Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Ian Byrne Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 11, page 9, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 52, in clause 11, page 10, leave out lines 28 and 29.

[Ian Byrne]

Good morning, Sir Roger. The offence of misleading the public is aimed at deterring wrongdoing related to the system, rather than to individual gain or loss, which is adequately covered by the offences under clauses 12 and 13. I feel that proof of harm is therefore inappropriate and will render clause 11 potentially ineffective in a number of contexts.

The provision of this new offence and of the clause 5 offence dealing with the duty to assist are vital in making a duty of candour practical and effective, rather than merely aspirational. It is important to recognise that they are different from the codified misconduct in public office or MIPO offences under clauses 12 and 13. The new offences will enforce the proper functioning of public authorities and official investigations, and prevent cover-ups. That is crucial to what we are trying to do with this legislation.

The MIPO offences deal with individual wrongdoing by the misuse of office for personal gain, or by causing detriment through gross negligence. The new clause 5 and clause 11 offences are therefore complementary to, but distinct from the MIPO offences, in practice and in principle. Subsection (3)(b) inappropriately and unnecessarily adds the ingredient of “harm” to a victim, but the fact that it is contrary to principle is not the central objection.

The real problem is that subsection (3)(b) significantly reduces the effectiveness of the provision, which aims to deter cover-ups rather than punish actual harm to identifiable individuals, although harm to victims may in fact be caused. In some cases, that will not be problematic, but it will negate the provision in other cases where it absolutely should apply: for example, the falsification of crime statistics or the false denial of something previously admitted by state agents to the media concerning a matter of substantial public interest—both actual, real-life cases. That is why I have moved the amendment, and I hope the Minister will recognise that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for outlining his concerns. I hope I will be able to reassure him as to the Government’s intent.

Clause 1 of the Bill clearly sets out that public authorities and officials are expected to act with candour, transparency and frankness at all times. 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 that effect. It will not be a bar to prosecution in those cases, and I hope to explain why.

The definition of harm is broad. It includes physical harm, psychological harm, including distress, and economic loss. I reassure the Committee that distress was added on the suggestion of Hillsborough Law Now. That is a non-exhaustive list and it can include other types of harm. The condition includes harm or the potential for harm. The offence does not require there to be proof that the act has caused harm to an individual. In cases such as Hillsborough and Horizon, evidence of harm caused by cover-ups is clear and apparent. We have designed the offence with historical incidents of state failure 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 ensure that the offence applies only to serious cases. 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 an organisation’s complaints process, or covered by other aspects of the law. The nature of public life is that it is not uncommon for public officials or officeholders to be accused of being untruthful when going about their daily tasks. If it is used to trigger police investigations into vexatious claims, or to engage in political lawfare, rather than for the grave examples of state cover-ups that the Bill was meant to deal with, it risks undermining the offence itself, as well as the intention of the Bill.

The creation of an offence of this kind is a bold step. Hillsborough families 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—as drafted and when properly implemented—have a serious and real deterrent effect. We are confident that it and every other measure in the Bill will drive forward a culture of candour and truthfulness. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, and I request that he withdraws his amendment.

[Ian Byrne]

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response and the clarity that she has added. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 11, page 10, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

[Tessa Munt]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Roger. Amendment 30 removes the exemption for journalism from the offence of misleading the public, showing that no one, including journalists or public officials writing in a journalistic capacity—including in internal newsletters—can avoid accountability for knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to close the loophole that might allow public officials to evade that accountability by presenting misleading information under the guise of journalism. The rationale is to strengthen public trust in Government communications, ensure consistency in applying the law regardless of the medium used, and prevent deliberate attempts to mislead the public through media channels.

The amendment responds to various concerns raised by accountability campaigners, transparency advocates and parliamentary scrutiny bodies that the exemption could be exploited, undermining the effectiveness and credibility of the offence. We have seen with cases that we heard about last Thursday when the Committee took evidence, and with some cases that we discussed on Tuesday, that we cannot ignore the damaging role the media has played in many situations. Some of those examples shed light on public servants using the media to set the narrative, with some of the most awful and damaging consequences for people’s lives and for shedding light on the truth.

We know that—appallingly—the media has been used to set the narrative. With amendment 30, we are thinking about the public and how they perceive this place in particular, and the power structures that move around it. The sense is that legitimacy is key.

[Ian Byrne]

I want to reinforce what the hon. Lady said regarding the definition of journalism. It must be tightly defined to prevent the bogus defence that we have seen recently, as made by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—also known as Tommy Robinson. If the purpose of this exclusion is to exempt public service journalists—for example, those working at the BBC—from scope, then it should say that explicitly. There is no reason why it cannot say that. Otherwise, public officials and servants are not journalists, and there is no reason to exempt a lie asserted in the course of writing or broadcasting.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Roger. I rise to support the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and to draw attention to some examples of why the amendment is important. Members will be familiar with the hacking problem that we had some years ago. In fact, I think one journalist actually served a prison sentence in relation to that. There were many others who may or may not have been involved in that affair. Members will recall how the programme on the Post Office brought huge attention to that scandal and, in fact, led to a major review of the situation. A similar programme called “The Hack”, which may not have gathered as much attention, highlighted the vast extent of the problem of collusion between journalists and the police. Members will also recall that Leveson 2 was cancelled. Leveson 2 was, as I recall, designed to provide stronger regulation for journalism and the media in general. I think we should be concerned about this very sweeping exclusion for journalism, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I thank the Minister for explaining the clause to us. She has provided the reassurance that we are looking for, and I look forward to receiving further material in writing. I recognise that the Government are attempting to craft an offence that has a high threshold and does not interfere with the wide range of situations that people might seek to apply it to, but I worry that we might end up seeing such questions tested in the courts repeatedly before there is a settled view on what they translate into in reality. I am not sure that it will be as simple as we might think in reality. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Offences under Part 2: related provision

[Ian Byrne]

I beg to move amendment 56, in schedule 3, page 44, line 27, after “national,” insert “or”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Amendment 57, in schedule 3, page 44, line 31, after “section 5” insert “or section 11”.

Schedule 3.

[Ian Byrne]

Amendment 56 is to schedule 3, which place limits on extraterrestrial jurisdiction for offences. I am gravely concerned, because often in the history of cover-ups, those responsible have sailed off into the sunset with fat pensions, unscathed and untouched by justice. The whole point of the Bill is to close that down, but I have a real fear about the current draft of the Bill. Whether an offence is committed outside the UK should be absolutely irrelevant; it should be right within the scope of the Bill.

Paragraph 1(1)(a) and (b) is open to being construed cumulatively. If caught by clause 5 and clause 11 offences, an individual has to be both a UK national and inhabiting a residence in the UK. There have been many cases where former public officials have retired abroad and been non-compliant with official investigations, and that cannot be allowed to happen. The IOPC report showed that police officers who had been involved in the corruption of Hillsborough had absolutely got away with it, with no sanctions put on them, and lived the rest of their lives with full pensions. It really worries me that people like them could evade by justice by moving abroad.

If accepted, amendment 57 would provide that paragraph 1(2) should apply to clauses 5 and 11, to absolutely ensure that public bodies and individuals within bodies who have failed the British people can be adequately held to account wherever they are in the world. I really hope the Minister considers the amendments, by which we is to strengthen the scope of the law and make sure that those who are responsible for cover-ups and who have harmed people using the hand of the state are held accountable, wherever they reside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily raise that issue with the Pensions Minister in our discussions.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for tabling the amendments. I hope to be able to provide some clarification. Amendments 56 and 57 seek to ensure the same extraterritorial extent applies for the offences of failure to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public.

The intended effect of amendment 56 is already achieved in the Bill as drafted. In schedule 3, paragraph 1(1), the disapplication does not apply if any the criteria of sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) are met. It is already an “or” list, not an “and” list. That follows the standard parliamentary drafting convention. To add an unnecessary “or” between sub-sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), when that is already the meaning, would risk putting the position in doubt in other legislation across the statute book and could cause confusion.

Paragraph (1)(2) refers only to the clause 5 offence because the clause 11 offence applies only in England and Wales. A case could not be heard by a court in Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, as I confirmed earlier, we have in principle agreements to extend clause 11 offences to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we are working with the devolved Governments to draft amendments, which we intend to bring forward on Report, so that the offence is UK-wide.

[Ian Byrne]

For clarity, if a police officer is involved in a Hillsborough-style scandal and then moves to Spain, are they within the scope of the Bill?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Yes, they are indeed.

Schedule 3 works alongside clauses 5 and 11 to make some additional provisions about the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. Paragraph 1 provides that an offence may be committed outside the UK only if the person who committed the offence is a UK national, an individual who habitually resides within the UK, or a body incorporated in the UK. In practice, that means that UK civil servants working abroad are captured, but country-based staff employed by UK embassies, who perform a range of predominantly administrative or maintenance roles are not. These are local staff subject to local laws and regulations instead and their exclusion is consistent with other precedents.

Paragraph 2 provides that consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales or from the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is required before proceedings for the breach of duty of candour offence may be brought forward. I hope the shadow Minister is reassured on that point. The same consent is required in England and Wales for proceedings for the offence of misleading the public, which as I just said, currently only applies in England and Wales, but we are making provisions to apply it to the UK as a whole.

Paragraph 3 makes it clear that where a body commits an offence and a relevant person, for example a director, manager or partner, consented or connived, both the individual and the body are liable. Finally, paragraph 4 provides that where an offence relates to unincorporated bodies, proceedings must be brought against the name of the body.

[Ian Byrne]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 12

Seriously improper acts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 13 and 14 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

No, there is no new money for this legislation. Therefore, we hope that the spending that public authorities carry out for inquests will match how much they have to fund for the bereaved families. We hope that this will also be a deterrent against arming up officials when going towards what should be an inquisitorial process.

[Ian Byrne]

The purpose of the legislation is to lower the costs; we are talking about parity of arms. That was outlined in the evidence sessions.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is to encourage good behaviour. It is to encourage public authorities to not come armed with many barristers, and to discourage the David and Goliath story that we have heard far too many times.

On the shadow Minister’s point about individuals within a public authority potentially not being represented, that is not something that we want to curtail. For example, a frontline healthcare worker could have representation via their union and the public authority could have representation. This is about making sure that the family has adequate legal representation too. I will come back to his other points after I take another intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Conduct of public authorities at inquiries and inquests

Amendments made: 14, in schedule 6, page 54, line 2, leave out from “paragraph” to “and” in line 3 and insert

“(d) insert—

‘(e) the matters reported under paragraph 7A of that Schedule’”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.

Amendment 15, in schedule 6, page 55, line 24, leave out “2A and 7” and insert “7 and 7A”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.

Amendment 16, in schedule 6, page 56, line 1, leave out “2” and insert “7”.

This amendment, together with amendment 17, relocates the position in which a new paragraph of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is inserted.

Amendment 17, in schedule 6, page 56, line 3, leave out “2A” and insert “7A”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 16.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

New Clause 1

Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into—

(a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident.

(b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident.

(2) The report must assess—

(a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act.

(b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents.

(c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b).

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.”—(Ian Byrne.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ian Byrne]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston cannot be here to move the motion because of her father’s illness. She really wanted to be here, and I fully support the new clause, so I am going to speak on her behalf.

New clause 1 proposes a post-legislative assessment, within 12 months of the passing of the Act, of how its provisions on the duty of candour and equality of arms are increasing public confidence in public authorities. Specifically, it would examine whether the internal processes of public authorities are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures as they first arise after major incidents. The assessment would also consider the role of the independent public advocate in evaluating how public authorities respond to affected individuals and bereaved families following such incidents.

The report would have to explore whether the powers of the independent public advocate should be extended to facilitate the gathering of information to support inquiries and investigations, to ensure that public authorities and officials act in accordance with the duty of candour. It would also have to examine the case for empowering the independent public advocate to instigate an independent panel, similar to the Hillsborough independent panel, and assess the costs compared with non-statutory and statutory inquiries.

The new clause would ensure that, soon after the Act comes into force, Parliament would receive a clear, evidence-based assessment of whether it is delivering on its aims, and whether the role of the independent public advocate should be strengthened to secure faster truth, greater transparency, and better support for bereaved families after major incidents.

When Hillsborough Law Now launched in 2022, it not only supported the measures in the Bill but called for the establishment of an independent public advocate with powers to set up independent panels like the Hillsborough independent panel. For more than two decades, the legal system failed to deliver truth or justice to the Hillsborough families. In some cases, it even facilitated the propagation of a false narrative, including by officers named in the IOPC report published this week.

It was the Hillsborough independent panel, which was established in 2009 and reported in 2012, that finally set the record straight. I wholeheartedly support that statement. Its process was non-legal, document-based and grounded in transparency rather than adversarial proceedings. In two years it achieved what the legal system had failed to do in 24. One of the key lessons of Hillsborough is that the legal system can fail. The two witnesses, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond, spoke powerfully on behalf of this new clause, and the need to look at how panels in the style of the Hillsborough independent panel can help to achieve justice. I want to put on record that I thought they spoke really eloquently. We cannot claim to have learned the lessons fully unless we provide bereaved families with access to a similar process at an earlier stage.

The Public Advocate Bills introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston in the Commons in 2016 and by Lord Wills in the Lords in 2014, set out to create an independent public advocate with meaningful powers, including the authority to instigate independent panels akin to the Hillsborough independent panel. The intention was to give bereaved families a route to truth and transparency at an early stage, and to ensure that public authorities could be held to account quickly and that failures in process could be addressed before they became entrenched.

However, the office of the independent public advocate, as currently established under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, does not yet carry the powers originally envisaged, as the independent public advocate outlined in last Thursday’s evidence session. I think she is open to having more powers to achieve what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston is looking to set out with the new clause. As it stands, the office of the IPA lacks the statutory authority to gather evidence from those affected, and it cannot initiate independent panels to collate information and assess public authorities’ actions.

I cannot say it strongly enough: the Hillsborough independent panel uncovered what happened at Hillsborough because it had access to the police documents and the reports, so it could see the scale of how some police officers had changed the evidence of those who were at Hillsborough. I include in that my own father, whose report of his experience at Hillsborough was changed beyond all recognition. When he eventually saw what the police had put down for him, it caused him great distress, along with many others. What my right hon. Friend has outlined in the new clause is so important, and without the powers in it the advocate cannot replicate the approach that finally succeeded in the case of Hillsborough, when transparency, document disclosure and independent oversight finally brought truth, in a fraction of the time that the legal system had taken.

The gap in the powers has real consequences today for families who experience disasters or major public incidents. If we are serious about learning the lessons from Hillsborough and other tragedies, which I believe we are, we need to ensure that the independent public advocate has the appropriate authority and resources to act effectively, and that Parliament can scrutinise whether the office is delivering on its intended purpose. New clause 1 would provide for that, and I support it fully. I urge the Minister to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston laid out in the new clause, and to discuss how we move forward on it.

[Dr Mullan]

I rise to speak in support of some of the sentiment and principle of the new clause, particularly subsection (1)(a) on understanding the impact of the provisions. As discussed, some of this is very novel and we will not always be sure how it pans out. I am not necessarily convinced that “within 12 months” is the right timescale. Thankfully, these things do not happen that often, in the scheme of things, and I am not sure that 12 months is quite enough time to see whether the new system has bedded in, and for there to be examples that we can review. I do not support the timetable, then, but it is important that the Government have a clear strategy for assessing and understanding how everything works in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

As the new clause largely seeks to enshrine in law what is already in place and exists under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, I respectfully urge my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby to withdraw it, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. However, I am committed to working with my right hon. Friend and others on the future of the independent public advocate.

[Ian Byrne]

I welcome the Minister’s response and the offer of continuing talks with my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston.

[Tessa Munt]

I would be grateful if the Minister could include me in those discussions, because I am very keen that we get this right.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

indicated assent.

[Ian Byrne]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.