Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Ian Byrne Excerpts(6 days, 18 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
Ian Byrne ExcerptsTuesday 2nd December 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 December 2025 - (2 Dec 2025)
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for tabling amendments 18 to 20, which would require public officials and authorities to notify and provide information to any inquiry or investigation within 30 days. The Government agree entirely that public authorities and officials should provide assistance to inquiries and investigations as quickly as possible, and the Bill requires that. Clause 2(6) requires authorities and officials to act “expeditiously” when complying with the obligations placed on them. In some cases, it will be possible for officials and authorities to provide the assistance required within 30 days, but there may be times when it is not.
There will be situations where an inquiry or investigation requires an authority to provide a very large amount of information or data, requiring it to set staff and resources aside to search through potentially thousands of documents and assess their relevance, with all the necessary checks and verification that follow. We think it is important that authorities are given sufficient time to conduct thorough searches and provide accurate information, and that the inquiry or investigation will be best placed to set a reasonable timescale for that.
The duty would also apply to former officials who may have a different job or be retired—or have resigned, as we heard earlier—and there may be situations where it is impossible for them to provide the assistance required within a 30-day time limit. Although I totally agree with the sentiment, a degree of flexibility is therefore important so that we get all the information that inquiries and investigations need. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press his amendments, but I agree to work with him on a way forward.
I now turn to clause 2. We heard powerfully from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston exactly why the duty of candour in clause 2 is integral to the Bill. As has been rightly said, this is a Bill for the Hillsborough families, and it will be known colloquially as the Hillsborough law, but it is also a Bill for Ida, for the Grenfell families, for the Manchester Arena families and for anyone who has been wronged by the state.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Today, as well as this Committee, the Independent Office for Police Conduct report on Hillsborough is being published. Within that report, I think there is a recommendation that fully supports the Hillsborough law and says why, because there are officers there who would not have been. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston outlined, history would have been different if those officers had been held to account by clause 2 of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with my hon. Friend and that is exactly why the Bill is so important and integral. We have all heard the stories—the reality—of what the families, the bereaved and the survivors have been through. No one should ever have to go through that again. The intent behind clause 2 is to do just that: to ensure that no family has to go through the unimaginable again.
Clause 2 sets out the requirements of the duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations; in short, what those under the duty need to do. As subsection (1) states:
“Public authorities and public officials must at all times act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations.”
The duty has two stages to it. The first, in clause 2(3), is the requirement for public officials to come forward and make themselves known to an inquiry or investigation if they have reason to believe that their actions or information they hold might be relevant to it. The second, in clause 2(4), is to then provide any assistance that the inquiry or investigation requires.
Clause 2(4) lists the types of assistance that might involve—for example, drawing attention to information that is particularly significant and, for public authorities, to provide a position statement to an inquiry. The head of a public authority may be asked for information and assistance as an individual public official in their own right, where relevant, but subsection (5) places them under an additional obligation. When the authority that they manage is under the duty, they are personally required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that it complies. We believe that that is crucial to the success of the Bill and for the leaders of public authorities to feel personally accountable under the duty.
Maria Eagle
I rise to support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), and supported by several other hon. Members, both on the Committee and outside it.
The amendment would ensure that the Bill’s duty of candour and duty to assist apply automatically to independent panels and reviews established by a Minister of the Crown. It makes a simple and technical addition to schedule 1 and, as it has been accepted, is within the scope of the Bill and does not therefore extend it. Hon. Members know that I have a particular interest in independent panels, but the amendment simply seeks to apply the duty of candour and assistance to independent panels that Ministers can set up at any time if they so wish. It would be an anomaly for it not to be included, particularly given that independent panels are becoming a more common way of trying to get to the truth about somewhat complex events.
Hon. Members may be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden is chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Primodos. I, too, have constituents who have been affected by Primodos. I think there was a particular penchant in the north-west for prescribing it as an oral pregnancy test. It was not a drug or a treatment as such; it was a diagnostic test to see whether someone was pregnant. There seems to have been a lot of it prescribed in the north-west of England.
Since the 1960s and 1970s, there have been campaigns to try to find out whether—and, latterly, to try to get it accepted that—Primodos, an oral hormone pregnancy test, caused life-changing and devastating congenital abnormalities, stillbirths and miscarriages. I have constituents who have been affected, both those whose children are still alive and those whose children are not. The all-party group has been campaigning for many years, under my hon. Friend’s chairmanship, to get some resolution for those families.
The all-party group has conducted investigations. There have been failed legal actions against the manufacturers of Primodos. In 2017, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency expert working group gave rise to great hope that there might be a way forward for those affected, but that was a disappointment. In fact, I think that if my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden were moving this amendment, she would say that it was quite clear that key evidence was minimised or discarded, that families were excluded from those considerations and that the conclusions appeared to go further than the remit that the working group was given.
Maria Eagle
I know Marie Lyon; I have met her on a number of occasions because I have constituents who are affected. She runs the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, and she has been the mainstay of the campaign, which has been going on since 1978, to try and get some resolution for these matters. I am happy to support my hon. Friend’s thanks to her.
One thing that could assist those families in respect of Primodos is an independent panel, which would go much further than the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency expert working group, and which would collect documents and approach the issue from a transparency point of view. Given that the families’ attempted legal actions have not succeeded, that seems to me a likely next way forward. But the reality is that if the Bill comes into force and independent panels are not specifically included, those families may feel as though they are in a disadvantageous position. It is on that basis that I seek to move amendment 1.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to pick up both those points. On the first point, I will work with the hon. Lady to ensure that we find a way forward in terms of ensuring that there is no unintended gap and that we are not missing anything. A balance has to be struck between how far we go in the private sector before we are covering everybody with a duty of candour. However, we can find a way forward here.
Ian Byrne
That is a hugely important intervention. In Grenfell, many subcontractors did not fall under the scope. It is a real concern that we need to look at before Report to make sure that subcontractors are in scope. This is all about a change of culture. We need a change of culture within the building industry.
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree. I am committed to working with hon. Members on a way forward.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills about what happens if the head office is abroad, the Bill will provide the inquiry or investigation with the powers to obtain information from an individual wherever they are, even if they have retired, if they have resigned or if they now live abroad.
Tessa Munt
On the basis that we can all work together to make sure that we cover subcontractors, including the different tiers of subcontracting, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I was going to press it to a vote, but the Minister has assured me that she will try to do something before Report and I recognise that we have support on both sides of the Committee. I thank the Minister very much indeed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Offence of failing to comply with duty
Ian Byrne
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 5, page 5, line 18, after “objectives” insert:
“or are reckless as to whether it will do so,”.
This is simply a strengthening amendment that has come from the lawyers, and which I hope the Government will take on board. It is worth pointing out that we only have one shot at this. We need to ensure that there is no unfortunate language that perhaps does not allow the Bill to be as strong as we need it to be, so I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
The current wording in clause 5(1) sets the mental element of failing to discharge the duty as intent, and the mental elements of failing to provide the information in the duty as intent or recklessness—being cognisant of the risk and choosing to take it nevertheless. We feel, and I certainly feel, that this is a baseless distinction and an anomaly. The mental element should be the same, and the amendment would rectify that. It is simply a strengthening amendment to make sure that we shut any gaps.
Alex Davies-Jones
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for his amendment, which seeks to lower the mental standard threshold from intent to include recklessness for the purposes of the offence of failing to comply with the duty. Recklessness already applies to breaches of the obligations in clause 2(4) and (5), so the amendment would extend the application of recklessness to obligations in clause 2(3). As the Committee has heard, under clause 2(3), those whose acts or information may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation are obliged to make themselves known to the chair. We think there is uncertainty about what recklessness in this context would actually mean and therefore do not think it right for there to be uncertainty about the test for a criminal offence.
Conversely, it is straightforward and clear for the test to be that an individual or authority intends to impede the work of the inquiry or investigation by failing to make it known that they might be relevant. Once an individual or authority has received a compliance direction from the inquiry or investigation specifying the assistance that is required—the second stage of the duty—they will then know clearly what is required of them, so the test for the offence becomes either intention or recklessness. Recklessness in that context makes sense. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment, although I am happy to meet him to discuss these concerns.
Mr Morrison
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am not sure whether this is the right time to ask, but on the amendment paper, amendment 34 is down as a Liberal Democrat amendment, but on the groupings that were sent across to us, it was down as an SNP amendment. I just wanted to clarify where we are with that.
Tessa Munt
Thank you, Sir Roger.
Amendment 33 would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer, or the chief executive of a public authority or corporate body with public responsibility under clause 4, for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour or assistance. What is needed is clear personal accountability on the chief officer or chief executive for any failure to comply. That ensures that senior leaders cannot avoid responsibility for breaches within their organisation, and reinforces the expectation that those at the top maintain a culture of openness and co-operation.
Ian Byrne
Amendments 44 and 45 go to the heart of what we are trying to do regarding the Hillsborough law, which is about command responsibility. It is about cultural change. I got the briefing note from the Minister, which I am very thankful for, which outlines where we feel the Government are now, but I think there is a debate among many of us about whether we feel that is strong enough. I just want to outline why I feel that, and why I feel that these amendments are worthy of consideration by the Minister.
The duty of candour and assistance applies to both public authorities and individuals. Where the duty falls on an authority, responsibility for compliance and enforcement measures must land on individuals; otherwise, those measures are basically rendered ineffective. The clause 5 and clause 11 offences require intent or recklessness, a concept that is difficult to apply to a legal—rather than natural—person. Where the criminal law has corporate offences, including proof of intent or recklessness, liability is established by attributing the mental state of directing minds to the corporation. That may be appropriate in some contexts, but here, proof of wrongdoing or failure leads only to liability on the authority and a fine paid by the taxpayer. I just do not feel that goes far enough.
The original 2017 Public Authority (Accountability) Bill dealt with that by making the chief officer or chief executive responsible for the discharge of the corporate duty. We feel that that is both fair and practical, as it places the responsibility on the person with the ability to ensure that authorities are properly led, and a high hurdle of intent or subjective recklessness ensures that he or she does not get prosecuted for inadvertence, or if he or she is misled by others. That also provides an effective deterrent.
I go back to the fact that we are looking at cultural change here; I feel that understanding that they would be responsible would sharpen their minds. Prosecution of a corporation just means that the taxpayer pays a fine, and we have seen that before, with a slap on the wrist and no cultural change.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I remind the Committee that, on Second Reading, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box:
“This Bill will tackle that injustice so that when tragedy strikes and the state is called to account, in inquiries, inquests and other investigations, public officials—from police officers to the highest offices in the land—will be subject to that duty. That means that an injustice like this can never again hide in some dark corner of the state. Failure to comply—failure, therefore, to act with candour, transparency and frankness—will now carry criminal penalties, including being sent to prison.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 655.]
I just wanted to add that to this debate.
Ian Byrne
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and she is absolutely right; a commitment was made not to weaken that. Clause 2(5) of the Bill imposes a duty on the chief officer or chief executive to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure corporate compliance, but that is not command responsibility—I think that is a really important point. It is far weaker, and I feel it will be ineffective. Command responsibility is straightforward and places the responsibility for the discharge of the corporate duty on the head of the body.
Mr Morrison
Does the hon. Member agree that, when someone is in that position of power over a public body, they have a huge responsibility, not just for the culture but for the training, the personnel, the HR practices and the policies? With that responsibility, someone needs to ensure that that goes throughout the whole of the organisation, and command responsibility focuses the mind to ensure that everything below them is working to clock.
Ian Byrne
I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot envisage a circumstance where clause 2(5) would be enforced. All reasonable steps could include deferring to the authority lawyers or senior leadership teams.
We have seen exactly this example in the Kerslake inquiry following the Manchester Arena attack, where the former chief constable of Greater Manchester provided a false narrative regarding the police response. At the subsequent public inquiry, he accepted he had made a grave error but still blamed the senior leadership team and lawyers. It is unlikely that he would have risked misleading said inquiry if he had command responsibility, which goes to the absolute heart of this legislation.
Section 3 extends clauses 5 and 11 offences to officers within authorities, such as managers who deal with particular investigations or statements, but only when they can be identified as the wrongdoers. It is a welcome provision, but it is only complementary to command responsibility. It would catch all those contemplating a cover-up lower down the authority, but it does not impose command responsibility on those at the top. We saw that with the evidence last week with regard to the NHS. Healthcare regulations have been pretty ineffective in this regard, partly because enforcement applies only to the organisations, and not the command. That lies right at the heart of the Bill.
Seamus Logan
The hon. Member is making an important point, but am I right in thinking that his motivation—and the motivation of many people in this area—is about getting to the truth, rather than punishing people?
Ian Byrne
Absolutely. Many of us here have experience trying to get to the truth. What we tried to do will be highlighted in the Independent Office for Police Conduct report. Unfortunately, the people who should have been punished will not be punished, but that is a story for another day, I suppose.
Ian Byrne
A fine on a public body, paid by the taxpayer, does not concentrate minds in the way that personal responsibility does. In a recent joint inquest into three self-inflicted deaths at HMP Lowdham Grange, the hearing was adjourned twice due to the Ministry of Justice’s failure to comply with directions for disclosure.
The coroner’s court ultimately took the unusual step of fining the Ministry of Justice because of that. That example shows that existing powers to fine organisations that fail to comply with directions of disclosure do not effectively address the persistent lack of candour, duty and transparency from public bodies. That is why I feel the amendment is so important, and I really hope the Minister takes it onboard.
Maria Eagle
I rise briefly to emphasise some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby and urge the Minister to consider whether more can be done in that respect. The lesson of Hillsborough is that the organisations at fault set about using every pound they had available to defend themselves—and we will hear more in the IOPC report, to be published later today.
Those senior offices who made decisions to use the public money that they had in that way simply elongated and lengthened the amount of agony and pain. A corporate fine against an organisation may not be enough to deter that kind of behaviour, so I urge the Minister to consider what more might be done in terms of command responsibility.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Ian Byrne ExcerptsTuesday 2nd December 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 December 2025 - (2 Dec 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 33, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by—
(a) a public authority, or
(b) a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act,
the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority or a corporate body with public responsibility under Clause 4 for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance.
Amendment 44, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the duty falls on a public authority or other body, responsibility for the discharge of that duty falls on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section.”
Amendment 34, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by a public authority, the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority for an offence of misleading the public.
Amendment 45, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the act or statement is made by or in the name of the public authority, responsibility for it lies on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section”
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I welcome you to your place, Mr Dowd. As I rise to speak, the four people who gave evidence to us on Thursday are holding a press conference regarding the Independent Office for Police Conduct report, and their opinions of what it consists of. I am sure that they feel as though they have been robbed of any justice. With that in mind, Minister, let us go through the amendments we spoke about just before the Committee adjourned.
It is so important that we emphasise how fundamental command responsibility is to the Bill. We must never have a repeat of what those families will be saying in the next 30 minutes. Without clear responsibility resting with the chief officer or chief executive, the corporate offences in the Bill will be basically impossible to enforce, leaving bereaved families, like those we will listen to today, and survivors with an aspirational duty, I feel, rather than a practical one. We cannot allow that to happen, and this opportunity to be missed.
Minister, you have done so much to get us to this position. So much of this legislation is down to your efforts, and our collective efforts over the last six months, but I urge you to listen to the fears that are being voiced today by Members on both sides of the Committee, because I firmly believe that, in its present form, this provision fatally undermines the effectiveness of the Bill, and the intention behind it, which we all support, to change the culture of cover-ups.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
Having had the chance to have a very quick look at the report being published at 1 o’clock, does my hon. Friend agree that the IOPC has found that the chief constable of South Yorkshire police at the time, the match commander, the deputy match commander, the deputy chief constable and a total of 10 senior officers at South Yorkshire police likely should have been charged with gross misconduct, which, had it been found, could have led to dismissal, even by the rules that pertained at the time? The fact that there has been no accountability for any of those people in 36 years shows that we have to make sure that there is a way in which the individuals responsible can be properly held to account, and justice can be reached.
Ian Byrne
I thank my right hon. Friend for outlining that beautifully. It goes to the heart of where we are now. As I said, we are watching a live example of why this matter is so fundamental to the Bill, and how effective it will be. I urge the Minister to listen to those concerns and work with us.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Earlier, I asked the Minister for an example and she pointed to the national health service. I think that was a fair point, but not every issue here relates to a complicated organisation like an NHS trust, where the chief executive has senior clinicians who have clinical responsibilities that perhaps outweigh the managerial responsibilities of the chief executive. The Minister rightly pointed to paragraph 3 of schedule 3, backing up the point that she was making, and I accept that, but the difficulty with that paragraph, and the way the Bill is currently written, is that it puts the responsibility initially on the body. The point that has been made to me by folk like those at the Hillsborough Law Now group is that that will allow someone—a chief executive, chief inspector or whoever—simply to say, “I didn’t have the knowledge because X or Y didn’t tell me about it.” The proposed amendment would very clearly put the command responsibility on the chief executive or the leading officer.
Ian Byrne
I think the Minister can hear the concern from Members on both sides of the Committee that this will not be as effective if there is no individual responsibility, and if those who have done wrong can hide behind the corporate wall and ride off into the sunset with their full pensions, with no accountability or justice. Once the Minister listens to the evidence, and certainly the response of the families today, hopefully we can reflect on whether we feel this is a loophole that could be utilised by those who are responsible. It is our responsibility in this place to shut that down. I hope the Minister will listen to and reflect on what we have said today, and meet me after this sitting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We talk about focusing minds. The Bill will clearly focus minds, because a chief executive can face criminal prosecution and potentially prison if they are not candid, if they consent or connive with someone not being candid, or if they fail to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the authority is candid. Those are three different and distinct routes to criminal prosecution that will sharply focus minds. We need to hold senior individuals to account for things that they can actually do. Clearly, they cannot personally verify the accuracy of potentially hundreds of thousands of documents.
The whole Bill is about creating a new culture and accountability. Whenever an individual fails in their duty, they should be held accountable—whoever they are—and that can carry up to two years’ imprisonment. It is a privilege to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, but in this morning’s session, before you were in the Chair, I said that this entire Bill Committee is about listening. It is about listening to the families, campaigners and those who have come before, and considering all the work they have done to get us to this place. It is about listening to them with regard to what it means for the Bill to be a Hillsborough law.
I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby and other Committee members today, and I am committed to meeting him and finding a way forward. If there are genuine concerns regarding command responsibility, and Members feel that we are not going far enough, I am committed to listening and working with my hon. Friend on a way forward.
Alex Davies-Jones
The clause provides that the duty of candour and assistance will apply to inquiries and investigations that are already ongoing at the time of commencement, as well as those that start afterwards. It may be necessary to set out further transitional provisions in the commencement regulations to ensure that ongoing inquiries and investigations can make effective use of the duty and are not delayed or forced to repeat stages by its procedural requirements if they are already far advanced.
Clause 8 sets out the meaning of key terms used in this chapter of the Bill, which deals with the duty of candour and assistance. Specifically, it defines “inquiry” as meaning
“an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005”
and a non-statutory inquiry meaning where
“paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 applies”.
Subsection (1) defines the terms “investigations”, “position statement”, “public official” and “public authority”, and references the appropriate Act or schedule from where the definitions are drawn. Clause 8(2) defines what the individual “in charge” of a public authority means. Clause 8(3) then defines “chief executive” as meaning an
“individual working for the authority who…is responsible under the immediate authority of the board of directors for the general functions of the authority.”
The clause is essential for allowing us and any future readers to interpret the key terms used throughout the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment made: 4, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
“, or
(c) an inquiry to which paragraph 3A of that Schedule applies (local authority inquiries);”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Expected standards of ethical conduct
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 9, page 7, line 38, at end insert—
“(d) consult with representatives of recognised trade unions to promote co-operation in the making and maintenance of the code and in checking its effectiveness.”
Amendment 47, in clause 9, page 8, line 1, leave out “set expectations” and insert “require”.
Amendment 48, in clause 9, page 8, line 1, leave out “should” and insert “must”.
Ian Byrne
What we are talking about is culture change. Interestingly, in last Thursday’s evidence session, culture change was mentioned 69 times. When talking about standards of ethical conduct, I think it is extremely important. That is why I have tabled these amendments, and I hope the Minister considers them.
Turning to amendment 46, the Bill currently states that public authorities
“must promote and take steps to maintain high standards”.
That wording permits minimal or symbolic compliance, which is exactly what the Bill sets out not to do. Clause 2(5) sets out that a public official must take “all reasonable steps” to secure public authority compliance with the duty of candour and assistance. The same “all reasonable steps” should bind public authorities to the duty of candour in chapter 2—not “promote and take steps”.
All reasonable steps is a standard with which employers and employment tribunals are familiar. Section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out an employer’s duty to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent discrimination. Those reasonable steps include training for new workers, annual performance reviews, opportunity for discussion on equality and discrimination, clear messaging on posters and regular mandatory equality training for all workers. The Minister touched before on how we change culture and standards through training.
A comparison with the Equality Act 2010 is not only legally relevant; it is a source of evidence about how the law can achieve cultural change through the “all reasonable steps” standard. The Equality Act secured cultural change in matters of equality and anti-discrimination; the Hillsborough law we are debating today seeks cultural change in matters of ethics and candour. The “all reasonable steps” standard is appropriate and improves legal clarity, and I believe it is needed, so I hope that the Minister considers the amendment.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. As we all heard last Thursday, true cultural change is a key part of implementing the Hillsborough law, and the professional duty of candour required by clause 9 is at the heart of that. Amendments 46 to 48 admirably seek to strengthen the duties imposed on public authorities to promote ethical conduct and adopt a code of ethical conduct.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, clause 9 places a duty on public authorities to promote and maintain high standards of ethical behaviour and conduct. Professional duties of candour will be tailored to the specific sector to which they apply, making them meaningful to staff and responsive to the needs of those who use that organisation’s services. While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting these amendments, we believe that our drafting achieves the same purpose as the proposed amendments and is sufficiently clear and robust.
Amendment 49 seeks to require public authorities to consult with recognised trade unions on the creation and maintenance of a code of ethics. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue of trade union engagement. I am a proud trade unionist myself—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to the unions that I am a member of. I agree that if a code of ethics is to be truly successful, it is important that those working for the authority and their representatives, including trade unions, should have a proper opportunity to contribute to its development.
However, given the complexity and diversity of arrangements across the public sector, the Government’s view is that it would not be advisable to prescribe standard procedural arrangements for all public authorities in this Bill. Many organisations already have an existing code of conduct or a code of ethics. These exist in different forms and may have different underpinnings and links to other organisational governance arrangements. For example, the civil service code forms part of civil service contracts, and the code of ethics in policing is produced by the College of Policing, which does not directly employ individual officers.
Adapting and adopting a code of ethics will require different processes of development, engagement and consultation for each organisation and sector. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach, nor should it be. Public sector employees and employers will have existing arrangements and consultation with trade unions. Creating a specific requirement in the Bill could create confusion and usurp the existing processes and relationship arrangements between public authorities and their trade unions. I am keen to work with my hon. Friend to consider how we can encourage employees and their representatives to be engaged in the processes of developing the codes. In fact, we are already in discussions with trade unions on how we can best include them in the process through consultation and guidance to ensure that we have the most robust practices. With those assurances, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Morrison
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 9, page 8, line 2, after “work” insert—
“including the retention and disclosure of digital records including messages relevant to their public functions”.
This amendment ensures that digital messages and records are added to the duty of candour in relation to inquiries and inquests.
Seamus Logan
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ian Byrne
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 9, page 8, line 15, leave out subsection and insert—
“(b) the making by any person of disclosures which are protected disclosures in terms of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or which would be such disclosures had they been made by a worker or employee, including information about any policies the authority has adopted in relation to the making of such disclosures;
(ba) the affording of enhanced protection to any persons making disclosures under paragraphs (a) or (b), including policies ensuring that those persons are not subjected to bullying, harassment or any other form of detriment in relation to the making of such disclosure;”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 9, page 8, line 17, after “disclosures” insert “and to whom such disclosures should be made;
(ba) how a person making a protected disclosure under paragraph (b) is protected;
(bb) a list of prescribed people and bodies to whom a potential whistleblower may speak to in confidence about a relevant concern.”
This amendment would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information on whom a person can make a protected disclosure to and how that person would be protected.
Amendment 22, in clause 9, page 8, line 17, at end insert—
“(ba) the affording of enhanced protection to any persons making disclosures under paragraphs (a) or (b), including policies ensuring that persons are not subjected to bullying, harassment or any other form of detriment in relation to the making of such disclosure”.
Ian Byrne
I go back to the change of culture we have been talking about. Thankfully, the Minister has touched on the idea of a listening exercise regarding strengthening the laws around whistleblowing, but it was clear from the evidence we heard last week that there is real concern that the existing measures to protect whistleblowers are insufficient to remove the fear of reprisal, and that they do not adequately protect persons who make protected disclosures. This is fundamental to what we are attempting to do. The protection of whistleblowers is a hugely important issue that many Members from all parties are fearful about. Amendment 50 is intended to strengthen the protections, and I hope the Minister accepts it and considers it in the round with what she said about listening and hoping to strengthen the protections once we have had the relevant discussions.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to discuss our broader work on this and how we move forward on whistleblowers with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills outside the Committee Room.
Ian Byrne
I am filled with confidence by the Minister’s response on whistleblowers. I know that she will be taking this seriously, because it goes to the heart of changing the culture of organisations that have failed us time and time again. This whistleblowers element is extremely important. I am happy to hear that Minister is up for engaging with us across the Benches to strengthen these provisions, which is desperately needed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 9, page 8, line 22, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must introduce a standard template for ethical conduct of conduct for completion by public authorities which satisfies the requirements in this section and which may be added to by public authorities to include information specific to their organisation or function.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce standard template to ensure a consistent and high standard approach to completion of code of ethical conduct documentation across public authorities.
Alex Davies-Jones
To ensure that public sector culture changes for the better, clause 9 introduces a new duty on public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain high standards of ethical conduct at all times by people who work for the authority. This means acting in accordance with the seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles: honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness and leadership.
Under the Bill, all public authorities will be required to adopt a code of ethical conduct. This will ensure comprehensive coverage across the public sector. It will not be enough to simply have a code; authorities will be legally required to publish their codes and take active steps to make their staff aware of the code, and the consequences of failing to comply with it.
Clause 9(4) and (5) set out minimum standards that all codes must meet. Each code must establish a professional duty of candour, and an expectation that those working for the authority will act with candour at all times. Professional duties of candour will be tailored to the sectors to which they apply; they will be meaningful to staff and responsive to the needs of those who use an organisation’s services. The code must set out the practical ways in which ethical standards should be upheld and the disciplinary consequences of failing to act in accordance with the code. This will ensure that the code acts as an aspirational document, setting out best practice, but also as an effective deterrent against unethical behaviour.
Ensuring there are routes where individuals can raise concerns about public institutions is essential for ensuring that issues are identified and addressed as early as possible. Clause 9(5) requires an authority’s code to set out: how staff can raise concerns if they think their colleagues are not acting in accordance with the code; how staff can make protected disclosures, including any whistleblowing policies; and a clear process for external complaints about the conduct of the authority or those working for it.
Recognising the diversity of the public sector, the Bill includes some flexibilities. A code can provide for its standards to apply differently in specific circumstances or to specific groups of people, but it must set out reasons for doing so. For example, it may not be appropriate to apply all of the same standards to doctors as to the cleaning staff in an NHS trust. The Bill allows a public authority to adopt a code produced by another body. For example, schools can adopt a code published by the Department for Education, or local authorities can adopt codes from the Local Government Association. This is to ensure consistency across sectors and will minimise the burdens on smaller organisations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Non-statutory inquiries
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 59, in schedule 2, page 42, line 32, leave out lines 32 and 33.
Amendment 60, in schedule 2, page 42, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (7).
Amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 46, leave out lines 33 to 37.
Schedule stand part.
Clause 10 stand part.
Ian Byrne
I rise to speak to amendments 55 and 58 to 60, which would strengthen command responsibility. On amendment 55, schedule 2(5) appears to mean that responsibility for the actions of a Government Department is corporate only, and there is an exclusion for civil servants exercising their functions wholly outside the UK. Surely responsibility should lie with the chief executive of the Department, usually the Secretary of State, which I feel that amendment 55 would achieve.
Amendments 59 and 60 would once again strengthen the command responsibility. The purpose of deeming what was done by an office holder as being done by a Department itself is unclear. If those words are simply intended to avoid putting command responsibility on a Minister for the actions of their Department, with respect to the compliance with the duty of candour and assistance, it potentially goes too far.
Schedule 2(3)(6) excludes civil servants from inclusion as public officials if they exercise all their functions outside the UK. I do not see the reason for this exception, and I am seeking some clarification through amendments 59 and 60. I have also tabled amendment 58 for similar reasons to those I have stated for amending schedule 2(5), which would delete sub-paragraphs (3)(d) and (2).
Alex Davies-Jones
I again thank my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I hope that I will provide him with some clarification and assurances on exactly why we have adopted this approach in our drafting. The provisions that amendment 55 would amend are typical in legislation. They provide that actions legally done by the Crown or the holder of a particular office, such as a Secretary of State, can be attributed to a Government Department.
The definition of a “public official” in schedule 2(3) includes an individual who
“holds office under a public authority”.
By removing the explicit reference to the holder of a particular office, the amended paragraph would actually, and no doubt unintentionally, narrow the scope of what can be attributed to a Government Department. Only actions that are strictly acts of the Crown could then be attributed to a Government Department for the purposes of the duty of candour provisions and associated offence, as well as the misleading the public offence, not those done legally in the name of the Secretary of State. In our view, this would actually weaken the Bill, and I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw amendment 55.
Amendments 58 to 60 seek to apply the duty of candour and assistance, along with the misconduct in public office offences in part 3, to staff employed on local contracts overseas, including consular staff at embassies. My hon. Friend is correct to note that there are two examples of this exclusion in the Bill, one from the definition of “public official” in relation to the duty of candour, and one from the definition of “civil servant” in relation to part 3. They exclude what are known as country-based staff. These are, for example, locally engaged staff who are employed by an embassy or consulate generally to do administrative or support work, such as site maintenance.
While employed by the embassy or equivalent, these individuals are subject to the laws of the country in which they live, and they are supervised by United Kingdom civil servants who are subject to all parts of the Bill. In excluding locally employed staff from the provisions in the Bill, the Bill follows all precedented approaches relating to these staff, such as the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. To take a different approach would be a significant and unprecedented change. I hope my hon. Friend understands that clarification and is content not to press amendments 58 to 60 to a vote.
I turn to schedule 2 and clause 10. Many of the Bill’s substantive provisions apply to a public authority or public official. Schedule 2 defines those terms for the purposes of part 2 of the Bill. There are different definitions of “public authority” for different parts of the Bill, and I appreciate that this can be confusing, so I hope to clarify why. Part 2 of the schedule sets out the definitions of “public authority” and “public official” for the purposes of the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. These are broad definitions that are intended to capture anyone, including private companies, who exercises a public function.
Paragraph (2)(4) sets out that there are express reservations for the courts, Parliament and the devolved legislatures, reflecting long-standing constitutional conventions of self-regulation and independence. The north-south bodies established under the Good Friday agreement are also excluded to avoid capturing officials in the Irish Government.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, I can confirm that. Those provisions of the Bill contain a power to allow the definition to also be extended by secondary legislation to private companies that exercise specified public functions. That would allow the code of ethics provisions to be extended to specified high-risk public functions by secondary legislation—for example, in privately run prisons.
Finally, I turn to clause 10, which provides that guidance can be issued by the national authority if it wishes to do so, for the purposes of chapter 2, which relates to the standards of ethical conduct. That means that the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments can issue guidance on how public authorities can fulfil their duty to maintain high standards of ethical conduct, including in drafting and adopting their codes of ethical conduct.
Clause 9 sets out minimum standards in law that all codes must legally meet. We have the option to use guidance under clause 10 to set out best practice in each of those areas, encouraging authorities to consider what arrangements they can put in place to ensure that the highest standards of ethical conduct are in place. However, as we have already discussed, given the diversity of the public sector, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and any guidance that is issued will allow each authority to consider how those requirements in the Bill can best be implemented to serve them in a way that best suits them and the needs of their organisations and sectors. All public authorities will be legally required to have regard to the guidance.
UK Ministers will be responsible for guidance for UK and England-only bodies, and the devolved Governments will have powers to issue guidance that relates exclusively to devolved matters. That is to reflect the devolution settlement, and it ensures that the devolved Governments can provide guidance to the public authorities to which they are responsible and—speaking as a Member of Parliament for a devolved area—also that they could potentially also be bilingual, as they would have to be to comply in Wales.
We intend to work closely with our devolved colleagues on the development of any such guidance, and I again put on record my thanks to all the devolved Governments for their collaborative and collegiate approach to working with us on the Bill to ensure that we have a unified approach.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)
Ian Byrne ExcerptsThursday 27th November 2025
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 November 2025 - (27 Nov 2025)
Dr Mullan
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: Your use of the word culture strikes me as being very important. We all know that you can have loads and loads of rules, but if you have a culture that says, “Actually, we don’t really mind about that,” they will not necessarily work. Therefore, ensuring that an organisation is actually educated in its ethical responsibilities seems to me to be critical.
I know from the time that I was in the Security Service that quite a lot of work was done on this, and I believe that the same now applies in the other intelligence agencies. Any intelligence service has the potential to abuse the powers entrusted to it by Parliament or Government, and it is very important that there are constraints on that; part of that is people understanding their ethical responsibilities and the fact that there are really effective speak-up channels, so that, if somebody has a concern, it can be voiced safely and people feel they have permission to raise concerns.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: I understand why you have that concern. As is often the case in these difficult cases, we have two competing public goods. As a country, we benefit from having an intelligence community that can keep us safe; we need to protect that and ensure, therefore, that the agency is not hampered in doing its job. In my previous answer, I tried to explain why I would have, and continue to have, concerns about that being done on a bilateral, immediate basis, without the agency itself being aware of the disclosure. That could be one model, but I do not think it is the right way to do it.
Of the three agencies, I am most familiar with MI5. How accountability works there is that individual agents, as you put it—officers, we would say—do give evidence. If you look at the courts, even though not all the material can be presented in open court, closed material procedures are in place in the courts.
The Chair
Order. Ian, come back with another question if you wish to, but let the witness finish.
Lord Evans of Weardale: Individual officers do give evidence. If you look, for example, at what is being done at the moment in respect of the case that you will be hearing about later—the Agent X case, as I think it is known—it is being investigated by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which has been completely clear that the service has a duty of candour in that context. I do not believe that the agency is trying to avoid frank and open accountability; I believe that it is trying to square that with the other constraints under which it operates, because of the sensitive nature of almost all the operation information that the service is using.
That is the dilemma, but I recognise that it is a dilemma. You can take different views, but I think you have to give due weight to ensuring safeguarding—not safeguarding the service because of reputation; we should not have a law that does that. What we need is a law that enables the full story to be disclosed, but in a way that allows the agencies to continue to undertake their public functions, and that is compatible with the other legal constraints with which members of the services operate.
Ian Byrne
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: I do not think the Bill, as presented, poses a threat to national security. May I say one thing about chapter 2?
The Chair
Regrettably, we have one minute tops.
Lord Evans of Weardale: Chapter 2 requires public authorities to promote and maintain ethical standards as a statutory requirement, which I think is a really significant development. When I was chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, we did a report that looked at best practice within public agencies on ethical issues. There are many bits of the public service where there is virtually no induction into the ethical requirements of the job, and no serious leadership on these issues by the leaders of those organisations. In my view, and the view of the CSPL, that is a very big gap. I strongly welcome putting a duty on those who lead public organisations to promote and maintain the ethical health of those organisations, not just the delivery of whatever their role is. That is an important element of this and I welcome it.
Douglas McAllister
Yes, it does. Thank you.
Richard Miller: I will add one point on the costs aspect. Firms will not be given a blank cheque here; they know that when they submit their bill of costs to the Legal Aid Agency, it will be very closely scrutinised. Any costs that the Legal Aid Agency considers were not necessarily and reasonably incurred will be disallowed, and firms know they will be subject to that level of scrutiny when they undertake work, so they are, by definition, very cautious about what work they do. They do not want to do a whole load of work that they are not going to get paid for, so there is a very significant control of the costs from that assessment by the Legal Aid Agency.
Over time, one of the things we will be able to learn is what sort of costs should be expected for this work, and once we know what the norms are, it may be possible to move to a system where there are stages or caps where people know, “This is the expected level of costs for that. If you’re going to exceed that, maybe you would need to get specific authority”, but we do not have that information at the outset. That will be something to develop in a number of years, once the evidence comes through.
Ian Byrne
Q
In a world where the Bill is passed into legislation in May, what would the timescale be for scaling up so we have parity of arms at inquests? What would be the timescale, and what would you need? I would like that on record.
Richard Miller: First, we need to get the structure for the legal aid administration resolved, and we need to have discussions with the Ministry and the Legal Aid Agency about what training is required, what can be provided and how quickly it can be developed. It might potentially be helpful if a plan could be published that sets out, “This is the plan for meeting the capacity requirements here”, and on which we and the Government and perhaps the Legal Aid Agency could all say, “Yep, we agree that is the route forward. That is the road map. Those are the milestones and timelines that we think we will need for it.” I do not think we are in a position today to be able to say, “Yep, this is the time that is required”, but I do not think it would take too much work to develop a plan that would help us understand what would be required and how quickly we could get there.
Chris Minnoch: I have some minor points to add. We will need an amendment to the Bill to fix those structural issues. The Bill, as currently drafted, is based on the existing funding model, which does not support sustainability and creates unnecessary complexity in the system. The way in which the funding mechanism works does not enable it to be completed in the same way as other areas of civil legal aid. The earlier those amendments are made and the Bill receives Royal Assent, the earlier current practitioners can make a conscious business decision to say, “Yes, this is an area in which we can take on more staff and start training them up, or divert resources from other areas into inquest work.”
One of our concerns is that this might mean that lawyers take on a higher proportion of inquest cases than they currently do, and one of the things I would like to see the Ministry of Justice actively thinking about is how you put mechanisms in place that support lawyers to do such complex and potentially harrowing cases. I think that is partly an issue for the Ministry of Justice, and partly an issue for the legal sector. The legal aid sector is not particularly good at looking after itself, given the nature of the cases it does. That is as much about having an adequate fee scheme and having the right levels of training and supervision in place to do that.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chris Minnoch: I have some initial thoughts. I have to say that I am speaking only on behalf of the lawyers who represent bereaved families; I cannot speak for lawyers who represent public authorities—I have no experience of that. We have already heard evidence today that the critical aspects of the Bill are those that will change the culture within public authorities. That is not going to happen overnight, because it is a cultural shift that is required, which will take some time, and because there are consequences for the individuals involved in those public authorities, based on what could come out of it.
What we want the legal aid provisions to do, including on parity of arms, is assist those broader duties to take place. I do not think that it is going to happen from day one, and nor does any lawyer I have spoken to who does inquest work. I do not think an inquest that takes place the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent will be an open and transparent process, as the Bill anticipates. For me, one of the key aspects of the legal aid elements is the ability of the lawyers, not just when the proceedings commence, but in the conduct of the parties leading up to the inquest, including the disclosure elements and the openness and willingness to reveal information to the bereaved family’s lawyers—that is the critical part for me to begin with.
The family’s lawyers can then assist the coroner in making an assessment of the conduct, and I think it is the conduct of the public authority that is key, when you are thinking about parity of arms. I made the point earlier that I do not think the bereaved family is going to be overly concerned about the number of lawyers on the other side, if those lawyers are actively assisting the inquest. If they are not, it is a much bigger issue.
Richard Miller: I think there are a couple of measures in the Bill that helpfully come together to try to encourage greater parity, including the duty of candour and the fact that the Ministry responsible for the public body is going to be asked to meet the legal costs of the bereaved family. They come together to put an onus on the public body and the Ministry responsible for it to be proportionate. If they create a situation where they are requiring the bereaved family’s lawyer to undertake a lot more work, they will ultimately have to meet the costs.
As Mr Minnoch says, it is not going to happen overnight; it is going to be a change that has effect over a number of years. But these are, I think, useful nudge factors in the right direction to get to the level of parity that we are trying to achieve here—
Ian Byrne
The duty of candour applies to the organisation, not to the individual—in other words, the chief executive. Do you feel that is where it loses its power and does not permeate through the organisation?
Dr Chopra: I described an incident where an individual said, “Well, if the organisational duty of candour is not triggered, I have my professional duty of candour as a mechanism to raise concerns.” Building on that, I agree that it is probably important to locate the duty with an individual as well as an organisation. We have it for professionals and, although many chief executives come from health backgrounds, I think it would be helpful for managers to have that duty on them, which is one of the things the Bill supports.
Ian Byrne
Q
Professor Fowler: I think what is written into this Bill is to try to encourage exactly that with non-statutory inquiries: to bring them up to the same level as a statutory inquiry, to some degree. There is a great deal of detail around the Lampard inquiry—it has grown to a very large extent, and the amount of information required is quite large for that particular organisation—but I could not comment in particular on why individuals did not want to step forward in that circumstance.
The Chair
Order. Regrettably—I am terribly regretful today—that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Nathan Sparkes, Jacqui Hames, Flora Page, James Killen and Ron Warmington gave evidence.
Tessa Munt
You have already referred to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, the fact that that puts whistleblowing into the framework of an employment law issue, and the fact that it does not protect against retaliation. The focus then is on a whistleblower proving that they are deliberately being acted against, as opposed to on the wrongdoing done by the organisation in the first place; when they come out of the employment tribunal, they are then very often blacklisted and cannot work again.
Do you feel that the Bill provides enough anti-corruption effort to ensure that, in particular, we could have prevented the Post Office scandal? As I understand it, 47,000 cases are waiting in the employment tribunal at the moment—that is the current backlog. Once this legislation comes into play, my sense is that that 47,000 will escalate beyond belief, but I will leave that with you. Does the Bill go some way to sorting this out?
James Killen: The short answer is no. What strikes me most in the Bill is that it makes the duty of candour an individual thing, and focuses very much on the corruption that goes on at the level of the chief execs. In my mind, and certainly having listened to the health people earlier, the majority of duty holders will be people who are on the minimum wage and potentially part time—what I would class as vulnerable duty holders. Those people are going to be placed in the situation of having to choose between a potential criminal sanction for not exercising their duty of candour and speaking out against a corrupt boss who will potentially pull all the levers they have in the business to destroy their career. They are going to choose between their careers and families or a potential criminal sanction.
For me, the largest omission in this Bill is that there is no form of criminal sanction for interfering in another person’s duty of candour. Culture and so on was talked about a lot earlier, and there is something there—I agree with everything that has been said about the idea of an office for the whistleblower, because I think that would take all of this away, but, if we are speaking about maybe a 60% or 80% solution, some sort of clause in the Bill that gives a criminal sanction to other people within an organisation for interfering with somebody else’s duty would be key.
Ian Byrne
Q
Nathan Sparkes: As you point out, there was a phenomenon of police officers briefing The Sun newspaper after the Hillsborough disaster, which was a huge part of the cover-up. Police officers were not the only public officials involved in that; the local MP was, and there is a disputed allegation that a representative of the Thatcher Government was as well. There was a huge amount of public official impropriety in that media cover-up operation. Unfortunately, that is not the only case; after Orgreave, similarly, there was a cover-up perpetrated between public officials and the media.
The history of the phone hacking scandal is a 15 to 20-year series of occasions where overwhelming evidence of criminal activity being carried out on behalf of News UK was presented to the Metropolitan police force, and every time it failed to properly investigate until it absolutely had to. That was during a period where a succession of Metropolitan Commissioners enjoyed excessively close relationships with News UK; it included a time where even an editor for News UK was hired by the Met, and there were records of eight dinners between heads of the Met and News UK editors over that period.
In more recent years, there are allegations that police fed information about the victims of the Manchester bombing to the media. Christine Flack, the mother of the late television presenter Caroline Flack, believes that police were briefing the media in relation to her case. Mazher Mahmood was a News UK reporter, and there is an allegation in a recently published book that the Met protected him from prosecution and exposure during the noughties on account of the closeness of that relationship.
I could give many more examples—I will not sit down and list them all—but the point is that there is a specific and persistent issue with corrupt relationships between public officials and the media. Our concern about this Bill is that it does not have anything substantive to address that. The long title of the Bill is very clear; it will
“require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority”.
Our submission your Committee is that the Bill cannot achieve that unless it also addresses the specific phenomenon of corrupt relationships. Our proposal is that the best way of dealing of that is with a public inquiry.
Mr Morrison
Q
“for the purposes of journalism.”
That is the wording in the Bill. As has been so rightly pointed out, we know there has been a history of public officials who have been using the media in lead-ups to inquiries and so on. Critics, to a point of view that I might have, would say that any kind of stamping down or work on that would be an attack on freedom of speech. What would you say to that?
Nathan Sparkes: In a lot of legislation there are special exemptions for journalism, and often that is justified, but I think it is for the Government to justify that exemption when they bring forward legislation. I do not think it can be justified in this case.
Looking at that offence, there is a six-part test for it to apply. The person must have departed significantly from the expectations of their role, they must have caused harm to someone, they must have been responsible for significant or reputed dishonesty, it must be about a matter of significant concern to the public, it must be seriously improper, and they ought to know that it was seriously improper. That is an incredibly high threshold, and rightly so, but it is inconceivable that there is any legitimate journalistic activity that would satisfy the remarkably high threshold of all six tests that we would want to protect. On that basis, we do not think it is appropriate. The challenge for the Government is whether they could identify a circumstance in which any journalistic activity that would be in breach of those would be legitimate. I do not think they can; I think that is inconceivable.
Joe Powell
Q
Andy Burnham: We want to see a change, as advocated by Hillsborough Law Now, with respect to command responsibility, so that the responsibility is not just corporate but individual. Obviously, the Hillsborough story is the failure to go that last bit of the journey towards individual accountability, which I think bedevils the British state still. In all the examples—Grenfell being a primary one, as well as Hillsborough and the Post Office scandal—where is the individual accountability? We would very much endorse what was said to you by Hillsborough Law Now. It is not about a chief executive or chief constable not knowing what is going on underneath; when there is a corporate cover-up, there has to be some individual accountability for that.
It pains Steve and me that we were never able to achieve that in the Hillsborough example. With the Taylor report, the reason the trial of the criminal cover-up collapsed was because those officers gave their false police statements to Taylor, and Taylor was not an inquiry covered by the oath. That is why the courts said that their evidence could not be admitted, and therefore they were allowed to lie and faced no accountability. We would both say that the command responsibility is really important here. We need to start holding people individually to account for the appalling things they subject people to on occasions.
Steve Rotheram: It needs to be strengthened, that’s for sure. That is to ensure that chief officers, chief executives or chief constables—whoever they might be—are personally accountable for crimes. If the Bill ensures that the responsibility sits with those at the top, and those best-placed to effect change, I am fairly certain that they will not want to be that person who is held responsible, and therefore they will change the culture within those organisations.
Ian Byrne
Q
Steve Rotheram: First, I talked before about the responsibility sitting with you. There cannot be any diminution of the substance of what is already going through the system, but you can use this Committee phase to ensure that we tighten up some of the things that we were unable to get during the negotiations, which ensured that we at least had a Bill to put before Parliament. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that we need to ensure that the main planks—the ones that Andy was talking about before—remain at the forefront of everything that we do. It is about those protections. As you said, this is of course the legacy for the 97. All the families I have spoken with are absolutely delighted at the way in which the parliamentary process has gone so far. Pete Weatherby has done a brilliant job for us. If you listen to anybody, you need to listen to people like Pete Weatherby, and others, who have been on this from day one. They know all the caveats that need to be included so that we do not have wriggle room for occasions in the future when tragedies might occur and people try to get away with it.
Ian, you talked about this earlier. I would love the Bill to be able to ban things like The Sun, following its unconscionable and scurrilous lie, which within days of the tragedy set the false narrative. I know that Leveson 2 is not part of the scope of this Committee, but we need to clamp down on those things and stop them happening in the first place. The untold damage that things like that have done to reputations and to people—the falsehoods are still believed by some people 36 years later—is unfathomable to me.
Andy Burnham: I endorse what Steve just said and the evidence given to you earlier by Nathan Sparkes. Leveson 2 is part of the Hillsborough story, and we believe that it is needed to have the full story.
There is one area that I have not touched on today, but which we need to talk about: the exemption for the security services that we are told is, in effect, in place. That was not the case with my 2017 Bill. That is relevant to us here in Manchester: a false narrative was given by the security services, by MI5, to the Manchester Arena inquiry, and it was subsequently exposed only by the evidence of individual officers. This is not about material going into the public domain that should not. Obviously, there is a proper exemption for some things going into the public domain, but where things do go into the public domain, they should be accurate and truthful.
We have seen the BBC being given false information by the same organisation, so I do not see that the security services can be exempt. In some of the issues in this country that still need further work—the Shrewsbury 24 would be one example—there was definitely the involvement of the security services, domestically, against people. Are we saying that that should be exempt and should not be part of this? What about Orgreave? I do not know the full extent of their involvement there, but certainly the forthcoming Orgreave inquiry should not have that cut off in any way, shape or form. That is something that needs to be addressed in a proper way. No one is calling for things to be put into the public domain that should not, or that would compromise the country or our safety in any way. However, where things are being said, they have to be truthful. I do not think the Security Service gets an opt-out on that, as they seem to think they should have. That would be my final statement.
As I think Steve was indicating, can I thank the Committee? You seem to us to be doing exactly the job we would hope you would do. We congratulate the Government on introducing this legislation in the current state it is in; it is obviously substantially meeting the tests of my Bill, as I have said. But let us not leave loopholes, grey areas or overly high hurdles that can be exploited—that has damaged public trust in the authorities of this country. This Bill should leave no doubt whatsoever about what should be expected in the future and should back people, from the off, to get truth, justice and accountability.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Andy and Steve, for your evidence. That ends this oral evidence session.
Steve Rotheram: Up the reds!
Examination of Witness
Daniel De Simone gave evidence.
Seamus Logan
It is hard to describe a particular example, but in a way that might prevent a whistleblower from taking necessary action.
Daniel De Simone: I think so, yes. Journalists have been arrested under the Official Secrets Act. I am a journalist who has worked in the area of security and matters to do with terrorism, so I am familiar with there being a risk to journalists with official secrets. Someone might tell you something that puts themselves at risk, or they might put you at risk. In practice we see very few prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act—we do not see many of them now—so this is not something that is happening all the time, but there is a risk.
There is obviously a balance, because security and intelligence agencies do not want to feel that anyone who works there can just go off and reveal things that they think are very sensitive, but equally it is also true that there can be things that are wrong within those organisations, and there is not always an obvious place for someone to go if they feel like that. There is often a big risk to that person for doing that. So yes, it can be too much.
Ian Byrne
Q
Daniel De Simone: For MI5? No, I do not think so. Look at what the head of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, has said. He said in a speech last month that there are particular responsibilities on MI5 as a secret agency to comply with oversight and be as transparent as it can with these sorts of things. He was talking with reference particularly to the fact that MI5 was found to have given false evidence in our case. So strong words are clearly being said.
The trouble we have in our case is that when we showed that there was false evidence, and they accepted that, the third in command of MI5—the director general, strategy—then came along and gave an account to the court that the court, the Lady Chief Justice, the president of the King’s bench division and the head of the administrative court now say was not an accurate reflection of the closed material. That happened after they said they were going to be very transparent with the court. They really had to be dragged to the point they are now in, where there is an investigation that the court—the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—required. That is being carried out under the auspices of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. His organisation was also misled.
In our case, every kind of judicial body charged with holding MI5 to account, or its regulator, has been given false evidence. That is an issue, and it calls into question issues around a duty of candour. Lord Evans said in his evidence earlier that there is already a duty of candour responsibility on MI5 and the Government in the courts, and that is true. In our case, they have admitted that they did not meet that test. It is there; the issue is that it is not always being complied with. As I understand it, the point of the Bill is to strengthen that duty and enforce it. That seems to be why it is there.
Ian Byrne
Q
Daniel De Simone: Yes. We had corporate witnesses, senior officers and the third in command of MI5, and we had Ken McCallum himself saying they were going to get to the bottom of what happened, but they did not get to the bottom of what happened, and the evidence they presented to the court did not reflect the closed material. When the judge made them hand over the closed material, the judge was very unhappy and made it obvious that they had not given a full and honest account. We now have the investigation that is going to look at whether they lied, as we have said, and whether there should therefore be contempt of court processes. That investigation is happening at the moment.
Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families
Ian Byrne Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Before I call the Member in charge, let me say that 21 Members want to speak, which will mean two to two and a half minutes for each speech. There are also a lot of people who wish to intervene. I am letting the Member in charge know that in order to give him an idea of when he might want to finish his speech—I suggest that he takes no longer than 20 minutes.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered duty of candour for public authorities and legal representation for bereaved families.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am here to speak about the urgent need for a statutory duty of candour and the full implementation of the Hillsborough law, and to oppose the forces that want to fight against this change.
Historically, the state has taken a defensive position to protect its own interests. From the Peterloo massacre to Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, the Post Office scandal, Grenfell, the contaminated blood scandal and nuclear test veterans, to name but a few, the list of state cover-ups is long, exhausting and utterly shameful. So many families have been denied truth and justice because of the current system, which enables cover-ups. How and why has a system been left in place that has continually enabled the establishment to evade truth, accountability and justice for those wronged? That is a question that this place and this country should think long and hard about.
I was at the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 when 97 innocent women, children and men lost their lives and countless more lives were destroyed. It was not just a tragedy; it was a betrayal—a betrayal compounded over decades by lies, cover-ups and institutional failures.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for all the amazing work he has done on this subject for such a long time. Does he agree that if the Hillsborough law is not delivered as promised, it will be a massive betrayal of not only the people of Liverpool, the families and the survivors, but the whole country?
Ian Byrne
I agree 100%.
The then chief constable of South Yorkshire police said after the findings of the Hillsborough independent panel in 2012:
“In the immediate aftermath senior officers sought to change the record of events. Disgraceful lies were told which blamed the Liverpool fans for the disaster. Statements were altered which sought to minimise police blame.”
By that point, 23 years after Hillsborough, the game was up. Even South Yorkshire police had to admit that there had been a cover-up of the true facts on an industrial scale.
At the end of the Hillsborough processes in 2020, 31 years had passed. A jury at the inquests had found to the criminal standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that those who died had been unlawfully killed by the gross negligence of the match commander. The police force involved had settled the cover-up cases, having publicly acknowledged that disgraceful lies had been deliberately told by senior officers to shift the blame from the police on to Liverpool supporters. Yet, disgracefully, no public servant or police officer has ever been convicted of any offence or even disciplined. In fact, one of the officers at the very heart of the cover-up, Norman Bettison, not only escaped sanction, but was rewarded. He received a knighthood—a title he disgracefully holds to this day. Truth, but no justice.
Would anybody in this place argue that it was right that those responsible for the 97 unlawful deaths of innocent people walked away without any consequences? I would wager not. However, 36 years after the Hillsborough cover-up, nothing has changed. The very establishments and vested interests responsible for this culture are once again looking to maintain the status quo and the ability to continue state cover-ups and deny justice to those wronged. This place, which has been at the heart of this culture and done so much to enable cover-ups, must acknowledge today that the game is up and act with clarity and moral courage to push back against those vested interests.
That is why we need a duty of candour, which was built into the proposed Hillsborough law of 2017. Establishing a legal duty of candour on public authorities, public servants and corporations that are responsible for public safety would set out a legal principle that they have to tell the truth. Is it not remarkable that that was necessary and remains so?
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that to change the culture of cover-ups that has caused so much harm to so many, we must have a duty of candour, with criminal sanctions for individuals as well as organisations and authorities?
Ian Byrne
My hon. Friend is spot on.
The second aspect of the Hillsborough law would put that new legal principle of truth into practical use by requiring public authorities, public servants and corporations proactively to assist investigations, inquests and inquiries, and providing a legal toolkit to help families and others to make them comply.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I wish to make it really clear that I am vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, a non-profit-making organisation set up to protect whistleblowers. Nothing should slow down the promised Bill, and it is essential that those who hold public office are held fully accountable. If we are to prevent the now constant stream of scandals that blight so many innocent lives, we must not overlook the fact that the people involved in Hillsborough and every similar scandal speak up, but the system lets them down. Will the Minister address directly the fact that, as part of the important new Hillsborough law, the Government should commit to protect those who exercise their duty of candour from retaliation by also committing to the introduction of an office of the whistleblower?
Ian Byrne
I thank the hon. Member for those valid points.
The third aspect of the Hillsborough law would make new offences of wilfully failing to discharge the duty to fully assist inquiries, or intentionally or recklessly misleading the public or media. That would be an absolute game changer and would transform the country for the better.
That leads me to the current situation. In the 2024 King’s Speech, the Government pledged to bring forward legislation to enshrine a duty of candour for public servants. They called it the Hillsborough law, and it was what was promised in the manifesto that I, and many Members present, proudly stood on in the 2024 general election. We thought it was the same legislation as the Hillsborough law that was first brought to Parliament by Andy Burnham in 2017 and written by Pete Weatherby KC and Elkan Abrahamson, two prominent lawyers who have represented Hillsborough families for decades and continue to work with the Hillsborough law campaign. The Government promised that they would ensure that public officials tell the truth and proactively co-operate with investigations. They also promised parity of legal representation for bereaved families. I, as lead for the Hillsborough law campaign in Parliament, and all the campaigners connected with it over the years, were delighted by that commitment, which the Government promised to deliver by the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough on 15 April this year.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who the whole House will agree is making an excellent and powerful contribution. I congratulate him on all the hard work that he has done to advance this issue. He is right to set out the essentials of any Bill, including the duty of candour, criminal responsibility, and the criminal sanctions to follow. Does he agree that any attempt to water down the Bill in any way will be rejected and be unacceptable to the House?
Ian Byrne
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful point—I agree 100%.
The Government’s promise to deliver that commitment by the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough was broken. Instead, they offered a watered-down version of the legislation, stripped of its moral force and legal teeth. Lawyers who drafted the original Bill refused to endorse it, negotiations stalled, and once again the families were let down. It felt a continuation of the betrayal by the state. Although the Paymaster General told me in this place in July that the Government remain “fully committed” to introducing a Hillsborough law, we still have no clarity on when or how those provisions will be enacted. There have been plenty of warm words, but warm words do not deliver justice—action does.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the hard work he has done on this issue since he entered the House. As he was speaking, I thought to myself that in all the cases that have led to these discussions—Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, nuclear test veterans, the Primodos scandal and countless others—the victims and their families have had to deal with the initial trauma of the incident and then the prolonged trauma as a result of all the lies that have been told. Does he agree that introducing a duty of candour would protect victims and their families from that prolonged trauma and that that should take priority over protecting the public body that is responsible? That is how the Government can show victims and their families that they are listening. This is why my hon. Friend is so forthright on bringing forward a Hillsborough law—because it would include the duty of candour.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions should be short, as so many Members want to speak.
Ian Byrne
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; she is spot on.
Out of sheer desperation at the situation, in July I used a private Member’s Bill, the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, to reintroduce the original Hillsborough law—the 2017 version. The Government rejected it, so here we are today, without the Hillsborough law, fighting against those same vested interests, and the clock continues to tick while people’s belief in politics and politicians continues to erode.
Let me be absolutely crystal clear for the Government: a full duty of candour with criminal sanctions is non-negotiable in any legislation bearing the name of Hillsborough. It is not a technicality; it is a moral imperative, and it is a moral and legal imperative that it sits at the heart of every inquiry, investigation and inquest, local and national—no exceptions. Nothing less will change the culture, because carve-outs become cover-ups, and this must never be allowed to happen again. Simply, if it had been law at the time of Hillsborough, we would not have waited decades for justice. So much pain and suffering could have been avoided, and families could have grieved for those lost instead of fighting the state for truth and justice. The duty of candour is about accountability. It is about preventing cover-ups, and it is about restoring public trust.
The second pillar of the Hillsborough law is legal parity, which is equally vital. Time and again, bereaved families have faced the might of the state with no legal support, while public bodies are armed to the teeth with expensive teams of lawyers. Parity of arms is essential to stop false narratives being spread and families feeling like it is them who are on trial. That imbalance is not just unfair; it is grotesque. I pay tribute to Deb Coles and the team at INQUEST for their constant championing of this. Their work was highlighted in “All or Nothing: A report on the Hillsborough Law Family Listening Day”. I urge everybody in this room and beyond to read it, to understand why parity of arms is so fundamental to gaining truth and justice.
If the Government resist a full duty of candour without exception, what does that say? Do they believe public officials should be allowed to lie with impunity? Do they believe families should continue to be denied justice? Opposition to this legislation is not about practicality. It highlights the power of vested interests. It is about protecting the status quo—a status quo that has caused untold harm to so many. The ball is now in the Government’s court. More specifically, it is in the Prime Minister’s court.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I should explain to my hon. Friend that I will have to leave the debate to attend a meeting about the violence meted out in a demonstration outside an asylum hotel in my constituency, but I want to make this point very clear. Labour is going to Liverpool for its conference in three weeks’ time. If this legislation is not sorted by then, it should not expect a welcome from the people in Liverpool, because we have waited too long.
Ian Byrne
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend.
The Prime Minister has the ball in his court. He has made personal commitments to Liverpool, to the Hillsborough families and to survivors of other state-related scandals. He is perhaps the most qualified Prime Minister in history to understand why this matters, but understanding is not enough. We need courage, we need leadership, and we need action.
I have met countless campaigners who are formidable, tireless and brave. They have been underestimated by the establishment for far too long, but they will not go away, and neither will I. As somebody who was at Hillsborough, I carry this fight in my bones. I will not rest while injustice persists, not just for those who died at Hillsborough, but for everyone who has been wronged by the state. Unless the state learns from its mistakes, it will repeat them, and lives will continue to be destroyed. The time for delaying is over, and the time for diluting promises is over. We must legislate, we must protect truth, and we must honour those who have died at the hands of the state, and those who have fought for justice on their behalf, not with words, but with law.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate. He has been a tireless advocate for bereaved families and communities affected by tragedy. His determination to keep these issues before Parliament commands respect across the House. We owe a debt of gratitude to the campaigners and families themselves. From Hillsborough to Grenfell, from the infected blood scandal to the Post Office Horizon affair, they have shown extraordinary courage in pressing for truth and accountability. Their persistence is the reason why we are here today, and it must not be forgotten.
The Hillsborough disaster in 1989 is the clearest example of why the call for a duty of candour has become louder over the years: 97 lives were lost and countless other people were traumatised, and it was very powerful for us all to hear from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, who was there on that day at a young age. In the years that followed, there were inquiries, judicial reviews and inquests, yet for far too long, the true circumstances of what happened were hidden.
In 2017, Bishop James Jones was asked to reflect on the experience of the Hillsborough families. His report set out in stark terms the lessons that need to be learned. He said that it was vital that the state ensure “proper participation” of the bereaved at inquests at which public bodies are represented. He identified four strands to achieving that: first, publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families when public bodies are represented; secondly, an end to the practice of public bodies spending limitless sums on their own representation; thirdly, a culture change so that public bodies see inquests not as a reputational threat, but as an opportunity to learn; and finally, changes to procedures and the training of coroners so that bereaved families are placed truly at the centre of the process.
His report also served a reminder that legislation alone is not enough. As others have mentioned, we already have a statutory duty of candour in parts of our system—particularly the NHS—but too often that duty has become a tick-box exercise, satisfying process rather than securing trust. If the Hillsborough law is to mean anything, it must embed a genuine culture of truth-telling and accountability, as well as changing the law.
It is against that backdrop that the idea of a statutory duty of candour has emerged and persisted. Sir Brian Langstaff, in his recent report into the infected blood scandal, reinforced the same point: too often, institutions have closed ranks, failed to disclose information openly and thereby compounded the suffering of victims and families.
The King’s Speech in 2024 committed the Government to bringing forward a Hillsborough law, including a statutory duty of candour and provisions on legal representation. The stated aims were to improve transparency and accountability and reduce the culture of defensiveness, and to ensure that failures such as those on Hillsborough or infected blood are not repeated.
Conservative Members are sympathetic to those aims, and it is worth remembering that some steps have been taken. Part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 legislated for the creation of an independent public advocate to give victims and families a stronger voice in the aftermath of major incidents. The previous Government also worked with police chiefs, prosecutors and fire leaders to establish the Hillsborough charter, which commits signatories to put the public interest above organisational representation.
Ian Byrne
Does the shadow Minister reflect on the fact, though, that Bishop Jones’s report was in 2017? He was asked to deliver it by the then Prime Minister, Theresa May. The Conservatives had a long time in government to implement the Hillsborough law. The shadow Minister mentioned some of the things they did, but it was not enough. I have been here since 2019, and I have continuously asked Minister after Minister to deliver the Hillsborough law, but the fact is, you failed us.
Dr Mullan
I will go on to talk about some of the other steps that we did take. Labour Members might reflect on the many things that, in opposition, they called for, demanded and promised to deliver, but that they are finding considerably more challenging to get done in government. That is our experience of Government in many respects.
As I said, there are other things that we did. On legal representation, the then Government removed the means test for legal help and representation at inquests, particularly in relation to the exceptional case funding scheme, and measures were introduced to promote candour in policing. The offence of police corruption was created in 2017, and in 2020 a new duty to co-operate was written into the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby highlighted, however, more needs to be done. In its 2023 report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights looked closely at equality of arms at inquests. It highlighted that during the first Hillsborough inquests, public authorities and senior police officers had multiple legal teams, all funded from the public purse, while bereaved families received no public funding at all. As I said, changes we have made would mean that that would not happen again in future in the same way. The Committee concluded that this inequality hindered the effective involvement of families, and risked damaging the ability of inquests to get to the truth.
Yet, as recent events have shown, the issue is not straightforward. As detailed in the letter the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby published earlier this year, the Government’s draft Bill was rejected by Hillsborough families, who argued that its proposed safeguards against dishonesty by public servants were not strong enough. The Prime Minister has met them on several occasions, both since taking office and previously in his role as Director of Public Prosecutions, and has emphasised that any legislation must command their confidence. As yet, however, no Bill has been introduced to Parliament.
In April, further reports suggested that draft legislation did not include provision for funding parity. Campaigners expressed real concern, and Ministers in the House of Lords offered reassurances, but admitted that there was concern in Government about the overall availability of legal aid funding.
Further reports over the summer suggest that resistance in the Treasury is slowing progress. The Justice Secretary has apparently made it clear that her Department could not fund the costs within existing budgets, and the Ministry of Justice was said to have sought over £1 billion in additional legal aid funding.
In July, the Prime Minister made the point that although he was fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, including a duty of candour, he wanted to take the time to get it right before putting it to Parliament. On the same day, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby brought forward his private Member’s Bill on candour and accountability.
The desire for progress is strong, but the practicalities remain contested. We are sympathetic to the principle of a statutory duty of candour. We agree that bereaved families should not face the state’s lawyers without adequate support of their own, and we recognise the force of the campaigns that have led us here. However, we also understand the difficulty of translating principle into workable law. How do we ensure fairness for families without creating unmanageable costs and adverse unintended consequences? Those are not small questions, and they deserve careful thought.
In closing, I return to where I began: the families. Families who lost loved ones at Hillsborough, families devastated by Grenfell, families affected by infected blood and families ruined by Horizon—they have all faced unimaginable grief and years of struggle to uncover the truth. We cannot undo their loss, but we can ensure that the state learns, that institutions are held to account and that families in the future are treated with the openness, honesty and fairness they deserve. Families and victims deserve nothing less.