Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)

Ian Byrne Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Q Thank you for your evidence so far, Mr Weatherby. Notwithstanding the force of the command responsibility amendment that you have told us about, would you see an additional or bolstering role for the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament, in addition to the recommendations that you are making?

Pete Weatherby: Yes, I think that would be a sensible additional measure. I think the measure that we put forward in the briefing would, in a practical and effective way, do what we are setting out to achieve, but the more oversight that can be provided, the better. The ISC is well placed to do that and therefore it would be an additional safeguard. I cannot speak for everybody on that, because I have not seen an amendment in time, but it sounds like a very sensible suggestion.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

Q It is good to speak to you, Peter. I have a couple of quick points after what we listened to last week when we went to visit the security services; this was raised, and I would like your opinion on it. First, will anything in the Bill compromise the UK’s intelligence sharing with its partners? Secondly—we have come a long way to get here today, and I just want a definitive answer to a blunt question, because we really only have one shot at this—in its present format, would the Bill prevent a Hillsborough-style cover-up? I know that you just alluded to this with Maria, but I want a definitive answer on the record.

Pete Weatherby: I think that if the amendments that we are putting forward were made, it would be almost impossible for a Hillsborough-style cover-up to follow.

[Ian Byrne]

With the strengthening amendments.

Pete Weatherby: Yes. There is no silver bullet or absolute answer, because if people choose to lie, they choose to lie. What we are doing here is putting in so many deterrents—we are not interested in locking people up; we are interested in deterring them in the first place. The answer to the second question, building on the answer I gave Maria Eagle, is that the Bill goes a long way to solving the problem, but the amendments would make it much better.

On the question of international partners, let me deal with it this way. If the head of the French secret service were sitting in Paris, reading the BBC reports of the Daniel De Simone case, in which it is clear from the High Court that the security services misled two different constitutions of the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, or reading the account of what happened with the misleading of the Manchester Arena inquiry, would they think, “Well, it’s good that the British secret services are doing that,” or would they think, “Next time we have a dealing with them, can we believe what they say?” The more candid that we can make this, the better the relationship with international partners. There is no threat here; that is a completely false road to go down.

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

Q Thank you for your evidence so far, Pete. You touched just then on how this will be a deterrent, but for that to be needed, there needs to be a culture change in public services. In the Bill, there is a lot of talk about trying to create codes of conduct. How do you envisage that working? Do you think that one standard code of conduct would go across all public services, or should each organisation be responsible for building its own code of conduct and then implementing it?

Pete Weatherby: I think there should be a mixture. There have to be central tenets to it; otherwise, we will fall into the problem where a local authority or police force will have its lawyers lawyering up a code that does not do what it should do. I think there should be a mixture on that front.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Q I just want your views, Mr Guest, on whether the new offences—committing a seriously improper act in public office and the breach of duty to prevent death and serious injury—would have applied in the Hillsborough circumstances? A match commander ordered the gate opened, which led to the crush, and then lied, immediately on national TV and subsequently, about his actions by saying that the fans had broken the gate down. Would that constitute a seriously improper act or a breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury?

Subsequently, there was a cover-up that involved police officers from South Yorkshire and West Midlands police altering statements to try to get across a narrative about what had happened that was different from the truth. None of the officers who engaged in any of that has ever been found guilty of any offence or held to account in any way. Do you believe that if the offences in the Bill had been on the statute book at the time, there would have been a proper chance to hold those officers to account?

Tom Guest: I begin by echoing what the previous Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill, said of his sorrow and regret about the outcome of those trials. He was also focused on whether there was an opportunity to put better and clearer law plainly and clearly on the statute book. We feel that that has happened in this Bill. I am afraid that, even if I had seen the evidence, I would not be prepared to comment on particular cases and particular situations. Do I think that the new provisions better and effectively reflect the law on misconduct in public office? Yes, I do. Are there any risks to the provisions? No, we have not identified any. That is perhaps as much as I can assist.

[Ian Byrne]

Q To Tom and Professor Lewis, under the Bill as drafted, could a public authority have a legitimate reason for not complying with the duty of candour? If yes, can you give me an example?

Tom Guest: I partly covered this previously but, to draw that out, no, we have not identified any freestanding offence, either in the statute or in general, that is likely to apply. It is important to underline that clause 3(7) covers the fact that if there is another Act of Parliament or another rule of law that prohibits providing information, the duty of candour does not override that. That is the only exception to the duty of candour that we have identified to draw to your attention.

[Dr Mullan]

Q The common law offence is unlimited in its penalties, essentially. Do you, as prosecutors, sometimes advocate for sentences above what will be the statutory limit to the sentences for the new offences?

Tom Guest: The statutory limits introduced by the Bill seem to fit the culpability in the two offences. The breach of duty offence is clearly far more serious because it engages a duty to prevent death or serious injury. We see the statutory penalty as high and suitable, so far as it is for the CPS to say that. Similarly, the seriously improper acts offence perhaps does not have the same level of culpability but it still has a significant penalty. It is within the remit of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, so we have not identified any concerns about the proposed penalties.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I will ask you to come in again in a moment, Ms Hennessy. As Ian Byrne was at the match, it is probably appropriate that I call him next, and then by all means comment.

[Ian Byrne]

Q Thanks to the four of you for what you have done, and for what you put yourselves through all the time to get here. You know as well as I do that this is the legacy, isn’t it? This is our opportunity to create something that, as Margaret so eloquently said, is for future generations. Is there anything in the Bill that needs strengthening? This is our opportunity to do it. Is there anything missing from the Bill that you feel needs to be added in an amendment to give you the comfort that this is the true legacy for all your loss?

Charlotte Hennessy: We fully endorse all the amendments that Peter has already submitted.

[Ian Byrne]

Q If they are not added, will the Bill be poorer for it? Will you have confidence in the Bill without them?

Charlotte Hennessy: I think they are needed; they make the Bill stronger, and anything that makes the Bill stronger is imperative.

Steve Kelly: We touched on it before—sorry, I am not sure who it was—but there should be more sanctions on the press. Without the press reports, the Hillsborough story would not have been as disastrous for us and would have not taken so long to come to a conclusion.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

Q May I just say that—no disrespect to our other witnesses— you are the most important people that we are going to hear from today? This is the first time I have been able to hear from you directly, and it has meant an awful lot to me, so I appreciate it.

You have expressed your confidence in the Bill, and we want to get it right. Given that you have had to spend four decades of your lives campaigning on this, which is an extraordinary and appalling amount of time to get to this point, if we get this passed and deliver on your confidence, what does that mean for you? Does it mean that you can say, “We have won. We get our lives back. We can do all the family things that this has taken up”? Or does it change your campaigning so that you can support others? You may have not thought about that point. I just want to make sure that we understand, if we get this done for you, and if we get it done right, what it actually means for you. I think it is important that we know.

Steve Kelly: You do think about it every day. We are confident—believe it or not—and we have a lot of hope.

Sue Roberts: We keep having this conversation.

Charlotte Hennessy: We do; it is something that we talk about often.

Sue Roberts: We cannot wait for there to be a Hillsborough law so that we can move on.

Charlotte Hennessy: We know that we are never going to be able to secure criminal prosecutions for what happened to our loved ones—that ship has sailed. The best thing that we can do now is just make sure that nobody ever goes through what we have been through. Yes, that is a conversation that the four of us have very often. Once the Bill is passed in its entirety, I think we will be done.

Margaret Aspinall: I always say that, with Hillsborough, it is not all negativity; there is positivity as well. The positivity is that we have changed things in the way that supporters are treated. They were treated appallingly in the ’70s and the ’80s—I think back to my own husband—but we have changed things in that way. People now have a choice of either standing or sitting, with about a 99% certainty that they will go home.

I think the most important positive thing that we can get out of Hillsborough is having a Hillsborough law for the people. It would be a wonderful legacy for the 97, and this is for them as well. That is most important thing: that they have left a legacy and changed a corrupt system that was so wrong. I think our job will be done then.

I was a relatively young woman when I lost my son. I am a very old lady now—I am not going to tell you all how old I am, by the way, but I have had a bus pass for quite a few years. For most of my life, I have not seen my children grow up, or my grandchildren growing up —one is engaged now. It is so wrong, and nobody should have to face that and to fight and campaign for truth, for justice—or for accountability; I do not think there was any such word as “justice”.

If we get this Hillsborough law passed—and get the King to rubber stamp it, or whatever happens—our job will be done. The good people behind us are unsung heroes who have helped us along this journey. There is a lot to thank them for as well, and hopefully to thank all of you for.