of the tools in the box to show that both structures and the culture must change. And whether it's 56 days at the end of the day or if it's longer, I don't think Lord Carter is, he'll respond in his own right. I think we're trying to find a mechanism to prevent the current practice. Let's not call it culture of the government usually taking a year to respond to an inquiry or other major report that it has to do, and then deciding that it needs to consult on various parts of it, and then comes back with its recommendations after that.













































 So quite often it's two plus years before practical changes are being discussed. And one of the things that is very clear from all the problematic disasters that we've been discussing throughout the passage of this bill, is that where things have got stuck in a rut and into the public sector mindset of deflect, let's not do anything, is because there have been no targets for them to respond to. And that's why I like this particular amendment may need to change a bit, but the most important element is that the government would have to give an initial response.































And it may be, especially if there are other reports coming as well, that that might change. But the whole point of this bill is about transparency, accountability, which means if things have to change, the government should not be afraid to say so. I know it's not been in the culture of a government to say, oops, we got this wrong or things have changed. We need to change this. But actually, if we're going to get all these complex, difficult issues, right, we have to learn to take that approach. My Lords, I was interested in what Lord Beamish was saying about one compensation body, my amendment 111 will be discussed at the next day.

















I am passionate about having one compensation body. I think there are very briefly in 10s. Part of the problem is we move civil servants who've been responsible for the problem into the compensation body, because they're the only other people who know about it. We have to move away from that. I think we really need to focus our thoughts on the immediate response, to make sure that things aren't lost. Yes, we keep going on about cultural change, but part of the cultural change inside our public, official organisations and with our public officials is feeling that you haven't got the time to ignore something because it might go away if nobody does anything at all.
16:56
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
I have come late to. Second Reading, but I was here all of last week for the for the long day that we had in discussing it. But I apologise to the House, and I beg their indulgence to allow me to participate today in onwards several of the things I have a few questions to the very commendable amendment from my noble friend Lord Carter. There are a couple of things I'd like to pick up on, because I think they're pertinent and important to the very heartfelt support there is in this House, for this amendment, and for the desire of the House to ensure, as Lord Beamish put it, to reflect the public's desire that some action is taken.

























































What's come of all of that time and money and inquiry and Baroness Fox comments on the grooming gang scandal are a case in point where the independent investigation into child sexual abuse, which was the formal, formal title of the Jay Inquiry report. It took several years and then finally reported in October 2022. We then took up Lord Anderson's point. We then had a little bit of action. A couple of the recommendations were accepted out of a large number, and then there was a general election. And what happened was that the government decided that, for whatever reason, that was never clear to those of us who were following it carefully, that the Jay recommendations weren't or the inquiry hadn't been sufficiently deep or wide ranging or whatever it was, and it decided that it would run parallel inquiries into the criminal actions in certain towns and cities and the inquiry.



































But it would also commission Baroness Casey to do an overall approach. And we were told, I think this was announced as long ago as 2024, shortly after the government came in, or perhaps early last year. But we're told that nothing will happen there in terms of the recommendations to at least next year and potentially longer, given the rather overworked Baroness Casey has several other pending items in her entry. And I think the point to be made is that when inquiries like that, where palpable injustice and criminal acts have happened, take decades in themselves, then clearly Lord Carter of Haslemere makes the very good point that we need to hear from Ministers as to what they're going to do about it, and certainly an explanation of why they've decided to dismiss part of an inquiry or not take any action, because that was the other lot who were dealing with that.

















And now there's a new lot and they want something else. So the explanation in part B of his amendment as to why no action is to be taken in response to the recommendations of the inquiry, I think is profoundly important, but I really do not believe that eight weeks, 56 days will be adequate, particularly if pre-election purdah, change of government and any of the other other hurdles that come in here were to be erected. And perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in summing up, will be able to tell us whether he's minded to perhaps give a little bit more leeway to government and extend that period so that there's a reasonable amount of time that allows government to respond.
16:59
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I. >> Can speak briefly on this group, firstly, on the government amendments. These consist primarily of amendments to clarify drafting and application to Wales. And so for fairly obvious reasons, I'm not going to oppose them. I do look forward, however, to the day when bills as originally drafted fully take into account the position of Wales rather than amendments coming through half way through the process. I confess the last government was probably as guilty on that point as this one, but it is something which we ought to think about more substantively. Amendment 32 in the name of noble Lord Lord Carter of Haslemere, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to respond to recommendations of inquiries related to the actions of public authorities within 56 days.



































































This amendment, respectfully, we think, makes a very sensible point. We agree that there should be some sort of scrutiny after the fact. If a government chooses not to accept recommendations, of course, the government always holds the pen. There's no requirement that the government should accept all or indeed any recommendations of any inquiry. But it does stand to reason. We suggest that the government should at least provide reasons for not doing so. I was very encouraged by the reference of the noble Lords, Lord Carter, to Mr. Andy Slaughter supporting this proposition, until I heard those disheartening words a few days before he joined the government.

















































It. I don't know whether the. The famous line, you know, presume not the time. The thing that I was a. Shakespeare tells us that applies to somebody becoming the monarch. I don't know whether it also applies to somebody attaining the lofty office of Solicitor General, but we wait to see whether there is a volte face in his personal position. But we do think there is a lot of force in the underlying point, for the reasons given by the noble Lord and a number of other contributors to this debate, and we do therefore look forward to the noble Lord, the Minister, responding to that substantive point on the timescale, we do respectfully think that there is a lot in the point made by a number of noble Lords, in particular Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Bishop, that 56 days might not be the right period.





























It's not self-evident that any particular time period is necessarily the right way to go about this. Putting a time period into law. There may be other pressing issues that need addressing as a priority over responding to an inquiry. Of course, inquiries ought to be responded to in a timely manner, and there must be a form of drafting which is capable of capturing that essential point. But we do therefore look forward to the noble Lord. The Minister, perhaps addressing these three separate questions which seems to us to arise. First of all, does the government agree, as a matter of principle, that the government should respond to all inquiry recommendations?













If so, does the government agree that when the government is not accepting an inquiry recommendation, it should give reasons for its decision not to accept that recommendation? And thirdly, if the government is like us, not persuaded that 56 days is the right time period, what time period does the government have in mind, and what are the reasons supporting that time period?
17:03
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and I note with some humility the enormous amount of experience that has been demonstrated in this debate from noble Lords who have chaired inquiries, but I've come to those in a minute, if I may. Can I first deal with the government amendments? These are technical amendments to make sure that statutory and non-statutory inquiries established by Welsh Ministers are subject to the provisions in the Bill regarding the conduct and the reporting of conduct of public authorities at inquiries and the engagement and conduct of legal representatives.



























































































This allows Welsh Ministers to set out an overriding objective regarding participation and maintain the inquisitorial nature of proceedings in relation to statutory inquiries. We're also making an amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006, and this should ensure that, should the Senate subsequently legislate to remove the relevant concurrent functions, it would be able to do so without requiring the consent of a Minister of the Crown. I therefore beg that these amendments be moved. Turning now to Lord Carter's amendment. My Lords, the government entirely agrees that there should be a clear and consistent expectation on public authorities to respond to inquiry reports and their recommendations, and to answer the specific question that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked me.







































































I do think that that that does absolutely go to the point about timely publication as well. Long delays are clearly not. At any stage in the process, are clearly a significant problem. I, I note the comment that the noble Lady, Lady Butler-sloss, made about the risk that inquiries overlap with each other and the many inquiries in various ways that there have been about children, including her own distinguished inquiry. And she referred to the last time she heard someone in your Lordships house saying, we don't listen to children. I think that might have been me, so I plead guilty as charged, and I the only thing I would say in my own defence is we still don't listen to children, but it is obviously vital that public authorities have enough time to fully consider the inquiry's recommendations.



















































I think everybody would agree with that and support Ministers to make informed decisions about how to respond. Once inquiry recommendations are accepted, they become government policy. This is a really important point. Once inquiry recommendations are accepted, they become government policy that must be delivered. And I know Lord Bishop's comments about the delivery of the agreement to the recommendations, not just the agreement to the recommendations. And I'm very familiar with his work on the inquiry and how important the changes were that were made. I entirely share the the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Beamish, having having talked to many victims of many different kinds of disasters in over the years, the pressing feeling that what people survive as victims, bereaved families and so on is that they don't want this to happen again.































And of course, the way to make sure it doesn't happen again is to deal with it promptly, you know? So we do slightly go round in circles on that point. But but it is obviously right, as the noble Lord may be aware, we are taking steps to improve the government's delivery of accepted inquiry recommendations, including through the inquiry recommendation dashboards. However, the government does agree that the noble Lord Carter is right to raise this issue, and we, of course, know that there has been some discussion in the other place, and I will take away his proposal to consider, and I note the comments and the questions that have been raised by other noble Lords about about the deadline and so on.

















But we will take away his proposal to consider how we can establish a clearer and more consistent expectation on public authorities to respond to inquiry recommendations on the specific point that, Lord, the three questions that Lord Wolfson asked me, I think I've dealt with them in my response, but. But I'm very happy to do so. Do so explicitly, as it were. Yes. I think the government should respond and indeed should give its reasons and do so in a timely fashion. But we will. As I said, I will take this away, and I think the feeling of the House is that there's a bit more work to do on this to get it right, but in the meantime, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his.
17:08
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I'm very grateful for all the encouraging support that all the encouraging support that this amendment has had. I entirely accept points made by noble and accept points made by noble and learned Lord Lord Anderson in particular about the 56 day period. The reason for that, as I said in my speech, was because that is the period that applies legally to coroners. And so I just seized on that. Of course, that may there may be circumstances where that's too short or too. Anderson's given some very good examples of that. So I'm entirely flexible about that.













































But there needs to be a meaningful, timely response. That was the word that the noble Lord Wolfson used, and it has to have some sort of legal authority behind it. Otherwise, we'll end up with these pat phrases about in due course and so on. I don't think, as the amendment stands, that the point made by Lord Beamish that the government could simply note the report would actually tick the wording of my amendment, which is about giving an explanation as to why no action needs to be taken. But so. So there needs to be some finality.





























The finality point goes also to the points made by Lord Beamish and Lady Butler-sloss around things coming around again and again. That's a point that's been made a number of times. You know, we're wasting public money when these things happen. There needs to be finality to these things so that action can be taken and government can be seen to be delivering what the inquiry's experts and chair have have reported. So. So I entirely accept that point. Quite simply, noble Lords have got the point. Lady Fox made it very well. She understood entirely the substance of my and Lady Brinton as well.















The substance of my thing is to just. The government must be under a duty to respond and give some sort of explanation for not accepting a recommendation. If that's the. That's the outcome, and that's what I'm getting at. I'll think carefully about the wording of the amendment. I'll discuss it with noble peers. And let's come back to this at Report stage. But in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Mr. Lordships pleasure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 33 Lord Wills not moved. Question is the clause stand. Part of the bill is finished. That of the bill is finished. That opinion will say content. Content. The contrary not content. The contents have it after clause eight.
17:11
None Portrait Amendment:34 Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-

contents have it after clause eight. Amendment 34. Lord Wolfson. Lord Keen of Elie. Lord Wolfson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 34. Sorry. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 34 in the name of my amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Keen of Elie. This amendment seeks to probe the level of guidance and support that level of guidance and support that will be made available to officials in order for them to navigate this duty of candour set out in clause two. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill is effective in that the Bill is effective in practice and that civil servants are properly supported with their legal responsibilities. In order for this legislation to be as effective as the government intends it to be, it is essential that officials know how to comply with the duty of candour and are given any necessary support in fulfilling that duty.



























































This matters most in the case of more junior officials, who may lack experience engaging in inquiries or other similar affairs. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, say in his response, what assessment has been made of the difficulty? Officials at the most junior level may face in complying with clause two three a those. Those officials who are more senior, especially those who have experience engaging with investigations and inquiries, will surely be far better equipped to comply with the duty of candour. So the government makes specific provision for those officials who lack that experience. The government has chosen to proceed by imposing a broad, disparate duty of candour on all officials.













































We understand why they have sought to proceed in this way, given the evidence of South Yorkshire Police altering hundreds of police statements and plain paper accounts following the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, a disparate duty removes the role of the central body, preventing that body from altering statements and evidence to the inquiry. But it cannot be right that junior officials and other officials that lack experience of such engagement with inquiries should be left to navigate their legal experience, their legal responsibilities alone. What legal support will officials be able to draw down, either from their department directly or from lawyers funded by their department?































The government might not unreasonably say that civil service trade unions will take on the responsibility of providing officials with legal advice, where an inquiry of relevance to their work is established. I cannot imagine trade unions would want that responsibility, but it is not unreasonable to think that they might be able to provide officials with the support that they need. I would be interested to hear whether the noble Lord, the Minister, has discussed the duties in this bill and their consequences for officials with representatives of the trade union unions. And can he perhaps tell us what role the trade unions intend to play?

















Having said that, not all members, not all public servants, are members of trade unions, and it would not be right for the government to impose legislation that makes it virtually an occupational necessity to join a trade union. So in the circumstances where an official is not a member of a union, as many are not, the question remains what support will their sponsor department provide? And departments may have an even more wide ranging support to offer. With the broad duty of candour, there is a significant risk that a junior or inexperienced employee might want to have the department provide instructions on what they should and should not provide to an inquiry.



So what assessment has the government made of the possible greater role that could and should be played by individual departments, or perhaps a central unit in the Cabinet Office, to ensure that our
17:15
17:15
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause eight. Insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List. >> My Lords. First I apologise to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. First I apologise to the House that I was unable to be here for either Second Reading or the first day of committee, and so I've not spoken before on the Bill. My Lords, as we all know, clause two one insists on candour, transparency and frankness in dealing with inquiries and investigations, and they are rightly identified in the Bill as they as the crucial requirements for honest dealing. But my. My Lords, Lord Keen and Lord Wilson and Baroness Finn, who so ably opened this amendment in their place, are also right that the standards which effectively state the Nolan Principles are expressed in the Bill in general terms only, and we and the officials of whom these standards are demanded need to be clear about what follows from the Nolan Principles in terms of their practical application.

































































And so the Bill in that regard would benefit from elucidation, and that elucidation can be given by guidance. We would, of course, ordinarily expect guidance. The Bill introduces a specific and expressed duty of candour and assistance, which does amount to a new area of public duty, certainly a new expression of a duty that might always have been implicit, but is now to be explicit. Furthermore, clause five establishes a new offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance in respect of an inquiry or investigation, and that of itself is a strong reason why clear guidance is particularly necessary.

















































So we think it right that guidance should be compulsory. I note that the member's explanatory statement for amendment 34 describes this as a probing amendment. We on these benches would be more forthright about it. The amendment is in no sense didactic about what should be in the guidance, but a compulsory requirement for guidance from government would provide a great deal. And I note that the noble Lady Baroness Finn talked about the possibility of guidance from trade unions. That is, as may be, but what is required is guidance from government, which would provide, first, clarity, clarity as to what is to be required of officials and what support they will receive in abiding by the duty it would provide consistency across different organisations and between different areas of the country and different areas of operation, and there is no indication in the Bill now as to how consistency is to be achieved.

























It would provide clear assistance to officials who, above all, need to know what they must do to comply with the new express duty and to avoid falling foul of the criminal law, and it would provide assistance to the courts and to the judiciary when they come to interpret the law. And from the judge's point of view, directories as to their as to the requirements of the new law. Above all, perhaps, I echo what the noble Lord Lord Beamish said in the last group, in relation to the implementation of the recommendations by inquiries, it would provide clear guidance on what is required of officials to be bound by the assistance in helping them, as officials avoid repetition of past failures, which is part of what this bill is all about.





My Lord, for all these reasons, we regard this as a sensible amendment, and we would invite the government not merely to be probed by it, but to accept it.
17:19
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I have some questions to do with this particular.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Which I. Think relate to not necessarily

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think relate to not necessarily those public bodies that would have access to adequate legal advice and access to adequate legal advice and information. In doing so, I support the amendment entirely, and I wanted to make that clear up front. My questions have to do with non-departmental public bodies and non-departmental public bodies and arm's length bodies, where I have some experience frequently. And as Lady Finn has pointed out frequently, the duties of this bill would fall on relatively. Junior officials who may, despite training they might have received, may not have the capabilities to provide the necessary information in the format, in order and indeed with the.

































With the alacrity that it would be required. So my question to the government would be, and this relates particularly to part four, schedule six, which deals with parity, which we will come to later in the bill. But I wanted to pick up the point here in this part. pick up the point here in this part. Would it relate to to external legal advice, frequently from independent counsel, because an arm's length body may not have the internal capacity to get that legal advice, and indeed, many of them in dealing with the kind of inquiry such as the Covid inquiry, entails, long and detailed responses require or have to hire independent counsel to to advise them in any event.















So my my question to Minister is that where it says at at part four in schedule six, and I quote, public authorities must have regard to guidance, promoting candour and supporting the inquisitorial character of inquiries may use public representatives only where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

necessary and proportionate, and must Concerns raised about their conduct. What is the meaning of conduct. What is the meaning of necessary and proportionate? I would argue here. And how would we ascertain that? And I therefore think that that's the reason the guidance guidance is so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Good point. My Lords, I am grateful to the
17:22
17:23
None Portrait
-

17:23
17:23
17:24
17:25
None Portrait Amendment:34A Lord Hendy (Labour)
-

involve those who volunteer for nothing. So it's a very broad concept. My Lord, the First concept. My Lord, the First Amendment 34 A is a simple one. It's to insert the words all It's to insert the words all reasonable in clause ten one, which currently reads A public authority currently reads A public authority must promote and take steps to maintain high standards, and so on. The. The amendment would make it take all reasonable steps. That's a phrase which is used in relation to public authorities in a clause two, where it says that a public official who's in charge of the authority must take all reasonable steps to secure that the authority complies with those obligations, rules.







































































The Second Amendment I propose is 37 A, which requires, in the drafting of the Code of Ethical Standards by each public authority, that they should consult Acas as experts on disciplinary matters and the recognised trade unions. In the drafting of that code laws. This is, of course, we're talking about public authorities. Public sector has got a very high level of collective bargaining coverage, meaning that the public authority employers do negotiate with trade unions so that the recognised trade unions are genuinely representative. And of course, it doesn't bar the consultation with anybody else. But it's important.



















































I would suggest that that the recognised trade unions representative of the workforce, do have a say in the code of ethical standards, which will, of course, impose not only standards of conduct, but may a be the cause of disciplinary measures against the workers concerned. The Third Amendment is 40 a and this is to make clear that somebody making a worker making an allegation that the Code of Ethical standards has been breached on the basis of a reasonable and genuine suspicion that it has been, should not be subjected to dismissal or detriment, including bullying and harassment.



































 It does appear that, to me at least, that that there should be adequate protections for those who genuinely draw attention to what they believe, genuinely and reasonably is a breach of the code that goes beyond the current protection for whistleblowers. But in the in amendment 43 a, I've tried to do the reverse of the coin, which is to make sure that the protection given to whistleblowers under the current statutory regime is also extended to people in this situation. And finally, amendment 42 A is intended to impose the obligation, amongst the other explanations, that the Bill currently requires of public authorities an explanation of how the protection of workers will be delivered.











Lord Doyle. With that, I formally move beg to move amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

34, a. Amendment proposed clause ten. Page ten. Line 21. After take.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Page ten. Line 21. After take. Insert. All reasonable. I rise to speak to amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments 4143 which stand in my name. Amendment 41. This amendment is Amendment 41. This amendment is about what happens when serious concerns are raised within the public authority, and particularly public authority, and particularly what happens when those concerns are not acted upon. So we've seen in scandal after scandal that
17:29
Baroness Featherstone Portrait Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
warnings were given, sometimes repeatedly, but nothing was done. And in some cases, those at the top of an organisation were never properly informed. And in others, properly informed. And in others, concerns were dismissed or simply allowed to sort of disappear. And too often protecting the reputation too often protecting the reputation of the institution seemed to take priority over protecting the people it was supposed to be serving. And one of the most troubling aspects of these scandals is that when the truth finally emerges, it can be remarkably difficult to establish who knew what, when they knew it, and who decided not to act.



















































































































And responsibility becomes blurred, and decisions are attributed to processes or committees rather than individuals. And sometimes there is simply no proper record of why a serious warning was ignored. So my amendment 41 is intended to address that problem. It would require public authorities to set out in their codes of ethical conduct, how credible information about serious wrongdoing, systemic failure, or a continuing risk of serious harm should be handled. It would make clear when concerns must be brought to the attention of senior management, or those responsible for governance, and importantly, it would require decisions to be recorded, including whether a matter was investigated, who was responsible for the decision and, crucially, why.

































































































No action, no further action was taken. If no if no further action was taken. And I think that last point is particularly important because there may be perfectly legitimate reasons why an authority decides that a particular concern does not require further investigation, but that decision must be made consciously by someone who can be identified and with their reasons, properly recorded for public record. Otherwise, it is just far too easy for serious concerns to fall between the cracks, or for responsibility to be passed from one person to another until nobody is accountable. And this amendment is not intended to create unnecessary bureaucratic burdens, nor does it require every allegation to result in a full investigation.

















































































It simply requires a clear process, with proper escalation and a record of the decisions made. When we cannot prevent every failure, but we can make it much harder for warnings to be ignored, for responsibility to be avoided, or for institutions to claim afterwards that nobody knew what was happening. So I hope the government will recognise that this is a practical and proportional way of strengthening the Bill, and I would particularly welcome the Minister's view on why any public authority receiving credible information about serious wrongdoing should not be required to record what it decided to do about it and why.



































































And then amendment 43. This amendment deals with another straightforward problem what happens when serious concerns are raised about an organisation, but the people responsible for investigating them are themselves part of the problem. Now, we've seen this happen in a number of public scandals. Concerns are raised, investigations take place internally and the organisation concludes that there's little or nothing to answer for. Case closed. Sometimes that conclusion might be justified, but sometimes it is more about protecting the organisation and its reputation rather than finding out what went wrong. And if senior management is implicated. It is particularly difficult to see how an internal investigation can be impartial.



















































So my amendment would require public authorities to provide a route for independent consideration of serious concerns. In three circumstances where senior management is involved, when where similar concerns have previously been raised but not adequately investigated, or where there is good reason to doubt that an internal investigation would be impartial in those circumstances, the authority's code of ethical conduct would have to identify an independent person or body to whom the matter could be referred. This is really not about requiring every complaint to be investigated externally, nor is it about creating another layer of bureaucracy. It is simply about making sure there is somewhere independent to go.



































When the normal internal processes cannot reasonably be relied upon. We know that staff can find it difficult to raise concerns about those above them, and that institutions can become defensive when their reputation is at stake. An independent route would help ensure that serious warnings are not simply dismissed or contained within an organisation. So I'd be interested to hear from the Minister whether the government believe that the existing arrangements provide sufficient independence in these particular three circumstances, because if an organisation is accused of serious wrongdoing, we should not expect it to be the sole judge of its own

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conduct. My Lords, I think Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think Baroness Falkner might want to speak to her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Give me my Lord Ashcombe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Slightly to speak to amendment 638. Thank you. Beg the indulgence 638. Thank you. Beg the indulgence of the House for a moment while I find my. My papers? Yes. So sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's my. That's my fault. apologies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Well, if the noble Lady, quite rightly isn't going to speak to to rightly isn't going to speak to to her amendment, I'll speak to mine which is in this group. And so which is in this group. And so first I will address amendment 147, which is the amendment in the name
17:35
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
which is the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Keen of Ely and myself, that seeks to require an impact assessment on the cost of implementing the policy outlined in clause ten. And that's a policy that would require public authorities to publish a code of ethical conduct. The reason for this amendment, which is a probing amendment, is that the existing impact assessments for the bill do not make any mention of the expected cost of implementation for these proposed measures. And it seems to us that the cost of drafting and publishing such a code.

















































































There must be a cost to those to that work. So this does seem to be an admission. If, of course, the data does exist and it just didn't make it into the impact assessment, of course, we'd be very happy to withdraw the amendment. So I just ask the noble Lady, the Minister, whether she's able to share that cost with the House. If not, why has this cost not yet been calculated? And if it hasn't yet been calculated, can it please be calculated and then shared more generally? Of course, there is limited evidence, in fact, to indicate that the existence of codes of conduct is sufficient to prevent scandals from occurring.

































































There are numerous scandals in recent history that have happened within institutions that already have codes of conduct, such as the NHS. The underlying issue really is conduct and not codes of conduct, and it's not clear to many of us that you change the former by instituting the latter. So, as it stands, there is every possibility that the cost could be considerable, with every public authority expected to draft their own individual code. So how has the government come to the conclusion that clause ten is the right way forward without, it seems, having undertaken an impact assessment on the costs of this new duty, I.



















































I appreciate here we do start to touch on the points made by the noble Lord Lord Alton the call for a single code. I'll deal with those in the next group, although of course these points do overlap to an extent. The other amendments in this group, in the name of first noble Lord Lord Hendy, broadly seek to protect those who raise concerns, but we on these benches would be wary of amendments that seek to add a necessary consultation, burdens that would be costly and would also delay implementation, as we think amendment 37 A does amendment 34, which seeks to require public authorities to take all reasonable steps to promote ethical conduct.



































We understand where that wording has come from. As the explanatory note indicates, but the context is vastly different to the specific offence in clause two, so it seems to us a little clunky to use that drafting in this case as well. Amendment 40 A seeks to create protection for employees, but we do wonder whether that is not already covered sufficiently in the existing Employment Rights Act 1996. Amendment 42 A would require a public authority to explain the protection they provide. That would also, again, take more time and more money to implement. We already have a huge amount of regulation in this country generally on these benches.

















We think we need less rather than more regulation. Turning now to the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone amendments 41 and 43. The noble Lady is with respect right to probe how organisations will in fact undertake their responsibilities to behave ethically. We are concerned these amendments risk being somewhat overly prescriptive, and we already have concerns, as I have said, about the cost of the implementation of clause ten. That said, I do hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will be able to give Lady Featherstone some more clarity on what the government, in fact, in fact, expects of organisations who will be subject to the duties set out in this Bill.
17:40
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Lords. May I firstly apologise to noble Baroness, firstly apologise to noble Baroness, Lady Falconer? Your amendment had moved between groups over the last 24 hours and that is my error, I apologise. I want to thank all the noble Lords who contributed to this debate, beginning with amendments 34, a 37, A, 40 A and 42 A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy and amendments 41 and 43, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. I want to be clear that the government agrees that where wrongdoing occurs, public officials should be able to raise concerns in confidence and be protected from retaliation.





























































































However, without repeating arguments made by myself from this Dispatch Box on the first day of committee, the government's view is that existing legal protections already provide safeguards for officials under the Employment Rights Act, 1996, and this bill will require public authorities to maintain codes of ethical conduct that must ensure workers are made aware of their whistleblowing rights. Furthermore, the government is seeking views on the operation of the whistleblowing framework via consultation that was launched last week. We have already discussed the details of that consultation in committee and in the interest of time, I will not repeat those points today.

















































































I do, however, recognise the concerns expressed by noble Lords about the time required to move from consultation to reform. However, it is important to be reminded that the scope of this Bill applies only to the public sector, and that whistleblowing is not an issue confined to the public sector. We would not want to introduce changes through this legislation that that creates inconsistencies within the wider whistleblowing framework. For those reasons, we believe it would be premature to legislate in this area before the consultation has concluded and the evidence has been fully considered. However, as I mentioned last week, I'm looking forward to meeting with noble Lords to discuss how we can use the Code of Ethical conduct to make clearer existing protections and ask that those interested feed into the government consultation.































































I look forward to meeting, especially with both my noble friend and the noble Baroness. I also want to provide some additional reassurances to my noble friend Lord Hendy regarding his amendment 43 A, which seeks to make clear the definition of a qualifying disclosure. The Bill already provides for this by referring to the definition of protected disclosure in the 1996 act, which in turn defines qualifying disclosure. Therefore, we do not feel this amendment is necessary. Although I'm very aware I am having an argument with an employment rights lawyer, so I'm sure that conversation will continue turning to the amendment 147, highlighted by the opposition frontbench.















































I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment and the importance of ensuring that Parliament and the public understand the impact of these measures. However, bereaved families and victims rightly expect the government to implement the provisions in this Bill promptly and effectively. The government is therefore keen to maintain momentum towards implementation and is not persuaded that additional measures are necessary to achieve that objective. As noble Lords will be aware, the government intends to publish a revised impact assessment following Royal Assent, which will provide an updated assessment of the measures contained in the Bill. In light of that commitment, the government does not consider the amendment to be necessary, but given that the questions from noble Lord Wolfson, I think it will be helpful if I just highlight what the current impact assessment says about the estimated cost to public authorities of delivering clause ten.































The Code of Ethical Conduct provisions will create new burdens on public authorities, including local authorities. The provisions have deliberately been drafted to allow maximum flexibility in terms of implementation. Given that most, if not all, public bodies will already be covered by the form by a form of code, it is not anticipated that the impact in terms of cost to be substantial. Some lawyers time to assess compliance and management time and some training. I am not underestimating the cost of lawyers, given who sits in your Lordships' House. However, the scale of these costs will depend on the number of public bodies within scope and implementation plans informed by the legislation, the extent of the code, how much can be standardised, etc.

















which can only be fully determined after Royal Assent after members of your Lordships' House have done their job. In terms of scrutiny, a further assessment of impact will take place alongside the development of implementation plans and underpinning guidance, and the new burdens assessment developed at the appropriate time. I hope that answers the questions raised by members of your Lordships' House, and I respectfully ask my noble friend to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendment. I'm grateful to Baron Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to Baron Baroness Featherstone for her amendments, which appear consistent with those which appear consistent with those that I put forward. I thank the noble Lord Lord Wolfson for his noble Lord Lord Wolfson for his amendment and contribution. I say no more about it in the light of
17:45
17:46
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hope of Craighead, noble friend Lord Hope of Craighead, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, and the noble Lord Lord Marks of Henley on Thames. I am Marks of Henley on Thames. I am grateful to all of them, and indeed to other members of your Lordships House who spoke on this issue of House who spoke on this issue of one central ethical Code at Second Reading, but also in between Second Reading and now. But I must also say thank you to the noble Lord Lord Lemos for his unfailing courtesy and engagement, and who met with my former Liverpool constituents, the mother and the sister of Andrew Devine.



















































































































































































































The 97th fatality at Hillsborough, and heard their anxieties about a plethora of conflicting and inconsistent codes of conduct instead of one clear central code capable of adding codicils or variations, but clear on its essential elements, I acknowledge at the outset the importance of securing the enactment of this bill without unnecessary delay, and I certainly have no intention of adding to that delay. I might say that I just spotted the noble Baroness Baroness Levitt also in her place, and she, too, met the family of Andrew Devine. And I must say to both noble, noble Baroness Verma, noble Lord, that Ministers have been exemplary in the way that they've dealt with families still suffering grief after all this time.



































































































































































































The proposals in these amendments rest on three pillars. First, a single core code of ethical conduct. Secondly, an effective framework for considering civil sanctions, for serious non-compliance. And thirdly, education and cultural change. And in a way, each one reinforces the other. Clear standards should be understood. Serious breaches must carry credible consequences, and our ambition must be to prevent misconduct in the first place. Although Hillsborough brought us to this point, the Bill must serve far more than those affected by Hillsborough or by other disasters involving many victims, and we've heard many of them referred to during earlier parts of our proceedings today.



















































































































































































The protection afforded by a core code and the means of securing accountability for its serious breach must never depend on the number of victims, or the profile, or the publicity which their case receives. I want to acknowledge a letter which the noble Lord, the Minister Lord Lemos, sent me only this morning, and this follows a question that I raised last week at committee, but also at Second Reading, concerning the question of the duty of candour on universities, where a student or academic may have died by suicide. That letter has been placed in the library, and I hope that we can consider its implications on another group of amendments later in our proceedings, but it does obviously also have some relevance on a code of conduct that should be applicable to all.



































































































































































The first pillar I've referred to is this core code, a single national code, which would state the obligations which everyone exercising public functions should recognise honesty, integrity, candour, accountability, the proper keeping and disclosure of information, the correction of known error and service to the public. The government has said in answer to my question HL3290, that approximately 6 million public sector workers are within the scope of the requirement for codes. That's a powerful reason to make the common ethical foundation clear, accessible and consistent. In answers HL3135 and HL3136. Ministers have emphasised flexibility for individual authorities. Now I accept that need.



















































































































































 But why should flexibility prevent a common minimum standard if approximately 6 million people are covered across a very large number of authorities, it makes very little sense that each to reinvent substantially the same fundamental ethical obligations, the Common Core should be worked out. Consulted upon as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson said a few moments ago, and approved. I think, nationally, authorities could then add specialist provisions that would promote consistent understanding, avoid near-identical codes and simplify future revisions. The code need not be fixed for all time in primary legislation. The act can provide the authority purposes, consultation duties and safeguards as our amendment seeks to do, the detailed core code and subsequent revisions could be made by, as we've argued, delegated legislation subject to affirmative approval by both Houses of Parliament and parliamentary control and practical flexibility can then reinforce one another.





























































































































The second pillar of the amendment concerns sanctions. We're not asking Parliament now to fix the amount of civil penalty, prescribed pension related consequences or enact a completed sanctions scheme, but we do ask for a proper process of consultation and legislative development, addressing the nature of sanctions, independent investigation and decision making, fair procedures and appeal. Any eventual penalties must have adequate statutory authority and proper parliamentary scrutiny. My Lords, on November the 25th, Sir Keir Starmer referred to disciplinary sanctions, including gross misconduct, and at Second Reading on the 1st of September, the noble Lord spoke of expectations and consequences for breaches.













































































































The government's February 2026 annual report, responding to the Grenfell Tower inquiry, referred to departmental discipline and sanctions for egregious breaches. The outstanding question is how to make the principle effective, where present mechanisms leave gaps, if enforcement is wholly at the discretion of individual authorities, common standards may be enforced inconsistently. One authority may investigate rigorously while another one does not. Institutional self-interest, reputation or seniority may influence decisions or appear to do so. One gap we might consider arises when serious misconduct does not appropriately lead to criminal proceedings. But internal employment discipline is inadequate. Another arises where the individual has retired, resigned, transferred or otherwise left office before a complaint is resolved.



























































































In reply to my question HL3137, the noble Lord said that authorities are responsible for disciplinary consequences for those who work for them. But that doesn't answer what happens when they no longer do. The consultation should address that question expressly with fair time limits and protection against retrospective punishment. In HL3138, I asked how an individual could obtain an independent investigation and a remedy where internal discipline was inappropriate. The answer was that methods and outcomes depend on the circumstances and the authority. How, then, is the public to have confidence in consistent and independent enforcement, particularly where the authority itself is implicated?













































































What common minimum safeguards will prevent serious cases from being overlooked? Honest mistakes, my Lord, my Lords, promptly disclosed and corrected, should not be treated like deliberate concealment, obstruction, retaliation or persistent misconduct. The third pillar of these amendments is education and sustained cultural change. The ambition should extend beyond instructing current public servants about employment obligations. The National Core Code should become a common civic standard. Its principles of honesty, candour, accurate records, fair treatment, correcting mistakes and raising concerns should be taught progressively from an early age. Citizens would then know what to expect of those exercising public power.





























































The junior official could refer to a recognised common code when questioning an improper instruction. I asked a noble Lord to involve a Department for education in considering teaching materials, consultation with teachers, a modest pilot and evaluation building on existing citizenship education. Education alone is insufficient. Sanctions cannot create ethical culture. Together with leadership and fair enforcement, they offer a prospect of prevention. Let me also briefly cite international comparisons which offer useful experience, not ready made templates. The United States has common federal executive branch ethics standards and ethics training. Canada, a federal values and ethics code with organisational Supplements.













































Australia statutory public service standards and graduated employment sanctions. New Zealand an updated public sector code effective in March this year with common standards and organisational supplementation. An Ireland An Ethics Commission with complaints investigation functions. These systems differ constitutionally and in scope. The relevant questions are how common and specialist standards fit together, how guidance and training work. Who examines serious complaints, where an authority is implicated and what happens after employment ends. Australian Public service guidance, for example, makes clear that employment sanctions cannot be imposed on a former employee. Consultation should test both the strengths and the limitations of such approaches before adopting any model.





























And then there is the question of economy. The common ethical foundation drafted once could reduce duplication in drafting the legal review, publication, training and revision. Amendment 51 concerns consultation and parliamentary process. Amendment 61 seeks consistency between the national core and other guidance, and they complement amendment 35. So I ask the government to accept these three principles, which I have outlined to the committee. A common ethical foundation capable of revision under parliamentary control, consultation on proportionate and independently administered civil consequences for serious misconduct, including after departure from public employment and education, and sustained

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leadership as part of the cultural change. I beg to move. You. Amendment proposed clause ten,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause ten, page ten. Line 31. Leave out subsections 3 to 14 and insert the subsections 3 to 14 and insert the words printed on the Marshalled List as an amendment to amendment List as an amendment to amendment 35. Amendment 35 a Lord Hendy board.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

35. Amendment 35 a Lord Hendy board. I'm very happy to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and pay my respects to the persuasive exposition of the principles that lie behind. It was my two amendments in this group. The first
17:57
17:58
Lord Bichard Portrait Lord Bichard (Crossbench)
-
-
about so often in the recent past. It's about preventing not It's about preventing not addressing them after the fact. But if we're going to achieve that, if we're going to achieve the improved we're going to achieve the improved standards of behaviour I think we all want, then we need to craft a all want, then we need to craft a piece of legislation that makes a real difference on the ground in every public service organisation, every public service organisation, and which is familiar to every public servant. What we don't need is a perfect statement of good intent, which has no practical impact.









































































Because, as I keep saying in Lord Wolfson said it earlier today, all of the recent failures have occurred in spite of the existence of the Civil Service code, the ministerial code, the Nolan Principles, the business appointment rules. I could go on and on. These statements of good intent have too often been ignored, and we don't need more. My fear is that as drafted, clause ten will not bring about real improvements on the ground. Indeed, as drafted, I think it's likely to make matters worse. And I know from my conversations with the noble Lord, the Minister, that is absolutely not his intention, nor do I think it's the government's intention.

























































In its current form, the Bill could lead to a vast number of different codes, notwithstanding the advice from the mysteriously named appropriate national authority, the public will find that confusing. They'll find it difficult to understand, and they'll find it difficult to access. Accountability, will suffer, suffer and staff moving from one public sector organisation to another will have to come to terms with slightly different interpretations of ethical behaviour. It just can't work, my Lords. I know that codes alone, words alone, can never be guaranteed to change behaviour without very strong and determined leadership, but to stand a chance of making a difference, of having a positive impact, they have to be clear, succinct, simple, memorable, accessible and realistic.



































And for me, that means that we need one core code which applies to every public service organisation and every public official. We need a code which makes clear that the welfare of the citizen is the first priority, ahead of senior managers, Ministers or the reputation of the department. And we need a code with teeth which cannot be easily circumvented by resignation or retirement, which we all know too often happens at the moment. Amendments 35 and 51 in particular may need some further development, but taken together with these other amendments, they would, if agreed, provide us with a powerful new weapon to help rebuild the trust between the state and the citizen, which I think has been so grievously damaged.













I do hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will commit to consulting further, to discussing further before the Report stage on an amendment which does just that. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lords. I wish to make some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I wish to make some observations in regard to this observations in regard to this proposed amendment. In doing so, I decline that I. An interest in that decline that I. An interest in that that I'm a distinguished fellow at the think Tank Policy Exchange, who
18:02
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
the think Tank Policy Exchange, who have themselves published a report called legislating for candour on this Bill. Only last week. My main remarks have to do with subclause nine at the proposed new text of clause ten, as proposed by Lord. Lord has spoken to by Lord Alton of Liverpool. In my understanding, it's intended to cover circumstances where the holder of a public office ceases to hold. It ceases to be employed by the public sector or resigns. Relieved, is dismissed. In other words, is no longer effectively there to be accountable for their actions. And I understand that.





























































































































































I share the outrage that the public feels when people who are so clearly implicated in wrongdoing, of the first whiff of having to account for their actions, resign generally on on full pay and or move on, move out. And there is very little that can be done about that. I completely appreciate that. But I wonder if in proposing this long and comprehensive new clause. Covering sections 3 to 14, replacing sections 3 to 14, I wonder if the proposals might have thought to do it in a different way and that a different way in terms of of subclause nine would be that instead of defining so comprehensively in nine and then in ten Subclauses ten.







































































































































All circumstances where someone may no longer be in the office holder may no longer be imposed, whether they might have in fact done it, whereby the certain actions, rather than the circumstances of the post holder, be the subject of scrutiny, enforcement and sanctions. And I say that because I have some some experience of arms length bodies and or other regulators, notably as a former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. But my personal experience is also informed by some work I did at the Bank of England, where I was a member for nine years of the Bank of England's enforcement decision making committee.























































































































I'll come to that when I'm moving another amendment. But the point I want to make and share with the House is that when you're a public official and you take actions in good faith, you take them on the basis of advice that you've received individually or indeed collectively in discussions with other employees of that organisation or indeed with the board members and so on, perhaps even including external legal advice once you depart that organisation, all your records, electronic or otherwise, do not belong to you. They belong to the public body served, and you have a requirement to hand in all of your records, documents, discussions, informal advice, formal advice.





































































































I recall at one point at the HLC that that requirement also included post-it notes, and the challenge became identifying which Post-it note which had become unstuck from a from a document belonged to which page of which document. So it can be quite a tortuous process. And so those arguments which informed your decision, which may have been several years prior, are not yours to re-examine and try and work out why you took the actions you took, because you can't you don't have an audit trail yourself as an individual. All you have is memory and hopefully other witnesses who might have been in the room at the time who hopefully, again, you have good relations with and can still contact and and hope they'll come to your rescue.

















































































So the obligations arising from your earlier responsibility apply to you subsequently, according to this, these amendments, but you have may have very little in terms of a defence. Now, I appreciate that the movers of the amendment agree that a consultation would be carried out on any regulations that the government drew up, but I prefer the government's own drafting on this bill, which is itself in describing the code fairly muscular and seems to have been fairly well thought through. So I don't think I'm entirely convinced by by the amendment. A final point that I would make relates to the government question that I have for the government relates to the overarching obligation arising from the core code in.































































In subsection three of clause ten. And that is a question that has arisen throughout my my scrutiny, my my reading of this bill from from the outset, we know, my Lords, at the moment that the former Prime Minister Starmer directed the Cabinet secretary, Dame Antonia Romeo, to conduct an overarching review of the Civil Service Code of conduct. And we know that that review is ongoing. I think she expects to report next year on that. One of the principal things that we understand, that overarching review of the Civil Service Code of Conduct will do is to look at at several of the areas that are covered in this bill in the duty of candour, and I refer specifically to the seven Nolan Principles where the Civil Service Code as it stands, and is likely, if anything, to be strengthened, covers honesty, accountability, integrity.







































In one of the earlier debates we had today on this bill, I was tempted to ask about integrity. That was about the destruction of public records, and I was tempted to point out that I didn't wish to detain the House unnecessarily. I was tempted to point out that civil servants already have an obligation not to destroy records. To hold all records comes under the duty of integrity, clearly set out in the Civil Service code. So my question for the Minister is, is simply this what will happen to that review and its relationship with this core code, and how will the two interact, or will this core code take precedence over the civil service code?

























And I particularly say that advisedly, advisedly, because at the moment, and I and I disagree with that practice, but at the moment, not only does the Civil Service code hold and apply to all civil service, senior civil, all civil servants, but it also allows different government departments to layer on add their own separate codes depending on their functions. So we're going to have a potentially a three tier adherence on the part of civil servants to codes. One will be the departmental code. The second one will be the overarching civil service code, and the third one will be the codes envisaged in this bill.









And I wonder whether the government have reviewed how those three different aspects of ethical standards will apply to the 6 million or so civil servants, plus all non-departmental public bodies and arm's length bodies.
18:11
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment 36 in this group. But before I turn to that, in response before I turn to that, in response to the noble Lady's points about officials who have retired, officials who have retired, resigned, and so on, I may be wrong about this, but I seem to remember about this, but I seem to remember that the Iopc tackled this. There was a lot of concern about police officers who had retired or more often resigned, and they tackled it. It was tackled at a great general relief. I would have thought, surely, that that a person who's caught up by this would have access to documents and so on.





























But that's not. Actually central to my argument. My amendment 36 is not a hostile amendment to Lord Alton's. Amendment. In fact, I consulted him before tabling it, because we are both concerned that the IPA is very particular explanation. Excuse me. Experience is made available where it can be useful in this case to the Secretary of State, and that the IPA should be consulted and that the IPA's advice should have regard paid to it and to contribute to the code of conduct. I think more generally, we're both concerned about writing the IPA into the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought, I've put my name. To amendments 35, 51 and 61 in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To amendments 35, 51 and 61 in this group. I don't propose to add greatly to what the noble Lord Lord Alton and Lord Bichard have already Alton and Lord Bichard have already said about these amendments. In my view, the incorporation of a single view, the incorporation of a single code would result in a considerable saving of time and money. And my question to the Minister is this
18:13
18:14
Lord Evans of Weardale Portrait Lord Evans of Weardale (Crossbench)
-
-
ethical guidance available to their staff, which seemed to me to be a significant gap. And indeed, 1 or 2 significant gap. And indeed, 1 or 2 conversations with senior permanent secretaries who said that they didn't believe there were any ethical issues in their departments, ethical issues in their departments, rather reinforced my view that we needed to make people concentrate their minds. Nevertheless, I have some reservations about the suggestion that there should be a single code. I can see attractions single code. I can see attractions to it, but on the other hand, I think there is a difference.





























We have a core of common values and principles in the Nolan principles, and that is obviously relevant across all departments and agencies, and I think it's important there should be that commonality. But it seems to me that the actual way that that plays out with regard to particular departments will vary a great deal. So what is ethical behaviour within an intelligence service might be very different from the way in which ethical behaviour plays out for a health professional or indeed for a regulator. And I think it would be quite difficult to draft a single code which really illuminated those issues for staff in such different roles without having different codes.













Now, that doesn't mean that they should take a different approach to the principles which are common, but I think applying those in a way which actually helps people to do their jobs on a daily basis. And it's not just about accountability. There are lots of other ethical issues that governments and public service are faced with. I think there is actually quite a strong argument for requiring departments to draw up their own codes, thinking about their own business and how the principles apply to them.
18:16
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, on these benches, we've been very clear that we greatly welcome this Bill, but we wish to strengthen it. We believe that amendment 35 and the that amendment 35 and the introduction of a common code would add strength to the bill and reinforce its effect. My Lords, in reinforce its effect. My Lords, in view of the disgraceful cover ups that there have been in relation to so many of the tragedies discussed in relation to this Bill from Hillsborough onwards through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Horizon Infected Blood, Grenfell Windrush and a number of Others, it is unsurprising that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Others, it is unsurprising that the public rationale and justification for this bill has been founded in later cover ups of been founded in later cover ups of past tragedies, which have been aimed at diverting blame for what happened away from those wholly or partly. The bill with these aims is partly. The bill with these aims is laudable, but it could and should do so much more. Its importance lies not only in investigating and inquiring into the reasons why tragedies happened. Equally important is the ambition that this bill should set enforceable standards for the conduct of officials in an effort to ensure that such tragedies are prevented before they ever happen, and that those standards should be enforced by reference to the criminal law.































































































































































































































 And in this, I echo the words of Lord Bishop and others on this issue. My Lords, the ambition is there in the Bill. It's in the long title which imposes a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness, to require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority. There is no limit in the long title. Confining the duty to inquiries and investigations by Lord Barwell part two, chapter one of the Bill deals with inquiries and investigations. This chapter that we're now considering, chapter two, part two in clause ten in particular, deals more generally with standards of ethical conduct, and it is far too weak in its enforcement.











































































































































































































Clause two, which the principal amendments in this group seek to amend, provides principally that a public authority must promote and take steps to maintain high standards of ethical conduct at all times by people who work in the authority, and it then sets out what is essentially a restatement of the Nolan Principles, set out in 1995. My Lords, on these benches we believe that this part of the Bill as drafted, lacks the teeth needed to enforce standards across public life so as to avoid likely tragedies before they occur. We want this bill to seize the opportunity to raise standards across public life in real terms.





























































































































































































 The bill has often been described as requiring a change of culture, but for that it needs teeth to bite at all times. What we seek to do by our amendments is to make part two, chapter two, as strong and important as chapter one is on inquiries and investigation. The Nolan Principles are laudable and right, but they've been around since 1995 and in principle long before then. Yet these tragedies have happened. The principles need serious underpinning. So, my Lords, to the Code amendment 35, which we support, would provide, as Lord Alton has explained, for a single National Core code.













































































































































































That code would be as it has to be underpinned by regulations. It would establish not only the principles and the standards, but the practical application of those standards and procedures for their implementation and enforcement. My Lords, the core code does not preclude specific bodies from promulgating and enforcing particular codes to supplement the the core code. Where those are appropriate, there may well be good reason for such additional supplemental provisions, usually applicable, no doubt to particular types of authority or areas of operation. But they should always be consistent with the core code. Amendment 61 would make it clear that guidance specific to particular authorities, must be consistent with the core code of conduct, and that no public authority may substitute its own code for the core code.























































































































































But our starting point for this group is that we should avoid multiple different codes. One adopted by each different public authority, and should aim to achieve a single set of standards in much more detail than the Nolan Principles applicable to the whole of public life and all officials. We see the prime advantages of this arrangement as being far more likely with a core code than with multiple divergent codes to command universal understanding of the standards expected of public officials. The core code would lead to far more consistency. It would avoid conflicts between the codes of different bodies.







































































































































What is OK for Hampshire should not differ. For what from what is OK for North Yorkshire? A single core code would be likely to lead to a code of higher quality than multiple and divergent codes, if only because the concentrated expertise devoted to its compilation would lead to a better and more studied core code and more focussed individual supplementary codes were necessary. A single code, moreover, would lead to a build up of a single, comprehensible and authoritative body of case law and experience of what works and experience of how standards should properly be applied. Whereas multiple codes, which might conflict, might risk the growth of satellite litigation, where codes differ, a single code would save resources.



















































































































The noble Lord, Lord Murray, made that point with one body established for drafting it and updating it as the need arises for every every public body to be having working parties to set up their own divergent codes and later for divergence and chaos, and would undermine public respect for the whole project and would be grossly wasteful of resources. Amendment 51, to which I have added my name as well, would require consultation and report on the code within a short timetable, and the timetable has to be tight for a reason. These standards need to be in place quickly.

































































































We need to avoid further failures in our public life that damage so many lives, and that demean the reputation of the United Kingdom for competent, fair and honest administration. We really must recover that reputation. And this code could be a way. This bill could be a way to do so with a core code. Lord Swire had nothing to what my noble friend Baroness Hamwee said on amendment 36 about the need for involvement of the independent public adviser, which is plainly sensible and right. This is an important group in making this significant bill work in practice.



















































































I fear, along with others, that without a Common Core Code clear, widely publicised and understood and applicable across the country, backed up by enforcement provisions and provisions of the criminal law. Without such a code, we will betray the hopes and the justified demands of past victims. Without it, we will risk selling out on the opportunity for this bill to make actual adherence to high ethical standards a real achievement,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rather than an unrealised pipe dream. Yeah. Thank you for the noble Lord. Sits down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sits down. Hearing what he says, but. Putting it together with what we've just heard from Lord Evans of Weardale about the different nature Weardale about the different nature of different public bodies, does he think, or do other frontbench spokesman think that there might be spokesman think that there might be room for a middle way here? Not one core code, but perhaps a core code for regulators, a core code for for regulators, a core code for government departments, a core code for intelligence agencies? Would not that meet the noble Lords concerns while still streamlining

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the process? Lordship and the conservative frontbench wish. That's a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's a. A very interesting and careful point, and I accept. I would expect nothing less from the noble Lord Lord Anderson, and I listened very Lord Anderson, and I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord Lord Evans of Weardale said, and I appreciate the position from which he was coming. But frankly his analysis depended upon relying upon principles that have been in place for a very long time. And he said on a number of occasions that the standards were standards that applied and had applied for a very long time. And I think my argument and the argument expressed by the noble Lord Lord Alton, is that, that being the case, all the standards that would be applied across different core codes would have a common theme, a common set of standards, which would be at the centre of a core code.







































It is of the essence of my argument, and as I listened to it, the argument of the noble Lord Lord Alton as well, that there could be supplementary codes dealing with particular bodies, particular types of bodies, and particular types of regulators that I suggest is the answer. I may not be a million miles away from what the noble Lord Lord Anderson is suggesting, but what I do believe is that between now and report, we ought to be able to come up with the government with a proposal for a core code, commanding universal respect, with provision for.



























I'm going to give way to the noble Lord Lord Doyle. I'm just grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord just before. He concludes, because I want to reinforce his point that this. These two things are not completely irreconcilable, because the noble Lord. Lord, my noble friend Lord Bishop, and I have previously Bishop, and I have previously discussed the possibility of Codicils being added to a core Codicils being added to a core National code, but that there need to be some essential elements that are common to all. And that is the are common to all. And that is the whole point of a common code which the noble Lord has outlined

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extremely well, if I may say so. Well, I'm grateful we we certainly agree on that. I don't certainly agree on that. I don't think the distances between us are irreconcilable. The the point that irreconcilable. The the point that I'm making, the central point is that this bill, after all the failures that there have been, failures that there have been, requires teeth. It requires enforcement. It's backed up by provisions of the criminal law in provisions of the criminal law in relation to chapter one of part two, but far less force given to the prevention of tragedies before they occur.



And that really is my central point.
18:28
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the original group of amendments in this group, starting amendments in this group, starting with amendment 35, the name of Lord noble, Lord Lord Alton seeks to noble, Lord Lord Alton seeks to implement a single national code of conduct. There's obviously a number conduct. There's obviously a number of amendments to that amendment. I mentioned first number 36, in the name of a noble Lady, Baroness Hamwee, which seeks to ensure that this code of conduct has regard to the independent public advocate. And, of course, we've debated the importance of the independent public advocate in previous groups.

















































































Logically prior, however, is amendment 35 a in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and also his amendment 51 A, which also seek to amend the proposal put forward by Lord Alton. Now, in the previous group we debated and these issues are related. An amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Keith, the noble Lord, Lord Lord Keen of Elie, which sought to ascertain the expected cost of implementation of codes of ethical conduct. And the government's answer to that group was that we would be told, but only after Royal Assent. That does seem to to me to be the government inviting us to dine in a restaurant where you're only told the price of your meal after you've ordered it, served it, and also eaten it.































































But that may be a point we'll come back to after a report. But more generally, one of the difficulties of this bill is that it doesn't fully consider the impact on public authorities of creating their own codes of conduct. If creating a single code made that process both simpler and more cost effective, as long as it was an appropriate code of conduct, we would be open to that proposal. So what I would suggest the committee really needs to hear from the noble Lord. The Minister is a comparative assessment of the costs and burdens imposed by clause ten as drafted, and the same assessment of the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Alton.















































Now it seems to be the case that the. The government might not have undertaken that work. So, if that's the case, could the noble Lord the Minister, either. If he can respond in this group, or at least undertake the till, write to the Committee with that detail, because it does seem to us to be information which we would need. It's very difficult to come to a reasonable judgement on this question without that impact assessment, because ultimately, the issue here is comparing one thing to another, and therefore that comparative information seems to me to be at the heart of this debate.

































Amendments 51 and 61, also in the name of Lord Alton, expand on the concept of the single code of conduct with a consultation requirement, and another prevents public authorities from replacing the code with their own authority specific code. Again, I would suggest these also warrant consideration from the noble Lord, the Minister. Perhaps a single code is indeed the solution to the burden that creating authority specific codes would otherwise create. That, of course, brings me to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Towards the end of the debate, before I rose, that if one size.



















If I can respectfully paraphrase, if one size does not fit all. Perhaps three sizes might fit all. I would also adopt the response of the noble Lord Lord Marks of Henllys that. That is an interesting suggestion, but I do underline. I mean, interesting in the positive sense, not interesting in the way that the civil servants used to tell me when I was a Minister. That's a very interesting suggestion, Minister. I will put it in the wastepaper basket and just forget about it. I genuinely mean, it's a very interesting suggestion, and I will certainly think about it further.





And again, if the noble Lord, the Minister hasn't had enough notice, so to speak, of that point, perhaps he might include it in any letter to the Committee on the issues raised in this group.
18:32
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
I don't go to restaurants which don't have the prices on the menu. don't have the prices on the menu. My Lord. This has been an important and constructive debate about, I think what we all agree is a very important issue, and we we. I think we all agree that it goes to the heart of what we're trying to achieve here in terms of the culture change that we've talked about throughout these discussions. So can I begin with Lord Alton amendment, which seeks to introduce one national code of conduct and also seek to prevent authorities from adopting their own separate codes.

































































































































































Before I comment on that, I would like to thank the noble Lord for his time in meeting with me. And I think now several discussions we've had on this and and ranging for me to meet the family of Andrew Devine to discuss the bill. I'm very much appreciated that. And it was a very moving occasion. I thank you for those kind remarks, but unfailing courtesy. I'm not sure that's a description my family and friends would would recognise, but different strokes for different folks. But I do appreciate the intention of this amendment is to strengthen the provisions in the in the Bill on Ethical Codes by trying to prevent public authorities from adopting codes which may risk being watered down.

















































































































































I do entirely accept that. I can also understand why some campaigners, bereaved families and victims are keen to strengthen these provisions. Given the appalling way that we've all agreed there have been treated by the state in the past. Our intention under the Bill is to ensure that codes of ethical conduct are tailored and accessible to the needs of individual sectors and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, gave a very elegant and eloquent description of why that might be important. The bill covers a broad range of public servants and different working environments where a single code may may be too general.



































































































































And I think all noble Lords, certainly the noble Lord Lord Marks and Lord Alton have have accepted that there may be some things which need to be specific, and therefore it's something to. General may not be sufficiently specific to drive meaningful cultural change. The Bill will ensure that every public authority is required to reflect on how to embed a duty of candour within a tailored code of conduct specific to their organisation and sector, and the Bill provides clarity on what these these codes must contain as a minimum, and we will publish statutory guidance after Royal Assent, which will support public authorities to make impactful codes that will drive ethical behaviour throughout the organisation.



















































































































The government is keen for the provisions on codes of ethical conduct to be implemented within an optimal period, post royal sense. However, I can understand the concerns that have been raised and a need to ensure that we are clear on what is expected and required in each code. So I therefore am very happy to commit to working with noble Lords and other noble Lords in this debate, but other peers too on how best we can achieve this. I now turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, which would require a. And just on that commitment, I would say, of course, we will talk about the questions about resources which the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and others have raised.



































































































I can't promise to write with a detailed assessment for the reasons that that my noble friend gave. But we're obviously mindful of the resources point, and we're very happy to debate it. Can I now turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, which would require a consultation on a single National Code of conduct, sanctions and enforcement arrangements? It is right that when we are designing what is required in a code of ethical conduct, that we ensure the views of those who represent public servants, experts and those with lived experience of grave injustices at the hands of the state.























































































I'm not convinced at this stage that a single code of conduct is the most effective way to achieve the cultural change we're seeking, but I am open to considering how best we can engage with relevant stakeholders when considering how we can strengthen the provisions of the Bill on Codes of Ethical conduct. And I hope that noble Lords know I will continue to work closely with noble Lords on this. In the same vein. Turning now to my noble friend Lord Hendy amendment, which builds on the noble Lord Lord Alton proposals. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I won't go into too much detail as we previously discussed this matter earlier.









































































However, I can reassure the noble Lord that the government considers that existing legal protections already provide safeguards for officials who speak up about alleged wrongdoing. As my noble friend Baroness Sanderson described earlier. But the noble Lord does raise an important point regarding engaging with trade unions and relevant stakeholders, including Acas, to ensure that their codes of ethical conduct were appropriately tailored to their organisation. And I will reflect on on his comments about that, that he has made here today and would, of course, be happy to meet with him to discuss this ahead of Report stage.





























































Turning now to the noble Baroness, Lady Ham with amendment 36, which builds on Lord Alton proposal. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the government has worked closely with members of the public who have been victims of major incidents and grave injustices, and we fully intend to continue this approach. I can assure the noble Lady that there is ongoing policy work taking place around the role of the independent public advocate, and I've been in touch with the noble Lady Baroness May and Baroness Sanderson about that work, and that's a very live discussion. So we'll certainly take into account the spirit of her suggestion in that conversation.















































But I've made clear from this Dispatch Box before that we see the role of the independent public advocate in victim support and representation as a critical part of the future arrangements that surround major incidents. Can I just deal with the question about retirement to 2 or 3 noble Lords have raised this from different perspectives. Not not all. Agreed. Current and former employees are covered by the code. And government is quite clear about this. Of an inquiry or investigation. Investigating incident or event when someone was in post, even if they've retired since. So we are very clear about that.































I hear what the noble Lady Baroness Falkner says, but we are clear for all the reasons that a number of noble Lords made, that people will still be expected to be, will be covered by the duty of candour in the circumstances with regard to the Code of Ethics. It. It's obviously more difficult to to apply something to to people for whom it wasn't in place at the time when they were there. But on the wider duty of candour, which is the principle thing, I think I've made the position clear on the Civil Service code. I responded to the noble Lord, Lord young, about this.



















 But we are very clear that all codes which exist already will have to be, will have to meet requirements of the bill. I mean, I wouldn't have the temerity to to suggest anything to the Cabinet Secretary, but once this bill is passed and the requirements of the Code of Ethics are there, how they will be organised, she will have to ensure that whatever arrangements are in place in the civil service meet those requirements. So with these reassurances to continue to the conversation, and I look forward to that, I ask noble Lords forward to that, I ask noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.



Noble speakers, in this debate.
18:41
18:41
18:42
None Portrait Amendment:35 Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

another place? In 1995, Lord Nolan, who has been referred to quite a lot in the proceedings this evening by noble Lords, reported back to the then Prime Minister, John Major, following the cash for questions scandal. I think of all the things that I was required to do during my time in another place. One of the most dispiriting things of all was to serve on the Committee of Privileges and to take evidence and to inquire into cash for questions that a member of Parliament, entrapped admittedly, but nevertheless willing to take the thousand pounds to put down a parliamentary question.











































And then, of course, there was much more that we heard about that followed, that it brought Parliament into great disrepute. Lord Nolan said at the time the general principle of the general principle, which undermines public life has to be restated. He also said these principles apply to all aspects of public life. So I think given that his report at that time meant so much to so many people and provided a framework, it was for its time. I think we are duty bound in our time to look again at what those principles might be that unite us, and why it's essential that there should be a central core.





























Now, whether it's for reasons of expenditure, inconsistency, unnecessary duplication, whatever it may be. I think having a central code of conduct of ethics is the right way. It is something that we can add to in specific circumstances, which I think would attend to the point that my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich referred to in his remarks. There's nothing at all contradictory about those things. I don't at this stage, my Lords, want to reiterate or repeat the arguments, because the noble Lord, the Minister Lord Lemos, has been very conciliatory in what he has said. I think he's got the mood, though, of the House, that we want to continue these discussions, that we would want to bring it back at Report stage, that it might indeed even be one of the few things that might lead us to divide if we can't sort this out and get it right.











So I hope that he will meet with those who have spoken in today's debate, give further consideration to how we might make the Nolan principles of 1995, how we might make them relevant now, and how this amendment, which has enjoyed support from right across your Lordships House, might be put into some form onto the face of the Bill. But with those words, my Lords, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn.
18:45
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees
-

Amendment 37 Lord Marks. >> See why you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

See why you. I'm sorry. Could you. Repeat
18:45
18:45
None Portrait Amendment:37 Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-

My My Lords. My Lords. First My Lords. First of My Lords. First of all, I apologise for the delay in finding my way to this group. I should make it clear that we do not intend, by the detailed amendments intend, by the detailed amendments in this group, to establishment of a core code, for all the reasons that we've outlined and others have outlined in the last group, our amendments in this group are certainly directed to amending the bill as drafted. But I should stress, as we stressed in the last group, that they are applicable to a single core code taking together with any supplementary codes adopted by a particular public bodies or authorities, although are directed to giving the code's teeth, requiring compliance and strengthening enforcement.





















































































































































 Amendment 37 strengthens clause ten three B, which currently requires authorities to take steps to make people who work for the authority aware of the code and the consequences for failing to act in accordance with it. That is substituted. By a much stronger position, which is on page five of the Marshalled List, which requires the authority to take all reasonable steps to ensure that those people are aware of the code and the consequences of failing to act in accordance with it and act in accordance with it and comply with the code fully. One amendment 39 in this group.

































































































































Would require a public authorities code to specify when a failure to comply with the standards of conduct must be referred for investigation as a potential criminal offence. In addition to setting out disciplinary consequences for breaches and Lord Dannatt ties in with what I said in the last group about the importance of tying in serious breaches of the code with criminal sanctions. Amendment 44 would allow a public authority to adopt another document as its code of ethical conduct, in a sense that is applicable to the Bill as drafted rather than to when there is a core code.

















































































































But it would provide importantly, and that would be consistent with the core code, that the document must not be modified in a way which reduces the standards of ethical conduct contained in it. Then, amendment 46 and 47 would mandate consistency between codes and would demand an explanation of how consistency should be achieved that would be relevant to consistency between supplementary codes and a core code, and amendment 55 would require a set of minimum requirements that any code must meet, including arrangements made to ensure compliance, which would have to be specified, and procedures which would have to be followed in the case of non-compliance.





























































































My Lords, the most important of the provisions of the amendments in this group, from our point of view, is the implementation of provision for a new or the introduction of provision for a new criminal offence, of a serious breach of a Code of Ethical conduct that is designed to supplement the offences of misconduct in public office and misleading the public, which are already in the bill. It's part of the business of giving teeth to the imposition of ethical standards, which we regard as so necessary. The codes are here to be obeyed. The past. The problem with the Nolan standards and the problem with provision for ethical standards in authorities in the past, has been that there has been no criminal sanction and only moderate and.





































































Ill matched sanction by disciplinary proceedings ill matched in the sense that different authorities, public authorities, have been free to use different sanctions. We regard it as very important that there should be ultimately recourse to the criminal law, where a failure is knowing or reckless, and where that failure is serious. My Lord, serious is defined in the amendment. It has to be a failure that causes or creates a significant risk of harm to another person, a failure which involves dishonesty, corruption or abuse of public office, or which involves a serious breach of the Nolan Principles, or seriously undermines confidence in the public authority or the proper exercise of its functions.



















































That would be punishable on summary conviction by 12 months imprisonment, or a fine or both, and on indictment by two years imprisonment, or a fine, or both. It's a central feature of our suite of amendments and gives meaning to the imposition of compulsory standards. My Lords, we would not expect a vast number of prosecutions. But if we're serious about wanting a change of conduct, a change of culture, we have to move from extolling standards to enforcing those standards. And if serious breaches of the code lead to criminal proceedings, that best serves the aims of showing the public that we're serious about enforcing standards for reasons of deterrence, to ensure that officials know that there will be serious consequences if they are guilty of a serious breach of the code and a punishment which is a part of the process of penalties in the criminal courts.



























So we we believe that serious cases of failure to comply with the code must be prosecuted. And that is at the heart of our approach to accountability. It's backed up by a duty on public authorities to take all reasonable steps to prevent, detect and respond to possible offences and by regulations governing the enforcement of the provisions of a code. And we again say it should be a Common Core code supplemented by others. Criminal sanctions would apply whether or not disciplinary disciplinary proceedings would be would be were brought. The minimum standards would have to reflect the Nolan principles, and there would be a periodic review by amendment 58 of codes by the Ethics and Integrity Commission.







My Lords, this suite of amendments together, we say, makes the enforcement of ethical standards would make the enforcement a reality. And we're very concerned that the bill as drafted without those backstop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provisions, would not do that. And this would.
18:54
18:55
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
at all times by people who work for an authority for the authority. Clause ten also imposes a more Clause ten also imposes a more specific duty to create and to publish a new code of ethical conduct for people who work for the public authority. We've been discussing that for the last hour. So far, so good. This amendment So far, so good. This amendment aims to address or ameliorate the risk that these duties will expose public bodies to judicial review public bodies to judicial review proceedings, which is likely to prove costly and to undermine their ability to discharge their primary functions.













































































































































































Now, it isn't clear whether government, whether the government appreciates the risk that clause ten without amendment may give rise to new grounds on which to challenge public action in the courts, enabling frustration of attempts to address serious policy problems, which is what we're trying to do here, and adding to the cost of doing government business. My Lords, I say that advisedly at this stage, because we know that the ability to crowdfund often vexatious attempts of judicial review are increasing by the day and are adding enormously to the cost of doing government business. Outside the context of this bill, the government seems concerned about these risks.





























































































































































On September 7th this year, the Chancellor, the Attorney General and the First Secretary of State sent a joint letter to Ministers about the simplification and agency of government. In the letter, the government accepts that, and I quote, in some instances, it has become clear that the system of judicial review is out of balance and is a dis. End quote. And a disproportionate burden on effective government. The letter announces three changes and frames them in this way I quote. We therefore wanted to set out three areas where this government will act with greater alacrity on consultations, on legal considerations and on judicial review as initial steps in what will be a wider programme of work to pare back counterproductive administrative burdens, end quote.











































































































































 My Lords, this is a commendable ambition. I certainly share it. It may be in some tension with this bill in general, which certainly imposes significant new administrative burdens as as set out in the report from Policy Exchange that I just highlighted, that paper notes that as things stand, every public body in the country, from a government department to a parish council or a further education college, acquires a new set of uncertain legal obligations layered on top of the existing and already extensive and onerous grounds for review in relation to close ten. In particular, the government should make clear whether ten whether it intends the duties in this clause to ground new applications for judicial review of the action of public bodies, that is to say, new grounds on which a court might block them.





















































































































If this is the government's intention, it seems very hard to justify. Why would one want to empower the courts to police the ethical conduct of public bodies, a task for which they are ill suited? It is true and important that courts protect natural justice, but enforcing a duty to act ethically or policing compliance with a broadly worded code of ethical conduct is much more general and is an ill defined task, which we should not invite courts to carry out. If the government does not intend clause ten to widen the grounds of judicial review, then the Bill needs amending.







































































































Whenever a public body publishes a code, there may be a risk for third parties will challenge the public bodies actions in court by reference to the code. There are numerous examples of that that I can send to the Minister. The risk is much greater when the code has a statutory footing, especially when, as with clause ten, the code is intended to be a means to fulfil the more general duty of ensuring that those who work for the public authority act lawfully. The Bill, as it stands, practically invites the courts to interpret for themselves the codes that public bodies publish, which may result in public bodies being held to have acted unlawfully for having misunderstood their own codes.























































































 Relatedly, the courts are likely to treat the requirements of a published code as relevant to the exercise of public power, which means that public bodies may be held to have acted unlawfully because they failed to consider, or even adequately to consider some provision in those codes. Even if many or most of the challenges on these grounds fail, there will be costly to defend and will slow down and distort policy making and action. It may take several costly years of litigation before we get clarity on how the courts will handle this section and establish case law, further, legalising the process in governing in this way is not wise, I argue.







































































My Lords, the amendment now before the House aims to address these risks by providing that the duties in clause ten, including the requirements of any code published by a public body because of clause ten, are not to be considered in court. The point is not that public bodies should be free to ignore these duties, but rather that Parliament would make clear that the creation of these duties would not expand the scope of judicial review. The amendment provides that compliance with the duties in question may be considered by any relevant inquiry or investigation, which of itself is a powerful form of accountability, or it may be considered by the Parliamentary Commissioner for administration, who is, of course, an Officer of Parliament.























































In addition, it would, of course, always be possible for parliamentarians to hold public bodies to account by reference to ethical conduct, including by reference to any code of conduct that they have published. The amendment is loosely based on section four of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2010, which makes provision for political rather than legal accountability. The Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010 placed the Treasury under a statutory duty to bring public finances back into order on a fixed timetable. It had to ensure that public sector net borrowing, as a share of GDP fell in several financial years in a row.









































Enforcement of that was left entirely to Parliament. The Treasury had to report on its progress alongside each budget and pre-budget report, and once the deadline had passed, it had to say whether the target was met. And if it wasn't to explain why section four required those reports to be laid before Parliament and declared them to be the only means of holding the Treasury to account for those duties. It then provided that a missed target passed or anticipated does not affect the lawfulness of anything done or left undone by anyone, so no court could quash a decision to grant a declaration or compel compliance.



























 The sanction for failure was having to come to the House and answer for it. Here, too, there is a good case for enforcing judicial duties by political and not legal means. The courts got their jurisdiction jealously, but it would be a mistake to view this amendment as an exceptional limit on their powers. Parliament must decide whether and on what terms to enact clause ten of the Bill. It is for Parliament to decide whether the new duties in question are to be enforceable in a court, or whether this is sensible in view of the nature of the subject matter and the likely effects of making them justiciable.











So this amendment, my Lords, is a means whereby Parliament could make clear that in enacting clause ten, it is not intending to create a new open ended ground for judicial review proceedings. The duties in clause ten would remain duties, but their enforcement would not be left to the courts, to police at great cost, and is at much risk of unwanted side effects, which will take years to be unveiled.
19:04
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
The noble. >> Baroness, but I'm afraid not even her advocacy could persuade me that a failure by a public official that a failure by a public official or a public authority to have regard to the requirements of a code or of guidance, is something that should be left entirely out of account by any court which might be called upon to decide whether that conduct was improper or irrational or negligent or unlawful. Others, I'm sure, will make the point more eloquently than I. But I did just want to record that before speaking, perhaps more prosaically to my probing amendments 60 and 62, which I've tabled with the support of the noble Lord Carlile, Lord Leveson and Lord Evans of Weardale, who, as was mentioned earlier, was chair until 2023 of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.





























































































The Ccpl was replaced after the election by the Ethics and Integrity Commission, the EIC, whose purpose as billed in the Labour manifesto, is, and I quote, to ensure probity in government. The terms of reference, published in October 2025, make specific reference to this bill, they state under the heading responsibilities that the EIC will, and I quote, advise public authorities on the development of clear codes of conduct with effective oversight arrangements in line with the planned forthcoming obligations of the Public Office Accountability Bill. Yet, the Bill makes no reference to the EIC. It is given no formal role in the formulation of the codes or, as it may be, Code of Ethical Conduct under clause ten, even as a consultee and the guidance issued under clause 11 is to be issued by the central and devolved governments, again without any involvement on the part of the EIC, the Minister told us at Second Reading.





































































And I should say I'm grateful to the Minister for engaging on this issue. He told us that the EIC would research and develop guidance, which it would publish on its own website, but given its intended status as the centre of excellence on public codes of ethical conduct, at least for England, I am a little mystified as to why the Bill does not give the EIC a leading role in formulating at least the statutory guidance provided for in clause 11. My Lords, that is the defect that amendment 60 is intended to probe and should it go further to correct amendment 62 raises a broader point.























































In its 2021 report upholding standards in public Life, the CSP, under the leadership of Lord Evans of Weardale, recommended placing a number of constitutional watchdogs on a statutory footing to give them at least the protections of Parliament. Bodies such as the Independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, the independent adviser on Ministerial standards and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, have important constitutional functions. Hard won over successive successive administrations in proofing our system against abuse of power, favouritism and corruption. Yet it would be the easiest thing in the world for a future government, impatient of such liberal notions to sweep them all away in a first day bonfire of the quangos, without the need even to justify its decision to Parliament until such time as it is placed on a statutory footing.



































The same will be true of the EIC. The amendment 62 would place a parliamentary lock on the abolition of the EIC, in much the same way as my private member's Bill, the Public Service ethics, Integrity and Independence Bill introduced during the last session would have done for the other bodies. I have mentioned the EIC Implementation Plan of October 2025 warns that, and I quote, it will take time to develop and implement the new responsibilities and sets out what it described as an 18 to 24 month plan for the transition of the Committee on Standards in Public Life into the Ethics and Integrity Commission, subject to the necessary resources being in place.





















But there is no obstacle to the EIC being recognised in statute even before that transition is complete. I hope the Minister will agree that such recognition is desirable in principle, and I look forward to his comments on how and when we might expect to see it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support the. Amendments that have just been referred to by my noble friend Lord referred to by my noble friend Lord Anderson. But before I turn to that, I would like to say that my jaw was dropping as I listened to my noble dropping as I listened to my noble friend Baroness Faulkner's attack on judicial review. And I would say to her with great respect, this to her with great respect, this because she's very eloquent and very persuasive.

I'm afraid I'm not very persuasive. I'm afraid I'm not persuaded by her. We're talking here about what is popularly called the Hillsborough bill, but we've heard mentioned at every sitting of this committee, at every part of this bill, a litany of events which have occurred, which have been
19:09
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
disasters despite the ostensible cooperation at all times of the public service. And I listened with great care, particularly to the. My noble friend Lord Bishop, when he was talking about these matters was talking about these matters earlier, some, at least, of that litany of horrific events, only litany of horrific events, only came to light because of the availability of judicial review, availability of judicial review, the ability to judicially question administrative action. And sometimes it had to go to the highest court in order to achieve the prominence which those cases have rightly been given. And the arrival of this bill before this House.







































































And I say to my noble friend that I have read the Policy Exchange report. I read it in detail yesterday afternoon and immediately penned my disagreement to the Director of Policy Exchange, who is a member of your Lordships House, because I think it is just naive in the way in which it approaches the the issues we're concerned with, and I apologise in saying that to two of my noble friends who've been involved in writing the foreword and an introduction to the Policy Exchange report, because I don't agree with them either. I think they're missing the point about judicial review now to what I intended to say.

























































My Lords, this. No, I'm not giving way to the noble Lady. She. She should not have gone before the rest of us in this debate. And I'm not giving way to. I'm afraid I've said what I want to say, and I don't want to prolong the debate on that issue. What we have in clauses 11 and 12, which are probably in the wrong order, is the mother and the child. The mother is the guidance. The guidance is set out by clause 12 and the child or the codes which are described in clause 11. Now, the amendments which have been moved, mentioned, described, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Anderson, are not about diminishing ministerial accountability.









































Far from it. They are about ensuring that the guidance which governs the codes, leading to the understood standards in public life. The guidance is independent, respected and trusted. Those who hold power should never be seen as having exclusive control, in my view, over the ethical framework by which they are judged, and amendment 60 and 62 ensure that there is no such power. They ensure that ethical guidance should be issued by an independent body, not, for example, by Ministers, whether national Ministers or devolved Ministers, whose conduct may itself fall within the scope of the legislation. Public confidence in standards in public life is, in my view, enhanced by clear separation between those who exercise power and those who oversee ethical conduct.

















These amendments reinforce the principle that integrity and ethics should not be subject to political influence or the priorities of the government of the day. These amendments allow for UK wide consistency in standards, while preserving the autonomy of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so far as it goes under our devolution settlement. In my view, guidance issued by an independent Commission is likely to command far greater confidence than guidance issued by Ministers who, by definition, have party loyalties.

And it is for those reasons that I support amendment 60 and 62.
19:13
Lord Evans of Weardale Portrait Lord Evans of Weardale (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support the >> My Lords, I rise to support the amendment 60 and 62, which have been very eloquently explained by Lords Anderson and Lord Carlile. I was very surprised when I first read the bill to find that the Ethics and Integrity Commission wasn't there. It's a piece of machinery, which is the government has has taken the time and effort to to reinforce since the time when it was the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which I chaired. And in fact, it seems to me it's ideally built to to do the sort of work that's in the bill.





























So I think the it is the right piece of machinery. And one of the reasons for that is the fact that it has on it representatives of a variety of different parties, as is evident merely by looking around the chamber today, where Baroness Finn. Baroness Beckett, and indeed the Minister who's just arrived were all members of that committee. So this is a committee which has an extraordinarily good representation from the political world as well as independent members. And it seemed to me that that is definitely the case. But using them for this particular role would be the right way in which to go.















And as Lord Anderson pointed out, the current arrangements are very inconsistent. The CSP did not recommend its to it about itself that it should be put onto a statutory basis out of modesty, but we did recommend that regulatory bodies, which have an ethical dimension, do need to stand with appropriate independence and with the confidence that they are not easily abolished by the government of the day. And this amendment provides for that. And from that point of view, I commend it to the House.
19:15
Lord Wills Portrait Lord Wills (Labour)
-
-
Lord Bourne this might be an appropriate time to turn to my appropriate time to turn to my amendments. 45 and 48. Amendment 45 addresses some of the issues that we've already heard, extensively discussed in your Lordships House, and I hope it might be helpful to the government in helping them negotiate what are very important, negotiate what are very important, but also very challenging issues. It recognises that there may be differences between organisations and within organisations as the content of their ethical codes of conduct and, among other things, this could result in ambiguities which could lead to misunderstanding, and that in turn could lead to serious consequences for individuals.















































Now, this amendment allows the Secretary of State to engage with public authorities to assess where such ambiguities might need to be removed, what might be needed to unify them all and, where appropriate, create a statutory binding list of obligations. Now, it's a simple measure that empowers the Secretary of State in due course, to take further action to deliver as effectively as possible the objectives of this landmark bill. Now, amendment 48 removes the ability of a public authority to exclude from its published code anything which it considers the disclosure of, which would be contrary to the public interest.































Now, my Lords, we've seen too often how the definition of public interest adopted by a public authority is at odds with the definition adopted by a majority of the public. I'd be grateful if my noble friend, the Minister, if he were so minded, could give me some examples of how the public interest could justify exclusions from a code of ethical conduct. Now, I hope you'll agree with me that it is in the public interest to know what standard the public can expect of public bodies they may interact with, and what standards those bound by the duty are expected to meet.

















What possibly could need to be upheld. And I should add that in light of all their bitter experience, the Hillsborough

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. My. My Lords, I'll first turn to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My. My Lords, I'll first turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames. Amendment 37 seeks to make the compliance of the Code of Ethics stricter, but I would Ethics stricter, but I would suggest perhaps a little too strict. Amendment 39 seeks to require the Amendment 39 seeks to require the code to set out the disciplinary measures that would be taken. This may be difficult in sectors there's already have detailed and complex conduct and disciplinary regimes, such as the police, and the interplay between what set out in
19:18
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
amendment 39 and those existing regimes is not immediately clear. regimes is not immediately clear. Amendments 44, 46, 47 and 58 refer Amendments 44, 46, 47 and 58 refer to and require consistency of the code, which is obviously sensible. But further discussion is necessary But further discussion is necessary to determine what it is intended to be consistent with. As it stands, be consistent with. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be a baseline expectation with which codes can be consistent. So as I read these amendments, it seems that the government would need to accept these amendments alongside these amendments alongside amendments 55 and 57, amendment 56 seeks to create a criminal offence for breaches of codes of conduct.

























































































On this, I think there is a real concern that if the codes of conduct are going to lead to criminal offences for breach, the drafting of those codes of conduct would become even more burdensome than they would be at the moment, because they would have to be used in court and also sufficiently clear that people appreciate precisely what it is they need to do, because breach would be a criminal offence. This is a point I think we'll come back to in some future groups, either later this evening or on another occasion. There's also a further problem with this amendment, i.e.













































































that a breach could result in a criminal offence because, as matters stand and subject to the Civil Code debate we had earlier, as matters stand, different public authorities would draft their own codes of ethical conduct for themselves under clause ten, which could result in the very odd, one might say, perverse outcome that an employee of one authority finds themselves in breach and hauled before the criminal courts, while an employee of another authority does not face sanction for the very same action. Because there is a subtle difference in the drafting of the code of conduct between those authorities that, it seems, would be a manifestation.



























































If I can take the noble Lords example from an earlier group of the Hampshire and North Yorkshire problem, and it might again speak to the noble Lord Lord Alton of Liverpool's proposal for a single code, which I know the Minister spoke to earlier, and he said he would consider carefully before Report stage. Amendment 59 draws on a similar point to my previous amendment in Group three. That guidance is essential throughout the implementation phase of this bill. Turning to the amendments. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord wills, the amendment 45 seeks to allow the Secretary of State to make further provision about the expected standards of ethical conduct and a Public Authorities Code of Ethical Conduct with which which, with the negative procedure, could lead to insufficient scrutiny.









































On amendment 48, which seeks to remove the public authorities right to exclude from its published code information which would be contrary to the public interest. I can see potential examples of authorities which might mean that the exceptions permitted in paragraph C might actually protect real interests. But I look forward in particular to what the noble Lord, the Minister, says on that point, on amendment 60 and 62, from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, which seek to place a larger emphasis on the Ethics and Integrity Committee, including by placing some of its duties on a statutory footing.



























There is a cost aspect of this which concerns me, and I also wonder whether we should always legislate for what we fear a future government might or might not do. Amendment 63 a in the name of a noble Lady, Baroness Falkner of Margravine seeks to require breaches of codes of ethics to be considered only in inquiries or investigations, rather than in legal proceedings. As I understand, the purpose of the amendment is to confirm that such breaches are not themselves justiciable, including, as I understood her speech in any judicial review proceedings. I certainly sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, although perhaps the real culprit is actually the creation of all these codes of conduct in the first place.







Where codes go, I can assure the committee the lawyers will certainly follow. And on that point, which might command general support. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord. The Minister says.
19:23
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Very good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To disagree with that. My Lords, as mentioned in the discussion of the previous group, and obviously these two groups to some extent these two groups to some extent hang together. This bill is drafted to ensure that public authorities are required to make and publish codes of ethical conduct tailored to their organisation and sector, to their organisation and sector, ensuring that these codes of ethical conduct are sufficiently detailed to drive culture change detailed to drive culture change within public authorities is clearly, as with many times discussed, an important part of delivering the spirit. The intention of this bill.













































































































































































Can I turn first to my noble friend Lord Wills amendment 45 and 48? I appreciate my noble friend is keen to ensure that the government will be able to make changes in future to ensure that the Bill remains a vehicle for meaning and sustainable culture change across the public sector, across public authorities, and we are actively considering options for post-legislative scrutiny. We'll come back to this, I'm sure, to monitor the success of the bill in driving cultural change across public public authorities. I do want to make it clear that that is one of the objectives we have for the Bill, and therefore, I will set out proposals in due course.

































































































































































And, of course, I should be happy to discuss that with with the noble Lord, with my noble friend and others before. Report stage in respect of his Second Amendment. Amendment 48. My noble friend will understand that there may be circumstances where information is sensitive and publication may have detrimental effects for the organisation, individually or more generally. Our current approach allows organisations to develop more detailed codes of ethical conduct containing sensitive information for employees, while omitting such material from versions of the code published publicly. However, I do understand his concerns about transparency and I'm very happy to explore transparency in in between now and report so that we can ensure that the expectations are clear and that everyone, including the people who work for public authorities, know where they stand.











































































































































Turning to the noble Lord Lord Marks package of amendments. I think it's right. Right to see them as a package. These seek to strengthen the provisions of codes of Ethical conduct in chapter two of the Bill, and to use the phrase he used several times to give it more teeth. And I'm grateful for the time he's already spent with me, including during recess, to discuss these intentions behind these amendments in more detail, I will reflect carefully on the points that have been made, and I'll discuss them further with officials and consider whether there is merit in exploring any of these issues ahead of report, and I'll certainly discuss them with Lord Marks and others.





























































































































Our initial assessment is that we agree there needs to be consistency across the codes, and we are open to strengthening the provisions in this bill. I can assure the noble Lord and this and your Lordships House, that the government will issue guidance to public authorities concerning codes of conduct, and that will be statutory guidance, however. But the intention behind clause ten six is that modifications can be made to existing codes to bring them up to the standards required in the Bill. Evidently, modifications cannot be made such that they do not comply with the requirements of the Bill.















































































































Furthermore, the Bill already requires authorities to take steps to make employees aware of the code and the consequences of non-compliance as part of their duty to promote and maintain high standards of ethical conduct at all times. The bill already creates a number of new offences alongside existing criminal offences, which may apply to public officials. Codes of ethics will cover a wide range of conduct, not all of which is appropriately dealt with in the government's view through the criminal law, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, also made. Our initial assessment is that a general offence of breaching a code of ethics would not be clear, proportionate or necessary.

































































































Public officials are subject to a number of laws within this bill. We. And we would need to consider the practical implementations of attempting to list all of these in codes. However, this debate has been extremely helpful in testing the issues that the noble Lord Lord Marks raises about the strength and the teeth of the bill, and I look forward to continuing those conversations before we get to the next stage of the bill. Turning now to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and the noble Lord Lord Marks have both tabled amendments relating to the codes of ethical conduct and the role of the Ethics and Integrity Committee.



















































































The I was established, which was established by the former Prime Minister as the Centre of Excellence on Codes of Conduct has already been. We do a. The noble Lord Lord Hannan specifically asked me about. This has already been commissioned to develop best practice guidance for public authorities. So they already have some standing in relation to this. On how codes of ethical conduct can be used to drive cultural change, and its call for evidence to inform this work closed last month in September. So. So we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do see them as involved in all this. Public authorities rightly expect. Yes. I'm so grateful to the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm so grateful to the Minister. I wonder if he could just clarify whether that guidance relates to the content of the codes or simply

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the content of the codes or simply to the way that they can be used. I think that's something we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that's something we will need to to cover in guidance, but I absolutely anticipate and I'll absolutely anticipate and I'll correct this if this is wrong, but I don't think it is wrong that that the EIC will want to comment on the contents and how they should be, which I think is probably what what the noble Lord was was driving at. But I'm sure that's right. But but I mean, of course, public authorities rightly expect the government to provide them with clear guidance about what is necessary for compliance with this bill, and we will do that.

























































We are therefore preparing statutory guidance that will be available when this clause is commenced. Our expectation is that public authorities will draw on both sets of guidance when developing their codes. That is, ensuring that they not only comply with the requirements of the legislation, but are also informed by evidence based best practice. The government does not consider it necessary to play the function. Place the functions of the EIC on a statutory footing as an as an advisory body whose role is to provide independent advice to the government. The current arrangements are, in the government's view, entirely appropriate.









































The EIC is an independent body, and we do not believe it is necessary to prescribe its role in legislation. Moreover, given its independent status, it would be inappropriate to place it under statutory statutory duty to assess whether codes of practice published by public authorities comply with the terms of the Bill. The EIC has remit extends well beyond the matters addressed in this legislation. Its wider purpose is to promote the highest standards in public life and conferring what would, in effect, be a regulatory function upon it would, in the government's view, risk undermining that broader role.



























Can I now turn to amendment 63, A tabled by the noble Baroness Falkner of Margravine? We agree with the noble Baroness that the Bill should not create a specific offence in the event that there is a breach of the Code of Ethical Conduct. However, it is clearly right that the authorities who do not comply with their duty to adopt a code of ethical conduct are appropriately held to account, and I think my. The noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Carlyle, set out much more eloquently than I can. Exactly why that needs to be the case for breaches of standards by officials.

















 The public can use the authority's complaints process and for. The most serious wrongdoing could also. That could also constitute a criminal offence under the. Misleading. The public offence or seriously improper acts offence. Therefore, we think the Bill, alongside existing laws and processes, adequately provide appropriate avenues to scrutinise compliance with chapter two. I hope this provides some clarity to noble Lords and made clear the issues on which I'm happy to discuss further, and therefore, I ask the noble Lord respectfully to withdraw his amendment.
19:32
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I'm very grateful for the indication given by the noble Lord that he's happy to continue discussions on strengthening the bill. And I should have said, when I opened my amendment, that I was very grateful for the engagement that we had between. Well, for some time before the for the Second Reading of this bill on discussing these amendments and the whole question of strengthening chapter two, part two, chapter two of the bill, I do take the point that while we persist in believing that the chapter needs considerable strengthening to avoid future tragedies, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that, particularly in relation to criminal sanctions, there is an issue which would make the Hampshire North Yorkshire inconsistency that much more serious.







































That I would suggest, as I've no doubt others would, is a very strong argument for having a core code. But it's plainly sensible in view of the indication that the noble Lord Lord Lemos has given that he will consider that issue further and will have further discussions on that, that they should await the outcome of those discussions so that I will be seeking to withdraw my amendments. I would, however, say that in relation to the amendment moved by the noble Lady Baroness Falkner, to the effect that the non-compliance, the code should not really be justiciable in any way.



























I am entirely with the noble Lord Lord Carlile and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and I'm bound to say that judicial review has, for the whole of my career at the bar, been one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the outstanding contributions. It's just. I wonder whether he might sit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder whether he might sit down. It's just the briefest of interventions that I would have asked Lord Carlile if he had taken asked Lord Carlile if he had taken my intervention. And it is. This is not misconduct in public office already an offence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure that that has much to do with what we're considering. Now, what I'm saying is that justice ability is of the essence of giving strength to this bill, and to abandon justice. Ability means that we might be going back to platitudes that have no real effect upon public behaviour or public perception of government and official behaviour. And that was really my point of taking issue with the arguments taken by the the noble Baroness.

That said, I do now believe to Mr. Amendments. Yes.
19:34
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

Is That your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Now, I would ask your Lordships to bear with me. I am going to have to bear with me. I am going to have to go through no less than 19 pages of. Of this in order to get to the stage where we are able to adjourn and move on to the next. So amendment 37, a Lord Hendy not moved. Amendment 38 Baroness Brinton have we not moved? Amendment 39 Lord Marks not moved. Amendment 40 Lord Wills not moved.























































 Amendment 40 A Lord Hendy not moved. Amendment 41 Baroness Featherstone not moved and amendment 42 Baroness Kramer not moved. Amendment 42 a Lord Hendy not moved. Amendment 43 Baroness Featherstone not moved. Amendment 43 a Lord Hendy not moved. Amendment 44 Lord Marks not moved. Amendment 45 Lord Wills not moved. Amendment 46 Lord Marks not moved and 47 not moved. Amendment 48 Lord Wills not moved. Amendment 49 Lord Marks not moved. The question is that clause ten stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say content. Content contrary not content. The contents have it.







































Amendment 50 Baroness Featherstone not moved. Amendment 51. Lord Alton not moved. Amendment 51 a Lord Hendy not moved. Amendment 52 Baroness Kramer not moved and 53 Baroness Kramer not moved. Amendment 54 Lord Wills not moved. Amendment 55 to 59 Lord Marks not moved. Amendment 60 Lord Anderson not moved. Amendment 61 Lord Alton not moved. The question is that clause 11 stand part of the bill,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. Content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 62 Lord contents have it. Amendment 62 Lord Anderson not moved. Amendment 63. Baroness Brinton not moved. Baroness Brinton not moved. Amendment 63 a Baroness Falkner not moved. Amendment 64 Baroness Jay moved. Amendment 64 Baroness Jay not moved and 65 not moved. Amendment 66 Baroness Coffey not Amendment 66 Baroness Coffey not moved. Amendment 66 a Baroness Neville-Jones not moved and 67 not moved. Amendment 68 Lord Marks not moved. Amendment 69 Baroness Jay not moved and amendment 69 a Baroness Coffey not moved. The question is that schedule two be the second schedule to the bill, as amended.













That opinion will say content. Content the contrary not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed. We will then move House be resumed. We will then move to dinner, break business. We will therefore not return to the Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before 2037. The question is that the House be resumed, as many of that opinion will say content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. The contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All. Question for short debate. Provision for the teaching of
19:38
19:38
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
values that underpin it. We are vulnerable because of the spread of disinformation and false narratives, not least through social media. Many, especially young people, lack both a critical capacity to interrogate the veracity of what is posted and an understanding of how our system works and what it our system works and what it delivers to them and to society as a whole. The pervasive use of social media also serves to undermine community engagement. People no longer coming together to pursue their interests and to engage in social discourse. The dissemination of fake news by malign sources, whether domestic or foreign, serves to undermine trust in our political system and culture.













































































































































The 2023 ONS Trust in Government survey found that a majority of those questioned, 57% had low or no trust in both government and parliament. Our system of government, how we choose to govern ourselves and the values that underpin a healthy polity, adherence to the rule of law, justice and tolerance have built up over the centuries, producing a stable, pluralist society. But its endurance rests on the trust and vigilance of its citizens. As Stanley Baldwin memorably put it, we have to remember that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and, I may add, eternal knowledge, eternal sympathy, and eternal understanding.





























































































































My thesis is that we need to act, and to do so as a matter of urgency, to enhance knowledge and understanding. That will not happen without action on our part. As the noble Lord Lord Hodgson of Ashley Abbott said in opening debate in 2018 on the report of the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Education, our fellow citizens of any age do not learn about how our society works by magic. It has to be taught and taught well. As he went on to say, while. While our committee heard evidence of some inspiring work going on in our schools, too often it appears that schools regard citizenship as a nice to have, not a must have.











































































































Surely that needs to be reversed. As the committee's report concluded, the government's allowed citizenship education in England to degrade to a parlous state. The decline of the subject must be addressed in its totality as a matter of urgency. My Lords, the best defence against the attack on our democratic system is a vibrant civic culture. That is what constitutes the basis of this question this evening. The onus is on government to act as a matter of urgency, though we all have a role to play. I welcome the changes that the government have announced to the provision of citizenship teaching.





























































































They are necessary, but, as I shall argue, not sufficient. The government have accepted the recommendations of the Curriculum and Assessment Review and are making citizenship teaching compulsory for primary school children. They'll be revised. National curriculum for teaching in 2028. Resources are also being made available through the Oak National Academy, as well as by the Electoral Commission. However, much more needs to be done. There is a problem in teaching citizenship at key stages three and four. Many schools lack a subject specialist. Eight out of ten teachers who teach citizenship do not have a relevant post A-level qualification in the subject.













































































I fear that citizenship talk badly may be worse than no teaching at all. Fewer than 5% of pupils opt for GCSE citizenship studies. My Lords, we know from surveys the value of such education, exposure to citizenship content is associated with stronger support for democracy, tolerance, confidence in the ability to make a difference and intention to vote. That is exactly what is needed. To take citizenship seriously. Schools need incentives. Ofsted inspections need to give citizenship the same attention as other curriculum subjects and, as recommended by the Association of Citizenship Teaching, assess pupils knowledge alongside opportunities for participation.

























































Schools need to demonstrate that pupils have acquired have secured the statutory citizenship learning. Incentives need to be matched by serious investment, both in terms of recruiting and training citizenship teachers, not least through the provision of training bursaries and in enabling primary schools to deliver on the responsibilities that are being vested in them. That investment must not be seen as some discrete responsibility of the Department for education and a drain on its budget. It must be embraced by government as a as an essential tool in the nation's defence against the threats it faces. Enhancing citizenship education is not among the recommendations of the Recovery Review to tackle foreign interference in UK politics, but it is a logical extension of what is proposed.



































It should be core to the work of the Government's Defending Democracy task Force. Embedding citizenship teaching in schools is necessary. But even with adequate resourcing, it is not sufficient. We need a politically aware population. Citizenship needs to be embedded in society. I welcome the aspiration of the Association of Colleges for every college to offer students a high quality political literacy programme. We need to extend such literacy to others in society, utilising any organisation that draws people together. The Electoral Commission may play a valuable role. Its democratic education framework is aimed at young people, but merits being extended to bodies in civil society to reach adults.















We need to think what other public bodies can contribute to raising political awareness. Will the Minister confirm that what is needed and what she will pursue is a whole of government strategy to embrace and fund citizenship, teaching along the lines of outlined to tackle the ever growing challenges posed to this nation by disinformation and false narratives. My Lords, we know young people recognise the need to be better informed and benefit from such education.

We need to ensure that they and their elders get that education for all our sakes.
19:46
19:48
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes my Lord. >> Follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Given that the University of Sheffield and Bernard Crick in particular, were leaders in talking about citizenship education earlier this year ahead of the representation of the people's Bill reaching our House, I visited a number of secondary schools in London and Yorkshire to ask how they plan to adjust their curriculum, to prepare students to exercise their vote from 16. I was shaken by how little time any of them currently had for education about democracy, law and citizenship, including in one of England's leading independent schools one hour a week for all aspects of personal development from personal relationships, finance, drugs, online stress, fakes and misinformation, bullying and grooming, health careers, British values and democracy is a crazy race through too many important topics.

































The students I met admitted how little they knew about political issues, but were very keen to know more after the first Reform Act. The Earl of Eldon argued in a debate in this House against educating the working classes as giving them ideas above their station. A recent Telegraph op ed argued similarly that political education is dangerous because left wing teachers will indoctrinate students with subversive ideas. Yes, democracy is about encouraging citizens to think for themselves, to challenge authority and the received wisdom, and to understand the balance between rights and responsibilities that underpins our democratic society.

















Public trust in our political institutions is lower than in most comparable democratic states. The weakening of our local democracy had made politics more remote. For most citizens. It looks like a distant game played in Westminster. The replacement of newspapers and radio by social media as the primary source of information had left many young people desperately uninformed about the structures and the difficult choices that shape our politics. We need cross-party support for better political education and to make more room in our crowded national curriculum for students to learn about how to be active, informed and responsible citizens.
19:50
19:52
Lord Patten Portrait Lord Patten (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Morse. I strongly agree with my noble. deeply into other. Bodies engaged in civil society. So, as a very long standing local resident in the City of Westminster and as we know, all politics is local politics. I'm glad to see that Westminster Council now has a deputy Cabinet member designated for civic matters, indeed for civic pride. And that's a very good thing. I believe for local local authorities to turn their attention into in order to shore up the key values of our British polity. Providentially, this debate comes at a critical time for the peaceful polity of many countries in Europe and beyond, like India, where in recent weeks we have seen a lot of uncivil youth quakes bursting out all over their societies.



























Tragically, particularly in France. I have suddenly seen these maybe harmless student demonstrations being transmogrified into something very much more serious, with assaults of a very savage sort on the very ideal of fraternity, free of benefits and education in civil society. But we in the UK, mercifully spared, and long may it last. This sort of thing is. We must spread the message as quickly as possible, starting, of course, with schools and looking at the school record, the numbers of people studying GCSEs in citizenship has plummeted. The numbers of people qualified to teach it has plummeted. The people there aren't the people to take up the challenge, to show leadership.









 It isn't only within schools, but it's critically important. As the noble Lord Lord Blunkett has pointed out. And what I find very hard to understand is there isn't even a bursary for initial teacher training. Please, Minister, why not?
19:54
Baroness Gill Portrait Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the upcoming national >> My Lords, the upcoming national curriculum reforms making citizenship compulsory in primary schools and deepening focus on democracy and media literacy in secondary schools are an excellent step forward. However, you can teach the mechanics of democratic system, but you cannot syllabus the courage it takes to step up and use them. True citizenship requires us to step completely out of our comfort zones. When I look back at my own journey, my real integration into society, it didn't just happen in a classroom. It happened when I forced myself into unfamiliar spaces. Joining team sports school orchestra taught me how to cooperate and completely different with completely different groups of people.































Later, Duke of Edinburgh scheme pushed me even further. It led me to a doorstep of an elderly lady. Every week I saw her shopping or did her shopping and simply sat and spoke with her. That single step out of my own world gave me a profound, real world understanding of my local community, and it taught me empathy, history, and shared responsibility. My deepest concern today is that we are losing these opportunities, as many noble Lords have already mentioned to many young peoples are young people are absorbed in social media, simply reinforcing their own narrow subcultures.

















Even at home, the cultural landscape has fractured. The demise of mainstream terrestrial channels means families no longer gather around a shared cultural touchstone. Instead, individuals are immersed in TikTok or streaming that can cater strictly to their existing interests. So we've stopped sharing, and that stops us from understanding and empathising with the wider fabric of British society. So while we must applaud the government's decisive action to strengthen classroom citizenship, we cannot let the state do all the heavy lifting.

Policy alone, cannot build a community.
19:56
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To be given the vote, and there are around. 1.5 million of them. This is at a time when our politics This is at a time when our politics has never been so febrile and unpredictable. There's therefore a burning question as to whether our burning question as to whether our young people are equipped with the knowledge they need to use their vote in an informed way, or even to vote in an informed way, or even to want to vote at all. The good news is that citizenship education is already part of the national curriculum at key stages three and four.



































This says pupils should be taught about democratic government. Key elements of the UK constitution, human rights, financial matters and a free press, etc. but it's one thing to write these things into the national curriculum and quite another to actually deliver them in practice. The fact is that many pupils either not being taught these things at all, or there's insufficient attention given to their importance, which explains why Professor Becky Francis review of the national curriculum found a less than 5% take up of citizenship at GCSE. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton has already pointed out, there should be more teachers trained in citizenship issues who can teach the subject in an impartial and engaging way in every school.



















As the noble Lord Lord Blunkett graphically put it in a previous debate on citizenship education, and I quote, we must get rid of the catch 22, which is that if you do not teach children citizenship, they will not go forward through to GCSE, and if they don't do that, there'll be less government support, train more teachers and round we go. Could I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, how many teachers have been recruited from the money raised from VAT on private schools, and how many of these will be trained to teach citizenship? Ideally, there needs to be a teacher trained in citizenship in every school.







Only then will it be part of the national curriculum at key stages 1 to 4 in a meaningful way for teachers and pupils alike. With all the massive benefits this will have for society as a whole.
19:58
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the lack of specialist teachers for citizenship, as my noble friend Lord Norton outlined, means that schools have had to be super flexible in how they teach this subject. In some schools it is a standalone with a few going on to GCSE. In some it's taught across the curriculum, in history and politics, and some it's merged with DHSC. In some it's part of the pastoral curriculum. So taught first thing in the morning in forms and in some. It is taught as part of fundamental British values. Such flexibility is not necessarily a bad thing, as when the charity freedom declared.

































Foundation, of which I'm a trustee, together with Regent's Park College, Oxford, in which I must declare an interest, sought to create secondary school resources on freedom of religion or belief in the UK with re teachers. The teachers arrived equipped with the exam board curriculums in citizenship and neatly slotted it in. However, my Lords, my main question to His Majesty's Government is how much emphasis is there whether a primary or secondary on why we are a democracy, encouraging young people to vote and volunteer is necessary. But when algorithms are sending mainly boys to the glorification of the strongman view of government, along with some far right streams of thought, for how long will they be able to make the distinction between the strongman and the dictator?

















Our teachers, being equipped with this information about the algorithms. This month, America, the so-called leader of the free world, was classified by academics, Levitsky and way as a competitive authoritarian state. I quote where elections remain real, but incumbents systematically abuse state institutions to tilt the playing field against opponents. My Lords, the context in which citizenship is being taught is very different to when any noble Lords were at school. Why we are a democracy is seriously under challenge.

Flexibility is going to need to be supplemented by specialist training to keep a pace with such algorithms.
20:00
Lord Doyle Portrait Lord Doyle (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. >> For securing this. >> Debate and for his excellent speech. And it's a great pleasure to follow my noble friend and former boss, Lord Blunkett, who has been such a great advocate on this topic. I speak as a passionate advocate myself for citizenship, education and its role in building the resilient, informed and engaged citizens of the future. So how do we get from good intentions to good implementation? Well, first, we must acknowledge some of the problems with the habit of simply suggesting adding something to the national curriculum solves a problem. We have a smorgasbord of RHSE financial and digital literacy, enterprise education, etc.

































while all these demands are perfectly reasonable, the curriculum cannot simply be an ever growing list of things politicians and campaigners think are important. I believe there are, therefore four things we need to do first, understand what is already being taught, rather than simply trying to add more and more obligations. Second, bring these subjects together. What do we want our young people to know and be able to do when they leave school and why? Let's create one coherent curriculum with clear priorities and carefully sequenced content. Third, we need to give it the right time. Headteachers are already having to make choices and can't keep absorbing new demands, especially for non examined subjects.

















But we already have a model in PE where schools widely provide two hours a week without making an exam in subject. Let's establish one hour a week for this new combined curriculum with a clear national expectation, including Ofsted inspection. And fourth, let's support teachers. We need excellent curriculum materials through organisations like the Association of Citizenship Teachers and the National Academy, so teachers can deliver these lessons confidently and effectively. This way we can have a coherent, stable and deliverable approach to preparing our young people for life.
20:03
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Portrait Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to talk about the financial education aspect of citizenship education, aspect of citizenship education, something I know the government is committed to improving. It's imperative that children learn the necessary financial skills for their future. To quote the money saving expert Martin Lewis, our children are sent out into a world of scams, dodgy deals and debt without the tools to cope. The useful library briefing for this debate tells us that parents, carers and students are dissatisfied with the present level of attention to financial education in the curriculum, and that there is a strong appetite for more.































I'd like to draw the attention of the House to the recent report, entitled Jobs and Investment, published by the Jobs Foundation, a charity I'm proud to be president of. As declared in the Register, which included the recommendation for the teaching of Basic Investment in Schools, teaching practical skills on rates of return, basic portfolio principles and retirement planning would set children up for life. A life of financial stability. We should also teach the power of compound interest, the importance of delayed gratification to future wellbeing and, dare I say it, why capital gains have always been taxed at a lower rate than salaried income.

















But as economic growth requires entrepreneurship and risk taking to be encouraged, when the noble Lady the Minister, responds to this debate, I'd be grateful if the House could have more detail on the government's plans for financial education, and whether the principles of investment might be included as part of this. As teenagers hopefully still learn in their English lessons from reading Mr. Corbyn's words in David Copperfield annual income £20. Annual expenditure £19.19 and six. Result happiness annual income £20. Annual expenditure £20 nought and six. Result misery. Macaubas principal is correct at a neat encapsulation of why financial education is a must.
20:05
Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush Portrait Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, my commitment. >> To citizen education was cemented during my time working for the National Citizen Service NCS, which brought together young people from different backgrounds to help build confidence, forge lasting relationships and develop a sense of shared purpose, primarily through volunteering in their local communities. NCS often changed young people's lives and demonstrated to me that citizenship should be an activity and not a subject. And I'd like to think we might bear that in mind when we think about future provision. Like Lord Norton, I want to focus on citizenship education's potential to strengthen our national resilience.





































Members of this House are acutely aware of the challenges that our country faces, and the resulting sense of uncertainty and threat in that climate. Resilience depends on whether people feel that they belong, trust one another, and significantly trust the institutions that govern them. And I worry that we have too little understanding of what many young people are exposed to online, and of the malign influences seeking to undermine our values and institutions. I think when we look at France this weekend, I refuse to believe that amongst the chaos, there is not some coordinated agitation or provocation by those that wish to undermine our values here in the UK in 2025, counter-terrorism police arrested 39 children, young people under the age of 17 under terrorism laws.





















That means that 1 in 6 of all those arrested last year in counter-terrorism police were were children. Of those arrested, 92 were boys or young, 92% were boys or young men. Those figures add to my sense that we're just not paying enough attention to who is targeting our young men, and to what dreadful ends they are working towards. To my to my mind, they deserve the boys a bit more of our support and our attention, and dare I say it, our love. Citizen education cannot solve every problem, but done well. It can help equip young people with the skills to think critically, challenge misinformation, understand our collective values, and engage constructively with those people whose views differ from their own.





Given the challenges that we face as a country and what lies ahead, it seems to me that this is an important and worthwhile investment.
20:07
Baroness Helic Portrait Baroness Helic (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I welcome this debate, and I congratulate my noble friend and I congratulate my noble friend on all his tireless work over the years on citizenship, education and and on today. Today's speech. My Lords, I serve on your Lordships National Resilience Committee, and much of my work concerns how the country can withstand threats to its institutions and security. But national resilience, of course, cannot be secured by the state alone. It also depends on the judgement and conduct of citizens. Last week, Ken McCallum urged us to be clear eyed about more contested world we now live in.



































This is absolutely right. But being clear eyed requires more than recognition of external threats. It requires the ability to distinguish between credible information from manipulation and disagreement from enemy. Citizenship education must therefore go beyond teaching how Parliament election works. Young people should understand why the rule of law matters, how to assess evidence, how to disagree without treating others as enemies. These are essential disciplines of democratic life and national resilience. I welcome the government's plans to extend compulsory citizenship education to primary school in England from 2028 and to strengthen media literacy. But policy commitments alone are not enough, and provision remains uneven, and schools need the time, expertise and support to teach these subjects effectively.

















Will the Minister tell the House how the Department for education and the Cabinet Office are working together to make civic resilience, including political literacy and the ability to recognise manipulation an explicit part of national resilience planning. And how will the government assess whether these efforts are succeeding? My Lords, when a crisis comes, the question will not be only whether government is ready. It will be whether citizens can exercise judgement, resist manipulation and act with a sense of responsibility towards one another.

We cannot assume that they will, but we must prepare them for that.
20:09
Baroness Porter of Fulwood Portrait Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. government spending in a recent poll, only 16% selected the correct answer. In another poll, when people were asked about their understanding of how laws were made, 49% said they knew, not very much, knew nothing about or had never heard of the process. These figures raise an important question how can we expect people to participate meaningfully in our democracy if they do not understand how it works? As citizenship education is expanded, particularly into primary schools, we should focus not simply on what children will be taught, but on how they are taught it. The ability to think critically, weigh competing arguments, and understand their responsibility to the communities in which they live.

























Should run throughout the entire curriculum. Those of us who spent our lives in public policy know that politics is fundamentally about trade offs, balancing competing priorities and considering unintended consequences. We should equip children with the skills to navigate these choices thoughtfully. How they apply what they know is just as important as what they know. Citizenship education must be more than a box ticking exercise. It must be taught in such a way that it shapes how people think, how they engage with others, and how they act in their everyday lives. Will the noble Baroness, the Minister, commit to ensuring that the new curriculum, when it is introduced, will have as core objectives, developing citizens who can think critically and understand their obligations to the wider community they live in.







 And can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain how the government will ensure that these objectives translate into meaningful teaching and learning in the classroom?
20:11
20:13
Baroness Barker Portrait Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, it was a pleasure to be part of the 2018 committee, which looked at citizenship under the chairmanship of Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. And although it's taken ten years, it's complete. It is pleasing to see that the government is finally getting around to responding positively to some of the suggestions that we made then. I've also should say that I spend a lot of time talking to children in school, children in our education centre, and I very much welcome the move to extend citizenship education to primary schools, because the level of engagement and interest and desire for further knowledge of very young children is something which is a constant surprise and delight to me.

































 Going back to the committee, one of the biggest disappointments that we had was the then disinterest of Ofsted in citizenship teaching. They really were not interested in. In seeing that schools were being assessed on the on the on the level or the quality of their teaching. And teachers were having to make up from their own time and their own resources, curricula. I'm really glad that we're going to move away from that, and we're going to move towards proper standardisation. I'm also pleased that we have stopped. We're going to stop mixing up citizenship with P, h, s, e and a whole gaggle of other things.



















I was critical of the National Citizen Service from its inception, and I'm glad that the government was brave enough to close it down, because I think it was it was ill targeted and expensive and by and large not worth the money that it was being paid for. I do have a question for the noble Baroness. At its height, it was paid £150 million a year. That was a very big investment in a voluntary organisation. What's happened to the money? Because that's a sizeable slice of resources which could be given over to the development and implementation of new resources, which, by the way, if they're going to reach young people, have got to be online at some stage because that will that will be the way in which our young people get onto this agenda and get to find the information that they need.
20:15
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I thank the noble Lord Lord Norton of Louth for securing this debate. It was really terrible this debate. It was really terrible to see France banning this weekend, watching Limoges Hall fall to at least dead so far. And it began with rioting schoolchildren here in the UK. We have recent polling showing less than half of young Britons support our democratic system. So it's a natural reflex to, say teach citizenship. But how and what we teach under this subject is of vital importance because it has gone so badly wrong elsewhere. There's no time tonight.



































But in Illinois, in Massachusetts, in Quebec. Do look at what has happened there. It's been devastating. Children should be taught our history, our constitution, equality before the law. Of course, they should be taught how to participate. But the content being written by staff in the Department of Education taught by teachers. Untrained, as we've heard tonight, and without any supervision or oversight as yet known to us by Ofsted or elsewhere, it's simply not going to be adequate. We've heard from Baroness Paul that 1 in 6 arrested for counter-terrorism in the UK are children. Baroness Casey warned us ten years ago that there were whole communities living parallel lives and so very little has been done.



















 So how are we going to ensure that those among us who see citizenship of this country as a very different thing, are trustworthy in their roles in schools? To teach it in the same way? Because, my Lords, there is another place where the teaching of citizenship has failed. France has required moral and civic education in every school year since 2015. The generation that sat through those lessons set fire to their country at the weekend. The Secretary of State said recently in a speech that she wished to look again at the curriculum, and I hope very much that she will look again at some of this.
20:18
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> Noble Lord, Lord Norton, for securing this important debate on citizenship education. As a leading expert on Parliament, I know that citizenship is very close to his heart. As many noble Lords have said during this short debate, citizenship matters because it is important that young people understand our democratic institutions, their rights and responsibilities and the part they can play in shaping our country. A point emphasised by the noble Lady Baroness Porter. It gives young people the knowledge and confidence to become active, informed and responsible members of society. Citizenship is, of course, already a national curriculum subject, having been introduced under the previous Labour government.















































































































































































































When my noble friend Lord Blunkett was the Secretary of State and I was a lowly foot soldier Minister in helping him to introduce that subject and the statutory content already covers democracy and government, the law and rights, financial education and participation in society, as well as critical thinking and mutual respect. But that does not mean that we think the status quo is good enough. The Curriculum and Assessment review from late 2025 pointed to an out-of-date curriculum, as have noble Lords this evening. My my noble friend Lord Doyle, I think, rightly argued that we need to position citizenship within an understanding of what and how we teach across the whole of the curriculum.





























































































































































































But the review did call for explicit content on the life skills that young people need or see, or as I like to think of it. Speaking and listening skills. Financial education as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Elliot. Digital and media literacy. And here in particular, I think my noble friend Baroness Paul and the noble Lady Baroness Helic are absolutely right to emphasise the nature of young people being able to recognise disinformation and think clearly as being a key element of national resilience. The review was clear that students need to be clear sighted and questioning and sceptical, and that does need to be a particularly important development, given some of the other issues that noble Lords have raised, and also the Curriculum and Assessment Review argued climate change education.







































































































































































The review said that curriculum content should be more specific and that it should build progressively through each age group. The review also said that citizenship should become statutory in primary schools. The government agrees no child should miss out, although I cannot promise my noble friend Lord Sikka, that Galbraith will be on the curriculum for primary school pupils. The government intends to consult this year on a refreshed curriculum which will achieve those review aims. I hope that noble Lords will engage with that consultation, and I know that some are already working hard alongside the department to make sure that that curriculum is right.

























































































































































The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggested that that there was scepticism reported in the Daily Telegraph about the place of citizenship. Of course, it wasn't just in the Telegraph, it was also from members of the party opposite, although I note a considerably more positive approach to citizenship from the noble Lady Baroness Cash than we heard from some of her colleagues down at the other end of the House, particularly during their conference, where they argued that teaching children how to engage with our democracy is somehow politicising the classroom, and, of course, argued that they did not want primary pupils to have the statutory content that we believe that they should have.









































































































































They argued, and the noble Lady Baroness Spielman isn't here for the debate this evening, but she has argued particularly for more focus on British identity. But what makes us British and proud to be is our democracy, our rights, the rule of law and our tolerance and belief in strong communities built on respect that rejects the divisiveness of much political discourse today. And I think the noble Lord, Lord Patten and others, in pointing to events in France recently, have identified some of the divisiveness that happens not just there, but that all of us need to respond to.



























































































































Removing children's ability to explore those things through citizenship. Education does not protect our children. It leaves them open to misinformation and the forces that want to divide, not to unite our country. And by the way, I think as well, the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Norton asked. It is not the responsibility of schools directly is right, but adults and other public bodies, including the work of the government through the Defending Democracy Task Force, needs to make sure that that approach is taken throughout people's lives as well. But as many have argued, and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Peterborough, amongst others, we.













































































































Whilst we know that many schools already teach the subject well in ways that are engaging and meaningful for their pupils, we need to think more carefully and take action on how we implement the change in curriculum. Even an improved statutory curriculum does not give schools everything that they need. The consultation will ask people to tell us what is needed to enable effective implementation. This could include expert resources or subject specific support, not least as citizenship includes sensitive and fast changing topics. And on that, I recognise that it is important for schools to be aware of their legal duties regarding impartiality and balanced treatment of political issues in the classroom.





























































































The existing non-statutory guidance on political impartiality provides clear and comprehensive guidance to help those working with and in schools to better understand these duties and how to strengthen their processes, both in teaching about political issues and beyond the curriculum, and to give teachers the confidence to cover these topics effectively and appropriately. But we will update this guidance if we have evidence that it is not sufficiently enabling this. And importantly, we will continue to work with the sector, including the Association for citizenship, teaching the Electoral Commission with wider government departments and the range of organisations deeply committed to citizenship to consider the best possible package of support.













































































We will welcome pilots to test and learn what works best. We will also provide adaptable, free digital lesson resources through Oak National Academy, and support will be available before first teaching begins. And here I come to the to the to the point made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who pushes us to introduce this more quickly. He will know, though, that the changes to the citizenship curriculum sit within the much wider change to the national curriculum that we are intending to bring in in 2028. And, of course, that will enable citizenship to fit within what we hope will be increased opportunities for this type of learning as we streamline other elements of the curriculum as well.



























































But of course, he's right that the important provision, the important resources created by the Electoral Commission and in fact, the existing curriculum already provide important opportunities for schools to be preparing young people for a lower voting age. Also, in relation to my noble friend Baroness Gillan, a noble Lady Baroness Paul. Can I say, I also believe that activity and civic engagement are important, which is why they will be an important element of our enrichment framework. Having enough well trained school teachers is fundamental to the citizenship reforms. That is why our curriculum plans represent a new citizenship requirement for primary schools.













































 But it is positive that last year we achieved 128% of the overall postgraduate training target in primary. We know that citizenship is taught by a variety of secondary school teachers, but there are more than 3000 more additional teachers in secondary and special schools now compared to the 2024 data. I do appreciate that we would benefit from a greater number of specialist citizenship teachers. The department reviews bursaries annually to take account of things like recruitment. To date, forecast economic conditions and teacher need, and we will be announcing a new package this autumn. Several noble Lords, the noble Lady Baroness Barker, raised the issue of Ofsted Inspection Framework Framework, which does now have a focus on ensuring schools provide a high quality, ambitious curriculum for all pupils.



























Ofsted evaluates citizenship largely within the personal development and wellbeing area, but their toolkit now explicitly recognises the importance of pupils developing detailed knowledge in citizenship. They the strong standard for this area explicitly recognises the importance of pupils developing detailed knowledge in citizenship. In closing this debate, can I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton and other speakers for their thoughtful and well-informed contributions? This is a pivotal moment for citizenship education. We must seize the opportunity to strengthen the subjects, content and status so that it inspires pupils curiosity about our changing society, and equips them with the skills and knowledge to contribute to democracy as critical, informed and active citizens.









The importance of the subject demands that we work closely with experts to ensure that it is taught to the highest standards, and that teachers have ongoing support and confidence to bring the subject to life in a meaningful and lasting way. I welcome my Lords insights into how we can do that well, and look forward to further discussions in this House as that work continues.
20:28
20:29
20:37
20:38
None Portrait Amendment:71 Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-

its definition. The. The definition in this amendment comes from in this amendment comes from section 227 of the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act, 2024, Competition and Consumers Act, 2024, which defines misleading as the omission of information. I emphasise that this definition is emphasise that this definition is intended to be a starting point, and although it is not necessarily and although it is not necessarily an exact fit for the Bill, the purpose is to show that there is a potential solution for the current problem of lack of clarity. The definition should also include a reference to the inclusion of irrelevant information, but at this stage, the purpose is to raise the issue with the noble Lord, the Minister.



























The purpose of leading a proper, clear definition and we are open to discussion on the final wording. Turning to amendment 80, my right hon. Friend Nick Timothy argued in the other place that the. For the inclusion of the requirement for the Attorney General to institute or consent to any prosecution of the offence of misleading the. To sorry, the inclusion of the requirement for the Attorney General to institute or consent to any prosecution of the offence of misleading the public. This is important, and it is exactly what this amendment seeks to do. Of course, to mislead the public intentionally is not a good thing, and we do not deny.











We certainly do not deny the existence of cover ups and abuses in the past. But there is a risk that this offence could be used in such a way so as to curtail political debate, in order to prevent that from becoming the case. The inclusion of the barrier of the Attorney General's consent would ensure that these claims are not made with no basis, and instead they are only made when an issue is legitimate. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed. Clause 12. Page 13. Line eight and insert
20:40
20:40
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
the most egregious cases. Nonetheless, it is crucial in Nonetheless, it is crucial in pushing the culture change that is behind this whole bill. There are behind this whole bill. There are many offences which require proof of actual harm to an individual of of actual harm to an individual of group or group before their perpetrated, but there are many perpetrated, but there are many which do not. Drug supply offences and and more relevantly, perverting the course of justice. These are examples of the latter, and. And my suggestion is that this offence should not require a subsequent hurdle of proving a proving harm.













































































The inclusion of proof of harm in the clause 12 offence is, I suggest, unnecessary for similar reasons to those offences regarding the administration of justice. But it would also lead to various egregious examples of misleading the public, not falling within the current draft of the provision, or would make them impossible to prove in reality. One real life example is a chief constable who published false crime figures. This was intended, my Lords, to mislead the public, but I suggest it would be very difficult indeed to establish actual harm. Recent revelations by my noble friend Lord Beamish regarding the nuclear test vets case indicate that he was misled by senior civil servants regarding a proposed compensation scheme, which in turn led to the public being misled again.

















































This is a case which, should it fall within clause 12, would be very difficult to prove harm. The Prime Minister himself gave evidence to the infected blood inquiry that, as Health Secretary, he was misled by senior civil servants as to what the then government knew about contaminated blood products. This caused him innocently to make inaccurate statements to the public. These officials, I would suggest, ought to fall four square within the offence. But the requirement to prove harm. The requirement to prove harm would make that difficult or impossible. My Lords, there have been extremely misguided analyses of clause 12 in recent days in the media.

























To be clear, the new offence targets only the promulgation of false facts by public officials, anathema to their function and mission to act in the public interest. My amendment does not alter the high hurdle of intention or recklessness. However, we land with the with the understandable discussion begun by the noble Lady. But my amendment removes an unnecessary impediment to the offence working as intended in some of the most real and relevant cases.

So I urge the committee to seriously consider removing the need to prove harm from an offence of dishonesty, akin to other offences that I've to other offences that I've
20:45
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
OK. I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward these amendments, which present the opportunity for me to provide some clarifications on the points he raised. The noble Lady Baroness Finn you have to check what you're reading, don't you? Amendment. Amendment 71 would would set a definition of misleading for the purposes of the offence of misleading the public. That replicates the definition of misleading omissions from the Digital Markets Competition and Consumer Act 2024. As the noble Lady said, we have not set out what misleading means in order to maintain its natural meaning and allow the offence to capture the types of behaviour that would be usually regarded as misleading in clause 12, provides that an offence is committed where the act of an authority or official is misleading and seriously improper, where what may be seriously improper is set out.



























































































































































But I'm sure we will engage with Lord Keen and Lord Wolfson and perhaps also Baroness Finn. So we'll carry on the conversation then. Amendment 80 requires the consent of the Attorney General before a prosecution for the offences of misleading the public may be brought. The Bill provides that the prosecution for the offence may only be brought by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, there is already scrutiny of the decision to prosecute provided for in the Bill the consent of the attorney for the prosecution of offences is usually required where the offence involves national security or has some international element.













































































































































For example, if there could be a bearing on international obligations or international terrorism, given the nature of the offence of misleading the public, the government are of the view that requiring consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions is appropriate and would not meet the usual threshold to demand the consent of the attorney. Turning to amendment 73, clause one of the Bill clearly sets out that public authorities and officials are expected to act with candour, transparency and frankness at all times. But criminal sanctions should be reserved for the most serious cases. The condition that an act has to have caused or had the potential to cause harm will achieve this effect, but it will not be a barred prosecution in those cases.



























































































































Let me let me try and explain why the. Firstly, the definition of harm is broad. It includes physical harm, psychological harm, including distress and economic loss. This is a non-exhaustive list and can include other types of harm. The condition also includes harm or the potential for harm. This offence does not require there to be proof that it has caused harm and against an individual. In cases like Hillsborough and Horizon, my Lord's evidence of harm caused by cover ups is clear and apparent. We have designated. We have designed this offence with historic incidents of state failures in mind, where at a minimum potential distress could be identified and in many cases much more serious harm.













































































































The requirement for an act to have the potential to cause harm is a key condition to make sure the offence applies to serious cases only the harm threshold ensures that the public, the police and prosecutors are able to distinguish between those actions that meet the threshold for criminal sanctions and those that should be dealt with through other routes, such as. Let me just finish the sentence, such as an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

organisation's complaints process law. I'm so grateful to a noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm so grateful to a noble friend, the Minister, for giving way for for a moment, in the way for for a moment, in the example of the Chief Constable, who deliberately doctors the crime deliberately doctors the crime statistics in order to boost his or statistics in order to boost his or her own success. How easy does my noble friend the Minister, think it's going to be to prove actual or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

even potential harm? Frankly, I think it would be. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Frankly, I think it would be. I don't I don't think the the issue at all, but I really think it would be wrong for me to comment on individual examples of that source, individual examples of that source, but of that sort. But I I've set out what I think the, the, the the issue in principle is. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue in principle is. Yes. Let me try again. Without an. Individual example. When the public.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is misled. Then the harm is to. Public trust in those who govern us. Public trust in those who govern us. Does the Minister say that that harm is physical harm or psychological harm or economic loss? psychological harm or economic loss? Because if it's none of those things under the bill as it stands,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there could be no prosecution. That's a non-exhaustive list,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's a non-exhaustive list, but I'm very, very happy to take to take that point away. I'm not suggesting that that those are the only tests of harm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agent. I'd like to pursue the point really being made by the noble Baroness Brady Chakrabarti, where Baroness Brady Chakrabarti, where she cited a point made by Lord Beamish earlier on about atomic test victims. The noble Lord, the test victims. The noble Lord, the Minister said in reply to my remarks earlier today, that he would write to me specifically would write to me specifically about where the inquiries into the harm that might have been done to harm that might have been done to the atomic test victims by the leading of Parliament. When Tobias Ellwood told Parliament one thing which he had been told by his officials, which was subsequently shown to be wrong.





















































Where does the blame lie? There? And it's not about prosecution. It's what do you do then, to remedy or rectify that harm or the the damage that is done to the individuals involved. And given that he was interviewed on, I think I gave the the date, September the 2nd by Victoria Derbyshire on BBC. So this is in the public domain. This is not something that I'm making up as I go along.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that we do have to take each case on its merits. But I each case on its merits. But I think the government's view is that it is important to have this harm it is important to have this harm threshold to ensure that, as I'm about to go on to say that, well, about to go on to say that, well, let me carry on a bit and let's see how I go. But it is the nature of how I go. But it is the nature of public life that it is not uncommon for public officials or office holders to be accused of being unfaithful, untruthful, sorry, when going about their daily tasks.































The risk undermining, undermining the offence itself if it is used to trigger police investigations into vexatious claims or engage in political, quote, lawfare, unquote, rather than for the grave. Examples of state cover up that it was intended. I think that's the key point we're trying to drive at here, that if there are serious. And harmful consequences, then there is a case for prosecution. But if for other reasons, people are being told that they've been not telling the truth and so on, then that isn't quite the same as what we would want the police and the prosecutors to be focusing on.

















The creation of an offence of this kind is a bold step. I'm sure noble Lords would agree with that. Hillsborough family spoke of the importance of individual accountability and we listened. It is clear from our engagement across the public sector that such a strong new measure will. And I say this to reassure noble Lords as drafted and when properly implemented, and we will have a discussion as we, as we've said about implementation, will have a serious and real deterrent effect, and we are confident that it and every other measure in the Bill will drive a culture of candour and truthfulness.





I therefore request that the noble and learned Lord withdraws his amendment.
20:53
20:54
20:54
None Portrait Amendment:72 Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-

proposed some changes to offences for misleading the public. This group moves to the Who and the how in an official misleading the in an official misleading the public. I've laid amendment 72 and amendment 77 in this group. My Lords. In 1989, in his interim report on the Hillsborough disaster, Lord Justice Taylor made it clear that although many fans had been drinking drinking, he unequivocally stated that most of them were, quote, not drunk, not even the worse for drink, end quote. He concluded that they formed an exacerbating factor and that police, seeking to rationalise their loss of control, overestimated the element of drunkenness in the crowd.

















































































However, the statements by the police to the press at the time said that they believed that it was the behaviour of the fans, especially those who were drunk and violent. That was the cause of the tragedy and many of the press believed them, with Liverpool fans carrying the blame even when Lord Taylor had contradicted this view. It took a quarter of a century later for the report of the Hillsborough Independent panel, which noted in its report of September 2012 that Lord Justice Taylor was clear that Chief Superintendent Duckenfield was untruthful to Mr. Kelly, the chief executive of the FA, about the inrush of fans forcing open the gate.



































































The police led press to believe that much worse had happened. Lord Taylor called it a vilification of the fans. He had not found one single witness to support any of these allegations. These lies were believed by many in the press, some of whom began decades of negative stories about the Liverpool fans that day. The fans, their families and the city of Liverpool have spent years trying to expose the truth. They are extraordinary. The Hillsborough Independent panel is a testament to their fortitude, but sadly, my Lords, they are not alone. Officials in the Post Office lied to the press about some of the horizon postmasters, and about the problems with the horizon system in infected blood.



















































Doctors and Department of Health officials lied for decades about the true risks of using blood from America, and how serious the consequences would be for people, including to the press. And that, my Lords, is why I've laid amendment 72 in the United Kingdom. The press and publishers are still mostly thought to be reliable sources of information for their readers. Victims of all three of these tragedies could not even begin to recover. While these lies persisted. And the consequence of these lies, in the case of postmasters, court cases and being exposed as criminals. In the case of those who caught HIV and developed Aids from infected blood.





































 Many were treated as pariahs in. In the difficult Aids era. This bill creates other offences, but for some reason ignores the role of giving misleading information to journalists or news publishers. And this amendment attempts to rectify this. Now, Lords clause 12 is important. As we've discussed in this bill, the duty of candour needs both carrots and stick. Clause 12 sets out the key ground rules relating to misleading the public, a public official or a public authority in intentionally misleading the public, or is reckless as to whether their act will do so or not. And this is critical to ensuring that the duty of candour works.





















The stick is the offence for which there are definitely legal consequences. But there is a carrot in this too, my Lords, all public authorities and any other bodies training their officials would have to ensure that they all understand the guardrails about misleading the public and that improper behaviour will have consequences, especially when talking to the media and journalists. To those who say that clause 12 goes too far, I respond by saying that the family of a Hillsborough victim, whose family member was not just killed that day, but their reputation was unjustly trashed because of police officers intentionally misleading the press.





Clause 12 would rectify that from happening in the future, and there would be consequences if a public official or a public organisation deliberately misled the press. My Lords, I beg to move.
20:59
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment. >> Proposed clause 12. Page 13. Line eight at end. In words printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords, I. I wish to intervene

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. I wish to intervene very briefly on this particular amendment, but before I move, I want to describe my motivation for this intervention. Let me be clear that my deepest sympathy goes out to all of those affected by the appalling examples of dishonesty and cover ups that have led to the need for this bill, and which have just been referenced by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. In seeking to ask probing amendments of government. I merely did my job as a member of this place in trying to improve legislation and to make it more workable.





















































In a practical sense, no one doing their job should face innuendo that they are acting in bad faith, as some campaigners may be well prone to suggest. Now to turn to amendment 72. I, of course, accept all the examples given by Baroness Brinton, and I have my own catalogue of experiences of appearing in the press in misleading actions where misleading actions were attributed to me, or indeed pure lies were attributed to me. I've spoken to more defamation lawyers than I ever thought I would need to speak to in my life, but I took no action for those for those libels as I saw them.



































And the reason for that is, is that I believe in independent press, which is usually in our country, and I think we have fairly high standards. Is an ethical press, well regulated, and I'm very glad that I've spoken before. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner Lord Faulks sitting here in front of me, my noble friend, it is profoundly important in drafting legislation that we're aware of article ten rights for for public officials as much as for any other body. Public officials do not give up their article ten rights when they wear their lanyard and come into work.



















And I would argue that miss that the press in, shall we say, being credulous to accept things that maybe perhaps are a bit improbable, were things that happened far more frequently in the past than they happen today, because proprietors, the law and journalists themselves, in my view, are rather more ethical than they were 45 years ago. And on that basis, I'd be very, very reluctant to see an amendment of this sort enter this particular bill, whereby people would face criminal sanctions for speaking to journalists about things that they may, in good or bad faith, consider to have happened.



And we've got to respect that in terms of press freedoms.
21:02
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Well, I don't. >> Well, I don't. >> For a moment. >> Dispute the right of this government to bring forward government to bring forward legislation imposing a duty of candour. It was in their manifesto, and in any event, there's generally agreement across parties that public authorities and public officials should be candid. And the need for this has been graphically illustrated by Hillsborough, the Post Office and many other scandals. But the requirement for the creation of a criminal offence, such as we see in clause 12 of the Bill, was not in the manifesto, but even if it had been, it didn't.



















































































































































































 Does not relieve your Lordships house of the task of scrutinising this legislation, particularly a clause which has such a wide potential scope. Clause 12 just a moment ago, described by the noble Lord, the Minister, as a bold step, creates an offence of misleading the public by public officials. It is a freestanding criminal offence on conviction. A defendant could face up to two years in prison. A public authority includes a Minister of the Crown and a government department, as well as the devolved administrations, the armed forces, police forces, local authorities, NHS bodies, schools and any other body with functions of a public nature.































































































































































A public official, which appears in this context to include those who work for a school, is anyone who works for or holds office under such a body. My first question to the Minister is this can he help with quite. How many public officials would be caught by this definition so as to render them potentially liable to conviction of a serious offence? We heard from me, the noble Lady Baroness Falkner, for something like 6 million civil servants. But there are many others who would classify themselves as public officials, and we have a significantly large public sector in this country.

















































































































































My second question is this what sort of behaviour is intended to be caught by this clause, which would not be captured by the provisions of the Bill clauses 13, 14, 17 and 18, or indeed by the general criminal law? Examples would help. I looked at the explanatory notes and one of the examples was given as, quote, a department covering up the harmfulness of a policy. Well, that, with respect, seems to describe what government is regularly accused of doing in the rough and tumble of politics. And yet it could apparently be a criminal offence. The clause is, I suggest, extremely vague, which of itself gives rise to rule of law.





























































































































Objections misleading, as we've already heard, is a tricky word. When is a political statement which tends to emphasise positive rather than negative facts, or vice versa, depending on the source, to be regarded as misleading, seriously improper is defined, but it includes not only an act of concealment but also obfuscation. What is or is not obfuscation very difficult to say. There is a defence to which I think the noble Lady Baroness Levitt is going to address the house, which is supposed to provide some form of defence. I'm not at the moment convinced how satisfactory it is.











































































































A prosecution will only proceed with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General. If the conservative frontbench would have its way. Is this a sufficient safeguard? I'm not seeking to impugn the integrity of any DPP, but is he or she? Aren't they going to have to take some very difficult, almost political decisions? We know that prosecuting authorities can be judicially reviewed and that mischievous people can attempt prosecutions for political reasons. So my provisional view is that this offence, although motivated by the best motives, is a big leap forward and one which renders people potentially vulnerable to prosecution, who I don't think should be intended to be such a victim.





















































































And of course, many people might be prosecuted, albeit they may be acquitted. They still have to go through the process of being subjected to the criminal justice system. That's the first point. But the second point is, and perhaps it's more important, the second point, what effect will this particular provision have on public administration? May I recommend the Policy Exchange document published last week on the bill and in particular, the foreword by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who knows a great deal about public administration. The authors of the paper draw comparisons between the now much regretted Freedom of Information Act and this particular piece of legislation.



































































I looked to see what the periodical local government lawyer. Probably not a publication terribly familiar to your Lordships, might say about this particular provision. Section 12, clause 12. It's not generally very politically contentious, but it's there to guide local governments as to potential legal vulnerabilities. And it said this of the bill, the breadth of offences will likely require existing codes of conduct, employee policies, protocols and training materials to be revised. Anti-Corruption measures will be familiar in many public bodies but may not capture the full range of behaviours that will be criminalised by clause 12. That sounds like an absolute avalanche of legal intrusion into the way that public authorities will have to operate in the future.













































If the effect of the Freedom of Information Act 2002 thousand was supposed to change the culture of secrecy, it has, in many people's view, made people reluctant to commit frank views to paper at all. In fact, many feel it has had the opposite effect to that which was intended and hasn't made for better government. Clause 12 similarly runs the risk of making officials much more reluctant to put provisional or controversial views on paper. Decisions may be taken only in small groups. Notes may well be taken very much, with the prospect of being scrutinised. We heard earlier in debates about the the problem of people potentially deleting notes or deleting digital footprints.

























There may not be anything to delete if this becomes law, lawyers will be involved. I suggest. As I've already indicated, and lawyers don't always help make good decisions, whatever their intentions. And it may well be that the number of people involved in making decisions feel they better not write anything at all, just to reassure the whips on the front bench. I'm not intending to divide the House over this issue, but I am seeking to probe the government as to how this is going to work. And indeed, I had some sympathy with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti.









 The requirement for harm. This is a step into the unknown, a step into the unknown, which I'm unconvinced is going to be satisfactory. In fact, I fear for the worst.
21:11
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move amendment 76 in my name, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. And I declare my interest as the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union before I come to my amendment. Just with reference to amendment 72, my concern is that it would make it much harder for journalists and public officials to communicate with each other in confidence. I know from my own experience as a journalist that quite often public officials, politicians, Ministers will add a bit of topspin to the information they're providing you with, and you learn to take that into account, and you counterbalance it by talking to the political opponents or to people who disagree with them.

































































































































































































 And it's in the end, you come to a mature, informed decision. My worry is that if it becomes a criminal offence for a public official to mislead a journalists, that will make it much harder to get public officials to talk to journalists. And there's one quirk in the amendment which which whereby only the criminal offence would only apply to public officials who mislead journalists working for recognised news publishers. That would create a perverse incentive for public officials to only communicate in confidence with unrecognised news publishers, knowing that they wouldn't be liable for prosecution if whatever they told them was then published.

















































































































































































But unrecognised news publishers would presumably do less checking, be less scrupulous about simply regurgitating whatever misleading things they've been told by public officials. So for a variety of reasons, I think amendment 72 would be unwise. I share the reservations of the noble Lord Lord Foulkes and the noble Baroness, Lady Faulkner, about clause 12, but in particular, my concern is that it will have a chilling effect preventing public officials from contributing to debates for fear of prosecution. The explanatory notes to the Bill say that the offence is not intended to stifle public debate or prevent people from expressing opinions.































































































































































My amendment simply asks the government to put that assurance on the face of the bill. Why does that matter? Because explanatory notes are not law, and public bodies are adept at ignoring them. Take the Equality Act 2010, the explanatory notes to section 26 on harassment say that courts and tribunals, quote, will continue to be required to balance competing rights, unquote, and it names freedom of expression and academic freedom as two of those competing rights. Yet in the free speech unions experience stretching to over 7000 cases, that balancing exercise is often missing from the harassment policies of employers, universities and public bodies.















































































































































This free speech protection was written into the notes of the Equality Act, but not the act itself, and has often been overlooked as a consequence. Nor is the line between a false statement and an opinion always easy to draw. That's not just my view, it's the view of a review commissioned by the Government Office for science and published in May. Its authors are not sceptics about the dangers of misinformation far from it. Yet they acknowledge that, quote, false and misleading information is sometimes hard to differentiate clearly from legitimate opinion unquote. In other words, one person's false and misleading information is another person's legitimate opinion.































































































































Let me give an example. Recently, the Prime Minister told the Rest Is Politics podcast that he had asked his officials if there had been Russian interference in the 2016 EU referendum and had received, quote, the clear answer that yes, there was unquote, some will regard that as misleading. In the other place, the Leader of the Opposition said, you can't fight misinformation with misinformation. Others, including many in this House, will no doubt regard it as a legitimate opinion. If my amendment is not accepted, the police would have to decide whether a complaint or statement was one or the other.















































































































Surely we don't want the police or indeed the Crown Prosecution Service spending hours passing the contributions of Ministers to political debates to determine whether their misinformation or legitimate expressions of opinion? The Prime Minister's remarks on the rest is politics are an example of, quote, unprepared comments made by Ministers during political interviews, unquote, which, according to the explanatory notes, quote, should be viewed differently to a formal statement made by the Minister and released through a government department, unquote, to protect Ministers, including prime Ministers, from being investigated by the police following the receipt of politically motivated complaints.

































































































Those words should be included on the face of the bill. And that brings me to vexatious complaints. More generally, there are two routes by which clause 12 could be turned against an honest official, and the Bill safeguards the bill's safeguard, addresses only one of them, and does that inadequately. The first is private prosecution. In 2019, a private prosecutor persuaded a district judge to issue a summons against Boris Johnson for misconduct in public office over claims he made during the referendum campaign, before the High Court eventually quashed it. To its credit, the government has made some efforts to close that door.



















































































Schedule three provides the proceedings, provides that proceedings under clause 12th May be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. But is that a strong enough safeguard? The current DPP's term is due to expire in October 2028, which means a Labour appointed DPP could be in office when there is a change of government. Who's to say that DPP would not consent to a private prosecution brought against a Conservative or Reform Minister in 2029? As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, the decision would in many cases be a political decision, not a straightforwardly legal decision.





































































It is for that reason that I support amendment 80, which would at least require the consent of the attorney general before a prosecution could proceed. The second route is a complaint to the police, and here a consent requirement offers no protection at all. It applies only when proceedings are instituted. Everything before that, from the complaint and the investigation to the interview under caution happens without any prosecutor being involved. Section 25 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1985, even provides that a consent requirement does not prevent a suspect being arrested. We know that the Free Speech Union from a history of non-crime hate incidents.























































 How readily the police will record and pursue complaints in some cases, arrest the people complained of that should never have troubled them. For the person on the receiving end, the investigation is the punishment. Whatever a prosecutor eventually decides, neither DPP consent nor attorney general consent can prevent that. Amendment 76 goes some way to addressing this problem. It provides that an act is not seriously improper if it consists of the expression of of an opinion or a good faith contribution to a debate on a matter of public interest, that protection falls away where the person knowingly asserts a statement of fact they know to be false.







































So the liar gets no shelter. What's protected is honest opinion and good faith argument. By including those protections on the face of the bill, my amendment gives the police a clear basis to turn a vexatious, politically motivated complaint away. At the outset, the case is stronger still in light of amendment 78 and 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. They would replace the reasonable excuse defence with a narrower public interest defence and placed the burden of proving it on the defendant. If the offence is going to be made easier to make out, I don't think it should.

























Obviously the line between opinion and falsehood must be drawn clearly at the outset. If the Minister says the clause would never be used in this way, there is no cost in accepting this amendment. If there is a risk of expressions of opinion being mischaracterised as misinformation, and the Government Office for Science's paper on misinformation suggests that there is, this House should shut it down now, thereby nipping thousands of vexatious complaints in the bud. My Lords, a law against misleading the public should not itself mislead the public about where the boundaries of lawful speech lie. By including free speech safeguards in the explanatory notes, but not in the Bill itself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the noble Lord Foulkes and noble Lord young, make a and noble Lord young, make a serious point, and one that I don't think can simply be brushed away. The strongest answer to it, as it seems to me, is, or ought to be, seems to me, is, or ought to be, the condition in subsection three a that to be a criminal offence, in
21:21
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
that to be a criminal offence, in addition to the other criteria being satisfied, the act has to involve dishonesty that was significant or repeated. Now, traditionally, of course, in our courts, dishonesty is left for the jury to decide in the light of their experience of everyday life. But this bill seeks to define a little bit what is meant by dishonesty. And it says, whether by means of falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise. And what I'd like to suggest very briefly to the Minister is a small change to this bill that might go some way towards immunising it or protecting it from the sort of criticisms that you've just heard so eloquently expressed.





























We know from the way those words are drafted, that dishonesty must go broader than merely a falsehood and broader also than a concealment, because otherwise you wouldn't need any other word. That's the first point. And the second point is a word that is chosen. This word obfuscation. I'm afraid my iPhone subscription takes me no further than the Cambridge Dictionary, but that tells me that to obfuscate means to make something less clear and harder to understand, especially intentionally. Well, anyone reading that obfuscation is a form of dishonesty might be minded to take a very broad view of what dishonesty means, a view that obviously goes beyond merely the lie direct, or the concealment of the truth.











And seeing that word obfuscation there does make me a little worried that the learned Lords have a point when they speak of the chilling effect, and when they speak of the unpredictable extent of this offence. So although I'm afraid I haven't got an amendment down to remove that word obfuscation, I do suggest that if there are going to be discussions on this before Report stage, perhaps might be something we should all bear in mind.
21:24
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> There's been some very important points made and I am very sympathetic to the arguments put sympathetic to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I keep thinking to myself that there's going to be unintended consequences of this, and it's difficult because this is a very. And I don't say this in a in a sarcastic way, this is a very worthy, noble bill. And I don't want to betray its intentions. But I fear that if we don't challenge it and scrutinise it properly, it will itself betray what it's trying to do by creating a whole new set of problems.















































































































































































































































And the noble Lord and learned Lord Carlile went. At the last time we had. Committee raised some very important points about the dangers of Overcriminalization, and that that could have damaging outcomes too. And it seems to me that clause 12 fits very much into that spectrum. I also think that I have a lot of sympathy with the criticisms that the noble Lord young made about amendment 72, and providing misleading information to the press, and how that could be used or interpreted in as much as the press, is a valuable way that we can hold. Power to account, it is very important that we don't inadvertently do anything that stops the press getting hold of some of the more difficult stories, and people might not intend to mislead.



























































































































































































































I mean, we can think of malevolent ways that the press can be told lies about people, but it's also the case that things can be said in good faith to the press. And we want to encourage, I would have thought, more whistleblowing to the media, not less. If we're going to shine a light on. On wrongdoing in society, I, I actually put my name down and maybe this will explain. I've got some hesitancy here. I put my name down on amendment 74, which is that a civil servant misleading a Minister, that that would be included as an offence.















































































































































































































And in a way, I was trying to respond to the notion of a kind of two tier issue. I could see that there are documented cases existing in which civil servants and senior officials have provided incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information to Ministers or have kept key facts from them. We're aware of this, and although there is a civil service code which requires honest and impartial advice and supposedly prohibits deliberate, deliberately withholding relevant information from Ministers, it's it might seem extreme that we now say that this should be brought into the law and create a legal offence about it, but that's in a way, what this whole bill is going to do.































































































































































































And I'm a bit torn on this because, you know, everything from the UK Post Office Horizon IT scandal where we found out that or certainly in the inquiry, Ministers told that officials had misled them or failed to provide accurate, impartial advice. There's been accusations that Ministers were misled on everything from the scale of of backlogs of asylum and immigration cases to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. And that's been documented in everything from Foreign Affairs Committee and so on. And, and quite the one of those it was at at best intention, intention in intentionally evasive and often deliberately misleading to use the quote that was used.











































































































































































And I think that's a atrocious situation because I don't want to let Ministers off the hook, and I don't want to kind of get down, get into a situation of a kind of cheap blame the blob. But I have myself experienced situations in which Ministers have read out advice, as it happens, in particular in relation to the issues of sex and gender, where their interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, I challenged and I was and the Minister read out information which was actually inaccurate and misleading, and I felt that this was driven by a more ideological intervention at some stage, because when I challenged the Minister, they were just reading out what they'd been given.



























































































































































Obviously, the Supreme Court might have clarified it, but the law was the law before the Supreme clarified what the law was. And the Ministers in had been given bad advice. And yet it was difficult to challenge that. So that was kind of what had had made me consider taking this seriously. But this is where I'm now going to completely contradict myself, because having put my name on that amendment, I've sort of changed my mind. A bit unhelpful, but it might help explain where why I've ended up somewhere else, which is I suddenly dawned on me that actually those officials could well claim that they were simply using good faith judgement to advise the Minister.











































































































































They weren't trying to mislead, even though I have some sympathy with the notion that quite a lot of the civil service has been is overly ideological and and two partial on on some highly contentious issues. What about if they give the advice on a contested area in good faith? Will they be in scope of committing an offence? And that's what leads me to the concerns that this bill could inadvertently not lead to cancer of speech at all, but to the chilling of speech, which is why I absolutely support amendment 76. In the name of the noble Lord Young of Acton, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, earlier noted in an earlier grouping the dangers of criminalising breaches of a code of conduct.

























































































































And every time I hear different aspects about this bill, it suddenly dawned on me this right no one will say anything ever, for fear of criminal consequences, for the fear of criminal liability. And to quote the the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, he said, where codes go, the lawyers will certainly follow. And all I can see in this bill is more and more lawyers all over the place. And I think that we heard that from the. The noble Lord full fought. And I thought that the example of freedom of information was a perfect example of that.











































































































I remember meeting some friends who basically said, oh, we don't write anything down now. And I thought, well, that's hardly a a satisfactory situation. And I feel that that's something that could happen. Now, I'm worried that these provisions in clause 12 will be weaponised, and that the criminalisation of misleading the public will become something that is used to both litigiously point the finger to the people and just seriously risks having a chilling impact on political disagreement or debate. Or so on. If I could just give one example and then and then I'll I'll finish in the early discussions on the.

























































































If you can imagine that we didn't know anything in the early discussions, having spoken to people who were involved in the worries that they had about gangs of people raping and sexually abusing young female, young children, young women in northern towns. Somebody like Ann Cryer MP, who's one of my heroines from that time, raised the issue. I think it was 2003, 2004, for which she was called a racist. I met some people after that who thought that there was criminal gangs operating in the school where they taught, and some of the people who were social workers, who feared that they knew that there was an organised gangs going on.









































































They were public officials. Now, they didn't necessarily all speak out then for fear of being accused of Islamophobia or accused of racism. Following on from what had happened to Ann Cryer, for goodness sake, named a racist when she was anything but. But she. But they now could be in the situation where they wouldn't speak out because they could be criminally liable if they were wrong, because they were speculating, they weren't trying to mislead, they would be trying to say, do you think there could be? So we want our public officials to speak freely, to be able to say, what if this is the case?



























































What do you think? Could it be that? And I just am concerned that this way they could fear that they will be criminalised for some of the things that they will say. And so I do not want officials to water down the advice that they give public officials on contested areas for fear of criminalisation. And I don't want public officials to start biting their tongue and being frightened to say anything in case they get accused of misleading the public when they're trying to actually, on behalf of the public, raise matters in good faith. And if there's nothing to concern ourselves and the government say, don't worry about it, then that's absolutely fine.













































Put it on the face of the bill and that will be a reassurance enough for me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, because so many speakers in the debate on this amendment have mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. I just wanted to make 1 or 2 observations wanted to make 1 or 2 observations to do with that act. And the most important one, I think, is that important one, I think, is that despite all of the evidence provided in that policy exchange report, legislating for candour from prime Ministers and and all sorts of other people, at least the Freedom of Information Act and the deep concern I think we've heard across committee is that this will turn into another example of that kind of act, which has, in fact, reduced candour rather than improving accountability.

























It's actually makes public servants so cautious of what they might say that little is said orally. That could be repeated in written notes, but at least in the FOI a, you have a section 36 exemption, which applies to which applies to material relating to the conduciveness of good policy making, and that is used frequently by all sorts of public bodies. But in this case, in this bill and in clause 12, that section 36 exemption would not apply, which is one of the reasons that I think that the entire clause 12 really needs to be taken out of this bill.







And I agree with much of what Lord young said in his in his arguments today. I was particularly mindful of that podcast given recently by the Prime Minister about Russian interference, and I'm very glad he raised it. I was going
21:36
21:37
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt (Labour)
-
-
Lord Stirrup I rise to speak to amendment 78 and 79 in my name. amendment 78 and 79 in my name. These amendments concern the defence to the new offence of misleading the public created by clause 12, and this should be considered together with amendments 85, 86, 88 and 89, which fall within the next group because they raise the same issues in relation to the offences created by clauses 13 and 14. My Lords, these amendments matter because they determine whether these new offences provide an effective means of enforcing accountability, or whether, in practice they may prove so difficult to enforce that they prove to be nothing more than a paper tiger.















































































































































My amendments proposed two changes in relation to all three of the new offences. First, they replace the defence of reasonable excuse with the defence that the defendant was acting in the public interest. Secondly, they placed the burden on the defendant to establish the defence. The starting point is that all three of these new offences are serious ones. Two of the three replace the old common law offence of misconduct in public office, and all three are directed at conduct that undermines confidence in public administration and erodes trust in those who hold public office. If Parliament is creating offences of this kind, the defence should be clear, objective and appropriately limited.

































































































































So the first question why is public interest a better option than reasonable excuse? The concern is that the defence of reasonable excuse risks being both too broad in scope and too uncertain in its application. When the Law Commission recommended the abolition of the common law offence of misconduct in public office, it recommended a public interest defence, not a reasonable excuse. Defence. The distinction is important. A public interest defence asks not merely whether the office holder can explain their actions, but whether those actions were genuinely justified in the interest of the public, whom they serve. A person may well believe that their conduct was administratively convenient, politically expedient or justified because it protected their institution.















































































































Be that institution, be the civil service, the police or the security services. But none of those things necessarily means that what they did was in the public interest. My Lord, I would suggest that it's self-evident that most public officials who commit these kinds of crimes don't set out deliberately to commit an offence. They may believe that they're being pragmatic, they're protecting their organisation, or they're responding to straitened finances or other difficult circumstances. In their own minds, they may think that what they have done is entirely reasonable, but that doesn't help the victims. And that is not the same thing as acting in the public interest.



































































































Imagine a prison governor who decides to reduce the number of suicide watches in order to save money. The governor may argue that financial pressures provided a reasonable excuse for that decision, and to decide whether that's right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A jury. Would have to consider arguments about competing priorities, budgets, about competing priorities, budgets, judgements, and so on and so forth. But a public interest defence asks But a public interest defence asks a much clearer question was it truly in the public interest to expose vulnerable prisoners to expose vulnerable prisoners to greater risk in order to save, which questioned your Lordships believe that the victims and survivors whose experiences provide. The impetus for this bill would think is more important. A public interest defence is not unusual. There are many other examples to be found in criminal law.



















































































For example, section four of the Obscene Publications Act contains a defence. That publication of the article in question was justified as being for the public good in the context of all three of the offences created by this Bill, a public interest defence would continue to safeguard those who require protection, particularly whistleblowers acting to expose wrongdoing. What he would not do is to permit broad and subjective explanations to be advanced for conduct that has fallen below the standard that society requires of a public officer. Which brings me to the second issue. Who should bear the burden of proof?





































































This was explicitly committed, considered by the Law Commission, who considered that doing this, putting the burden on the prosecution could create significant practical difficulties in proving these offences because in many cases, the facts underlying the defence will be known mainly or possibly exclusively by the defendant. Defendant may wish to say that they acted on particular information, received particular advice, held a particular belief or were motivated by a particular public interest concern. And yet it would be for the prosecution to disprove those assertions. The Law Commission specifically cautioned against this, and it considered that requiring the prosecution to disprove such matters could impose unrealistic evidential burdens and, in some cases, require prosecutors to prove the non-existence of facts.



















































These amendments address that problem in a straightforward and proportionate way. If a defendant wishes to rely upon the defence that they acted in the public interest, then the burden of establishing it falls upon them, but only to the civil standard. This is not unusual, and nor is it unfair. It's not unfair because the prosecution would still have to prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence remains intact. And the Law Commission concluded that such an approach would be compatible with article six of the European Convention. It's not unusual because Parliament frequently adopts this approach where the relevant facts are, particularly within the defendant's own knowledge.





































So, for example, a person charged with possessing a bladed article in a public place must prove that they had good reason or lawful authority for having it. The burden is upon them because only they will know why they have the knife with them. There are many other examples, including the defences created by the Bribery Act, which put the burden of proof on the defendant, and the comparison with the Bribery Act exposes another oddity about these defences. Clause 126 A, which mirrors section 13 of the Bribery Act, does in fact place the burden of proof on the defendant.

























Yet clause 126 B places the burden on the prosecution. No explanation has been given for why two statutory defences appearing side by side in the same clause have different burdens of proof. The government. My suggestion ought to explain to victims and the wider public why it has chosen a route which the Law Commission explicitly rejected as making these offences too difficult to enforce. After all, the explanatory notes to the Bill say that its provisions are in line with the Law Commission's recommendations. That is simply not correct in relation to these defences, to these three offences.











This matters because we need to be sure that these offences are capable of practical enforcement. After all, the victims and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

survivors deserve no less. The Committee stage of this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Committee stage of this bill is a very good illustration in the context of the speech we just heard from the noble Baroness Baroness from the noble Baroness Baroness Levitt about why we need to go into the granular detail, and why we need to look at what the implications may be. This touches implications may be. This touches on what the noble Lord Lord Young of Acton and noble Baroness Lane-Fox were talking about as well,
21:44
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Lane-Fox were talking about as well, how a bill like this could potentially have a chilling effect, and why we've got to ensure that it does not. But I was struck at the contrast between, for instance, the speech of the noble Baroness Baroness Brinton, who reminded us of how the media became involved in telling falsehoods about what happened at Hillsborough. And yet, by contrast, the role that the media can often have in being in the vanguard, in exposing truth. So it doesn't always fall one way or the other. I was thinking, as I was sitting here, that I used to share this bench sometimes with Lord Armstrong, who as Robert Armstrong, of course, went to the Spycatcher trial in Australia and used that very telling phrase about being economical with the truth, a far cry from Ben Johnson, who said, stand for truth.







































































































































































It's enough. But this bill, I think, is seeking to do that is. It is about finding the truth, getting to the heart of the matter and doing what we can to put untruthful remarks, whether they're made by the media or indeed, whether they're made by officials or made even by politicians or human rights organisations or anybody who's a campaigner, whoever it may be. Baroness Falkner was complaining earlier on about the role that some campaigners can have in sometimes criticising members of both houses. I think part of this is the give and take of public life and politics, but it can go too far and we've then got to guard against things like cancel culture that try to stop proper debate.

























































































































































So it is good that we are examining these questions in this kind of detail. I want to specifically support amendment 74 being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. We'll we have yet to hear from him his specific reasons for this amendment, but it touches on something I raised earlier in an amendment preceded this, but also during my own remarks earlier today about atomic test victims. I've taken the trouble to go back to the debate of the 19th of December, 1984, in which I participated, where I said that the document we were talking about, documents that had been concealed, gives the light of a suggestion that servicemen were properly clothed or that proper precautions were taken.







































































































































This is in the context of ex-servicemen who were at Christmas Island or Maralinga being deliberately, it was said, exposed to the effects of radiation to test how good the the protections were or how flimsy they might be. And I said in the House, one paragraph describes what the Army set out to do in the test. It's a Ministry of Defence document which was top secret. It reads, quote, the Army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men with and without various types of protection, men with and without various types of protection.



























































































































 So the men who were to be involved in the atomic explosions were to be exposed to the effects of radiation in order to discover what the effects would be on them. Now, that is the very issue that is still being argued about. As recently as September the 2nd, I referred to it earlier, the BBC Newsnight programme where Victoria Derbyshire, doing her job in the media, cross-examined the veterans Minister, former veterans Minister Tobias Ellwood, who said he had misled Parliament because he had been deliberately misled by officials. These are really serious charges. Now, I'm not suggesting that someone should be prosecuted, but given the harms test that we were discussing earlier on, I would plead again with the Minister to take a look at this particular case and say what it is that we should be doing in those kind of circumstances.







































































































What difference would this bill make? And if it would make no difference, then I think we've failed one of its tests. Now, the other brief remark I want to make is about clause 12 itself. And I don't accuse the noble Baroness, or indeed my noble friend Lord Foulkes in in, in any way acting in bad faith. I think that they've acted in bad faith. They have absolute right to test amendments, but I would urge them to think very carefully before moving something as substantive as a clause stand part to remove a whole clause from this bill, because when you look at clause 12, it sets out the offence of misleading the public, which is fundamental to this bill, and I can only imagine the sense of bewilderment, perhaps even betrayal amongst Hillsborough families who have worked so hard, tirelessly for 37 years for a law to tackle the lack of accountability and injustice which characterised their experience.



















































































But as we've heard repeatedly, many others have been denied justice and truth by a system which has favoured institutions and the powerful. My Lords, if this clause were to be removed, it would represent a continuation. Yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because he's very specifically alluded to to something that I said, alluded to to something that I said, and it is this that we all and it is this that we all understand the commitment made by the government in their 2024 manifesto, and I don't think manifesto, and I don't think there's anyone in this House who wouldn't wish to abide by that wouldn't wish to abide by that commitment. Lady Fox referred to it as a noble bill, and I think that sentiment is widely shared, that the things that have gone wrong in the past should not have happened under any circumstance at all, and that the circumstance of them were shocking, which is why we are here now and reprehensible.





























































But to to go back repeatedly to the noble Lord has just spoken about Christmas Island and and radiation and so on,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

events of. Apologies to. Noble Baroness Burt intervention should be short and ask a specific question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and ask a specific question. So I would say to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I would say to the noble Lord that when he reminds us, when he's wishing to remind us that this is all relates to those events of the all relates to those events of the past, will he accept? And here is my question, that as a whole, my question, that as a whole, British civil servants and the British state does not set out day to day to harm people. They set out to do a job in good faith. And the implication of some of the debates that we've heard is that they don't do that, and they actually set out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intentionally to harm. Will you accept that? No, I don't accept that. And I don't think the noble Baroness could have been listening to what I had to say earlier on today about the deliberate changes that were made, for instance, to police made, for instance, to police notebooks to tell the opposite of what had actually taken place. I don't think she's listened to what I had to say about the 20,000 ex-servicemen, some of whom are still alive, who were exposed to radiation in these tests. The radiation in these tests. The families who were involved at Hillsborough, many of them who are alive today, still mourn the deaths of their loved ones.

































If she heard what I had to say earlier today in relation to one of my amendments, she would know that the noble Lord Lord Lemos, and indeed the noble Baroness Baroness Levitt, spent a lot of time with one of those families today, talking to the sister and to the mother of someone who lived for more than three decades before he became the 97th victim, because he had been crushed at Hillsborough. So these aren't theoretical issues. They're not abstract issues. There are issues that have to be settled by Parliament, and I think that this bill seeks to do that.























And if it weren't for our Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, who waived the 30 year rule when he was culture secretary back in 2009, 450,000 pages of previously withheld documents would not have become public. And we wouldn't, I doubt, be here today. Let me end by reminding the noble Baroness of the title of the report of the Bishop of Liverpool. It was called the patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. The title of that report, I think, says everything that this House needs to hear about how we can be perceived outside. If we were to lobotomise this bill by removing the whole of clause 12, which is, after all, what a clause stand part amendment seeks to do.







I don't regard that as trying to look at the granular detail or provide improvements to the bill. I think it would be very destructive indeed.
21:53
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Bassam in this group, I don't propose to add to anything don't propose to add to anything that was said by my noble friend Baroness Brinton in as to why clause 12 is important in removing her amendments. It does seem to me that there is an answer to the stamp part. Amendment moved by the noble Lord Lord Foulkes and the noble Baroness Lady Falconer, and to some of the concerns expressed by Lord Young of Acton and Baroness Fox of Buckley, which is that this offence is on the face of the Bill confined to serious cases, and it involves, and has to involve serious impropriety.











































































































That's the first safeguard. The second safeguard is the consent of the Attorney General. The is the consent of the DPP or of the Attorney General. It's the DPP at the moment. The conservative amendment is trying to make it. The Attorney General. For my part, either consent is a safeguard and a serious safeguard, and I do not believe that it is likely that this bill will ever be used in in a case that is frivolous, or in a case that is simply trying to stifle free speech. I do, however, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that the inclusion of obfuscation as an indication of serious impropriety is bordering on the absurd, not simply because it is not easy to avoid obfuscating the meaning of the word obfuscation, but also because it is not a very serious test.























































































As to the noble Lord, Lord young, there is much of what he said which I cannot agree with. Nevertheless, he was speaking to amendment 76 and the drafting of amendment 76 is very specific, and I would suggest is not offensive. And indeed the amendment could act as a serious protection of the right to free speech and journalism. What he is saying is that an act is not seriously improper for the purposes of this section, if it consists of the expression of an opinion or a contribution made in good faith, to debate on a matter of public interest, unless it involves the knowing assertion of a statement of fact which the person knows to be false.





































































Well, for my part, I could not object to the inclusion of those words in this bill, even though I disagreed with the general tenor of of some. What a noble Lord said. As to Baroness Levitt amendments. For my part, I was persuaded by her that a public interest defence would probably work better and more effectively, and be more readily understood than the reasonable excuse defence, which is the catch all in the present drafting of the Bill. And I also believe that the burden of proof being put on the defence in cases like this is not remotely unusual, and that would be acceptable.





















































My Lords, I turn now to amendment 75 in my name, to which Baroness Brinton has added her name. That would make it an offence for a person to encourage, directly or indirectly, or through a third party, a public officeholder, to commit an offence of misleading the public. I deal with this in some detail, because ancillary liability is often misunderstood, and it does generally follow a principal offence, but it is necessary for ancillary liability for there to be a principal offence. This is not simple ancillary liability that will be added by this amendment, not ancillary liability for the encouragement or instigation of an offence.





































This offence would be committed even if there were no principal offence. The point of it is that an attempt to get a public officeholder to commit an offence of misleading the public under clause 12 would be an offence, even if the public officeholder resisted that attempt so that there were no principal offence. Now this is important and the anomaly has been highlighted by Spotlight on Corruption, to whom I'm grateful for their briefings. Normal ancillary liability of a secondary offender requires that a principal offender commits the offence, but this would be committed by anyone who attempted to get a public officeholder to mislead the public in a criminal way.





















Within subsection one, for whatever purpose, even if the attempt were unsuccessful. So in that sense, the ancillary would be suborning or attempting to suborn the public officeholder. And that, I would suggest, should be an offence of misleading the public or of inciting the misleading of the public. The attempt to undermine the probity of a public officeholder by attempting to persuade him or her to commit an offence, justifies criminal sanction, and for that reason, because of the suborning nature of the offence, it's unsurprising that spotlight on corruption have shown that interest because it is a form of corruption that should be subject to sanction.



Or does it? I wonder if he'd be kind enough to answer this. He's dealt very, very fully with the reason for there
21:59
22:00
22:01
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, let me begin by addressing amendment 74, which is addressing amendment 74, which is in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, which I've obviously signed. And this got some indirect support, unusual for my amendments from the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti the previous group, and I thank her in her absence. But perhaps more relevantly, it got a lot of support from noble Lord Lord Alton of Liverpool in this group, and I am grateful for his support, because this amendment is a proposed extension of the new statutory offence under clause 12 for the deliberate misleading of a Minister by a civil servant.











































































































































































































































The noble Lord Lord Alton gave us some examples over the years and the short point is this if the offence is going to apply to Ministers, it seems sensible and logical that it should also apply to civil servants. Now, the offence applies to debate outside this House. Of course, anything said in Parliament is rightly privileged. We've had that discussion in the previous group, but given that it's of all the more importance is of paramount importance that Ministers are not misled by their own officials before coming to this place. And if we don't hold, if we don't include civil servants within the offence, there is no way to hold officials to account where Parliament is misled.

























































































































































































































And I am very grateful for the noble Lord the minister's engagement to date, but I do respectfully ask him to look at this point again before Report stage, because we do think it is a lacuna in the Bill. Now, I am aware the noble Lord, the Minister believes the offence to be covered by the offences in clause 13, but for this particular offence, it seems to us it would be very important and sensible to have clarity on the face of the Bill, there was a suggestion that clarification is unnecessary because of existing case law on the common law offence of misconduct in public office.











































































































































































































The problem with that argument, it seems to me, is that as this bill in section 17 expressly abolishes the common law offence, it is difficult to see how a court would still rely on case law for for an offence which has been abolished. So whether this evening or in a letter before report, I would be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could give the House clarity on that point. Turning now to the other amendments in the group, amendment 72 from noble Lady Baroness Brinton seeks to include providing misleading information to a news publication under the offence.





























































































































































































The intention, obviously, is to improve the quality of public debate, to tackle misleading information. That is obviously an outcome we would all support, but and it is an important but there is a balance to be struck. We are concerned that introducing criminal offences in this area may have a chilling effect on public debate. We do not want to endanger high quality free debate in the public square, and these benches seek to seek to have seek to encourage a public square which is vibrant, which is robust, which may even be raucous. But that's important in a parliamentary democracy.













































































































































































And that point was made eloquently by my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who is a passionate and principled campaigner for free speech. And I do have a great deal,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of course, of course. No. I concerned that the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I concerned that the amendment that I've put down is being seen the other way round, that it's stifling free debate with what the stifling free debate with what the press say. It's not coming from that angle at all. It's coming from the perspective about the honesty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the perspective about the honesty of public officials rather than suppressing freedom of speech out there. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I did try to make it clear that we obviously agree with the intentions underlying the amendment. It's the effect the amendment will have in practice that we are concerned about, because there is a balance to be to be struck here. And I mean, on this point, we we don't want to leave it. As my noble friend Lord Young of Acton says, to. Explanatory notes, and when I heard that Lord Marks of Henley on Thames agreed with the thrust, and perhaps even the wording of the amendment of Lord Young of Acton, it did seem to me that a Minister, faced with an amendment, with the support of both Lord Young and Lord Marks, is facing a very powerful argument.



















































































































































 And now. Amendment 77 again from the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, is. sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My intention is very short. I hope. I made it clear that it was only the wording of the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

only the wording of the amendment which I agreed, not the thrust of Lord King's Speech. You absolutely did. And I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You absolutely did. And I was picking the. The positive bits to try and put the noble Lord, the noble Lord Lord Marks, in the best noble Lord Lord Marks, in the best light possible. Now I was going to be much more supportive of amendment 77 from noble Lady Baroness Brinton, which is with respect a good probing amendment on the exception. For those working for news outlets. It is particularly relevant in light of this weekend's news that civil servants were seconded to the BBC fact checking services. Now that was described by some as a clear conflict of interest.

































































































































I can see how that risks undermining public trust in our national broadcaster, and I would invite the noble Lord, the Minister, to reflect on the importance of trust in our news outlets when he replies to this amendment 77 and take and say what steps Ministers are taking to prevent apparent conflict of interest arising in the future. Now, turning now to the amendment or the motion, rather that clause 12 be left out of the bill. In the name of noble Lord Lord Foulkes and noble Baroness, Lady Falconer. This is a. A view, as they've said, which has been echoed by the Policy Exchange paper, Legislating for candour.















































































































What the Hillsborough Law is likely to do in government again in his absence. I know in the previous group the noble Lord Lord Carlile of Berriew wasn't particularly complimentary about the paper. I'm afraid I take entirely the opposite view. I think the paper makes a number of extremely persuasive points, and with a foreword from noble Lord Lord Butler of Brockwell, who has probably forgotten more about public administration than most of the rest of us will ever know. Whether one agrees with the conclusions or not. It is a very important contribution to the debate, and I'm sure the noble Lord, the Minister and his team will have looked at it like the noble Lord Lord Foulkes.































































































I do think a few of the words in the criminal offence are vague in the extreme. We've looked at obfuscation. I mean, obfuscation might have been invented by lawyers to ensure that even the accusation of being unclear is itself unclear. And I think I think it was, I think, noble Lord, Lord Armstrong actually said being economical with the actualité, which again, was a fantastically obfuscatory way of saying what he was intending to say. And I therefore do agree respectfully with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, that the words here need to be looked at carefully.

















































































It is not just obfuscation repeated. Most political interviews today. The politician said the same thing about seven times. So even in a single interview you're going to satisfy repeated significant. What does significant mean? I mean, it's one of those words when you see it in an act, does it mean sort of very substantial or does it really mean not insignificant? And if it means the latter, not insignificant, it's a very low bar indeed. So I think all of those words need careful scrutiny. And again, I look forward to the noble Lord. The minister's response on that.

































































Of course, as Lord Foulkes says, clause 12 is not covered by the manifesto commitment. Let me just say a word. A further word about this. Noble Lord Lord Marks made a very important point about his amendment 75. He made the point that his amendment 75 is a standalone offence because it would be an offence, even if there's no offence by the by the principle he did accept, and with respect his right to do so that the normal principles, however, of aiding and abetting, would still apply. I think there is a real concern here because we are going to have this problem, I fear it.

















































Clause 12 could change the relationship between Ministers and civil servants going forward. Let me give an example. You have a civil servant who says, Minister, I think if you give the speech which you want me to draft, you will be making a misleading statement to the public. And I'm not going to work on that speech, because if you give it, you will be committing a criminal offence, and I might be guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal offence. Now, of course, the civil servant would explain their refusal as a principled objection to aiding and abetting the criminal offence.



































Of course, in practice what happens is that there are various pressure groups who put pressure on civil servants to take that view, or civil servants have their own political views. They are human beings, and they may take that view because of their own political stance. And I am not making this up out of thin air. I remember when in the previous government, there were issues when civil servants were saying, we don't want to work on particular policies because they might breach international law. Well, the Minister is not personally liable under international law. The civil servant is certainly not personally liable under international law.





















And yet they were raising this as a reason not to work on the policy. So I appreciate this is a somewhat nuanced point, and it may be something the Minister doesn't want to reply to this evening, especially given the hour. But I do invite the Minister to think about that carefully. And perhaps, again, he could consider writing to the committee between now and report. I'm conscious of the time. I'm also conscious that the noble Lady, Lady Levitt, raised two points about the defence, both changing reasonable excuse to public interest and also changing the burden of proof.







I was going to reply to those points in the next group, and if the noble Lady will permit me to, without any disrespect, may I do that? Because, as she said, they come in both groups and I've already probably spoken for long enough on this one.
22:13
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Well, second. >> Well, my Lord, the the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson pointed out to the agreement between Lord Young and Lord Marks. Unfortunately, there were many issues on which noble Lords didn't agree. So if the government were seeking a consensus across the House, that doesn't seem to be available on this on this set of amendments. But I do take the point that the noble Lord Lord Alton made, which is. This is precisely why we have Committee stage to get into some of these nuances and which might appear contradictory. But but on further discussion, we maybe will get somewhere.



















































































































































































































































But, my Lords, I want to begin by saying that this offence applies to public officials and public authorities on the basis that those entrusted by the public to positions of authority must not wrongly mislead the public. That's the whole point. We think it is right that they're held to a particularly high standard and should take responsibility for statements they make to the public. We do not think it's appropriate to extend this offence to private individuals or bodies just in response to the Baroness Falkner. We're not saying that every public official is lying. Of course we're not.







































































































































































































































But we are saying that we have expectations. As I've set out, however, a person who is not a public authority or official could commit an offence if they intend or believe. And this is, I think, what the noble Lord Lord Marks was was driving at. If they intend or believe that their actions will encourage or assist a public official or authority to commit the misleading the public offence, I can reassure the noble Lady that the offence of misleading the public already captures misleading the public through the media, provided such an act meets the threshold for the scope of the offence.



























































































































































































































However, the Bill has been carefully constructed so that the journalists reporting on that misleading information, and this goes to to the point that made by the noble Lord, Lord young, is exempt to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulations. So I hope that provides the noble Lady, Lady Brinton, with, with some reassurance, the noble and learned Lord Keen and I met over the summer, and I promised when we met that the government would look at amendment 74 closely and following careful consideration, we believe that a civil servant.















































































































































































































Misleading a Minister would be capable of being captured by the new seriously improper Act offence at clause 13 of the Bill, the noble Lord Woolf and predicted that would be my answer. And indeed it is. As with the current common law, misconduct in public office offence which this bill replaces, the seriously Improper acts offence is designed to capture behaviour where any public office holder abuses their office, or neglects to perform their duties in the most egregious way. For this purpose, public office holder is defined in the list at schedule four of the bill and includes civil servants, MPs and Ministers, among others.

































































































































































































They could. This could therefore include instances of civil servants misleading a Minister by virtue of their position, as long as the other conditions of the offence are met, including that they do so for the purposes of obtaining a benefit or causing another to suffer a detriment. Benefit and detriment are deliberately given very wide meanings. Under this offence, a public officers hold a public officer holder's intent or purpose in acting is also central to the offence being made out, and this is important to ensure that those who act innocently are not criminalised. Finally, a jury would also need to be sure that the civil servant knew or ought to have known that their actions or intended actions were seriously improper.

















































































































































































It is an important principle of the criminal law to avoid unnecessary or duplicative offences, as these can create confusion for those enforcing or prosecuting the law. Turning now to the noble Baroness Lady Leavitt's amendments. Defence of misleading the public has a reasonable excuse. Defence. The defendant will have the evidential burden to raise the reasonable excuse. Defence and the prosecution's are required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. As, of course, she knows that the defence is not applicable. We chose this approach as it is a common formulation of defences against criminal offences, maintaining strict adherence to the presumption of innocence.

































































































































































Under article 62 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We do, however, recognise that noble Baroness is concerned and I and I undertake to take her away, take away her proposal for further consideration. Turning then to her amendment 78, which would replace the reasonable excuse defence for the offence with a narrow, narrower public interest defence. While acting in the public interest, could be the basis of a defence, we think, for a new offence of this kind covering as it does all statements made by Ministers and public officials on a wide range of matters. It is important to retain the breadth of a reasonable excuse.



















































































































































Defence. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord young, who raises a very important point and one the government is very conscious of. This offence is absolutely not intended to restrict free and healthy political or public debate. I hear what's been said about the chilling effect and so on. But others have taken other views. Ministers and others must be seen, must be able to contribute to that debate, that free debate for the health of our democracy. As the number of noble Lords have said, we have crafted the offence carefully. With that in mind. For an offence to have been committed, an authority or official must have acted with the intention to mislead the public or have been reckless as to whether their actions would do so.





































































































































And by reckless we mean a person acting with the knowledge that there is a risk that they might mislead the public and taking that risk without reasonable justification. We've had this discussion about recklessness last time, so I've set that out. Now, it does not include accidental mistakes or inaccuracies. They must also have known or ought to have known that the act is a is seriously improper. And the minimum conditions for this are that the act involves significant or repeated dishonesty about matters of significant concern to the public. And we've had some examples of those earlier from the noble Baroness Baroness Chakrabarti, who's not in her place.























































































































The act must have caused or had the potential to cause harm, and, crucially, the act must have departed significantly from that. From what would have been expected of that person in carrying out their functions. Taking these tests together, we are clear that either someone expressing an honest opinion or making a contribution in good faith to a debate would not be captured. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. Finally, my Lords, I turn now to the notice given by the noble Lord Lord Foulkes, opposing the question. That clause 12 stand part of the bill, and let me address briefly why the government considers that this provision should remain part of the Bill.









































































































The offence is triable either way and carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the misconduct at which it is directed, which is the whole basis of this Bill. The clause also excludes acts done for the purposes of journalism. This reflects the government view that news broadcasters who might otherwise fall within scope are not culpable when reporting information for the purposes of journalism. This ensures that responsibility remains with those who mislead the press, rather than with the press for reporting that information. We do not agree that the test for the offence are.



























































































The tests for the offence are vague necessarily. They have to be general enough that they can apply in a broad range of scenarios, but together, rightly, they amount to a high threshold for prosecution. To meet. A prosecutor would need to establish that authority that that authority official acted with the intention of misleading the public, or were reckless as to whether their act will do so. Recklessness means here means they force or risk and took it anyway without a reasonable excuse. Then they would need to establish that the authority or official knew or ought to know that their acts were seriously improper.













































































And the bill sets three conditions that must be met, that the act involved dishonesty that was significant or repeated in respect of matters of significant public concern that it caused or continued to causing or contributed to causing harm to one or more other persons, or had the potential to do so, and that it departed significantly from what is to be expected in the proper exercise of the person's function as a public authority or a public official. The government's view is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policy of. Grenfell to the Minister, and I'm mindful of the hour. But the noble Lord, the Minister speaks of a high threshold, and he says that this offence is intended to catch this offence is intended to catch only public officials who neglect to perform their duties in the most to perform their duties in the most egregious way. But the central element of the offence, dishonesty, element of the offence, dishonesty, can be made out as Lord Wilson and I, between us pointed out by repeated, insignificant obfuscations, that seems a little difficult to reconcile with what the Minister is saying, and I ask him simply, would he be prepared to think again about the content of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 123 A before we get to report and have to vote it all out? The answer to that question is yes. I'm very happy to debate, particularly the point about obfuscation with the noble Lord Anderson and others who are interested. I was just about to say that the government's view is that that the government's view is that the policy objective underpinning this clause remains both necessary and proportionate. The offences and proportionate. The offences have been carefully drafted, incorporates a high threshold and contains a number of important safeguards and defences. The government does not consider that existing mechanisms alone adequately address this type of conduct.



































Ultimately, my Lords, the question before the committee is whether this provision should remain part of the Bill. For the reasons I've outlined, the government considers that it should. And so I respectfully ask the noble Lady to withdraw her.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister. For giving way. He's answered

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. He's answered from his notes very thoroughly the various points about the elements in the offence in which he describes as a high threshold. What he didn't do was deal with any of the points that were made about the potential chilling effect, or the effect on how public administration was going to work in practice, the was going to work in practice, the effect that the possibility of prosecution might have on the very many people. And he hasn't answered my question about how many public officials, how they might view the possibility. Does he have a view on that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I did set out in what I said about the threshold, why we thought this wouldn't have a thought this wouldn't have a chilling effect. That was the whole point of my peroration about the high threshold. The noble Lord may high threshold. The noble Lord may not accept that, but that is that is the point I was making, that the chilling effect would be to some chilling effect would be to some extent protected by the thresholds for prosecution. On the question of for prosecution. On the question of the numbers, I think the noble Lord said there was 6 million civil servants.







There aren't as yet 6 million civil servants or anything like it. But the numbers of public officials are perhaps something we can come back to.
22:25
22:25
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Russian and Chinese influence in the Western Balkans regarding defence, security and robotics
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 19 House of Lords - 19 october 2026.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page