Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

James Asser Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am afraid this will be the last question, because we have only a couple of minutes left, regrettably.

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

Q Thank you for what you have told us; it is important to hear from people who are directly involved. We have heard a lot today from the Hillsborough families. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but their experience was 35 years ago, and yours is much more contemporary, but it feels that in the three decades between the two there has been no progress and no improvement. You are just experiencing a variation on what they experienced. Is that a fair assessment? If it is, do you feel that the only way we are going to get the culture change that you and others have spoken about is by having the legal redress and recourse to be able to force that to happen?

Edward Daffarn: From very early on, our thoughts were that if Hillsborough is to mean anything, it is that we as Grenfell survivors are not having to make a generational battle out of what we are trying to fight for. And yet we are sitting here, eight and a half years after Grenfell, still fighting for justice. At its core, what this Bill says about candour, honesty, changing culture and criminal sanctions addresses Bishop James Jones’s razor-sharp comments about the imbalance of power. That is really important. If that imbalance of power can be addressed, then hopefully people in future will not have to suffer in the way that the Hillsborough families suffered and we suffered.

[The Chair]

Thank you for your evidence, Mr Daffarn. I am afraid that is the end of this panel. Thank you for taking the time to speak for us, and for your comments, observations and responses to questions.

Edward Daffarn: Thank you for letting me speak to you.

Examination of Witness

Chief Constable Craig Guildford gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Asser]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. Before we hear from this panel, I need to declare an interest. From 2014 to 2015 I worked for Hacked Off, alongside one of the witnesses.

[The Chair]

We note the point of order from James Asser—thank you.

We will now hear oral evidence from Flora Page KC, WhistleblowersUK, Second Sight and Hacked Off. We have until 6.5 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record? I am beginning to sound like a stuck record.

Nathan Sparkes: I am Nathan Sparkes, chief executive of the Hacked Off Campaign.

Jacqui Hames: I am Jacqui Hames, one of the directors of Hacked Off.

Ron Warmington: I am Ron Warmington, chairman of Second Sight Investigations.

James Killen: I am James Killen, head of policy and research at WhistleblowersUK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

Q Forgive me, but you are a slight peculiarity in that your function was very different. I suspect that you might have a different view about an organisation like Fujitsu, which was contracted by the Post Office and which seems to carry the whole of the blame—besides the behaviour of the Post Office—for the catastrophe that happened so many people.

Ron Warmington: Pretty well the only material whistleblower was Richard Roll, whom I spoke to well before he was prepared to come out. We obviously protected him. We tried to give hints to people at the Post Office that there might be a whistleblower at some point—when I knew jolly well that there was—in order to give them an opportunity to follow the righteous path. They did not really pick up on that.

We have always been a bit like journalists—one never burns one’s source. If any investigator ever did that, his or her career would be over. Once you get a reputation for advancing your own case over the body of a whistleblower, your career is dead. It is self-interest to protect whistleblowers. I have on many occasions been asked by companies—in fact, bank chairmen—“Can you help us find out who this whistleblower is?” I have told them, “You’d better find another firm. I could find them in a heartbeat, but I’m not going to.” That is corruption coming out again: “This person’s causing our company problems. Can you help us find the troublemaker?” “No. Go away.” But not all firms do that.

Flora Page: On the Fujitsu question, it is extraordinary that, over all those years that Fujitsu was remotely accessing sub-postmasters’ accounts and using their user IDs to enter transactions, there were no whistleblowers. That tells you all you need to know about certain organisations not providing the structure and the framework for whistleblowers to come forward. There must have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of people who knew what was going on.

[James Asser]

Q We have heard from Hillsborough families today. We have heard from a Grenfell survivor. What we heard from them is remarkably similar although those two events were 30 years apart. Nathan, you have outlined other parts of the timeline that show that this has been a problem for decades. We talked about culture change, but we have reached a point where only the law will force people to behave in a decent way, which is a fairly depressing position to have got into. Given what Jacqui said about some organisations being able to put criminality as an acceptable risk as part of their business model, how confident can we be that the Bill will achieve culture change? Are there things that we will need to keep an eye on and follow up? That is an open-ended, difficult question, but I feel we should pose it.

Nathan Sparkes: In terms of public officials’ candour in investigations and so on, we endorse the position of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, of which we are a part. Further to its amendments, the Bill does a good job.

In terms of the specific phenomenon that we have identified of corrupt relationships between public officials and the media, the Bill does not go nearly far enough. Those relationships are, by their nature, covert. They are at best improper and at worst corrupt and unlawful. The only part of the Bill that attempts to grapple with them at the moment is the code. Public officials who are engaged in that kind of corrupt behaviour are very unlikely to be persuaded to clean up their act by a code.

A whole succession of investigations, inquiries and scandals have all come to the same conclusion: we need a public inquiry into the specific phenomenon of relations between public officials and the media. Given the long title of the Bill and what it promises to achieve, that appears to us to be a significant omission. That is why we are very keen for the Committee to consider an amendment to that effect. Jacqui, do you have anything to add?

Jacqui Hames: Yes. What is the risk for the individual concerned in that transaction? If you think there is a bigger risk of being exposed and taken to court, you will change the way you behave. Having been a police officer in the ’70s and ’80s, as well as having seen things from this perspective, the difference is the culture of secrecy and reputational protection. If you can change that from the inside and say, “This is not going to be tolerated. This is what’s going to happen,” people will stand behind that. It will give them protection if they are being sucked into something that they cannot get themselves out of and are coerced. In many respects, that is the difficult area: people being coerced into behaviour that in another circumstance they would perhaps not consider getting involved in. It is a real problem that people get coerced—as Nathan said—because so much of this happens in secret.

[The Chair]

Order. I am sorry for interrupting, but that brings us to the end of our allotted time for the Committee to ask questions; I am sorry that we do not have any more. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses and regret that we will not be able to take this further with you today. Please let the Committee have any other comments in writing.

Examination of Witnesses

Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram gave evidence.