Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Ian Byrne and Kieran Mullan

Thursday 4th December 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Mullan]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Schedule 3

Offences under Part 2: related provision

[Ian Byrne]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Ian Byrne and Kieran Mullan

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Byrne]

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

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

[Dr Mullan]

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

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

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Ian Byrne and Kieran Mullan

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Mullan]

Q In your experience of organisations that have delivered what you might call a duty of candour without this legal sanction, either successfully or unsuccessfully, what are the key culture changes we need to ensure that organisations deliver?

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 Thank you, Lord Evans, for your support of a Hillsborough law. We heard clear evidence this morning about the Manchester Arena bombing, and we are going to hear later on from a BBC reporter that the Security Service is not immune from the problems that the Bill has been created to address. My question is, if the Security Service has to go before an inquiry, why should they be treated any differently from a police officer? Surely, it should be the actual agent who answers the questions, and not the corporate body. We saw clear differences in Manchester, where many agents were summoned to give evidence, from what the corporate body was saying. As you outlined, we have to remember what this is about: it is about getting to the truth to give justice and accountability. My fear, as things stand, is that that will not happen with the security services.

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Q Do you think we need another body to do the job of following up on PFDs specifically?

Professor Fowler: No, I do not think we do.

[Ian Byrne]

Q Dr Chopra, you have talked a lot about cultural change and how we effect that. Do you agree that the ineffectiveness of the duty of candour in the NHS is due to the fact that it applies to the organisation and not the command?

Dr Chopra: Can you say a little more?

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Debate between Ian Byrne and Kieran Mullan

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.