Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr Weatherby; that is most helpful.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Q I am the shadow Justice Minister. Thank you for the written briefings, particularly the one done with INQUEST and Justice North, which is very detailed. As has been alluded to, we cannot go through it all, but could you pick out perhaps the two or three points where it is most important to make further amendments, based on what you just said?

Pete Weatherby: Primarily, our concerns are around command responsibility and the extent to which the Bill covers, or does not cover, the intelligence services, and we have concerns about the clause 11 offence going too far in its requirements.

[Dr Mullan]

Q We have time for you to expand slightly on what you want to see change in those three elements.

Pete Weatherby: On command responsibility, the Bill, and the original Bill, created both individual and corporate duties, and quite rightly so. The problem with the corporate duties is that the offences require a very high threshold. They require either intent or subjective recklessness, which means that the person has to foresee the risk but nevertheless decide to take it. It is not impossible, but it is extraordinarily difficult, to apply that to an inanimate object like a corporate body.

In the original Bill, we imposed some corporate duties but put the responsibility for enforcing them on the heads of the public body involved; this has not quite been followed through in this Bill. We would like to see a simple amendment to clauses 5 and 11, as we set out in the briefing, to put that legal responsibility on the chief officer or the chief executive of the public body. Without that, a lot of the duties in the Bill are reduced to something that looks good but is rather ineffective. We have said all the way through that our watchwords are “practical” and “effective”. If law is not practical and effective, don’t bother. That is the first thing.

On the intelligence services, some of the many campaigns behind a Hillsborough law include the Manchester Arena families. There was a major failure of the intelligence services and the way they dealt with the aftermath of the bombing. This is all in the public domain: they had intelligence that related to the bomber and the bomber’s activities, and they did not act on it. The chair of the public inquiry, having heard closed evidence, came to the conclusion that they should have acted on it. Although he could not say whether it would have made a difference, it might have made a difference. Obviously, that is very important. The problem beyond that was that MI5 then put an incorrect narrative—a false narrative—to the inquiry itself. The judge, the chair of the inquiry, found that the corporate case that it had put was incorrect.

There are other examples. Obviously, we have very limited time. I know you are going to hear from Daniel De Simone, the BBC reporter, this afternoon. His case is another one where the security services have fallen short in terms of candour. These are not the only examples. We are very keen to apply the duty of candour and all of the duties here as much as possible to the security services. The objections to that are that it might interfere with national security. I represented seven of the Manchester Arena families, and I can say very clearly that there is no intention to interfere with national security whatsoever—quite the opposite.

The Bill drafted by us, and this Bill, does not affect national security, positively or negatively. It just does not affect it. What it does affect is that when the intelligence services have to report to an inquiry or the Intelligence and Security Committee or whatever, they have to tell the truth, whether in open or closed session. That is the key element of it. We think that has been missed.

The Government invited me to have a meeting with the intelligence services last night, and I did. I know that this Committee has been briefed as well. I think it was quite clear that the intelligence services have missed that point. We have put forward a very simple amendment that we think takes complete account of those concerns about national security. We ask you to look at that and to adopt that amendment.

[The Chair]

The Minister has graciously indicated that she wants Members to have the chance to ask questions. Minister, feel free to come back if you choose to. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed. Does either of you wish to make a brief opening statement? I do mean brief.

Tom Guest: No, thank you.

Professor Lewis: No, thank you.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Hello; I am the shadow Justice Minister. Professor Lewis, are there any significant differences, or even minor differences, between the work that the Law Commission did and its recommendations, and the Bill as drafted?

Professor Lewis: Yes, there are some differences, but the Bill substantially implements the Law Commission’s recommendations on misconduct in public office. All of the core structural reforms have been adopted, in clauses 12 and 13. There are a few material differences in detail; I will perhaps run through them as a list, without expanding on them, and then if there are any you wish to pick up, you can.

There are some objective fault elements in both offences where the commission had recommended subjective awareness: in the seriously improper acts offence, the commission recommended that the defendant had to realise that a reasonable person would regard the act as seriously improper, whereas the Bill requires that the defendant knows or ought to know that. There is a similar shift in the breach of duty offence.

There is some divergence in relation to the defence to what we recommended as the corruption offence—the seriously improper acts offence. We recommended a public interest defence; the Bill has a reasonable excuse defence. We recommended that the persuasive or legal burden be on the defendant, whereas in the Bill it is only an evidential burden to raise the defence that is on the defendant.

There is an extra seriousness threshold in the breach of duty offence, which we explicitly rejected; we did not think it was needed. That is the requirement that

“the act…falls far below what could reasonably be expected”.

It is a sort of gross negligence threshold.

I think the other points are fairly minor. One is about the repeal of section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, and the other is some differences in relation to what counts as holding public office. Having said that, our recommendations on that were that the Government consider certain kinds of public office for inclusion in the list, and the Government have considered all of those kinds of public office. We had anticipated that further work would be needed to refine the list, and that work has been done.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Professor Lewis. Does Mr Guest wish to come in on the back of any of that?

Tom Guest: No, thank you.

[Dr Mullan]

Q It is obviously difficult to talk about hypotheticals, but I think it is potentially helpful, because we are talking about legal terms that not even members of the Committee will necessarily be familiar with. Taking first subjective versus objective awareness, in what sort of scenarios might that create a difference in how the Bill operates?

Professor Lewis: What it does is expand the scope of the offence. In circumstances where the defendant was not aware—did not realise—that a reasonable person would regard the act as seriously improper in relation to the seriously improper acts offence, or was not aware of the duty in the context of the breach of duty offence, under our recommendations, the defendant would not be liable. Under the provisions in the Bill, however, if the jury were of the view that the defendant ought to have realised the relevant fact, that would suffice. It is an expansion of liability.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I ask the same question, but on reasonable excuse versus public interest.

Professor Lewis: That is less clear. The one thing I could say quite confidently is that there is a significantly lower burden of proof on the defendant. The defendant just has to introduce some evidence to raise the possibility of a reasonable excuse, and the burden will then be on the prosecution to disprove the reasonable excuse beyond reasonable doubt—so to the criminal standard. That difference in relation to the burden of proof is favourable to the defence.

On whether there is a material difference in relation to a public interest defence versus a reasonable excuse defence, I think reasonable excuse would probably encompass things that would fall within a public interest defence and might be broader, but without anything on the face of the Bill constraining what a reasonable excuse is, it is difficult to say. I suppose, eventually, there will be case law that will deal with the question of what does and does not constitute a reasonable excuse in these circumstances.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Mr Guest, can you see any prosecutorial disadvantages to the new offences compared with the existing law?

Tom Guest: No. In general, we were supportive of this project from the outset—not because we were having difficulties with the common law offence, but because it sets it out much more clearly to have it contained in an Act. It clears up certain areas such as, “Who is a public official?” and, “How should a jury assess seriousness?” We have not identified disadvantages with the misconduct provisions.

[The Chair]

The Minister has once again kindly waived her right to question, so I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Mullan]

Q But are you aware of examples that have gone above those limits?

Tom Guest: I am not aware of them. There is always a question of overlap. If you have another offence, such as an offence of rape, then we would be charging rape, and we have the maximum sentence of life there.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I will pick up on the earlier questions on contractors and subcontractors. If I put in everybody’s mind the Post Office Horizon scandal, where you had contractors and potentially subcontractors, do you think that there would be any obstacles to prosecuting a scenario similar to the Post Office Horizon scandal because of contractor and subcontractor limits?

Professor Lewis: All I can say in relation to the misconduct in public office offences, the ones that the Law Commission recommended, is that we recommended the Government consider the inclusion of contractors. They have not been included separately in schedule 4 but, as Mr Guest said, I do not think I am in a position to comment on whether in particular cases, particular offences may have been committed, because one would need to see the evidence and one would need to be a prosecutor in order to take a view on that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q But potentially?

Professor Lewis: If someone were in public office, which I think is not necessarily the case based on the clauses before us, it is possible that the seriously improper act offence could be considered. I think that is as far as I can possibly help.

Tom Guest: Turning to the duty of candour extension, which directly addresses this, I think our straight answer is that “direct contractual relationship” is in the Bill for a reason; of course we would look at the evidence and the precise contract, but it does appear limited to that. I agree with what Professor Lewis said: when you come to the misconduct in public office offences, schedule 4 is intended to reflect existing public offices, but every attention should be paid to it to decide whether it has become any wider or more narrow, and whether there is good reason for that. We are not expressing a view but, if we are going to replicate the existing common law, we need to make sure that schedule 4 does so effectively.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

Q Grenfell United submitted some evidence to us with extracts from the Grenfell inquiry of local government officers repeatedly saying, “Can’t recall, can’t recall”. How would the duty of candour apply in those circumstances? How do we prevent what they would see as stonewalling of the inquiry?

Tom Guest: Even if I were possessed of the information about the Grenfell live investigation, I do not think it would be wise for me to comment on that directly. However, having scrutinised the proposals on the duty of candour, we do not say lightly that it is tightly and clearly drawn. There is not an ambiguity in what is expected of public officials or public authorities in principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed. Before I invite questions, can I say personally how very much I appreciate that you are here and have taken the trouble to be here today. The lines of questioning will be as sympathetic as, under these circumstances, it is possible to make them.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I am Kieran, the shadow Justice Minister. I want to give my sincere condolences to all of you and all of the families for what you have been through. I want to commend your persistence, courage and bravery in carrying on and campaigning over such an extended period, as you have all done. It really is remarkable, and we are all very grateful. I will not ask many questions, as there are MPs on the panel who have worked with you and know you very well, and I am sure that they will be keen to ask questions.

I will just ask whether any of you want to talk about how things might have been different, and how the experience might have been different for you, had you known what had happened from the start and had truth from the outset.

Charlotte Hennessy: My experience is very different from Margaret’s, Sue’s and Steve’s, because I was so young. I did not know the magnitude of what had happened until the Hillsborough independent panel released its report. That was the only opportunity I had to access evidence statements and be able to piece a timeline together of what actually happened to my dad. That was when I really realised the magnitude of what had happened. I want to acknowledge the Hillsborough family members who are not here today—if it were not for them, and for the survivors who stood by their truth even when they were shut down by those who were supposed to protect them, and if they had not fought the fight, children like me would never have known the truth of what happened.

For me, it only got worse from there. It was like Hillsborough had just happened at that time, because that was when I realised that my dad’s original cause of death was completely untrue—even down to his pathology report being untrue. It was not how my dad died. I will not speak about the details here, but I will send them privately to the Committee. It has had a profound impact.

Had all that information been available, I do not think I would have had to spend my whole teenage and adult life fighting for the truth of what happened to my dad. It now impacts my own children, like Margaret said earlier. My husband is here in the room today. We have had to educate our children on the seriousness of those lies, on the impact of the cover-up, and on the fact that their granddad would have been buried in a lie if it were not for those good people.

[The Chair]

Could I just ask, because there are four of you, that you indicate when you wish to add to the first answer given? That will help me to help the Committee, as we have quite a lot of questions to get through.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Part of the Bill is about creating parity of esteem in legal advice and support, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that it costs money. Have any of you experienced financial loss as a result of everything you have had to do?

Margaret Aspinall: Yes. The family has had great financial loss. As I said earlier, I had four other young children. The youngest was only six—the same age as Charlotte—at the time, the next was seven, one was nine, and then a son who was fifteen going on sixteen. They had an absolutely terrible time. I had to change their schools because of things young children were saying. Innocent children were saying terrible things about how their brother died and how it was caused. Obviously, it was what they were listening to, so I had to change their schools. It was a very difficult thing. My husband was at the game as well, and he has never been to a game since. He just cannot face going to another football match. My children went through a terrible time, like Charlotte did.

At the same time, I realised something when Sue and I were working in the Hillsborough office a few years ago. A phone call came through, and Sue said to me, “Margaret, there’s somebody on the phone for you.” I picked the phone up, and it was my granddaughter, who was 10 at the time; she said, “I would like an appointment to see my nan, please.” I thought, “I’m doing to my grandchildren exactly what I’ve done to my own children.” I was working so hard, and not just myself, but others—though I can only speak for myself—to get to the truth of Hillsborough. The lies and the cover-up, as Charlotte said, were an absolute disgrace.

When it came to the funding, we had to pay for every court case we went to. I am even talking about even judicial reviews, scrutiny, inquests, all different things. We paid every step of the way, and they had lawyers paid for by the state—from our taxpayers’ money—while we had to go cap in hand, trying to fight for the truth that was there all along, and for justice. What families went through—I cannot forgive that.

My children grew up with Hillsborough and my grandchildren are growing up with Hillsborough now, 36 years on. They are still not seeing their nan because I am busy doing other things to try to get a Hillsborough law, alongside others—good people, unsung heroes, who are supporting this campaign. They have done so much to change a system that must be changed—not for us, because it is too late for us—but for the good of this nation. The law has got to be changed, in all its entirety.

Steve Kelly: On the point of finances, when Hillsborough happened, obviously your finances just did not come into it. I will speak personally—I was a taxi driver at the time, and taxi drivers never earn good money, do they? You are always struggling, but you get by. I remember that I had to go to Sheffield to find my brother, I came home, and the last burden that I wanted to give to my mother and my sister Joan was issues of finance.

When the disaster was coming to the fore and all the information was coming out, we were obviously making plans to bury our brother. There was only one thing you could do at that time: you would go and borrow the money. I went to the bank and borrowed the money. I never, ever went to my mam and told her how much it was. Again, she had just lost her son, and she did not know how. You just bore those problems and lived through them for years, on the financial side alone, with paying loans back and so on.

That is why we want this law in—we beg you to bring this law in—because the trauma alone of losing someone, and then the trauma again of all these years fighting back, is so difficult to bear. The financial burden was not even a second thought—I appreciate the question, but it was nothing to do with us really. We got through it. People should not have to get through things. People should be helped and supported. This law, hopefully, will do that.

[The Chair]

Once again, the Minister has indicated that she wants Members to have the opportunity to ask questions. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.