Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to be here today debating a Bill that has been decades in the making. Before I begin, I want to join those who have already spoken in paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of the Hillsborough survivors and those who lost loved ones in the disaster. They have been through an unimaginable ordeal spanning decades, but throughout they have shown remarkable courage, dedication and tenacity to deliver justice for their loved ones. Even after the truth about the tragedy emerged, the families have not stopped campaigning. They have long called for a systemic change to prevent anything like this from happening again. We as a country owe a great debt of gratitude to their efforts, because without them we would not be debating this Bill today. As someone who grew up in a part of the world that has lived under the shadow of Hillsborough, I know how much this means to my constituents, and not least to the families of those that have lost loved ones, so I am proud that we have acted on the pledge that we made to implement this law.

The Bill addresses the key problems that we have identified time and again. How will we ultimately judge whether the Bill is a success? Two words: never again. That is the standard against which the Bill must be held. Never again should victims be wrongly blamed by the state for their deaths. Never again can we allow public bodies that are meant to protect us to lie in order to protect their own reputations. Never again must ordinary people fight tooth and nail against the seemingly endless resources of the state just to get to the truth.

As we have heard, Hillsborough is by far not the only example of the scandals and cover-ups that have emerged in recent years. The well-rehearsed list gets longer every year, and it includes infected blood, the Post Office, Grenfell, nuclear test veterans and many others that we have debated in this place. The test is that we do not add to that list, and that when tragedy strikes again and serious mistakes are made, truth and accountability are on display immediately. Let us be clear, legislation is only the starting point for this. As the Prime Minister said, a culture change is also required.

Establishing a legal duty of candour that requires bodies to act proactively, promptly and with full disclosure to assist inquiries, inquests and other investigations is a huge step forward, but it has to be delivered in practice, and that is the real challenge that we face. All too often—we have seen it in this place, have we not?—institutions act defensively, obfuscate and focus on protecting themselves when placed under scrutiny. With the guidance provided by codes of ethics and the threat of criminal sanctions, bodies and those working inside them should be forced to refocus and to put the public and their safety as their No. 1 priority, not to lie, and to actively support investigations and inquiries. That is what the public expect institutions to be doing already. While it should never have been required, this Bill will enshrine that basic principle into law at long last.

As we have seen in the NHS, however, that is easier said than done. It is nearly 10 years since the freedom to speak up guardians were introduced, but from what I can observe, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the good intentions behind that initiative are truly embraced across the board. Only in the past week I have been contacted by several people currently working in the NHS who believe that their concerns have not been listened to, or that they have been on the end of mistreatment because they have spoken out. Legislation is one thing, but culture is another, and I would suggest that changing the culture is something that needs leadership and buy-in from every single person across every single part of every single organisation.

I want to say something about equality before the law. Victims must no longer be browbeaten by lawyers in their quest for the truth, but I have some concerns about how that will work in practice, because when a public body is looking at something serious under this Bill, which it inevitably will, it will want the most senior representation it can get. If a public body can afford hundreds of pounds an hour for its lawyers, it will instruct them, but such fees will clearly be well in excess of existing legal aid rates. In that scenario, who is going to tell the public body that it has to choose cheaper lawyers? How will true equality before the law be achieved, especially if authorities only have to “have regard” to these principles? We need an overarching, independent way of monitoring this and of ensuring that recommendations from inquests and inquiries are effectively publicised and their implementation is monitored and delivered, ideally with progress reports to this place.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Clause 6 relates to the intelligence agencies, and there is an exemption for those who handle material that falls within the definition of security and intelligence. Our constituents will want to be certain that these organisations have oversight, so would the hon. Gentleman agree that this could be an additional power for the Intelligence and Security Committee?

[Justin Madders]

That is an interesting suggestion. I think a lot of Members are concerned about how this will relate to the security services, because we have had many examples in the past of where they have done things that we would rather had not happened. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, there will be some good dialogue about an appropriate way to deal with those difficult balances that have to be achieved.

I also want to raise a couple of concerns about clause 11 and the offence of misleading the public. The requirement for there to be “harm” to a victim could significantly reduce its effectiveness, which aims to deter cover-ups and obfuscation. In addition, part 2 of the Bill goes on to define who is included within the definition of a public body, and it specifically excludes the devolved bodies and both Houses of Parliament. I know that is because of the long-standing convention that Parliaments deal with their own affairs, but I am concerned that this sends out a negative message about our responsibilities in this matter. Parliament has in the past allowed other bodies to become involved in the way it does business with, for example with the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, so there is precedent there for us to look at that again.

We should all be treated equally before the law. When trust and confidence in our institutions are at an all-time low, it is hard to underestimate the impact of the changes this Bill can deliver, but it should apply to everyone equally. Repeated examples of scandal and state cover-up are corrosive to trust and only serve those who want to sow division, so we have to get this right. This moment can mark a stark change in the way we deal with these issues, but we have to deliver it. Once it becomes law, we have to be consistent and vigilant to ensure that the Bill’s good intentions are delivered. That will mean a profound cultural shift. Hopefully the Bill will restore trust in our democracy and our institutions, so that when in future we say that something should never happen again, we can be confident that it will not.