Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Today is the day that, first and foremost, at the front of our minds will be one group of people, some of whom join us in the Gallery: those harmed by the state, those misled by the state, those lied to by the state. But those same people refused to accept that and would not take no for an answer. Those people knew the truth—the truth of what happened to them and to their relatives—and fought on to make sure everybody else knew it as well. The movement towards greater accountability and transparency in public life owes everything to them.

The Hillsborough disaster stands as the example that many of our constituents will perhaps think of first. Ninety-seven lives were lost on 15 April 1989, and many others were profoundly affected, as the Prime Minister so powerfully articulated. As the Prime Minister also pointed out, among them was a Member of this very House. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) was 16 years old at the time and was a spectator at the match. He has been an unrelenting advocate for those who shared with him the horror of that day and what happened afterwards.

As if the tragedy of those events was not enough, what followed served only to compound it over generations. In the decades that followed, despite multiple inquiries, reviews and inquests, the truth of what happened remained obscured by lies—by a cover-up. We would all wish to be able to say that this is the only example of institutional defensiveness, of covers-ups and of the reputation of organisations being prioritised over doing what was right, but as this House sadly knows, it is not.

Between the 1970s and early 1990s, thousands of UK patients contracted HIV and hepatitis after receiving contaminated blood, blood products and tissues. Reflecting on the findings of his inquiry into the matter, Sir Brian Langstaff said quite simply that:

“People put their faith in doctors and in the government to keep them safe and their trust was betrayed.”

Experimentation, deception, cover-up. And there are more examples. We have all been shocked to hear about the trauma and experiences of our postmasters and their families, as they were ruthlessly pursued by the Post Office and the Crown Prosecution Service over many years, with the failure of successive Governments to exercise their oversight to protect them. We have seen other failures in healthcare, policing and housing, some well known and others not so well known. But whether 97 lives are lost or just one, the impact on families is lifelong and severe.

The themes have been consistent: the resistance of the state to accept its wrongdoing; the aggressiveness of the state in responding to challenge; and the willingness of individuals working for the state to put themselves first over the people they are expected to serve. Again and again, David and Goliath battles are played out as the resources of the state, in all its forms, have been deployed against innocent people, innocent victims.

As we reflect on the proposed measures before us, it is sensible to consider the changes that have been made in this area. On legal representation, the means test for legal help and representation at inquests for applications to the exceptional case funding scheme has been removed and we have seen a steady number of applications over recent years. Measures were introduced to promote candour in policing, when the offence of police corruption was created in 2017. In the health service, the duty of candour was introduced following the Francis inquiry into catastrophic failings in health at Stafford hospital. Through part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we legislated for the creation of an Independent Public Advocate, whose role is to ensure victims and bereaved families are properly supported and represented after major incidents.

However, a desire to do more has remained. Bishop James Jones’s report, “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, reflected on the experiences of the Hillsborough families and set out key lessons for public bodies. It called for the bereaved to have “proper participation” at inquests where public authorities are represented, and identified other key areas for reform; alongside work by the Law Commission, it provided a key basis for the Bill before us. It should be noted, however, that Bishop James emphasised that legislation alone is insufficient. As mentioned, a statutory duty of candour already exists in parts of the public sector, particularly in the NHS, but question marks remain over the success of its implementation. The lesson is clear: legal change must be accompanied by cultural change.

In principle, we welcome the aims that underpin the Bill and which we are asked to consider on Second Reading. It is, however, always incumbent on this House to reflect on and consider whether the legislation we pass is as good as it can be, no matter how laudable the aim, and to ensure that we avoid any unintended consequences.

It is no secret that despite a very long-standing commitment on the Labour Benches to bring legislation of this nature forward, the Government themselves wrestled with how to do so appropriately. This Bill should be one that Members scrutinise closely. Members and our staff are quite rightly on the extensive list of public servants who will be in scope, under schedule 4. We will be able to look at the implications of the Bill and reflect on how it might interact with our work, where contention and disagreement are often at the heart of our decisions. As such, there are a number of questions and points for consideration that I would like to raise with the Government.

First, are we sure that the language in the Bill will provide the necessary legal clarity to underpin its successful operation? The Bill makes use of terms like “reckless” and “seriously improper”. It also states, for example, that the Act is designed to

“ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…in the public interest”.

How often do we disagree in this House on what constitutes the public interest? How often do we question the truth of what is being said?

Although superficially it might seem obvious—in the examples we have considered today, which are at the forefront of our minds, the failure to act in the public interest is clear and unquestionable—in other situations, we might be left with conflicting views as to what the public interest is. How will we differentiate between interpretations of the public interest in a way that does not allow individuals to escape the measures being proposed in the Bill? We have seen Government decisions that the Government consider to be in the public interest challenged repeatedly, and often successfully, in the courts. Individual public servants will also have their own views on what is or is not in the public interest; we will need to consider that, too. Further, how will the Bill be utilised by campaign groups that wish to legally challenge the Government in support of what they consider to be in the public interest? That is not to say that we cannot make the Bill work, but we need to consider its terminology carefully.

Part of the Bill deals with misconduct in public office. This represents one of the most significant changes to the way in which we hold public officials to account. Under the proposals, the common law offence of misconduct in public office will be replaced with two new statutory offences: seriously improper acts, and breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. This follows recommendations by the Law Commission, which suggested that the current offence be replaced with a clearer statutory provision that is both less broad and easier to interpret.

The Opposition fully recognise that this is an area of the law in need of clarity, but, for all its many imperfections, the common law offence has at least provided flexibility as a means of addressing serious misconduct that might not fit clearly into an approach based on specific statutory offences. I would be grateful for the Government’s reassurance on that point. Will the Government also share their view on the reduction in the maximum penalty from life imprisonment, as available under the current common law offence, to between 10 and 14 years’ imprisonment under the statutory offence? Misconduct in public office strikes at the heart of public trust in Government and the rule of law, and we must ensure that the penalties available to the courts reflect that seriousness.

The area where I would most welcome assurance is in considering whether the measures in the Bill will fall most squarely and most strongly on the right shoulders. In its critique of the existing legal framework for misconduct in public office, the Law Commission said there was

“a concern that it tends to be used primarily against relatively junior officials, rather than more senior decision-makers that members of the public might more readily expect to be held criminally accountable.”

Of course, public servants, no matter how junior, are accountable for their actions, but how can we be sure that these measures will ensure that accountability goes all the way to the top? We all know that influence and power can be exercised over junior staff without there ever being an email, written instruction or any other proof. Junior staff in an organisation with the wrong culture can come to understand what is expected of them and that there are consequences if they do not comply, regardless of what we might be able to readily prove in court.

I know that this Bill will be deeply welcomed by campaigners and Members who have long called for its measures. I mentioned one particular Member at the start—the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby—but I know that Members across the House, across different causes and across different constituencies have challenged these issues. The principle of what the Government are trying to do—to stop the voice of the state and public bodies drowning out the voices of our constituents, whether through use of resources or misconduct—is the right one. We all know the fallibility of the state and the ways in which the wrong people take the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons: for their self-interest, to protect themselves or to protect their organisations. No Bill alone can guarantee against that, and perhaps there are ways in which this Bill can be improved. However, the Opposition welcome the start of its consideration, and we stand ready to play a constructive role.

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

I will refer back to what I have said already: it is not the place of Ministers, under this or previous Governments, to be vetting or interfering in evidence on that matter.

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

The battle with China is not just an economic one; it is also a battle of ideas about how the state should operate, and the fact that this case has collapsed is making a complete mockery of our arguments about how the state should operate compared with how China does things. I suggest to the Minister that, along with the Prime Minister, he is in danger of inadvertently misleading the House. He has been asked a number of times about the content of the statement in relation to the Conservative party position at the time, and he has insisted that the statements made only reflected the position of the Conservative Government at the time. Will the Minister explain, then, why the exact wording in the Labour party manifesto in relation to China and its role, ended up in that statement?

[Chris Ward]

The wording in that statement was put in there to provide wider context of the situation, but as I have said many times, and I will keep saying it, that wording is provided independently by the DNSA without any involvement from Ministers or political advisers.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member referenced the China audit; I am sure that he will acknowledge that the then Foreign Secretary came to the House to give a statement specifically on the China audit. The reason why the China audit has not been published is that it is at a higher classification than documents that would normally be published.

I hope that the hon. Member’s second point was at least a tacit welcome of the Government’s elections Bill. There will be a number of measures in there, which I hope that he and his colleagues will be able to support. It is important that we seek to work together to transform the political landscape to make it much, much harder for those who seek to interfere in our democracy to do so.

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

The Minister has made great play of the need to work cross-party on this issue. May I gently suggest to him that the time to do that was before the case collapsed, not afterwards?

The Minister has leant heavily on what officials are willing to say about the threat or otherwise that China poses, but officials do not make Government policy and do not state the position of the UK Government; Ministers do. If the Government were struggling to find an official who would say in a witness statement that China was a threat, is there any good reason why they could not have asked the former Security Minister to do so, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who was happy to give a statement at the Dispatch Box? I am sure that many other former Government Ministers would have happily given evidence that China was a threat, enabling the case to proceed. What possible reason was there for not doing that?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member talks about my making great play of the need to work cross-party, but that is because I genuinely believe that on important matters of national security, we should proceed in a certain way, and where possible, we seek to work across the political divide to establish consensus. I thought there was a slight irony in the point that he went on to make. I agree with him that Ministers are accountable, and if Opposition Members want to hold Ministers to account, that is absolutely a matter for them. What I think is most unfortunate—I am not saying that he was responsible for doing this, but others have done it—is when Members seek to blame officials or imply criticism of them. I do not think that is the right way to proceed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not here to represent his constituency in the House that he was elected to. No, he has flown to America to badmouth and talk down our country. It is worse than that, Mr Speaker: if you can believe it, he has gone there to lobby the Americans to impose sanctions on this country that will harm working people. You cannot get more unpatriotic than that. It is a disgrace. The Online Safety Act 2023 protects children from material on suicide, self-harm and online predators. Reform says it would scrap it. When its leader was asked, “Well, what would you replace it with?”, his answer was:

“There needs to be a tech answer. I don’t know what that is”.

You cannot run a country on “don’t know” answers.

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

Q4. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you, like me, got to enjoy everything that UK hospitality has to offer over the summer. Fifteen local pubs received nominations in my community pub awards. I visited places including the Bull Inn in Battle, the Castle Inn in Pevensey, the Swan Inn in Dallington, the New Inn in Westfield and Sidley working men’s club. Many of them told me how hard-hit they have been by Labour’s jobs tax. UKHospitality estimates that 80,000 jobs have already been lost, and the British Beer and Pub Association says that a pub a day will close this year. Can the Prime Minister name a single pub landlord who thinks that the Deputy Prime Minister’s Employment Rights Bill will help, rather than just make things worse?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope the hon. Gentleman paced out the visits to all those pubs, and did not do them all in one go. UKHospitality has welcomed our small business plan, which obviously applies to pubs. [Interruption.] Yes, it has. The reason is that it permanently lowers the business rates that they pay, and it tackles late payments—something for which it has been asking for a very, very long time. The Conservatives talked about fixing that, but they never delivered. We are delivering.

UK-EU Summit

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Coleman]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for stressing that point. She is absolutely right; we have a Government who have replaced chaos and ideology with cool-headed, pragmatic determination. We have a trade deal with India and with the US, and we are going to get a good trade deal with the European Union. That is why it is a day for rejoicing, not for doom and gloom and people rehashing the past. Not a single one of the Conservatives, except the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on the Front Bench, who accepted that despite Brexit the economy grew a little bit—

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

Sarcasm!

[Ben Coleman]

Oh, it was sarcasm.

As I was saying, I am very pleased, as many are, with the Government for being cool-headed and having a common-sense approach. We are going to reset our relationship with the European Union and put Britain first. Putting Britain first has to also mean putting our young people first, so I am excited by the opportunity for young people in my constituency and every constituency to take advantage of a time-limited, controlled visa-based youth system, which we already have with a dozen countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I will come to you shortly.

We must recognise the importance of urgency. That is why I am genuinely extremely pleased that we have a Government who have moved forward in recent days and weeks with two significant trade deals. The first, with India, was achieved in 10 months, after the Conservatives had spent eight years saying that they would get a deal. We rolled up our sleeves and got a deal that will put more money into people’s pockets, create jobs here, and benefit our economy. The trade deal with the United States is not what we would have got had Kamala Harris been elected President; it is the deal we could get with Donald Trump as President, and I think that it shows realistic, common-sense negotiation.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Tom Hayes]

I will come to you.

That deal will put money in people’s pockets, grow our economy and create jobs. Now, we have the prospect of a third trade deal, with the European Union, on the horizon. It would be a really important deal. That is crucial, because if we do not foster the conditions for trade in a world of global insecurity, we will create further problems in our democracy and around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Last week, this House recognised the 80th anniversary of the allied victory in Europe, so I find it somewhat strange that today the party of Churchill is calling for a debate that seeks to drive a wedge between us and our friends and allies on the continent.

I speak on behalf of the young people, farmers, fishermen and small business owners of my constituency—[Hon. Members: “Fishermen?”] Yes, plural! They are hard-working people who have felt the consequences of our severance from Europe. The bungling of farming and fisheries policy since Brexit has led to supply chain disruptions, reduced access to export markets and financial uncertainty for our producers. Our farmers—once able to trade freely with Europe—now find themselves bogged down in paperwork, losing out to competitors who enjoy smoother trade arrangements.

Despite the turbulence of Brexit, the European Union remains our largest trading partner. To undermine this reality seems, to my mind, to be a curious act of economic self-harm. Grand promises of scaling back Brussels bureaucracy were made, but precisely the opposite has occurred, with more red tape, delays and headaches for our businesses and traders.

[Dr Mullan]

As was put to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), at the start of the debate, the red tape is coming from the EU, not us. Why is the ire of the Lib Dems never directed at the people responsible for introducing the trade barriers?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I simply do not accept what the hon. Member says. Big corporations may be able to adapt, shift operations—[Interruption.] Do be quiet for a minute!

Big corporations may be able to adapt, shift operations and sidestep the chaos, but for our small businesses—the backbone of our economy—this is not merely an inconvenience, but a catastrophe. Ask my constituent Becca James of Williton what she has made of the Brexit fallout, having run a superb au pair agency that folded. As an MP representing many SMEs in my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead—Minehead being on the sea, hence the fishermen—I hear daily about their struggles to keep trading and to navigate new regulations. Conservative Governments have hung them out to dry, leaving them to fend for themselves in a post-Brexit economic landscape riddled with uncertainties. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

We must swerve the temptations of dogma and pursue policies that benefit our economy, our people and our future. We must come to terms with the fact that forming a new customs arrangement would offset much of this harsh impact and would be a sign of a more grown-up politics. I and my party are looking forward eagerly to the Government’s big reset in the weeks to come. Without a comprehensive trading arrangement with the EU, it will be clear that reset just means rebrand.

Fisheries have not fared any better. Grandstanding notions of reclaiming British waters turned out to be hollow, as coastal communities have seen dwindling profits, complicated licensing, and deals that have left them materially worse off than before. If only the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) had attended more than one of the 42 meetings of the EU Parliament Committee on Fisheries, which he was paid to attend, our fishermen might be on a more even keel.

We must embrace the EU youth mobility scheme. The West Somerset area of my constituency sits at 324th out of 324 on the social mobility index, and while there is no overnight panacea to this, I believe that those from disadvantaged backgrounds having access to opportunity on the continent can only be a good thing. The youth mobility scheme would democratise travel and work abroad by removing the financial barriers that typically make it an option only for the privileged. It would empower talented young people who may have the skills but lack the financial means to access the same opportunities as their more affluent peers. Why should they be reserved for a few?

It is my firm belief that travel and broadening one’s experiences can be one of the best forms of education. Why would we deny our young people that golden ticket to live, work, study and build lifelong friendships in Europe? This is not entirely an argument about economics, for what monetary value can be placed on broadening the horizons of our young people wherever those opportunities may lie? It is a peculiar irony that young people from nations on the other side of the world—the likes of our Australian and Kiwi friends—are part of this scheme, while the UK across that small body of water known as the channel, or la manche, remains on the outside looking in.

I will end with the words of the European Union preamble: nous sommes unis dans notre diversité, notre histoire commune, nos valeurs et notre avenir partagés. I will give hon. Members a translation if they need one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. A youth mobility scheme could be sensible and pragmatic and lead to opportunities across the continent.

Let me briefly touch on defence. Last week, I held a Westminster Hall debate about the benefits of a multilateral defence bank. I was pleased to have with me the founder of the Defence, Security and Resilience bank, Rob Murray, who is an inspirational ex-Army officer. I really believe that the UK could anchor a multilateral defence bank at the heart of any future defence pact with Europe. That is the single most transformative lever that the Government could pull to fortify our collective security, acting as an industrial deterrent to Russia. I would welcome my hon. Friend the Minister thinking about that running into next week.

Finally, I will touch on holidays. Over the next few months, hard-working families across the country will travel to airports up and down the UK to go away for some hard-earned summer sun. Since leaving the EU, many of us have landed at a foreign airport to see a huge queue and waited with envy as others pass straight through. I would really welcome it if, as a small gesture to give back to the grafters of this country, we could look at a new arrangement with the EU to ease airport congestion.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Charters]

I will not, because we are on a three-minute limit for speeches. Perhaps the hon. Member does not want to give back to the grafters of this country, but I think we should be helping hard-working Brits get through to the gates and straight to their sunbeds. Could we have some co-operation with the EU on airport congestion?

There is lots that I could talk about, but I will leave it there. This is about moving on pragmatically and securing our future, just as we have recently with India and the US.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to be able speak in this Opposition day debate ahead of next week’s UK-EU summit. I campaigned for, believed in and continue to believe in the promise of Brexit. At its core, Brexit was a vote for the importance of national democracy, a vote for national sovereignty and a vote against regionalisation and government by bureaucrats. I believe strongly in international co-operation, but I do not believe in institutionalisation. I do not believe that decision making gets better in aggregate. My experience has taught me that it only gets worse. It gets more remote, less well informed and riddled with compromises that barely satisfy anyone and please no one. I continue to believe that the UK—its people and its Government—deciding its own future, not locked into continental bureaucracy, provides the best possible future for us.

Behind all the carefully choreographed language from Ministers about resets, there is one inescapable truth: this Labour Government risk laying the groundwork and taking the first steps to betraying the full promise of Brexit. That should not be any surprise, given that they are led by a man who campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party on the basis of restoring freedom of movement. He supported a second referendum and he voted against Brexit 48 times. We on this side of the House are not prepared to watch this slow train wreck in silence.

Many issues have been raised by many Members, but I want to raise just two that are of particular importance. First, on the youth mobility scheme, the fundamental issues that made freedom of movement so unpopular would remain at the core of any youth mobility scheme. The level of economic disparity across EU member states is fundamentally incompatible with the scheme becoming anything other than yet another route for mass low-skilled migration, at a time when the Government tell us they want to drive that down.

Secondly, there can be no dynamic EU rule taking or ECJ oversight. Any agreement on food standards, services or carbon trading must not come at the price of automatic alignment. We did not leave the EU to find ourselves bound to it in everything but name. We must demand mutual recognition and independent dispute resolution, and that is the only thing we should accept. That would reflect a relationship of mutual respect. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the bare minimum that any sovereign state would expect when engaging in talks with a foreign bloc.

The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, whether the Prime Minister and his Ministers like it or not. Is it any wonder that they are looking for answers internationally when we look at their domestic picture? They are restricting winter fuel payments, inflation is still biting us, business confidence is shaken, working families are being hammered with job-destroying taxes, and growth is stalling. We must not allow this to serve as a diplomatic distraction from their domestic failure. We will not allow Labour to turn a reset into a roll-back, and any future Conservative Government will not be bound by any agreement that breaches these clear red lines. We will not allow Brussels to disguise control as co-operation, and we will not let the democratic choice of the British people be eroded by stealth.

Brexit was not a pause; it was a pivot. It was a huge opportunity for our country, and I believe that the benefits will accrue for decades to come. The Government might be able to hide their true intentions this week but they will not be able to hide them forever, and we will be here to make sure that the British people know what they really believe in. It is not the freedom and sovereignty of Brexit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With regret, it may not be possible for all Members to speak in the debate, even with this time limit.

Ukraine

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We should not lose sight of the fact that while we are discussing security guarantees and the like, Russia has been unrelenting in its attack on civilians, ramping it up while we talk of how to resolve this issue. Of course, we should do everything we can to assist Ukraine with their air defences.

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

The Prime Minister will know that one of the challenges is American voices suggesting that their focus should be on China, not Europe. I think a victory for Russia would also be a victory for China, but at a time when we are asking America to focus on our strategic interests, we should be willing to demonstrate our commitment to theirs. In that regard, can he reconfirm his commitment to AUKUS and update the House on progress?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me recommit to AUKUS and our strong support for it. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is absolutely right; China is watching very carefully what is happening in Russia, and we should always bear that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. I am proud of the way that the United Kingdom has risen to the challenge of the past three years in a united way, through the capability and funding that we have provided to Ukraine and also by throwing open homes here to those fleeing. I was privileged to welcome some of the families to Downing Street on Monday. It was a human reminder of the impact on them, their children and their families.

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

Q10.   The whole House wants the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Trump to be a success, which requires credibility on our defence spending commitments. The Leader of the Opposition gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to rule out unambiguously funding any Chagos deal from the defence budget, but I am not clear that he did that. I want him to be taken seriously in Washington, so I will make it really easy for him: will he rule out funding any Chagos deal from the defence budget—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, when the deal is complete, I will put it before the House with the costings. The money yesterday was allocated to aid our capability and is the single biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I specifically mentioned local resilience forums in my opening statement for good reason. As I said a moment ago, I think it is really important that we recognise that, in an emergency, the centre, local government and the devolved Governments have to work together in the best interests of the public. I endorse what she said, as I have said a few times today, about the importance of the underlying strength of our health system in such an emergency.

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

I want to begin by saying that although the loss of every single life is of course tragic—and I saw that at first hand when volunteering—it is important to note that, despite repeated political attacks at the time suggesting that we had the worst death rate in Europe, now when we look at the figures properly we see that we actually had a lower death rate than Spain and Italy, and that we were broadly in line with Europe. I caution against diminishing the results of a national effort, which was actually broadly in line with other countries, in a desire to make political attacks on the Conservative party.

As exhaustive as the inquiry’s proposals for things to look at is, to my mind I see a big gap which relates to the decision making of MPs. The inquiry does not seem to cover that. Those of us on the Government Benches—equally, it could be said of those on the Opposition Benches—were often faced with very difficult votes that were expected to go down to the wire and were asked to make very difficult decisions. MPs’ access to independent advice and scientific briefings was nowhere near like it should have been. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not part of the current inquiry, can he at least accept that it is a task for the Cabinet Office to think how we can better equip MPs with the information they need to make decisions on important votes of that nature?

[Pat McFadden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service to the public during the pandemic, and anybody who worked or volunteered in the NHS or in other ways for what they did. Of course, MPs and the Government must have access to the best information they can, but I remind him of something else I said in my opening statement. In the end, the accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions lies with the Government of the day. I do not say that in a partisan way. It is important to establish it as an understanding of how we deal with these things in future.